Although the naturalistic fallacy is real, please remember that the foundations of naturalism have some merit, so it's
not a universal fallacy. In fact often-times biasing to 'natural' is the best way to get the right outcome.
This article is a great example of my point: Although there is a war going on in the womb that wastes resources, there are some very important side-effects that can only come of that war. The embryo is robustly tested for viability, cancerous growth is averted, and the embryo manages to get more resources. These are difficult goals to achieve any other way.
Other examples abound: Our diet is normally a delicate balance between cravings, metabolism requirements, our gut flora's needs, and so many more factors. Probably a war similar to the womb plays out in our gut, and probably with similar tradeoffs and benefits. The only way to duplicate this complicated machine is to let the battle play its course properly. So the question is, how do we do that? One answer is to look to the environment where this system evolved — in other words to adopt a naturalistic view.
Interference in these systems leads to the balance being upended, and problems developing. We even see this problem with software! When I worked for a large company doing maintenance on very old compilers, we would not interfere in the code too much for fear of triggering one of these imbalances. I think they arise because architects through the years are at war with each-other to impart their 'wisdom'. The result is a carefully orchestrated dance between enemy code, mediated by testcases.
Naturalism captures the idea that we just aren't smart enough to tackle these problems head-on. And even if we were, it might just be cheaper to allow the war to play out instead of duplicating all of its effects. It's only a fallacy because once in a while we are smart enough.