As the article suggests, imagine you must live the lifetime of 1 million factory farmed shrimps. Would you then rather people quibble over whether we should hunt whales to extinction and ultimately do nothing (including never actually hunting whales to extinction to save you because they don't actually care about you), or would you rather they attempt to reduce your suffering in those millions of deaths as much as possible?
In any case, I just wanted to point out that if you cared about the welfare of damn arthropods, you're going nowhere really fast.
Consider this: the quickest, surest, most efficient way and ONLY way to reduce all suffering on earth to nothing forever and ever is a good ole nuclear holocaust.
I feel you're still missing the point. I get you might be coming from a binary perspective, as evidenced by going to a nuclear argument, i.e. why bother talking about anything else, but I highly doubt that's the goal of the author. They are trying to make you imagine, and think, about how things fit together. YRMV.