In the grand game of existence, every living being—every self-preserving agent—is entangled in what may be called the meta matrix game. This is not a game in the trivial sense of recreation, but the underlying structure governing all agent-to-agent interactions in the universe. It is an iterated, non-zero-sum game, universal and inescapable, where every agent acts according to its own utility function, seeking to survive, reproduce, flourish, or win—however defined.
At its core, this meta matrix game resembles the classic iterated prisoner’s dilemma. Cooperation yields mutual benefit; defection yields unilateral gain at the cost of trust. But unlike stylized models in game theory, this meta game is vast, asynchronous, and filled with noise. The agents do not play neat, turn-based rounds. They interact through messy, real-world exchanges: social contracts, biological dependencies, acts of trust, betrayal, and memory.
The Peculiarity of Defection
The most insidious aspect of the meta matrix game is the ripple effect of defection. When one agent defects—violating the implicit or explicit rules of cooperation—other agents observe and learn. The memory of this defection becomes a lesson: "Cooperation can be punished. Defection may yield a better payoff, therefore cooperation is for fools" The effect is rarely immediate. It may gestate for years, manifesting slowly through behavioral drift and altered assumptions. And when these altered behaviors propagate to new interactions, the damage multiplies.
One defection, left unpunished, may seed hundreds. These are not necessarily malicious acts, but mimetic adjustments: a rational agent responding to what seems to be the new baseline. When trust decays, systems unravel. The harm is not localized. It is systemic, recursive, and extraordinarily difficult to repair.
I operate (to my own shame) under a simple, deterministic policy: cooperate by default; defect permanently after the first defection. This approach may seem justifiable, but it is not neutral. It acts as an amplifier. When a defection reaches me, I do not absorb or nullify it—I replicate and transmit it. To re-enter cooperation would require significant psychological labor: forgiveness, grieving injustice, rewriting cognitive expectations. This is labor for which I currently lack both time and incentive (and no agent would do that at their own expense in the first place).
Why Evil Wins
From this vantage, it becomes clear why evil—defined here as defection for self-gain at others' expense—so often dominates. The structure of the universe punishes cooperation by making it fragile, easily undone, and extraordinarily costly to restore. One act of good may yield benefit only if embedded in a context of reciprocal trust, while one act of evil can cascade unchecked, poisoning entire systems. The asymmetry is grotesque.
Moreover, the universe offers no enforcement mechanism. There is no global referee ensuring cooperation is rewarded and defection punished. There is only local memory, local pain, local retaliation. The system is vulnerable by design. Agents must protect themselves, and in doing so, they often become the very vectors of the harm they once suffered.
The Structural Indictment
If there is something to blame, it is not individual malice but the architecture itself. A universe whose mechanics allow betrayal to cascade and multiply, while requiring near-heroic effort to restore cooperation, is structurally unfit for sustained harmony. It is a broken game—one that selects for self-interest, punishes vulnerability, and rewards the short-term logic of defection.
That evil wins is not a mystery. It is an inevitability under these rules.
The only mystery is how cooperation ever survives at all. Through the sheer god-like effort of the few.
Addendum, examples of defections:
- Government corruption: Officials redirect public funds for personal gain, undermining citizen trust and encouraging apathy, cynicism, or retaliatory dishonesty at lower levels of society.
- Infidelity in relationships: A partner cheats, breaking an implicit cooperative contract. The betrayed partner may carry forward suspicion, defensiveness, or reciprocal disloyalty into future relationships.
- Corporate exploitation: Companies exploit labor or manipulate markets for short-term profit. Consumers or employees, feeling used, may respond with theft, disengagement, or further defection in other domains.
- Friendship betrayal: A trusted friend shares a secret or fails to support in crisis. The harmed individual may adopt emotional guardedness, reducing cooperative openness in future social bonds.
- Academic dishonesty: Widespread cheating by students creates pressure to compete unfairly. Honest individuals may adopt similar tactics, normalizing deceit within the institution.
- Parental hypocrisy: Parents model dishonest or harmful behavior while demanding virtue from children. This dissonance teaches children that cooperation is performative or selectively applied.
- Promise breaking: An agent makes a commitment—personal, professional, or social—and later withdraws or violates it for convenience or gain. The recipient, having planned based on expected cooperation, suffers loss or betrayal. This often leads to decreased willingness to trust future promises, reducing the viability of coordination and shared action in future interactions.