You probably eat a ton of bacteria. In fact, if you don't eat the by-product of bacteria (K2, menaquinone 7 through 11 chains), you're in for some significant osteoporosis later in life. Bacteria don't likely suffer in any meaningful way, but they're "animals." The same is likely true of insects: I doubt they're really capable of suffering in any meaningful way.

People like Ayn Rand thought the same of deer, and even dolphins. That strikes me as a much more specious claim.

The capacity for thought determines whether I care about an animal's suffering. Certainly, the cetaceans and other primates are worthy of more respect and kindness than lower animals are. Are they worthy of our political organization when even other humans cannot be treated with respect? I don't think so.

First, human and human+ deserve our allegiance, even if they kill the lower animals.

The proof of this is simple: bacteria and lab-grown-meat without a brain is not afforded any form of "legal right." If this strikes you as "wrong," I believe your goal structure is likely to be quite perverse. After all, any resources allocated to alleviating animal suffering are resources that could have been allocated to abolishing the prison industrial complex, and setting innocent people free from cages.