The Canary in the Mine: Game Theory as Diagnostic Instrument for the Erosion of Human Agency

Game theory is typically treated as a predictive tool for strategic interaction. When its predictions fail, we assume model misspecification and seek refinements. I propose a different interpretation: game theory's foundational assumptions formalize the structural conditions of human agency, and their erosion explains why the models fail. The four core assumptions—separate players with distinct preferences, imperfect information, bounded rationality, and minimal symmetry in affecting outcomes—correspond to conditions that must hold for agency to exist. When these conditions erode through technological change, institutional design, or market dynamics, individual agency collapses into higher-level optimization systems. Like a canary in a coal mine, game theory's failures signal the erosion of the conditions that make human agency possible. This reinterpretation transforms game theory from a predictive tool into a diagnostic instrument for identifying threats to individual autonomy and the structural conditions of free choice.