One needs a context for describing "productivity" - what a surprise to me to find that in a discussion of capitalism and communism you include apes and wolves.
You said, "Productivity is related to genetics. For example, compare a human to an ape... difference in learning ability mainly explained by differences in genetics. Or compare me to my classmates in high school. I'd listen to the lecture, assist the teacher when he made mistakes, not study, and get 100% on the psychology/math/science exam. My classmates were unable to identify when the teacher made a mistake, spent hours studying, and get 70-90% on the exam. You want to argue that the difference between the human and the ape, or me and my classmates, is not due to genes?"
Since neither capitalism nor communism are systems that will ever be implimented or chosen or rejected by critters other than humans, let me declare that my context is humans - only humans. That way we have an apple to apple comparison. And the answer to your question is, "No." Productivity is not due to genetics. All of the important parts of productivity come from ideas, efforts, personal virtues and an environment friendly to property rights.
I've met many people far smarter than I am who have been less productive. I have met a lot of people who are not nearly as smart as I am and yet they have been far more productive. Our culture supports property rights far better than some countries which frustrate attempts for their people, despite intelligence, creative ideas, great character traits and lots of efforts they remain unproductive.
Because you mistakenly place human productivity in the genes, you fall prey to a belief that values, principles and ideas also are passed along with the DNA... I don't think you hold that belief explictly, but following a statement relating productivity to genetics, you go on to discuss welfare people having more children. Because humans are volitional and rational they create a culture and subcultures and family belief structures and they pass these on the next generation (some of whom accept it all uncritically, but others take just part of, none of).
People choose to have more children or fewer children or none at all based upon the values and goals they set. Catholics can be very productive, yet have very large families. And you can easily find total failures and great successes in life that have no childen.
You wrote, "I strive to to create a philosophy and laws that work well across the span of intelligence of life forms."
I kidded you on that because it shouldn't have been taken seriously. What are the laws you want the this or that species of insects to create for themselves. To be universal, I assume each species makes its own laws (a principle of representation, after all). Wouldn't seem fair for us to make everyone's laws when we are having such trouble even agreeing on our own. We who are Objectivists base our philosophy on value of the individual's life and the capacity to choose. Once you can show us a being that is capable of choice and will be in contact with humans, then you have a reality for which a broader philosophic context is applicable and required.
"What portion has(/will) each member of the pack contributed(/expected to contribute) towards the success of the pack? This should determine the portion of the food to divy up to each member."
You went on to say, "This goes for human employees in a business, wolves in a pack, humans in a society, ... to optimize productivity and success of the individuals and the long term success of the group the individuals are a part of."
That first part, when applied to humans, who have choice, and who should be operating off of a system of universal values that is objectively derived from man's life qua man would would instead be attempting to apply a system of: "From those according to their abilities (alpha wolf skills), to those according to their needs."
Next you apply that to business with the purpose of optimizing the individual AND group successes. But it doesn't work that way. If you mix your premises (for the benefit of the business/group, for the benefit of the alpha wolf, for the teleological "purpose" of evolution) you just get mixed premises and confused results.
(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 3/19, 8:04pm)