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
Now you're seeming more sensible. You should have started out with this instead.
I am not in favor of judicious development because I feel sorry for the poor little animals; it is a purely selfish, speciesist thing. I think high biodiversity/low pollution is good for people by improving physical and mental health and providing aesthetic and recreational pleasure. Additionally, I'm in chemistry and habitats like rainforests and coral reefs are under heavy scrutiny by chemists searching for new lead compounds for drug development.
The fact is that if you think evolution is true, if we eradicate a wide range of species now, new species will not evolve to replace them for perhaps millions of years. If you believe in a one-time creation event, this will never happen. It's just stupid to cut off our nose to spite our face by squandering our natural resources just because we don't want to seem to yield to those darn tree-huggers.
Oh, and I don't think that any species has any more "right" to exist than any other (no, we should not build more cities because the rats have a right to flourish!) My position is that I may not have a "right" to exist, but since I do I'm certainly going to look after my wellbeing. I just realize that my wellbeing may be tied to the wellbeing of other species as well.