I really liked that one Study? Experiment? Whatever it was that had people program different strategies to play a game for them. It was a "game theory"/"prisoner's dilemma" type game. The kind where if you play nice you each win a little, but if you play mean you might both lose or you might win a lot.

Anyway, they made a whole bunch of AI type strategies that would compete and over time, the cutthroat or evil strategies would win in the short term, but over long term the cooperative play nice strategies always prevailed.

It may or may not be true, but I choose to believe that the best, most efficient, most beneficial strategy is always the one that favors cooperation, mutual aid, and forgiveness over cutthroat, deception, grudges.

Put another way, fighting and competition wastes more resources than it ever gains, cooperation and sharing is a better strategy.

I don't think that's true by itself. I think you also have to be good at pretending to be a "good" person (or at least only being "bad" to the out-group). We are social creatures. If someone is showing obvious antisocial behavior, they get shunned from the group.

the evil people always live to ripe old age to 100 while others is barely 70-90 on average. kissinger, murdoch all are well past 90.

It can seem like that, but the prisoner's dilemma breaks down when you realize that in the real world, interactions like that where people can get screwed over or not rarely happen once, and screwing someone over has consequences outside of that interaction.

Like, if a shop screws over customers, sure, on paper it seems to make sense because they are making money in each interaction, but people will stop going to that shop, and tell other people to never go there, eventually closing the shop.