If human beings are insignificant before nature, is it a fallacy to "destroy the environment"?

Judging from the scale of the existence of the universe, humans are really too small. Compared with the evolution of the earth, human history can be said to exist for only a moment. Specific reference: Earth History-Sogou Encyclopedia In the history of the existence of the earth, the process of biological or life evolution has never stopped, countless species have appeared and disappeared, Cambrian life broke out, and only a few species have evolved. The Permian extinction event and the Cretaceous-3rd century extinction event, each survival and death is indifferent to the earth, but it is eternal to extinct creatures. For the earth or the universe, human beings are as fragile as extinct and still existing creatures on the earth. Like other species, human beings are highly dependent on the earth's environment, and the damage to the environment is not as good as the normal activities of the earth itself: volcanic eruptions will produce a lot of dust, carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide, and even change the global temperature; The equivalent of crustal movement or major earthquake far exceeds the largest nuclear bomb; The ice age has happened four times, and no one knows when the next one will come. However, human beings are different from other species. The difference is that human beings are the only species in the history of the earth that has developed to self-destruction. This kind of destruction not only refers to weapons of mass destruction, but also damages the environment. I have to mention a term: environmental carrying capacity refers to the number of human beings and the total amount of human activities that an environmental system can bear under certain conditions. Although human beings are small, the natural resources seized and pollutants discharged by human production activities have exceeded the carrying capacity of the environment or the earth. So much for environmental pollution. The accumulation of a large number of pollutants has caused changes in the environment, which in turn has affected human survival. The smallness of human beings lies in the fact that the earth is so big that there are not many places suitable for human survival. Plain, city, these two words will exclude most parts of the earth. Can humans bear the consequences of rising sea levels? The following picture shows a map of China with sea level rising by 66 meters drawn by National Geographic. If this happens, how many plains in China can grow crops and how much land can live in? How high is the survival cost of surplus land?