I come in here with a slightly different slant. First - that it's a complex thing anyway - that's a one phrase summary of a complex theory - and we also know about horizontal gene transfer, and Lanarkian style changes in gene expression during someone's lifetime, and an independent line of evolution of the mitochondria that provide energy only passed from mother to child (as in mitochondria "Eve" for humans) - and also that often complex groups of creatures co-evolve, adapted to each other and competing with other groups of creatures. And even entire ecosystems also competing e.g. grassland with forest.
But - as well as that - it's not a theory about the wishes and volitions of the evolving creatures. It's a theory about DNA and mitochondria and about how species evolve new characteristics. The DNA in a way "knows nothing about the creature" and the creature "knows nothing about its DNA".
When birds come to my feeder, they come because they are hungry, not because they have some long term plan to survive and pass on their genes to their offspring next year. The hunger is something that is a result of evolution and so indirectly, of survival of the fittest. But they are not motivated by survival of the fittest. They are motivated by hunger.
Similarly many animals also are motivated by fun, enjoyment, curiosity. Presumably these are traits that are of benefit for survival of their species. But that is not their motivation, not at any level. They are acting just because it is fun, or interesting, or whatever.
Humans go one stage further, with civilization, philosophy, rational thought, art, music, etc. We do many things and probably almost none of them - are motivated by "survival of the species".
It could be one part of the motivation when a couple decide to start a family together. But doesn't have to be then either. Certainly with animals - then animals when they pair up and have offspring - they probably don't even know that there is a cause and effect relationship in what they do.
Birds start courting out of instinct. Later build nests. Later lay eggs. Later they start feeding the young. Later they encourage their young to fledge, to leave the nest. But each time - do you think they are motivated by the wish to have offspring and pass on their genes to the next generation?
They may have a memory of last year, who knows, and after a few years have an idea what to expect next. But - they are not motivated by any kind of a plan or looking ahead - and surely not at any level motivated by "survival of the species". They are just doing what comes naturally to them at each stage. Acting out of instinctive feelings like hunger, thirst, an instinctive wish to gather food, take it back to the nest and put it into a gaping mouth - instinctive wish to look for their offspring's "droppings" and remove them from the nest - that sort of thing. That's what motivates, them, not "survival of the fittest".
So similarly humans also are not motivated by survival of the species when they have children - rarely anyway - or of their own genes particularly - unless very intellectual in their approach and decision making.
But more simply - most parents I think - just have a natural wish to have children and to look after them and watch them grow up. And enjoy that whole process even though it is a lot of extra work for them. The wish is something they have as a result of evolution. But survival of the fittest is not their motivation, at any level.
And - also - there are limitations to what evolution can do. It can make a creature more curious, more playful, etc. With humans - we are naturally social creatures. And evolution has undoubtedly contributed to that.
But - it is limited in what it can do. So for instance, to socialize, we need to be able to read other's expressions, and "walk in their shoes" in some way - have some kind of an idea of "what it is to be them".
So - evolution has given us the ability to read the expressions on other's faces (at least most of us, some have problems here) .
But, there is no "gene for selfishness".
So a biproduct of the ability to sense other's suffering is a wish to help them - in situations, often - where there may be no benefit at all for survival of your own genes, or even of humans generally. You don't do a calculation "will this help survival of humans?". You act to help because they are suffering and you can feel that they are suffering and it is only natural for anyone with some level of empathy to want to help in that situation.
So - when biologists puzzle over why animals are altruistic - and humans - it might not be that it has an evolutionary advantage at all.
There are places where it does have evolutionary advantages, as they have teased out in some cases. But there is no need at all to have explanations of every piece of altruistic behaviour as somehow being of survival value.
Some things are impossible for evolution. Try to make a dolphin with big strong arms and legs able to walk on land as well as water - and it will no longer be well adapted to water. So much as it would be useful for a dolphin to be able to walk around on the land as well as swim in the sea - it wouldn't be well adapted to the sea if you did that.
In the same way - it may well be impossible for an animal to be social, and aware of other's suffering, and - without serious defects in their character and understanding of the world around them - without also being altruistic.
I think myself that that is probably the situation. So any social and aware animal or creature, ETs also will have these human traits, at some level, of compassion, altruism etc.
Just a natural biproduct of combination of rational thought and social awareness of others as having their own inner worlds - which then also naturally spills over to a similar awareness for other species.
I think that can probably no more be selected against than you can select against the streamlined shape of a dolphin and expect it to still be able to swim.
What evolution can do is to "tone down awareness" of others. So - there are people who are hyper aware of other's emotional states. They can naturally recognize the face of everyone they meet in their lives, almost. Can sit in a railway station, hundreds of people walk past, and they remember every face they saw, even though only casually aware and not trying particularly to pay attention. Also notice micro-expressions, tiny fleeting glimpses on people's faces. They instantly understand how someone else is feeling, without needing to ask, in situations that leave others puzzled.
So - it's clearly something humans can do. So why don't we all do this?
Well - it might perhaps be evolution's way of toning down social awareness. So that you are slightly less aware of other people's internal states than you could be.
I have a vague memory of reading a paper or news story suggesting that but can't think where - if anyone knows do say.
It might perhaps just be my own idea , but I wouldn't like to take credit for it as I think I read it somewhere else.
But whatever - this shows how evolution is limited. The DNA can only do so much to alter the creature in the direction of "survival of species". And the creature is completely unaware of the DNA (at least prior to early in the C20 when humans came to realise it existed) - and certainly don't act under "survival of species" at all as basis of their actions.
Nowadays some people might take "survival of species" as a motivation, and think that this underpins all their wishes and volitions, and then maybe it would start to do so, if you think it does.
But - if so - that's more like a kind of science inspired religious movement or ethical movement. It's not evolution that's doing that, they are not forced that way by their DNA. It's humans getting ideas and those ideas then modifying how they behave. And if you do think that way - you can change your ideas and stop acting out of "survival of the fittest" as well if you wish - and is nothing the DNA can do about that - you are a free agent here.
So - to return to the question. Seems we do have an instinctive wish to survive as humans. If you drown, then you will gasp for air.
If you try to stop yourself from breathing, you'll find it is impossible - even if you do it long enough to go unconscious, you will then start breathing again (Stephen Hawking says he once tried to commit suicide, early in progression of his illness, by holding his breath, but found it was impossible).
People who jump off buildings or off bridges and survive often talk about how as they fell - they wanted to undo their action - that once they had started to fall they realized they didn't want to die after all.
For that reason alone - if anyone is thinking about "rational suicide" - do think carefully about it. You might find you change your mind at the last minute, when it is too late to do anything about it.
I don't know how much that is some survival instinct popping up at the last minute - or how much it is rational thought working when you are suddenly faced with the reality of what you have just done. But it does happen either way.
Now dolphins are different. For them breathing is voluntary - and a dolphin can commit suicide by just stopping its breath, was a news story about that recently in the Huffington Post:
See What It Means To Say A Dolphin Committed Suicide
And as others have said here - some creatures have suicide built in to their biology as something they do at a certain stage in their lives. Possibly if we meet ETs some of them may be like this.
So - it probably depends a lot on the species.
But for humans at least, seems that we do have a lot of survival instincts built into our character.
And - that's surely a result of evolution, so a result of "survival of the fittest". But our actions, when we start to breath even after holding our breath until we are unconscious - you are not motivated by "survival of the fittest". You are not motivated by anything in that case, as you are unconscious.
This is apart from all the reasons, ethical and religious for staying alive - I don't want to go into that too much here because it is departing too much from the topic.
I'm a Buddhist myself, and in Buddhist teachings they talk about how precious an opportunity it is to be born as a human. Even if you suffer greatly. Because - as a human - because we suffer - but are also rational and able to think about what is going on - that's our best opportunity to do something about that suffering in a cycle that continues from life to life without end.
So - that is coloured of course, a bit - by your beliefs - what you think happens when you die. And - science - not yet with any good theory or understanding of awareness and consciousness I'd say - it can't answer these kind of questions yet.
Scientists can't even yet properly explain why the "collapse of the wave equation" happens in quantum mechanics. They need to bring in the idea of an "observer" to make this happen - but what that means - is a matter of much controversy. Perhaps when this is better understood, if it is, then science may begin to be able to say things about awareness and consciousness in a more general way.
Another thing to mention here is the "voluntary human extinction movement".
VHEMT
So these are people who have made the conscious decision not to have children, because they think it is better if the human race goes extinct.
I don't at all feel that way myself :).
But - the very possibility shows how rational thought can lead humans - so probably any rational creature - to act in a way that evolution can't possibly have selected for as a trait.
In humans of course you have the phenomena of Memes - so ideas that spread through civilizations - and act in a way like genes - but - is not a matter of survival of individuals - but survival of an idea.
So - the idea takes off - irrespective of its survival value - just because it for some reason is "catchy" for human minds and ways of thinking. And may swiftly spread through an entire population.
Just mentioning this - as another important element in the mix for humans which makes things more complex. Animals also have memes.
So - some memes are "anti-survival" like the human extinction movement.
Some may lead people to be more compassionate and caring for each other, like some ethical and religious ideas.
Some may lead people to warfare and violence. Like the various memes in societies that praise acts of valour and aggression.
Some may lead them towards thrill seeking and to take extreme risks
Or towards gambling.
Some may lead people to focus on their financial interests. E.g. the meme of talking about someone's "net value" meaning how much wealth they have accumulated in their lifetime so far.
Some may lead them to focus on academic achievement. Such as the meme of counting citations in academic journals.
Some encourage artistic endevours - many artistic, musical, and sculptural memes.
Or to make the best garden you possibly can. Or spend much of your adult life, trying to prove a mathematical theorem, and arrange everything else in your life around that as your main aim. Or spend your entire life just proving theorems with everything else secondary, as Paul Erdos did.
Or whatever. Any of these can be your life motivation, the main thing you work towards in your life.
So amongst all of those, one of the memes may lead some people to focus on "survival of the fittest" as their main motivating wish in their lives.
So - from this point of view, "Survival of the fittest" - for humans - is just one meme along with all the other ones.
And what our DNA, or our mitochondria are doing - and how that relates to why we happen to have our present human form and capabilities -that is neither here nor there at this level.
We have these bodies and minds as a result of evolution. But what we choose to make of it - that is up to us.
EVOLUTION - NOT A THEORY ABOUT WISHES AND VOLITIONS
But - as well as that - it's not a theory about the wishes and volitions of the evolving creatures. It's a theory about DNA and mitochondria and about how species evolve new characteristics. The DNA in a way "knows nothing about the creature" and the creature "knows nothing about its DNA".
CREATURES NOT MOTIVATED BY "SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST" AT ANY LEVEL
When birds come to my feeder, they come because they are hungry, not because they have some long term plan to survive and pass on their genes to their offspring next year. The hunger is something that is a result of evolution and so indirectly, of survival of the fittest. But they are not motivated by survival of the fittest. They are motivated by hunger.
Similarly many animals also are motivated by fun, enjoyment, curiosity. Presumably these are traits that are of benefit for survival of their species. But that is not their motivation, not at any level. They are acting just because it is fun, or interesting, or whatever.
HUMANS GO ONE STAGE FURTHER WITH CIVILIZATION
Humans go one stage further, with civilization, philosophy, rational thought, art, music, etc. We do many things and probably almost none of them - are motivated by "survival of the species".
It could be one part of the motivation when a couple decide to start a family together. But doesn't have to be then either. Certainly with animals - then animals when they pair up and have offspring - they probably don't even know that there is a cause and effect relationship in what they do.
BIRDS ACTING OUT OF INSTINCT AREN'T EVEN MOTIVATED BY "SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST" WHEN THEY HAVE OFFSPRING
Birds start courting out of instinct. Later build nests. Later lay eggs. Later they start feeding the young. Later they encourage their young to fledge, to leave the nest. But each time - do you think they are motivated by the wish to have offspring and pass on their genes to the next generation?
They may have a memory of last year, who knows, and after a few years have an idea what to expect next. But - they are not motivated by any kind of a plan or looking ahead - and surely not at any level motivated by "survival of the species". They are just doing what comes naturally to them at each stage. Acting out of instinctive feelings like hunger, thirst, an instinctive wish to gather food, take it back to the nest and put it into a gaping mouth - instinctive wish to look for their offspring's "droppings" and remove them from the nest - that sort of thing. That's what motivates, them, not "survival of the fittest".
So similarly humans also are not motivated by survival of the species when they have children - rarely anyway - or of their own genes particularly - unless very intellectual in their approach and decision making.
But more simply - most parents I think - just have a natural wish to have children and to look after them and watch them grow up. And enjoy that whole process even though it is a lot of extra work for them. The wish is something they have as a result of evolution. But survival of the fittest is not their motivation, at any level.
LIMITATIONS TO WHAT EVOLUTION CAN DO
And - also - there are limitations to what evolution can do. It can make a creature more curious, more playful, etc. With humans - we are naturally social creatures. And evolution has undoubtedly contributed to that.
But - it is limited in what it can do. So for instance, to socialize, we need to be able to read other's expressions, and "walk in their shoes" in some way - have some kind of an idea of "what it is to be them".
So - evolution has given us the ability to read the expressions on other's faces (at least most of us, some have problems here) .
But, there is no "gene for selfishness".
So a biproduct of the ability to sense other's suffering is a wish to help them - in situations, often - where there may be no benefit at all for survival of your own genes, or even of humans generally. You don't do a calculation "will this help survival of humans?". You act to help because they are suffering and you can feel that they are suffering and it is only natural for anyone with some level of empathy to want to help in that situation.
PUZZLE OF EVOLUTIONARY ADVANTAGE OF ALTRUISM
So - when biologists puzzle over why animals are altruistic - and humans - it might not be that it has an evolutionary advantage at all.
There are places where it does have evolutionary advantages, as they have teased out in some cases. But there is no need at all to have explanations of every piece of altruistic behaviour as somehow being of survival value.
Some things are impossible for evolution. Try to make a dolphin with big strong arms and legs able to walk on land as well as water - and it will no longer be well adapted to water. So much as it would be useful for a dolphin to be able to walk around on the land as well as swim in the sea - it wouldn't be well adapted to the sea if you did that.
In the same way - it may well be impossible for an animal to be social, and aware of other's suffering, and - without serious defects in their character and understanding of the world around them - without also being altruistic.
PROBABLY ANY SOCIAL AND AWARE ANIMAL, CREATURE OR ETS WILL HAVE THIS ALTRUISTIC TRAIT
I think myself that that is probably the situation. So any social and aware animal or creature, ETs also will have these human traits, at some level, of compassion, altruism etc.
Just a natural biproduct of combination of rational thought and social awareness of others as having their own inner worlds - which then also naturally spills over to a similar awareness for other species.
I think that can probably no more be selected against than you can select against the streamlined shape of a dolphin and expect it to still be able to swim.
WHAT EVOLUTION CAN DO
What evolution can do is to "tone down awareness" of others. So - there are people who are hyper aware of other's emotional states. They can naturally recognize the face of everyone they meet in their lives, almost. Can sit in a railway station, hundreds of people walk past, and they remember every face they saw, even though only casually aware and not trying particularly to pay attention. Also notice micro-expressions, tiny fleeting glimpses on people's faces. They instantly understand how someone else is feeling, without needing to ask, in situations that leave others puzzled.
So - it's clearly something humans can do. So why don't we all do this?
Well - it might perhaps be evolution's way of toning down social awareness. So that you are slightly less aware of other people's internal states than you could be.
I have a vague memory of reading a paper or news story suggesting that but can't think where - if anyone knows do say.
It might perhaps just be my own idea , but I wouldn't like to take credit for it as I think I read it somewhere else.
But whatever - this shows how evolution is limited. The DNA can only do so much to alter the creature in the direction of "survival of species". And the creature is completely unaware of the DNA (at least prior to early in the C20 when humans came to realise it existed) - and certainly don't act under "survival of species" at all as basis of their actions.
"SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST" AS A RELIGION OR ETHICS MOTIVATED BY ANALOGIES TAKEN FROM SCIENCE
Nowadays some people might take "survival of species" as a motivation, and think that this underpins all their wishes and volitions, and then maybe it would start to do so, if you think it does.
But - if so - that's more like a kind of science inspired religious movement or ethical movement. It's not evolution that's doing that, they are not forced that way by their DNA. It's humans getting ideas and those ideas then modifying how they behave. And if you do think that way - you can change your ideas and stop acting out of "survival of the fittest" as well if you wish - and is nothing the DNA can do about that - you are a free agent here.
INSTINCTIVE WISH FOR SURVIVAL FOR HUMANS
So - to return to the question. Seems we do have an instinctive wish to survive as humans. If you drown, then you will gasp for air.
If you try to stop yourself from breathing, you'll find it is impossible - even if you do it long enough to go unconscious, you will then start breathing again (Stephen Hawking says he once tried to commit suicide, early in progression of his illness, by holding his breath, but found it was impossible).
People who jump off buildings or off bridges and survive often talk about how as they fell - they wanted to undo their action - that once they had started to fall they realized they didn't want to die after all.
For that reason alone - if anyone is thinking about "rational suicide" - do think carefully about it. You might find you change your mind at the last minute, when it is too late to do anything about it.
I don't know how much that is some survival instinct popping up at the last minute - or how much it is rational thought working when you are suddenly faced with the reality of what you have just done. But it does happen either way.
DOLPHIN SUICIDE AND OTHER SPECIES SUICIDE
Now dolphins are different. For them breathing is voluntary - and a dolphin can commit suicide by just stopping its breath, was a news story about that recently in the Huffington Post:
See What It Means To Say A Dolphin Committed Suicide
And as others have said here - some creatures have suicide built in to their biology as something they do at a certain stage in their lives. Possibly if we meet ETs some of them may be like this.
So - it probably depends a lot on the species.
HUMAN INSTINCTS
But for humans at least, seems that we do have a lot of survival instincts built into our character.
And - that's surely a result of evolution, so a result of "survival of the fittest". But our actions, when we start to breath even after holding our breath until we are unconscious - you are not motivated by "survival of the fittest". You are not motivated by anything in that case, as you are unconscious.
This is apart from all the reasons, ethical and religious for staying alive - I don't want to go into that too much here because it is departing too much from the topic.
I'm a Buddhist myself, and in Buddhist teachings they talk about how precious an opportunity it is to be born as a human. Even if you suffer greatly. Because - as a human - because we suffer - but are also rational and able to think about what is going on - that's our best opportunity to do something about that suffering in a cycle that continues from life to life without end.
So - that is coloured of course, a bit - by your beliefs - what you think happens when you die. And - science - not yet with any good theory or understanding of awareness and consciousness I'd say - it can't answer these kind of questions yet.
Scientists can't even yet properly explain why the "collapse of the wave equation" happens in quantum mechanics. They need to bring in the idea of an "observer" to make this happen - but what that means - is a matter of much controversy. Perhaps when this is better understood, if it is, then science may begin to be able to say things about awareness and consciousness in a more general way.
VOLUNTARY EXTINCTION MOVEMENT
Another thing to mention here is the "voluntary human extinction movement".
VHEMT
So these are people who have made the conscious decision not to have children, because they think it is better if the human race goes extinct.
I don't at all feel that way myself :).
But - the very possibility shows how rational thought can lead humans - so probably any rational creature - to act in a way that evolution can't possibly have selected for as a trait.
MEMES
In humans of course you have the phenomena of Memes - so ideas that spread through civilizations - and act in a way like genes - but - is not a matter of survival of individuals - but survival of an idea.
So - the idea takes off - irrespective of its survival value - just because it for some reason is "catchy" for human minds and ways of thinking. And may swiftly spread through an entire population.
Just mentioning this - as another important element in the mix for humans which makes things more complex. Animals also have memes.
So - some memes are "anti-survival" like the human extinction movement.
Some may lead people to be more compassionate and caring for each other, like some ethical and religious ideas.
Some may lead people to warfare and violence. Like the various memes in societies that praise acts of valour and aggression.
Some may lead them towards thrill seeking and to take extreme risks
Or towards gambling.
Some may lead people to focus on their financial interests. E.g. the meme of talking about someone's "net value" meaning how much wealth they have accumulated in their lifetime so far.
Some may lead them to focus on academic achievement. Such as the meme of counting citations in academic journals.
Some encourage artistic endevours - many artistic, musical, and sculptural memes.
Or to make the best garden you possibly can. Or spend much of your adult life, trying to prove a mathematical theorem, and arrange everything else in your life around that as your main aim. Or spend your entire life just proving theorems with everything else secondary, as Paul Erdos did.
Paul Erdős who devoted his entire adult life to theorem proving - just about everything else came second to that
Or whatever. Any of these can be your life motivation, the main thing you work towards in your life.
So amongst all of those, one of the memes may lead some people to focus on "survival of the fittest" as their main motivating wish in their lives.
So - from this point of view, "Survival of the fittest" - for humans - is just one meme along with all the other ones.
And what our DNA, or our mitochondria are doing - and how that relates to why we happen to have our present human form and capabilities -that is neither here nor there at this level.
We have these bodies and minds as a result of evolution. But what we choose to make of it - that is up to us.
About the Author
Robert Walker
Writer of articles on Mars and Space issues - Software Developer of Tune Smithy, Bounce Metronome etc.Studied at Wolfson College, Oxford
Lives in Isle of Mull
4.8m answer views110.4k this month
Top Writer2017, 2016, and 2015
Published WriterHuffPost, Slate, and 4 moreHuffPost, Slate, Forbes, Newsweek, Business Insider, and Science 2.0