There are multiple perspectives that show value for different organisms throughout the world. If in one universe, there were no sentient beings but there were complex ecosystems of things like beautiful rainforests, the value of the universe is very different compared to ours. Even if there is no sentient life that would be harmed if this world were to be destroyed, there would be something of value that is lost. The world itself should have value as it is an existing and developing system. By saying it can be destroyed is to claim that we have the ability to give other systems or organisms value, when this should not be true.
Other arguments might say that there is no major negative effect because no sentient organism is harmed in destroying this world. This comes from an argument of sentient versus non-sentient life, where any harm will be difficult to record or establish.
While this premise can be justified, it has its problems because it compares the things that we consider valuable to a whole different world. This creates an unequal value system and does not allow for this other universe to defend the things that it recognizes as valuable. This creates a further problem because it does not consider the basic value of something that exists. Additionally, there is also the value of a universe and the value that one world has as a part of the overall system.