For humanity - yes -to be sure. I was even reaching for a broader outlook of thinking that non-human animals too can probably have something of “enjoyment” in life in their own way. But even then - you’re right - millions, not billions. That many magnitudes “out”, the additional number of zeros tacked on the end doesn’t much affect my main point I don’t think.
I wouldn’t lose much sleep over that - except maybe how to somehow gently address your critic’s concerns. What else could any of us ever be other than anthropocentric? After all, we are … human! So I’m not sure what else any critic might be hoping for. If one was not anthropocentric in their outlook and communications they would be unable to connect with anybody else and would be, or at least would appear insane to all the rest of us. So if people have some notion that they’ve somehow “risen above” anthropocentrism, I would just file that back among the interesting amusements we all tease ourselves with. It would be sort of like me claiming I’m going to step outside my humanity. I won’t be doing that (nor anybody else) any more than a cow will transcend its bovinity.
[The best we can hope to do is at least just recognize the inevitable anthropocentrism we all possess and operate within, and in the recognition of that then, perhaps our imaginations become a bit more free to meditate on how we aren’t the only living creatures in the universe.]