The objection
"The less human influence in the world, the better." So we shouldn't intervene in nature, not even to help animals.
Meaning 1: less human influence is better for animals
If the idea is that untouched nature is always better for animals, that comes from not knowing the facts. As we've seen, natural processes tend to maximize the number of animals born only to suffer and die young. So less human influence doesn't guarantee a better outcome for them.
Meaning 2: less human influence is better, period
Maybe the idea is something else: less human influence would be better even if the result were worse for the animals.
But that would only make sense if it were okay to prefer a world with more suffering and more death, just so that humans hadn't touched it. Why would the absence of human influence be worth more than the good of those who suffer?
Think about the human case: nobody says it's better to leave a sick person untreated just so that "human influence stays smaller."
In short
- Untouched nature isn't necessarily better for animals.
- Preferring less human influence even when it means more suffering can't be justified.
- In the human case, nobody would accept this reasoning.