The argument
Some environmentalists try a new strategy: "We're not saying nature has value in itself. We're saying people have an interest in nature being preserved and taking its course. And the sentience standard says to consider the interests of those who feel."
The mistake
The problem is thinking that if an interest should be taken into account, then it should be carried out. Taking something into account isn't the same as granting it.
When we decide what to do, we need to weigh all the interests involved. Some interests are small; others are huge. Sometimes one interest has to give way to a bigger one.
What's at stake
Natural processes usually affect animals in very negative ways: hunger, disease, cold, predation, babies that die soon after birth. Granting the interest in "letting nature take its course" would mean accepting the suffering and death of an enormous number of sentient beings.
Someone's interest in seeing untouched nature is much smaller than these animals' interest in not suffering and not dying.
In short
- Considering an interest isn't the same as carrying it out.
- The interest in "letting nature take its course" is small next to the animals' suffering.
- So the sentience standard doesn't require accepting environmentalist goals.