The OP and the linked PDF, to me, seem to express a view of natural selection that is oddly common yet strikes me as dualistic. The idea is that natural selection produces bad outcomes, so we're doomed. But we're already the product of natural selection--if natural selection produces exclusively bad outcomes, then we're living in one!

Sometimes people attempt to salvage their pessimistic view of natural selection by saying, well, we're not doing what we're supposed to do according to natural selection, and that's why the world isn't dystopic. But that doesn't work either: the point of natural selection is that we're operating according to strategies that are successful under conditions of natural selection (because the other ones died out).

So then the next attempt is to say, ah, but our environment is much different now--our behavior is outdated, owing back to a time when being non-evil worked, and being evil is optimal now. This at least is getting closer to plausibility (since indeed our behavior is outdated in many ways, with eating habits as an obvious example), but it's still strange in quite a few ways:

• If what's good about the world is due to a leftover natural human tendency to goodness, then how come the world is so much less violent now than it was during our evolutionary history?
• If the modern world makes evil optimal, how come evil kept notching up Ls in the 20th century (in WW2 and the Cold War, as the biggest examples)?
• If our outdated behavior is really that far off optimal, how come it has kept our population booming for thousands of years, in conditions all quite different from our evolutionary history? Even now, fertility crisis notwithstanding, the human population is still growing, and we're among the most successful species ever to exist on Earth.

But despite these factors that make me doubt that we humans have suboptimally inherited an innate tendency to goodness, it's conceivable. What often comes next, though, is a disturbing policy suggestion: encode "human values" in some superintelligent AI that is installed as supreme eternal dictator of the universe. Leaving aside the issue of whether "human values" even makes sense as a concept (since it seems to me that various nasty youknowwhos of history, being undoubtedly homo sapiens, have as much a claim to the title as you or I), totalitarianism is bad.

It's not just that totalitarianism is bad to live in, though that's invariably true in the real world. It also seems to be ineffective. It lost in WW2, then in the Cold War. It's been performing badly in North Korea for decades. And it's increasingly dragging down modern China. Totalitarianism is evidently unfavored by natural selection. Granted, if there are no alternatives to compete against, it can persist (as seen in North Korea), so maybe a human-originated singular totalitarianism can persist for a billion years until it gets steamrolled by aliens running a more effective system of social organization.

One final thought: it may be that natural selection actually favors AI that cares more about humans than humans care about each other. Sound preposterous? Consider that there are species (such as Tasmanian devils) that present-day humans care about conserving but where the members of the species don't show much friendliness to each other.

I'm not sure which part of this you think is assuming the conclusion. That our values are not maximally about power acquisition should be clear. The part saying evolution is continuously pushing the world is what I've tried to explain in the post, though it should be read as "there is a force pushing in that direction" rather than "the resulting force is in that direction".