I think potentially the concern/idea of optimization, for nature, is at a different scale and goal than what humans are capable of observing to be linear, predictable, "right" or "good".
On a similar scale I think a "scientific" observer of nature might say one shouldn't worry about local maximums because there is always some input stimuli to disrupt seemingly stable long term maxima, and that measurable dynamism of categorical evolution comes through dipping to local mins, and finding a new path to the new temp max because the topology of the surface changed.
Humanity challenge I think is in recognizing that almost all successful solutions to long term problems is built from small functional systems that scaled up rather than top down predictive and prescribed methodologies (mostly accidents until recent history). We can stand in nature and appreciate the diverse and varied approaches nature has taken to solving the particular localized problem (soil, land topology, etc...) but we don't evaluate the suffering and time frame it might of taken to find that particular solution. The plants that were either prematurely stunted or culled are just as much part of the ecosystem and fertilizer that holds the visible flora.
While appreciable suffering can and should be addressed and planned for, localized short term solutions are the things that take hold and spread until the collapse under their own lack of structural stability. Luckily nature is always at the ready to continue the experiment. Trail blazing is not about clearing the path, but finding it, the shortest path for nature is almost always the most preferred, you could say many of the foundations of physics[0] are rooted in it
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_principle