The problem is that can be a decades or centuries long endeavor. So in the meantime, striving for a pre-human or early-human stable state is often beneficial for us, even if it isn't optimal & even if we can't draw the cost-benefit table yet.

Tell that to Antarctica, or to Everest, or to the vast oceans. Until the last century mankind's presence was slight. We lived in the nice places that we convenient for us. Now we live everywhere, or at least our trash does. The idea that humans are part of the natural world, that we need not curtail our behavior because we were put here too, is quasi-religious dogma promoted by climate deniers. Humans are different. We have abilities vastly beyond any other species. That comes with responsibilities, responsibilities that cannot be sidestepped by declaring us just another mammal looking for food.

Without humans, almost everything would be covered by forests and swamps, not the wide range of biomes we now find, with open fields, grasslands, and patches of forests. Many local insects, birds and plants need these. Our responsibility here is not to stop, but to keep everything in good condition (not like now where there is far too little slack in the system and no space left for this wildlife).