This probably belongs in the veganism thread--
But here's my unsolicited take anyway.
Getting all worked up into a lather about the evolved mechanisms at play in a natural system is like getting into a lather over the existence of rain. The fig tree has evolved to exploit a specific species of wasp, because it banging around inside the bell of the flower and being unable to escape, results in a greater propensity of pollen getting put onto its pistil, which increases its reproductive fitness. Likewise, producing an edible (and tasty) fruit, increases the distance its seeds are carried, thus leveraging additional animal species into its reproductive strategy. The plant has no nervous system, it is incapable of planning or plotting. It is the product of biochemical systems slowly changing over time, favoring the retention of systems that are better able to replicate themselves. The fruit produced by these plants are important food sources for many other species as well.
Getting worked up over this is like getting worked up over plants using the carbon dioxide produced from the action of toxic bacteria, actively killing an animal host. The plants soaking up the CO2 do not care about where that CO2 came from. The germs killing their host do not care about the longevity of the host. Likewise, I do not care about the dead wasp. I only care about the fig. The same mechanisms that prompted the fig to develop an unusually shaped flower, will drive the wasp to adapt to not being trapped inside it.
Humans are unique, in that our natural programming gives rise to an unusually interconnected "perceptual landscape", that allows detailed abstractions and predictions about the world, which enables complex voluntary actions to be undertaken that do not have immediate payoffs. This is not a terribly common adaptation, and of those species that have started undertaking that path, only ours has reached this level of sophistication (that we are aware of.) Since we are capable of this level of abstraction, but continue to act in very 1-dimensional terms (especially as regards economic policy!), the ethical issue I have is failure to actually BE human, in how we conduct ourselves. Take for instance, the wasp species in general. Sure, we could say "It's just terrible that wasps die to make fruit-- Especially since humans artificially amplify the apparent evolutionary fitness of the figs that are killing them!"- The natural outcome there is "We should plant fewer figs"-- but this is not a full understanding of the interconnected nature of things. Figs (especially those that have been selectively bred) have been adapting to having human assistance, because it is RADICALLY beneficial for them. Humans have adapted to having figs as a food source. Insects have a very rapid generational turnover, meaning they could potentially evolve very quickly. Humans and fig trees, not so much. Rather than assert foolishly that we should stop growing figs (which is harmful not only to us, and the fig trees, but also to the many other lifeforms that have trophic web connections with the fig tree and to humans), but rather to ask how we can offset the difference in mortality rates the wasps suffer from our scaled up, assisted reproduction of the figs.
That is to say, how can we assure that the wasp population is able to not go into decline, and to assist the wasp on its path toward not being extinct in the face of our partnership with the fig trees. The most obvious, is that we find some clear partnership with the wasps as well, since the wasps are an essential part in the fruit's cultivation. Working out how to improve fecudnity and general population health of the wasp species, and then enacting that plan, is what needs to be considered. Not getting into a hot lather over fruit.