In philosophy, we call this a false dichotomy. It's often used to try to make someone's position look more tenable by essentially saying that the choices are, do as I say, or face unspeakable horrors.

For instance, patriots do not destroy monuments or shrines or works of art. Look at the forces that destroy these things now, and you will see tyrants, authoritarians, anarchists and subversives. The Taliban blowing up statues of Buddha, the activists hurling paint at paintings, those who tear down statues because their regime doesn't want to be reminded of the past, these are not patriots.

Development is required for humanity to grow and thrive, yet it's described as desecration. The unspoken alternative being that humanity die off, for lack of land to cultivate into agricultural gain.

These aren't the choices and presenting the options here, seems to suggest that either the Earth will be "desecrated", and children killed, or people will have culture and civilization.

I think our time would be better spent reminding humanity to be careful how we judge progress, if it's clearly reckless and damaging. As humanity expands, space on Earth becomes less available and we should plan better for an Earth with 10, 20 or 30 billion people on it.

Further, the more we learn about renewable energy, reduced waste and recycling, the better we'll do exploring the universe outside of Earth.