I’m a bit confused as to whether you are trying to make an empirical point (i.e. that even from a standard utilitarian-ish perspective, protecting ecosystems is a cost-effective but often ignored intervention for the sake of hunan and animal welfare) or a philosophical point (i.e. that we should value ecosystems for their own sake rather than for the sake of human and animal welfare). These are very different claims but I find it hard which you are trying to get at here. Could you please clarify?
I’m a bit confused as to whether you are trying to make an empirical point (i.e. that even from a standard utilitarian-ish perspective, protecting ecosystems is a cost-effective but often ignored intervention for the sake of hunan and animal welfare) or a philosophical point (i.e. that we should value ecosystems for their own sake rather than for the sake of human and animal welfare). These are very different claims but I find it hard which you are trying to get at here. Could you please clarify?