Destruction has a negative connotation, but in fact, destruction can be a good thing. For example, since January 2020, much of the world’s focus has been on containing and destroying the coronavirus. Only a misanthrope would regard the destruction of the deadly virus to be bad because doing so means the elimination of something that is harmful to human well-being.
Whether destruction is good or bad depends on what is being destroyed—it depends on the context. If we want to make wise decisions about an issue, then we cannot consider it in isolation. We must consider all of the relevant facts. Gentrification provides an example.
Opponents of gentrification don’t want us to consider the full context when they claim that gentrification destroys neighborhoods. They don’t want us to clearly identify what is being destroyed. They want us to assume that destruction is bad—always bad—regardless of the context. But if we wish to reach rational conclusions about an issue, then we must consider the full context. We must identify and consider what it is that is being destroyed.
More often than not, the neighborhoods that are targeted for gentrification are impoverished and filled with crime. Neither poverty nor crime provide a healthy environment in which to live and work. They are not conducive to human well-being. These unhealthy neighborhoods are what gentrification destroys. And that is a good thing if the well-being of individuals is our standard.
Gentrification brings economic development. It attracts more affluent residents. It reduces crime. Gentrification transforms an unhealthy neighborhood into a healthy community. And it does this by destroying the elements of a neighborhood that are inconsistent with human well-being.
Destroying things that are bad for humans is a good thing. This is true whether we are speaking of a deadly virus or a crime-ridden, impoverished neighborhood.