It depends on who defines morality, which invalidates the concept of a “universal” morality. If the definer of the morality decides that human lives are the most important and it would be immoral to hold animals and plants above humans, it would produce a completely different end result.

Or they may determine that all you mention plus natural formations like lakes and mountains and rock formations deserve protection and equal protection.

That’s why this entire article is a waste of time to me.