The piece reminded me a lot about Kropotkin's Mutual Aid argument which I think has been overlooked by too many (especially among the market- or competition- ideologues, which did indeed include Thatcher et al).
The call for rescuing morality from science seems nice in principle, but seems to be based on assuming a valued position for homo sapiens. If we work on the basis that nature is indifferent to which species survive or not, then there does not need to be an ethical value for survival - indeed, a norm-driven calling for something "superior" may then seem, well, self-indulgent for any species.
Perhaps I misinterpret it, but Mutual Aid always seemed like showing why co-operation is also vitally important. That may seem instrumentalist, but I don't see why that takes away from the beauty or resonance (or normative value) of ethics, empathy or co-operation. Certainly co-operation needs to be brought back in to the tent - pure competition is not enough and seems like an evolutionarily-foolish strategy to use exclusively?