Something which does not exist cannot be changed. So in that way, yes. You don't gain or lose anything, you just recognize that nothing is there. Survival does not contradict no self. This is a very common conflation, but the idea that "no distinction" means you stop doing things is just not accurate.

There is survival, and there is a recognition of survival, but there is no need for a self in the equation. There is uniqueness, which you seem to take as "self."

The world is actually comprised of physical and biological "motivations" which have nothing to do with a self. For example, you do not need to imagine yourself to feel physical pain, because physical pain is not imagined. You do not need to imagine yourself to prefer the taste of vanilla over chocolate, because taste is not imagined. It is specifically the motivations which stem from imagining yourself, which are self. The rest are just existential and biological occurrences.

You are doing something similar to looking at a tree or plant, and then saying "it has a self because it is trying to survive." You are anthropomorphizing it. The plant organism is simply operating in the world with its own unique intelligence, and that does not involve imagining or perceiving a self at all.

I think part of what drives this conflation is the sense of control you think that you have. When you feel pain from touching a hot stove, you think that "you" moved your hand away, and so then you attribute that with a self. The part where you physically moved your hand away is not self, but the part where you think that you did that is self, because you are imagining ownership over the experience.