This is a confusion between evolution which works at the level of DNA and species - and human volition. When we decide to do things or wish for things - we are motivated by many things, and none of them might be particularly directed to survival - and there is no reason why they have to be.
We have a strong wish to stay alive - that's reasonably instinctive - e.g. if you find you can't breath, you will put every last effort you have into finding a way to breath again. But when our life is not in immediate danger - we don't have any evolutionary instinct particularly.
Tale a dolphin for example. As a result of evolution, it has a body that is superbly adapted to swim in the sea.
(from wikipedia, File:DuskyDolphin.jpg - Wikimedia Commons - by AllenMcC.)
But - when it is swimming and leaping like this - do you think the dolphin is giving any thought to how it's body will evolve in the future? It has nothing to do with that. It's not motivated by the wish for its descendants to have a body that is fitter for swimming or jumping.
It is just doing its dolphin thing, and then it may have progeny, or it may not but some of its relatives may - and if dolphins with bodies that are better at swimming have healthier offspring that survive longer - then those traits continue.
Do you think it even gives any thought at all to survival of the species or of its genes? It might not even know clearly how it happens - just acts under instinct - and at some point you get baby dolphins, and it then responds to that situation as well when it occurs.
So in the same way - we just do our human thing. And some people might give no thought at all to survival of the species, and certainly - not motivated by the wish to propogate their genes. Until recently no-one even knew that we had DNA :).
So - the question is on another level - does natural selection favour people who think in particular ways?
Can natural selection select for people who don't want to help other species and defenceless creatures, and unrelated humans?
That then is an interesting question. You'd think that if it could - that those people would survive better - and so after a period of time, humans and other species that had no care at all for defenseless creatures would be the ones that win out.
But - the thing is again - that evolution can't select for just one trait independently of other things. The result has to work together as a complete organism.
Take for example, the dolphin again. The requirement to move quickly through the water forces a particular shape. All the fast moving species in the sea have basically fish like shapes, sleek, pointed at the nose and so on.
So - for instance - maybe it would be better for a dolphin to have a really huge mouth, two meters wide, to make it easier to catch things. But that would interfere with the streamlining of its body.
The eye has evolved many times in different organisms - but all are based on a few basic structures.
Flying birds and bats both share a similar shape - of a body with head at front, and two wings.
In the same way - once you have a creature that is able to think and reason - and feel things - then that's a complete package.
So - if the process of evolution makes it aware of the feelings of others - and other creatures also - it will function much better as a social creature - but it will also have greater empathy and sensitivity to others in distress including helpless creatures.
If it makes it capable of rational thought, then it will come up with a notion of truth - and that leads to maths and physics - and a creature that can count, and prove Pythagoras theorem, and understand the origins of the universe. None of those are of any immediate survival value - yes may turn out to be eventually - for the species as a whole - but - not acting immediately.
When, for instance, Euclid worked out the axioms of euclidean geometry - it didn't help his own genes to survive particularly. And was not a result of a process of evolution that favoured mathematicians over other people who could not work out axiom systems. It's not that working out an axiom system has survival value. Rather - that - evolution lead to creatures able to reason - and one of the consequences of reasoning is that you can work out axiom systems.
So in the same way - one of the consequences of being able to reason, and also being able to have intuitive understanding of "what it feels like to be in someone else's shoes" - e.g. if someone is crying, to understand that they are sad and to feel that - not just see it as a visual pattern you don't understand - as soon as you have both of those - then - as living aware reasoning empathic creatures, then we will want to help others.
There is no way for evolution to do anything about this. There is no "helping others" gene, no more than there is a "constructing axiom systems" gene.
So - it is just not independent of our other traits.
Now there is something that evolution can do here. What it can do is to tone down, or increase, levels of awareness of other people's states.
So for instance, there are super-recognizers that can recognize other people's faces instantly - even if they only saw them once, ten years ago. And others who can spot even the tiniest nuances of facial expression, and spot micro-expressions that are so fleeting most people can't see them.
So - if you are like that - you will be hyper aware of everyone else's emotional states. So - you might ask - why aren't we all like that? Why is this not selected for, and a trait we all have?
Well - it might be evolution's way of toning down empathy - by making it not quite so easy to recognize other people's states of mind as it could be.
Maybe there is an evolutionary advantage to be less empathic. but if so, - it can't do anything about that, as we have no "empathy gene". So, evolution can't prevent a rational feeling person's natural empathy for others and wish to help others.
So instead - perhaps it just makes it a little harder for us to know what others are feeling. But doesn't eliminate that ability totally - because that would make us socially disfunctional, not able to interact with others easily at all.
It can also select for people prone to other emotions that mask empathy, such as anger, or possessiveness etc. When you are under grip of one of those emotions, then again - like the people who are poor at recognizing faces and expressions but for a different reason -, it makes you less aware of others emotions, and when you do recognize them, to care less about them also.
But - this again - first - there's no "anger gene" either not really. May be genes that make you more prone to anger or more competitive. No doubt that genes can make a difference to mood, in the same way, also drugs can also. And also - can lead to e.g. a body that is continually in pain or whatever. And - how our bodies and minds react when we are angry - the changes in various hormones etc - that's a result of evolution, yes.
But any particular outburst of anger - that's not the direct result of the genes. It's due to a complex interaction with the things around you, and your perception of the situation you are in, and your understanding of how they impact on you, and many other things. And these can be addressed by reason.
So evolution can't "make you angry". There is no "gene for anger" that can be switched on and off. But could select for creatures that, because of various hormones and so forth (e.g. testosterone) are more competitive and more likely to get angry.
However - there are disadvantages in being too angry or posessive or whatever in a social creature, so - again - evolution can't just tone the dial right up there, as it were.
If we were all like Klingons (in Star Trek), we might have less expression of empathy in society, true - but would have many other issues such as more wars and battles and more killing of each other. So that might not be such a brilliant thing for evolution to select for.
Similarly if we were all like Ferengis (again in Star Trek), possessive, main aim to increase profit, so strong that it masks almost all other emotions - again - in some ways such creatures might do well, but in other ways might be at a severe disadvantage faced with others who don't have those traits and can work with each other better and trust each other better, and co-operate more.
And - we also have equally strong tendency to be compassionate, and caring and loving. And those also are supported, in our bodies, by many hormonal changes and other effects.
And - the upshot is - that none of this is your own decision or any kind of contract you have entered into, or even any kind of an "evolutionary instinct".
What you have, what all humans have, is natural empathy for others, and a wish to help others (including non humans). Everyone, in all societies, has this. Including also non human creatures as well. I am sure that ETs will also have this, as soon as they reach the point where they can reason and appreciate other beings' states of minds.
It can be obscured by other emotions, and it can be hidden also if for one reason or another you simply are not aware of the emotional states of others and see them just as a blank indecipherable canvas. But at some level it will be there.
And we also have ability to reason, and to understand things. And - we have a body that is superbly equipped for reasoning, and empathy - which is ours as a result of evolution, true. But what we do with it - that is entirely our own choice.
We have a strong wish to stay alive - that's reasonably instinctive - e.g. if you find you can't breath, you will put every last effort you have into finding a way to breath again. But when our life is not in immediate danger - we don't have any evolutionary instinct particularly.
Tale a dolphin for example. As a result of evolution, it has a body that is superbly adapted to swim in the sea.
(from wikipedia, File:DuskyDolphin.jpg - Wikimedia Commons - by AllenMcC.)
But - when it is swimming and leaping like this - do you think the dolphin is giving any thought to how it's body will evolve in the future? It has nothing to do with that. It's not motivated by the wish for its descendants to have a body that is fitter for swimming or jumping.
It is just doing its dolphin thing, and then it may have progeny, or it may not but some of its relatives may - and if dolphins with bodies that are better at swimming have healthier offspring that survive longer - then those traits continue.
Do you think it even gives any thought at all to survival of the species or of its genes? It might not even know clearly how it happens - just acts under instinct - and at some point you get baby dolphins, and it then responds to that situation as well when it occurs.
So in the same way - we just do our human thing. And some people might give no thought at all to survival of the species, and certainly - not motivated by the wish to propogate their genes. Until recently no-one even knew that we had DNA :).
So - the question is on another level - does natural selection favour people who think in particular ways?
Can natural selection select for people who don't want to help other species and defenceless creatures, and unrelated humans?
That then is an interesting question. You'd think that if it could - that those people would survive better - and so after a period of time, humans and other species that had no care at all for defenseless creatures would be the ones that win out.
But - the thing is again - that evolution can't select for just one trait independently of other things. The result has to work together as a complete organism.
Take for example, the dolphin again. The requirement to move quickly through the water forces a particular shape. All the fast moving species in the sea have basically fish like shapes, sleek, pointed at the nose and so on.
So - for instance - maybe it would be better for a dolphin to have a really huge mouth, two meters wide, to make it easier to catch things. But that would interfere with the streamlining of its body.
The eye has evolved many times in different organisms - but all are based on a few basic structures.
Flying birds and bats both share a similar shape - of a body with head at front, and two wings.
In the same way - once you have a creature that is able to think and reason - and feel things - then that's a complete package.
So - if the process of evolution makes it aware of the feelings of others - and other creatures also - it will function much better as a social creature - but it will also have greater empathy and sensitivity to others in distress including helpless creatures.
If it makes it capable of rational thought, then it will come up with a notion of truth - and that leads to maths and physics - and a creature that can count, and prove Pythagoras theorem, and understand the origins of the universe. None of those are of any immediate survival value - yes may turn out to be eventually - for the species as a whole - but - not acting immediately.
When, for instance, Euclid worked out the axioms of euclidean geometry - it didn't help his own genes to survive particularly. And was not a result of a process of evolution that favoured mathematicians over other people who could not work out axiom systems. It's not that working out an axiom system has survival value. Rather - that - evolution lead to creatures able to reason - and one of the consequences of reasoning is that you can work out axiom systems.
So in the same way - one of the consequences of being able to reason, and also being able to have intuitive understanding of "what it feels like to be in someone else's shoes" - e.g. if someone is crying, to understand that they are sad and to feel that - not just see it as a visual pattern you don't understand - as soon as you have both of those - then - as living aware reasoning empathic creatures, then we will want to help others.
There is no way for evolution to do anything about this. There is no "helping others" gene, no more than there is a "constructing axiom systems" gene.
So - it is just not independent of our other traits.
Now there is something that evolution can do here. What it can do is to tone down, or increase, levels of awareness of other people's states.
So for instance, there are super-recognizers that can recognize other people's faces instantly - even if they only saw them once, ten years ago. And others who can spot even the tiniest nuances of facial expression, and spot micro-expressions that are so fleeting most people can't see them.
So - if you are like that - you will be hyper aware of everyone else's emotional states. So - you might ask - why aren't we all like that? Why is this not selected for, and a trait we all have?
Well - it might be evolution's way of toning down empathy - by making it not quite so easy to recognize other people's states of mind as it could be.
Maybe there is an evolutionary advantage to be less empathic. but if so, - it can't do anything about that, as we have no "empathy gene". So, evolution can't prevent a rational feeling person's natural empathy for others and wish to help others.
So instead - perhaps it just makes it a little harder for us to know what others are feeling. But doesn't eliminate that ability totally - because that would make us socially disfunctional, not able to interact with others easily at all.
It can also select for people prone to other emotions that mask empathy, such as anger, or possessiveness etc. When you are under grip of one of those emotions, then again - like the people who are poor at recognizing faces and expressions but for a different reason -, it makes you less aware of others emotions, and when you do recognize them, to care less about them also.
But - this again - first - there's no "anger gene" either not really. May be genes that make you more prone to anger or more competitive. No doubt that genes can make a difference to mood, in the same way, also drugs can also. And also - can lead to e.g. a body that is continually in pain or whatever. And - how our bodies and minds react when we are angry - the changes in various hormones etc - that's a result of evolution, yes.
But any particular outburst of anger - that's not the direct result of the genes. It's due to a complex interaction with the things around you, and your perception of the situation you are in, and your understanding of how they impact on you, and many other things. And these can be addressed by reason.
So evolution can't "make you angry". There is no "gene for anger" that can be switched on and off. But could select for creatures that, because of various hormones and so forth (e.g. testosterone) are more competitive and more likely to get angry.
However - there are disadvantages in being too angry or posessive or whatever in a social creature, so - again - evolution can't just tone the dial right up there, as it were.
If we were all like Klingons (in Star Trek), we might have less expression of empathy in society, true - but would have many other issues such as more wars and battles and more killing of each other. So that might not be such a brilliant thing for evolution to select for.
Similarly if we were all like Ferengis (again in Star Trek), possessive, main aim to increase profit, so strong that it masks almost all other emotions - again - in some ways such creatures might do well, but in other ways might be at a severe disadvantage faced with others who don't have those traits and can work with each other better and trust each other better, and co-operate more.
And - we also have equally strong tendency to be compassionate, and caring and loving. And those also are supported, in our bodies, by many hormonal changes and other effects.
And - the upshot is - that none of this is your own decision or any kind of contract you have entered into, or even any kind of an "evolutionary instinct".
What you have, what all humans have, is natural empathy for others, and a wish to help others (including non humans). Everyone, in all societies, has this. Including also non human creatures as well. I am sure that ETs will also have this, as soon as they reach the point where they can reason and appreciate other beings' states of minds.
It can be obscured by other emotions, and it can be hidden also if for one reason or another you simply are not aware of the emotional states of others and see them just as a blank indecipherable canvas. But at some level it will be there.
And we also have ability to reason, and to understand things. And - we have a body that is superbly equipped for reasoning, and empathy - which is ours as a result of evolution, true. But what we do with it - that is entirely our own choice.
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