Humans are not simple survival machines, we do things all the time that do not benefit or directly contribute to the survival of any one or all of: ourselves as individuals, our populations, our species, or other species. For whatever reason (culture, genes, hormones) we have appetites for meaning, what some may call a will to power. Survival does not entirely explain why people enslave or liberate one another, for example. We seek some balance between comfort and convenience on the one hand, and purposeful effort and useful behavior on the other, which may vary by individual. Material conditions and the culture around us shape structures, outlets, incentives, and obstacles relating to motivation.
I believe humans have a process of self-actualization: we need to feel a sense of agency in decisions that affect us, a sense of belonging to a group, a sense of participation in a culture, a sense of effort achieving reward, a sense of competence in our abilities, a sense of recognition of our contributions, a sense of confidence in our place, a sense of respect from our peers, and a sense of engagement (losing oneself in a task). Certain exceptions might exist, especially for preferences for duration, frequency, and intensity, but for the most part ignoring these appetites leads people to insanity, misery, and death.
Human evolution has shaped us to find a place in face-to-face communities; rarely do people without severe trauma or an inhospitable culture focus totally on their own individual self, and rarely in history has anyone ever lived only for themself.
Various anthropological ethnographies, and sociological and psychological studies, as well as many peoples' lived experiences outside of the dominant culture, refute the assumptions that humans inherently seek hierarchical power and attempt to maximize their consumption. The books "Limited Wants, Unlimited Means" and "Anarchy Works" address these specific issues.
Societies determine whether individuals' efforts will achieve zero-sum rewards. Class stratified and competition-based societies create zero-sum relationships of parasitism. For example, the more healthy I am, the less money pharmaceutical companies can make; they profit off of my continued sickness. In egalitarian societies, individual contributions can create mutual aid; the healthier my comrades are, the more opportunities and gifts I may receive from their livelihoods, therefore I have an incentive to ensure their health or at least aid in such efforts as best I can. I might also just love them. We also make voluntary "sacrifices" because we feel a sense of purpose in doing so, losing leisure and hobby time to comfort loved ones on their deathbed. Even in the dominant cultures this exists everywhere it is not actively suffocated by the logic of official authorities, competitive markets, specialized separation of roles, a mass society of strangers, and other destructive institutions or dynamics.
Also, I have never seen a child without curiosity and playfulness, at least before school destroyed those. If we allowed these traits to flourish rather than suppress them, I believe they would create opportunities for socially-beneficial behavior meaningful to the individual intrinsically. The book "the Continuum Concept" covers this ethnographically, and the essay "the Abolition of Work" deals with it more theoretically.
