What do you mean? Sure there isn't a goal, but it's also true that some things tend to lead more success for a species and thus lead to the species with those traits dominating. Thus it's good from an evolutionary standpoint. Am I missing something?
It might seem that way, but there is actually a large caloric penalty to longer active lifespans. Birds live longer than mice because they have fewer predators but also because birds spend a lot of energy ensuring a longer lifespan. From an evolutionary perspective very old means very well adapted, so it is a useful benchmark.
Ok, I don't see how "one species dies and another lives" represents anything that is 'good'. It's just one way things could be. They could be other ways, and evolution doesn't show any preference for any of them.
What you're missing is that 'good' is defined with respect to a goal. From an evolutionary standpoint (whatever that really is), the complete extinction of all life is just one possible way things could be and it is as good as any other way things could be. From a human perspective, this is awful. As is any future where humans don't exist.
I think you've fundamentally misunderstood m3ta's comment.
You seem to have understood it as: "A species dying off very easily is sometimes a good thing for evolution." In response to this, your response is justified.
When in fact, what m3ta is saying is: "Members of a species dying very easily is sometimes an evolutionary advantage for that species." In response to this, your response is a non-sequitur.
