What do you mean? Sure there isn't a goal, but it's also true that some things tend to lead more success for a species and thus lead to the species with those traits dominating. Thus it's good from an evolutionary standpoint. Am I missing something?
What you're missing is that 'good' is defined with respect to a goal. From an evolutionary standpoint (whatever that really is), the complete extinction of all life is just one possible way things could be and it is as good as any other way things could be. From a human perspective, this is awful. As is any future where humans don't exist.
You seem to have understood it as: "A species dying off very easily is sometimes a good thing for evolution." In response to this, your response is justified.
When in fact, what m3ta is saying is: "Members of a species dying very easily is sometimes an evolutionary advantage for that species." In response to this, your response is a non-sequitur.