Cooperation built the Tower of Babel.

p t w f t t a ( i “ t T t b o D C I o i c d b i According to the narrative in the genesis the Tower of Babel as built in a cooperative effort by a united humanity to reach the eavens. God, disapproving this intention confused the tongues f the builders and hindered further cooperation to complete heir aim. West et al. (2007) and Bergmüller et al. (2007) strived to conuse our tongues and turn “cooperation” into a faux-pas word. ou certainly know the feeling when the pen in your hand is not oving as required because the word you intend to put down on aper is so nasty, scandalous or politically incorrect that you fear omeone could suddenly peek over your shoulders and see the ondemnable? The rather innocent and hitherto positively felt erm “cooperation” is in danger to mutate to such a taboo. West et l. (2007) “prefer that a behaviour is only classed as cooperation f that behaviour is selected for because of its beneficial effect on he recipient.” Bergmüller et al. (2007) go further and propose hat a distinction should be made between the words “cooperaion”, which should in their view denote “an interaction between ndividuals that results in net benefits for all of the individuals nvolved” from “cooperative behaviour”, which they define “as n act performed by one individual that increases the fitness of nother”, allowing to have either a direct positive or negative ffect on the actor’s fitness. This means that “cooperative interction” and “cooperative action” has no similar meaning any ore—in the first case, fitness consequences need to be postive to both parties, while in the second case only one party eeds to benefit while the other one can be subject to any fitness onsequences, including none. Now, when your 3-year-old daughter is helping you doing he dishes, this cannot be called cooperation any more. It annot be called a “cooperative behaviour” or “help” either, ecause ultimately, her well-intended behaviour will probably ot affect the recipient (and perhaps also the donor) in any ositive way. Poor little thing, how can we call her behaviour hen? Byproduct-pseudo-mutualism, or – more simply – spite?