The currently dominant theories of evolution and (relatedly enough) of rational choice are pretty categorical about the selfishness background of animal behavior, human behavior and evolutionary dynamics.

But it can be argued that "practice" does not agree with the theories. Animals do not appear obsessed with optimizing their food diet or with optimal reproduction. At least, there is certainly much satisfycing behavior, which helps to avoid collapses (aka "tragedies of commons") of surrounding ecosystems. Even neo-Darwinist theorists like Myanard-Smith noted that mutualist symbiotic relations are highly unspecific while parasitisms are very specific. This indicates that in nature generic goodness makes more sense than generic nastiness.

I could recommend the following book:

Peter A. Corning,
Holistic Darwinism: Synergy, Cybernetics, and the Bioeconomics of Evolution,
University of Chicago Press, 2005.

You can also browse through Corning's publications.

A more conventional book on "alternative" natural unselfishness theories is

Elliott Sober, David Sloan Wilson,
Unto others: the evolution and psychology of unselfish behavior,
Harvard University Press, 1999

I had "reviewed" a review of it recently. The introduction of Unto Others describes quite nicely a bit of the influence of standard recommendations for rational decision making. We have to assume that the financial sharks are very rational, even if they do not completely know (or want to know) what they are doing, or will destroy the civilization.