I'd even generalize it to 'it's about passing on ones genes'.
Death before one has had a chance to do so (or before any necessary utility towards one's offspring has passed) is evolutionarily 'bad'.
Things that help reproduction and success for one's offspring? Evolutionarily 'good'.
The tricky part is that a large portion of ANY human population is, near as I can tell, 'excess'/'hedging' population, and so will be 'doing poorly' in any given set of circumstances. Think of it as 'build time attribute randomization' when there is a random situation picked that people couldn't predict in advance.
That means that population wide, when circumstances change, the portion that is doing poorly vs doing very well can shift appropriately so the overall population survives. It is quite expensive, but seems necessary for us to have survived so long overall with the sheer number of apocalypses we know of (from plagues to invading armies), and the undoubtably countless ones we have forgotten.
I was replying to jeromegv's earlier comment of:
> It’s fascinating that most people don’t get that about evolution. It needs to be a matter of life and death, if it doesn’t, then it has no impact.