I am not a biologist, and don't have much technical knowledge of biology. That being said, having observed the real world, it seems that, at least for mammals, human beings seem to "care" more about their offspring than other mammals might. One reason, of course, is the fact that human babies/children require more assistance than other mammal babies.
Imagine, however, that at any given point in time, we can summarize the resources that a mammal needs as $X$. A fraction of that $X$, call it $x=F/X$ goes towards the children. This could be for human beings, the fraction of income devoted each period to the child, for lions the fraction of meat given to cubs etc. If a species gives $x=0$, then trivially, the species dies out. If a species gives out $x=1$, the species might still die out because it can only donate resources for one period, and the infant may not be able to fend for itself next period.
If one were to plot this $x$ over time across species, it would necessarily decrease, as the infants become autonomous eventually.
Is there any empirical work that correlates such a measure of "devotion of resources" to long-term survival of the species? In other words, are those species that survive long term best able to calibrate this $x$ to an optimal one to maximize survivability?