I think your reasoning is sound, but one problem I see with your suggestion to optimize for odds of survival is that it would reward societies that most would consider incredibly unethical.

As a simplistic example, imagine a scenario where 10,000 of the richest, most intelligent, and most physically fit wipe out the rest of the human race and establish a high-tech self-sustaining town from which they live full happy lives and conduct research on how to face existential threats to the species. Reproduction is allowed, but every cohort of children goes through a Hunger-Games-style test when they reach a certain age to keep the population stable and select for the fittest children.

Wouldn't that be a more survival-optimized society? Would it be a society you'd want to live in?