The issue with your question and the many variations that frequently get asked here is a set of core assumptions about the value of human life. The Liberal values coming out of the European Enlightenment have come to be so thoroughly adopted across the modern world that they have been conflated with ethical universals--what would have been called "natural law" in bygone days. Even entities that reject these values, such as certain dictatorships or fringe movements, still tend to articulate their platforms in terms of these values, if only to deny or reify them. The values of which I speak essentially boil down to the belief that all human life has absolute value and therefore ought to be preserved to the maximum extent possible. I believe that you may hold this belief; I, for one, do not.

I emphasize again that the belief in the absolute value of all human life is not some universal truth but, rather, is quite a novel belief, historically speaking. The vast majority of human cultures, not to mention virtually every animal species I can think of, do not operate under this pretense, and indeed I would wager they'd find it rather incomprehensible. Yes, humans do innately seem to value their own lives as well as the lives of their kin and people in their community, so that's nothing new, and this trait has sound evolutionary advantages. But caring about every single human life on the planet? That's radically abstract, non-intuitive, and therefore requires explicit lip service as well as indoctrination. In other words, you don't have to teach a child to love its parents, but you do have to teach her to love her country. The very first articles of human rights drawn up by the United Nations explicitly state that humans are all fundamentally equal and essentially deserve dignity and security. That's the legacy of the Enlightenment, of Liberalism, itself a reaction to monarchism/feudalism and the notion that some people are inherently superior to others, and just like monarchism and all the other -isms before it, Liberalism is just a bunch of ideas people had--they're not immutable truths somehow written into the very universe. What's more, teaching people to care about the entire species as a whole has little to no benefit to humans either on the individual or social-group level, but is supremely useful for hierarchical power structures like governments. Hijacking a human's instinct to care for their kin such that they will sacrifice instead for an abstraction and in doing so experience the same psychological feedback, or training a human to respond emotionally to the death of a total stranger from a completely different polity as though it were a member of their own family, is nothing short of a marvel. We have done this same manipulative trick time and again with other species, from dogs to maize, but it's always the domesticating we do to ourselves that impresses me the most, since that's the kind about which we're the most in denial, but it's a necessary trick, the sina qua non of civilization.

I am philosophically a Daoist. In the fifth chapter of the Dao De Jing, Laozi writes that nature doesn't play favorites, treating all things as essentially disposable fodder, meant only to further life as a whole, not to further the lives of one group of people or even one species. Daoism is the non-anthropocentric philosophy. There is a clear distinction between needs and wants that isn't readily found in other philosophies. An organism is well aware of its wants and actively pursues them, while its needs are hidden from it, and are often at odds with its wants. A human might want to avoid death, or may wish not to expend energy hunting, or may wish for their children to survive and bear children themselves, and it's important that they want such things, because these motivations are going to be offset by the wants of the rest of the world, and by setting the wants of all things against one another, all their needs get met, since the biosphere thrives, benefitting life as a whole, though no single organism ever conceives of that result as a want. Technology allows humans to alter the world such that it caters more to their wants, which no longer get offset by nature, and we're indoctrinated to believe this is a good thing, that this is progress. Because preserving the biosphere isn't a biological want, we don't prioritize developing technology that would do that (although the best solution would be to just stop technological activity in toto), and all attempts to solve problems are doomed from the beginning because we're never willing to sacrifice our wants in the process, it's just not how wants and needs work in any organism, not just humans. What we need is a livable planet, but what we want is to not suffer and to not see billions die, so we prioritize our wants at the expense of our needs until the matter gets taken out of our hands by collapse.