I would like to point out that the majority of minds that come into existence in this world die painfully after a lifetime of hardship. Herbivores, predators, and most humans are plagued by disease, starvation, and pain. To argue that this state of affairs is perfection comes across as pretty damn arrogant. I highly doubt that you would believe this if you had felt the anguish of watching your loved ones dying of starvation, or the agony of being pinned down by a bear while it eats your intestines. Even if what you define as 'perfection' is objectively true, would it not be better to try to remove the suffering at the cost of perfection?
Furthermore, what do you even mean by perfection? The definition I have is 'the state of being perfect; as good and complete as it is possible to be'. How does that work when applied to a universe that is constantly in flux? Species evolve and become extinct, atoms form compounds and break down again. Should we not develop any more technologies, or discover any more knowledge, in fear of violating perfection?
Besides, how can anyone hope to imagine what an example of a perfect object is without comparison? For example, if you had only ever seen one car in your life, you would have no idea whether or not it was a perfect or imperfect car, let alone the extent of improvements that could be made to it. On the other hand, if you saw a top of the range supercar; finely engineered and highly polished, compared to a worn out piece of junk with a grinding gearbox and rusted paintwork, it would be far easier to tell which one was closer to a particular ideal of 'perfection'. Without knowing what we could make the universe, or how it could be different, we should not assume that what we have is the best we could get.