the answers are 1.utilitarianism 2.respect for nature 3. animal rights A. Many places that humans greatly value or enjoy visiting would be off limits if they are also used by individual non-human animals who may be impacted, hurt, or killed by human presence. B. Certain species may be considered more important than others or prioritized over other species. To some extent, in this perspective, the importance of a species to ecosystem functioning influences how humans 'should' intervene in the environment. C. Prioritizing individual animals requires radical changes to the ways we currently interact with animals, across agriculture, pet ownership, conservation, etc. This would be difficult to implement and have far reaching impacts. D. It can be difficult to compare and weigh different types and degrees of harm involving animals, especially when moving from the individual to the population and/or species. E. Prioritizing animals as individuals may mean losing more species to extinction, since this perspective prefers individual animals to be free in the wild even if raising and caring for some individuals in captivity could benefit the species population numbers. F. Some individuals may still be harmed or forced to pay the price for what is deemed "good" or the "best" outcome possible overall. G. Determining the "best outcome" or how to "limit suffering" can be difficult to assess. Some stakeholders do not get an informed say (e.g., animals or people who may not know conservation decisions are being made). H. An introduced species, which may thrive in an environment, may have to be removed or killed to return the ecosystem to a "normal" or "natural" state In addition it isn't a ways clear what version of a "natural state" we ought to return to..

1. the answers are
1.utilitarianism
2.respect for nature
3. animal rights
A. Many places that humans greatly value or enjoy visiting would be off limits if they are also
used by individual non-human animals who may be impacted, hurt, or killed by human presence.
B. Certain species may be considered more important than others or prioritized over other
species. To some extent, in this perspective, the importance of a species to ecosystem
functioning influences how humans 'should' intervene in the environment. C. Prioritizing
individual animals requires radical changes to the ways we currently interact with animals,
across agriculture, pet ownership, conservation, etc. This would be difficult to implement and
have far reaching impacts. D. It can be difficult to compare and weigh different types and
degrees of harm involving animals, especially when moving from the individual to the
population and/or species. E. Prioritizing animals as individuals may mean losing more species
to extinction, since this perspective prefers individual animals to be free in the wild even if
raising and caring for some individuals in captivity could benefit the species population numbers.
F. Some individuals may still be harmed or forced to pay the price for what is deemed "good" or
the "best" outcome possible overall. G. Determining the "best outcome" or how to "limit
suffering" can be difficult to assess. Some stakeholders do not get an informed say (e.g., animals
or people who may not know conservation decisions are being made). H. An introduced species,
which may thrive in an environment, may have to be removed or killed to return the ecosystem
to a "normal" or "natural" state In addition it isn't a ways clear what version of a "natural state"
we ought to return to.