In this case they do. According to his theory a species is not only entitled but demanded to do anything in their power for further survival. No matter the fall out to other species. Other wise his whole theory falls apart once you limit a species to moral considerations for other species. For at that point you no longer have survival of the fittest but of the willing. Which throws out the theory.
Holding your breath til you trun blue does not make your assertion true.
Theories about how things work are not prescriptive.
At best (or worst) they enable us to do things we would not be able to do without them.
But humans were causing extinctions long before Darwin, and will continue doing so.
“According to his theory a species is not only entitled but demanded to do anything in their power for further survival. No matter the fall out to other species. Other wise his whole theory falls apart once you limit a species to moral considerations for other species. For at that point you no longer have survival of the fittest but of the willing. Which throws out the theory.”
This would have serious implications for environmentalists and conservationists. Since there is a huge cross-section between environmentalists and evolution proponents, this sets up a major cognitive dissonance.
I suppose the “willing”, as you put it, do NOT survive because they do not serve self-interest. This has parallel applications to the lazier faire economics vs Keynesian economic approaches. Keynes would argue, as would environmentalists, that taking into consideration of others is, in fact, self-interest. It is a social system argument.