Do you think every positive idea, side, thought, situation, etc. in life has its negatives (details if you click)?

I’m NOT making small talk here, not this time. I’m talking about BIG radically sustainable choices of life made in life through life. Examples: if humanity became vegans, many animals on this planet would become extinct from destroying cattle, converting forest for farmland, and exterminating wild animals who ate the farm plants. A world of meat-eaters ensures cattle and game animals are abundant, yet those animals live no better than vegetables. Humanity abhors controlling who can have children, yet humanity cannot protect children from physical, sexual and psychological abuse administered from parents who should not have children. Small struggling countries (North Korea, for example) want weapons of mass destruction as a deterrent, but those weapons make them targets of superpowers. Politicians and leaders (Trump, for example) want change, ignoring the damage of that change.
In other words, to choose sides is guessing which is less evil. Hence, to paraphrase the question, the evils of good, or the good of evils, depending on the position. The questions, not the answers, are wrong. To cite still another example, you ask a thief if stealing is wrong. (S)He’ll probably counterquestion something along these lines: “Knowing that stealing is illegal, do the personal and societal benefits of theft outweigh the risk?” A simple scenario, as last example, if you will.
“A building fire is upon you. You can only rescue one thing. Do you rescue the last living doctor, or do you rescue the last copy of medical books that teach a person everything to be a doctor?” Along the given details of the question, a cliché answer would be like: “I rescue based on the fire danger and chances of success per rescue, not based on what is in the fire. To do otherwise is saving on one’s imagined belief regarding the importance of an item or person. What if I rescue the books, but no one left living has the aptitude or interest to read them and become a doctor? Maybe the doctor was trying to destroy the knowledge to protect his own value and self-importance as the last doctor and trapped himself in his own act of malice? What if I die in the rescue? Can I be sure my survival isn’t more important than either of those options? Is it possible that the fire should destroy both and life go on without them, humanity rebuilding itself on survival of the fittest? So, what will have a greater influence on the future and survival of humanity: the doctor, the books, or me?”