The concept of good and bad only exists because humanity created it. So humanity surviving at the expense of all else is good because we will it to be so. We are just an animal species that wants to survive and spread like all other animal species just as Darwinism made us. We are just pretty good at it. Humanity has the ability to survive the upcoming final extinction event that the sun will cause and spread life in the galaxy. I would say this is good, as without us doing this life itself dies.

That's the anthropocentric argument, that the original comment we're discussing specifically excluded...

Yeah, stopping mass extinction events might not be inherently "good". But other actions can be "inherently" good.

I think any action that allows life to exist where it wouldn't have existed otherwise, in time or space, is the closest we can get to inherent good.

I understand, but excluding preference for our own existence -- and that of species we find pleasing or familiar -- wouldn't preventing a mass extinction event prevent the rise of new species? Every mass extinction so far became an opportunity for new species to rise and spread, of course to the detriment of many others.

So why would you consider us to be "helping", if we exclude anthropocentric arguments? Maybe we are actually doing harm by preventing the rise of some new interesting species.