> Fair point. But it has evolutionary disadvantages, too. If food scarcity has been a challenge across evolutionary scales (which seems reasonable), then the utility function might prioritize scarce resources for the reproductively fit.

That's typically how it has been prioritized, if food scarcity was an issue.

> My point is that it's challenging to make a watertight argument that "we should do X, because evolution suggests that we should."

Sure, but most of the time I would bet dollars to donuts that environmental variables we evolved in will be better for us than new ones, just like in well-aged software time-tested inputs are more likely to work than new stuff you've never tried before.