The benefit of linking morality to evolution means you can use game theory to determine what is "good". But if you look at it from this angle, it seems absurd to say that any strategy that lets you win the "game" is good - for example, perhaps within game theory is a "nuke everyone but your family" Noah's ark style strategy. High risk; high reward. Just because that might win the game (maximize your genetic representation in the future) doesn't mean it is a "good" strategy. "Good" seems inextricably linked to human flourishing and well being, and therefore mass destruction would be immoral.
But the optimistic approach would be to believe that immoral game strategies have a higher cost than their benefit, or a higher risk than their reward. Nuking everyone can destroy supply chains and create a nuclear winter. It might not be a winning strategy after all. Committing genocide might be a good strategy for reducing genetic competition, but since genocide offends our moral intuitions, neighboring nations are likely to join up and punish you in war for your atrocities.
So, a more pessimistic perspective might be - evolution doesn't guide us to the purest morality, it guides us to a morality of "cheat the game as much as you can get away with". So, in a China-like situation, it is purported that China is using genocidal policies to subjugate the Uighurs (It doesn't seem like the evidence for this is very strong though). As long as China does genocide in a less noticeable way, only commits it within their borders and doesn't aggress other nations at the same time, China gets the benefit of reducing competitive genes, and the other nations have little incentive to punish them.
But then you can say - well "cheat the game as much as you can get away with" is dependent on "what you can get away with" which is based on our moral intuitions encoded into law, and then our ability to prosecute offenders. The more pure our moral intuitions, the more pure our law, and the more efficient our justice system, the less things people can get away with. And so there is a higher tier claim that our moral intuitions paired with our technological innovations will get better and better at punishing cheaters, and therefore the "cheat as much as you can get away with" evolutionary morality will eventually be constrained by less and less things that you can get away with. And therefore we are destined to evolve a more pure morality.
But then there is the veganism dilemma of evolutionary morality - is it immoral to harm the wellbeing of your food? If evolution is guiding us to a more pure morality, and pure morality is based on the wellbeing of creatures, eventually animals come into the equation. If evolution has a teleology for cooperation, why do predators exist? Within one species, you can make the argument that evolution pushes for cooperation since preying on your own species isn't a very efficient game theory strategy. But outside of a species, morality seems to play less of an evolutionary role. Yet, as illogical as it might be, there seem to be many examples of interspecies cooperation in the animal kingdom.
Is it possible that if you push evolution to the end of time that predators will eventually evolve to cooperate with other species instead of preying on them? Perhaps a tiger hunting a goat is an inefficient long run evolutionary strategy because the goat doesn't want it's wellbeing to be harmed and will fight back, therefore incurring a percent risk of damage to the tiger. If the tiger can evolve to eat grass or absorb sunlight, then it can avoid the risk and get the same reward. But if every animal evolves plant or herbivore diets and moralities, then they eventually will become competitors for the same food. The planet might become unstable since the ecosystem can't balance itself anymore, all the plants get eaten and the remaining life must rely on photosynthesis or go extinct. If predators are a necessary component to a balanced ecosystem, does that make it moral to ripe apart the bodies of your prey? I am biased to feeling like systemic violence is immoral since it causes suffering, even at the animal level. Is the evolutionary question a choice between existence and morality, and evolution chooses existence? Are we doomed to preying on other creatures for eternal sustenance? Of course humans have the omnivore option, but this is hardly a solution to the entire problem of animal suffering, it only reduces our involvement in it.
But then the veganism argument provides another moral dilemma - what amount of suffering denotes a life of net-negative value to the creature? What amount of suffering meets the criteria of "better to not have been born"? The vegan argument seems to be, we should not participate in factory farms because they cause animal suffering. But factory farms are not the only source of suffering. Animals suffer plenty in the wild. Safety is a large part of animal joy (freedom from anxiety). Perhaps an animal in the wild has more joy (freedom of movement) but also more suffering (anxiety). I'm ignorant about factory farms, but in a humane farm, a human putting an animal to death in a humane way seems preferable to being ripped apart by a wolf, or starving to death in the bitter cold of winter. There might be an argument to say that at the level of the individual creature, factory farms cause more suffering than life in the wild, but I am biased to thinking that suffering on a humane farm would be preferable to suffering in the wild. Yet, the vegan argument seems to be against both types of human-caused suffering.
Absent human involvement, these animals would not be born. Humans largely subsidize and protect the existence of farm animals. So the way I see it, there seems to be a slippery slope between the veganism argument and the antinatalist argument - the idea that humans should not be born, because average human suffering is greater than average human joy. The vegan deontological ethic seems to be that we have a duty to not cause animals harm, no matter what the consequence. If bringing an animal into the world means we cause any harm to that animal, then we can never justify bringing any animal into the world, even human children.
Converting the vegan ethic from a deontological one to a utilitarian one seems to be the moral pathway that doesn't negate the meaning of life itself. Instead of saying no suffering at all, and therefore no life at all, the utilitarian ethic measures the joy against the suffering. If humans can provide a better life for animals that the wild provides, then perhaps it is justifiable, even if at the end we still eat them.
But at the end of the day, giving an animal a life of minimal suffering and not eating them seems morality superior to minimal suffering and eating them. Will evolution ever guide us to that end? Can we ever escape the laws of entropy that cause these cycles of carnage? Perhaps with advanced technology we can grow meat in labs and mitigate our impact on animal suffering? Perhaps with advanced technology we can eventually evolve was to absorb non-biological energy types? Or are we destined to pillage planet after planet for resources, always destroying as we grow like a virus in the universe?
Can we trust evolution? Or is it secretly guiding us to hell?