Right, but is there inherent value in the world outside of the subjective human standard? Like, is the world valuable beyond what people judge it to be valuable?
That's not such an easy question. Like, is turning a tree into some books a good thing? Trees are natural, books are not. Pumping oil out of the ground, burning it for electricity? This destroys the world, but enriches minds and saves human lives, and advances pursuits we deem valuable.
How about viruses - they're natural. Should we leave malaria and dysentery alone because they're natural? I say wipe them out, but you could carry that same logic into suggesting that we should chop down trees to build houses and print books, that we should burn fossil fuels for electricity and to create composites, that we should level areas of nature for the building of cities...
And mind you, I love nature. I spend a lot of time in it, and really love it. I consider myself a conservationist and hate wasting stuff. But that's because the world is good to us, and serves us. The parts of the world that are hostile to us - rabid animals, parasites, diseases - wipe all that stuff out. And the resources that can be converted into wonderful things we use - electricity, composites, circuits, computers, houses, transportation, and so on - well, convert it. I'll happily turn a gallon of oil into a few hours of electricity and some CO2.
Everything we judge "good" about the natural world is judged so because of our human standards, and because of how it relates and interacts with humanity. Without humanity, nature would not be good or bad by human standards. Trees and tapeworms and oil and rocks and water and ice are all of the exact same value to humanity if humanity doesn't exist, and if humanity does exist, those things are all of quite different values to us.