As I said above, I don't think that view is associated with the "ethical consequentialist vegetarianism" questioned here and often defended in academic philosop

As I said above, I don't think that view is associated with the "ethical consequentialist vegetarianism" questioned here and often defended in academic philosophy. In fact part of the point of the consequentialist idea here is that maybe it doesn't matter who or what was responsible for something (e.g., a human or an ecosystem) in order to decide if the thing itself was good or bad. Although not all consequentialists afford any moral status to animals, I think consequentialists would find it super congenitally difficult to say "oh, but that's OK -- nature did it!".