That makes no sense. In order for someone to have reproductive success it is necessary for them to survive in the first place. Obviously if someone altruistically gives up their life then their future reproductive success is zero.
You also have to look at human society. From the evidence we do have it appears that humans evolved as social animals, groups that worked together to hunt and gather food. We also need to raise our children to adulthood which can take quite a few years.
So what if we have a situation where both of us could die, or I can act in a certain way where I die but you live. Being that you are part of my tribe you are contributing food and shelter to my children. By saving you, even if it requires my death, I am increasing the likelyhood that my genes will make it into the next generation. If both of us die then my chances decrease.
I don't see any evolutionary advantage in what the crow, or the gorilla for that matter, have for displaying what appear to be similar emotional behaviour as humans.
The minor disadvantages that these instincts and behaviors cause is swamped by the advantages that they offer. Yes, our instinctual nurturing behavior may cause us to do some things that are maladaptive, but this ignores the huge advantages that these evolved instincts do afford.
As an analogy, you are arguing that our brains are maladaptive because they use up more of our total energy stores compared to other species. What you would be ignoring are the great advantages that our big, hungry brains do afford us.
™ Version 4.2
