This looks like the question of the benefits and harm from guns and their defense, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". There is truth in it, but neither side progresses how society can control the harm people or guns can do to each other.
Even though our existence is dependent on organic compounds, the implication is what are the benefits of mankind's being able to make rational and and exogenous use of organic compounds. If you look back one century, you would find mankind now lives a long and fat life. I am going to call that a benefit. I don't work on the farm any longer and I am going to call that a benefit also. I don't mean to appear to castigate growers of the world, but I do mean that they are so efficient, that their labor allows all of the rest of mankind to be involved in tasks other than growing food.
Global life expectancy at birth, which is estimated to have risen from 46 years in 1950-1955 to 65 years in 2000-2005, is expected to keep on rising to reach 75 years in 2045-2050.
I know it isn't solely and entirely due to organic compounds. Acquisition and application of knowledge in general cannot be parsed out into individual contributions and so I return to the gun. "Organic compounds don't ... " Wouldn't you think that with all of the organic compounds causing all of that damage to mankind that out life expectancy wouldn't be falling ?