A thing is valuable because it benefits human life or practices. This example would be a subjective view of intrinsic value in nature because it claims that value requires an evaluator. It is anthropogenic because that evaluator must be human. This is inconsistent, when we affirm that humans are not metaphysically different from nature, but axiologically different. There is a second inconsistency when we argue that we cannot know enough about the natural world to know if it is valuable, when we claim on the other hand to know that the values arise.
Animals are able to value on their own if they have preferences that can be satisfied or frustrated.
Therefore animals can value on their own. Therefore values are not all anthropocentric nor anthropogenic. Rolston also claims that animals may value their young or their species lines intrinsically as well. These goods and evils exist independently of human cognition, and come to be such by means of natural selection. As he says, they matter for the organism though not to it.