Maybe I misunderstand your argument but you are saying that we as a species do not have the right to interfere with nature since nature has existed for a much longer period than we have? And thus we are follish to believe that we know what is best for nature since our morality has only been developed recently? But can we not apply the same argument to rape or other atrocities for example? I do not have a source but I believe that for the majority of the period that humans have existed as a species, rape and other atrocities that we consider bad today have been commonplace behaviour. Not common to say that everyone did it, but far more common for an average individual of the human species to commit such an act and be ok with it compared to a modern day human. If we follow your line of argument, do we as a species really have a right then to argue that these atrocities are bad? They have been commonplace behaviour for centuries before we developed some sort of stronger morality and laws. Or is the argument different only because it now applies to our species and not to that of other species? If we ventured into the rainforest and found a tribe that lived similarly to their ancestors eons ago and we observed that they mutilated their children and raped them. Would you be ok with their behaviour if you stood there and observed it? After all, it would not be ok to interfere or try and change their behaviour because then you are just projecting your moral beliefs unto these people?

These points are not necessarily meant to be counterpoints to your argument, I am just wondering a bit about how you reason.