It's not my definition. I agree with the definition you posted which I assume is from a dictionary. As I said, we agree on the altruism definition. You don't appear to understand the relationship between reproduction, fitness, and benefit. Longevity is meaningless unless it leads to more chances for reproduction. Consider a suite of genes that will enhance longevity at the cost of reproduction, i.e. individuals can live longer if they don't reproduce. How long do you think those genes will last in a population? One generation! Once those individual carriers are gone so are those genes. Genes like that can't evolve because the carriers don't reproduce! Their fitness is ZERO! The question is, how can altruistic traits evolve in a population? How can a trait that sacrifices one's fitness to increase the fitness of another, evolve? Answer, if the benefit to the sacrificer's fitness is greater than the fitness cost of the sacrifice. This is the only way! I don't. I conclude that because you said, "It is not incomplete because genetic propogation has nothing to do with benefits for the individual. There simply is no benefit there," and "One's fitness is NOT a benefit to the organism," and "reproduction is actually an expense to life. There are even some animals which die immediately after reproducing. This cannot be a benefit to the individual."