The question
Do ecosystems, species, and natural processes have intrinsic value, or do they only have value because they're useful to the beings who feel? And if they did have intrinsic value, what would that change?
First: it's very controversial
The idea that there's value beyond sentience is, at the very least, highly debatable. There's no good evidence for it.
Even so, those who feel come first
Think about the case of humans. Almost everyone agrees that people's basic interests (not suffering, not dying) should come before species or ecosystems. Nobody would accept sacrificing people to preserve a landscape.
And if someone suggested sacrificing sentient beings, human and nonhuman, for environmentalist goals? Most people would find that unacceptable.
Why?
The main reason is this: unlike ecosystems and species, sentient beings can be literally harmed:
- with bad experiences, like every kind of suffering;
- by being kept from having good experiences, as happens when they die.
A species or a river doesn't feel any of this.
In short
- The idea of value beyond sentience is very controversial.
- For humans, we already accept that basic interests come before nature.
- The same goes for animals, because they can also suffer and die.