I was playing noughts and crosses with Dylan and we both happily thwarted each other from winning the game. Then I said to Dylan, imagine if we cooperated we could have as many rows of noughts and crosses we could ever wish for. Then I added it would be boring and we would probably have no reason to play the game ever again. If you had unlimited noughts and crosses it would be inflationary and lose value.

Cooperation I suppose is useful for smaller teams, say a team of architects, engineers and builders. When you look at competition in a flat way it seems meaningless. Although it supposedly brings out the best in people. Or is it really the worst in people? If you look at Olympian, National, State and regional levels of competitive sports you actually have mostly losers rather than winners. Yet each tier of losers is somewhat higher and lower than other losers.

It seems odd that people would bother with this stuff and in fact a lot of people need it to give their lives purpose, even if they are losing the whole time. So if me and Dylan both lose the game we are happier than either one of us winning. That is kind of sad and if we were to cooperate even though we theoretically have everything we need it would be a listless and irksome situation. It reminds of something my Dad would always say, there are always people ready to outsmart you.