Let's more closely examine these two decisions:

Sophistication of the tools aside, what else is fundamentally different from the otter and the space race in the 1960s?

If we visit our friend Victor Maslow's hierarchy of needs, one might point out that the otter was simply fulfilling a basic need while United States government was seeking fulfillment of a much higher need. As humans, we have the distinct advantage of being able to predict and influence outcomes to fulfill objectives that other tool-using animals do not. While the otter is simply operating out of a genetically instinctual framework, we have the opportunity to be much more holistic in our decision making.

Let's revisit the ranchers from the 1970s. Just as those ranchers observed first-hand that they couldn't continue with a singular focus in mind, we can also apply how we've failed in some way or another over the course of our lives when we became too myopic and didn't consider the effects of our decisions on other outcomes. By adding in the components of considering other factors like the other people or financial resources involved (our context), then aligning that with the objectives that you're aiming to achieve (checking your actions) you turn the the genetically embedded framework into a holistic one.

Take a look at a simple compare and contrast between the two frameworks:

The primary difference in the frameworks lies in the understanding of your context and checking your actions against that context to ensure they're in alignment.