[redpoint5]

I'll need further definition of notional and non-persons to fully understand the argument.

That said, I'll point out that there is not The Environment. There are environments which are better suited for certain organisms and those which are less habitable. Since homosapiens are the sole posessors of value, and are the only creatures capable of forming them, I place a higher importance on their environment(s).

No other creature can be thought of as "superior" because no other creature can conceive of such an idea.

The part we're in agreement with is that being at the top of the food chain and being the only ones to possess morality, we're solely responsible for the stewardship of all creatures on earth. Where we might differ is that I proclaim it good that things like bugs and spiders not live inside my house, or that cheetahs not roam in cities. 1st priority is to eliminate undesirable organisms from infesting the human environment, and 2nd priority is protecting organisms we value, in that order.

Ability to create a positive change requires accumulation of means. You can't protect something well if your needs aren't satisfied in abundance. This is the stumbling block of many bleeding hearts; the willingness to sacrifice oneself (or others) to aid in the cause of something else. That's not an effective strategy because you don't rescue something stuck in the quicksand by standing in it yourself. The firmer footing one has, the greater their means to lend aid. This is the whole concept of Jordan Peterson; to clean your room first before attempting to clean the room of others.