"centring of the individual, whether human or non-human"
This recurs, repeatedly in the article. A bad thing happening to humans in poorer nations is recast as a necessary evil for the greater good of a wider, non-human world, which even if you accept it as an end goal is totally sidestepping the question of which specific humans will suffer.
They're not arguing that the things the critics bring up will not happen they just think it's ethically worth it if/when they do. They counter fears of genocide by saying there will be a bigger genocide of non-human animals and seem to openly admit that the poorer Humans need to suffer because it's politically impractical to get the rich to change their ways.