Thinman wrote:
We're all looking out for our own personal genome, not the good of the species.
See, here you are wrong. Your idea of Evolution seems to be based on Classical Darwinism, which was itself a product of 19th-century England. The interpretation of a scientific theory is sometimes dependent on the social environment in which the theory is developed, and Darwinism, in its original form, is a prime example of this. The original proponents of evolutionary theory were almost exclusively British, and the Britain of Darwin's time was fiercely laissez-faire capitalistic. As such, early evolutionary theorists (including Darwin) tended to emphasize the competitive aspects of evolution - "survival of the fittest" and all that.
However, later theorists (such as Peter Kropotkin) would contend that, at least within individual species, evolution encourages cooperation much more than competition. Anyone who studies a colony of ants, a hive of bees, or even a pack of wolves has to conclude that cooperation often ensures evolutionary survival. Remember that the "evolutionary goal"* of every individual is passing on vis own genes, not preventing others from passing on theirs.
Also keep in mind that relatives possess genes in common. Thus, if an animal sacrifices vis life to save two of vis siblings, and those siblings go on to have offspring, this would be just as "good"* for the animal as if ve had survived verself. This is the principle upon which ant colonies are founded - the worker drones are sterile, but by protecting their colony they are insuring that their queen, who shares half of their genes, goes on to reproduce.
* I really hate using terms like these, since they assign teleological significance to evolutionary processes, and thus anthropomorphize nature. But saying that an animal "wants" to pass on vis genes or that this is its "evolutionary goal" is a lot easier than saying that animals that do not do this wind up having less of a genetic impact on the next generation than those who do. What can I say, I'm lazy.