I didn't say "personal survival." I said "survival." That can encompass many things. It may be the survival of your genetics through your children. It might be the survival of your beliefs. It could just mean the survival of the species. It depends, largely, upon how a person defines the essence of their being.
Also, it does not preclude principled, non-aggressive behavior. In fact, it encourages it through a process called "enlightened self interest." While it may be immediately more advantageous for a person to steal, murder, etc., those sorts of behaviors create a large degree of resentment among others that dramatically threaten the perpetrator's well-being in the long run. So, in the interest of survival, of any sort, the Golden Rule, or some variation upon it (like the NAP), becomes wholly necessary in order to prevent most aggression against oneself.
This way of thinking promotes adaptability, not stagnation. Yes, the seasons change, so people must learn to change with the seasons in order to survive and perpetuate whatever aspects of themselves that they believe are most important. If these defining elements of being do not include defending them, they will die, which, ultimately, makes them irrelevant, in practical terms, to the living.
This is why enforcement of responsibilities is necessary. That is not government, it is survival. For instance, if someone murders my family when I'm not there to defend them, I will immediately reject any sort of principle or moral theory that asserts that they are ethically protected from any sort of reprisal or punishment. I'm not saying that anything I would want to do to that person is necessarily justified, but, in general, the idea that "immoral" actions can only be opposed when they are actively in progress is critically flawed.
The methods of determining and enforcing responsibility are entirely up for debate, but, without some sort of mechanism for justice, there is no possible way for this belief system to sustain itself.