Yes & No. The BothAnd Principle merely acknowledges that the world-system has the Potential for both good and bad effects on human aspirations, including the preference for Life versus Death. However, we are not guaranteed to get what we desire. So, we try to make the best of an imperfect world, by balancing the bad with some good. Individually, we can aim high for what's best for me. But as components of a collective society there are trade-offs. What's good for me (e.g. becoming a billionaire, may deprive millions of others of a living wage) might be bad for someone else, which could ultimately become bad for me. What goes around, comes around.
The essence of the BothAnd principle, is the Golden Rule plus the Golden Mean : avoid extremes, and be content with moderation. Nothing new about that ancient wisdom, except that it is necessitated by the understanding that Information is a continuum from 1 to 0, or 100% to nothing. If you get 100%, someone else might get nothing. And. depending on circumstances beyond your control, you could be that someone-else. That's why Kant's Imperative was basically : "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
In a more technical sense, Information (EnFormAction) is like Energy : in excess, it becomes an inferno ; or in deficit, it becomes a deep-freeze. So the Goldilocks or Habitable zone is merely warm-enough to be "just right". That's why philosophers of all eras have agreed that balance & proportion & moderation are better, for all concerned, than imbalance, overabundance, & exorbitance. Depending on the circumstances, though, the balance point is not necessarily at the mid-point. Which is why the BothAnd Principle must be applied with wisdom.
The Goldilocks Enigma :
Why is the Universe Just Right for Life?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Jackpot
https://quotefancy.com/media/wallpaper/ ... luding.jpg
