Compassion vs competition

I am constantly troubled by the competitiveness of some people to the point that there seems to be no compassion. It's argued that 'competition is healthy it drives development and the advancement of human progress.' But somehow there is a deeper endemic problem. It is a form of Darwinism’s Survival of the fittest thinking. This sees that all life is ultimately competitive. Biologists have known that the natural tendency of the animal population is to explode, but the limited food supply keep them in check. When there are too many consumers then some will starve to death. In order to survive, animals must compete for food, killing each other if need be or simply starving out the competitors.

Thomas Malthus took this to a logical conclusion that giving food to the poor or starving was self-defeating, since it would simply support population growth and create more of the same hunger and misery that welfare or aid was meant to relieve. Of course we say that Malthus’ deduction was inhumane but when we look globally there are so many disguised versions still around. I hear the economic argument “We can’t afford to do this” so frequently nowadays. Often it is not as if the money is not available, it simply means "I think to spend the money would be a waste".

Unfortunately this “survival of the fittest” thinking does not merely apply to food. I think of a nest of recently hatched baby eagles. If there is a third hatchling often the others will peck and drive it from the nest to certain death. In human families this may be competition for the love of parents for needs to be met or affirmation or simply attention from the limited time resources of the parents. But does life have to competitive in fact is this symptomatic of individualistic societies or is this plain selfishness?

Do we have to live in survival of the fittest thinking? I've aware of increasing deductions from ethology into comparative psychology and then applied to human behaviour as normative and acceptable. For example we can talk in dog/wolf terms of alpha males and alpha females in a fight for social supremacy or the social pecking order, if we draw on bird research. It initially is a label for behaviour and personality but it quickly becomes an excuse for patterns of behaviour lacking compassion. There is no possible critique of the behaviour. Where does altruism and even love and multi-perspectivism fit into this worldview?

Much less quoted is research into animal altruism. For example, dogs often adopt orphaned animals from outside their species such as cats etc, and dolphins etc have rescued human beings at risk to themselves. Research and attempts to theorize about altruism in evolutionary terms have ended in the theories of kin selection and reciprocal altruism, where there is argued a benefit to the group or both parties involved and within survival. But in animals can this truly be altruism. The Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy notes "In evolutionary biology, an organism is said to behave altruistically when its behaviour benefits other organisms, at a cost to itself." We should note it is not risk but cost to itself. Strangely we would more call this sacrificial love, a care for the weaker, the exercise of compassion.

In human behaviour terms, competitive behaviour outside the scheduled competition is simply bad manners. If the person was a child a reprimand and corrective would be sought. Humans are not merely animals but agents from whom we can expect responsible behaviour which includes compassion. I haven't even started thinking about humility and pride etc yet. Am I asking too much to expect that compassion has a higher value than winning in the human race?