For the first time in a long time, I will keep my commentary on a particular news story rather brief.  Reason being: the more I think about this story the more it bugs me. 

Here’s my rant and then I need to get back to work: giving generously to others for the purpose of gaining something personally in return is not generous giving; it’s called self-serving at minimum, not disintrested somewhere in the middle and deceitful at maximum.  In effect, that sort of (as they call it: ‘self-interested’) giving demeans the very nature of generosity.  The result of their definition of generosity and the reasons for its practice is that genuine acts of generosity will then be (by default) considered suspect.


  1. I only read the abstract on the Biology Letters site, so it’s not clear why ‘profitable cooperative partnership’ is defined as competitive altruism and if ‘generosity’ was a keyword supplied by the journalist, rather than the researchers.

    1. Fair enough about the possibility of journalistic license. However, the grrrrr-ness of my rant would still apply in that I remain a bit miffed by the idea of seeing generosity as a means for personal gain. The only difference, then, would be the target of my grrrrr.

Leave a Reply to carl sweatman Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s