Do you honestly think a city can approach the biodiversity of a wetlands, rain forest, or barrier island?
Most of the organisms in cities will fall into just a handful of species. By contrast, normal habitats have high biodiversity with significant numbers of many different species represented.
Let's see, in West Virginia in relatively undisturbed mixed forests and meadows you can find the following mammals plus one marsupial (a by no means exhaustive list, and completely ignoring birds, amphibians, reptiles, and fish):
white-tailed deer
coyote
black bear
eastern gray squirrel
fox squirrel
flying squirrel
eastern cottontail
snowshoe hare (some places in the mountains)
mink
fisher (rare)
several species of moles
several species of voles
several species of mice
raccoon
red fox
gray fox
bobcat
opossum
striped skunk
spotted skunk (less common)
beaver
muskrat
otter (recovering populations)
several species of weasel
In downtown Charleston, WV, you might find scrounging in the dumpster:
coyote
raccoon
opossum (occasional)
red fox (occasional)
eastern gray squirrel (yes, they're dumpster divers!)
You honestly think the biodiversity of downtown Charleston compares to the surrounding mountains?
I never said that, just questioned your claim that only a handful of species exist in the typical urban environment.
I still do.
I suppose you would find it idyllic if there were no humans to muck up "nature." Unfortunately, we exist and deserve out own habitats as well.
We need not be callous or cruel, but neither must we devolve to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Cities only "harm" the environment if you consider humans to not be part of the environment. And if you discount the right to habitat for those other species capable of thriving among human activity.
SD
Thankfully not. People and most of those animals are not at all compatible neighbors.
The bio diversity inside my house is even more lopsided in favor of humans.