You've left out the downsides of Game #1, though I agree they are relatively mild and benign compared to the horrific downsides of Game #2.

One of my questions is, in the terms of your model - what parts of Game #1 can we play within Game #2, without Game #2 noticing enough to stop us, so that we start to build some culture that will be viable when Game #2 begins to collapse?

As someone who has tracked attempts to create "Game #1" communities for over two and a half decades, my observation is that Game #2 has obliterated most all niches in the world where Game #1 would be possible. In most places it is "illegal" in multiple ways, from zoning laws to building codes to financial barriers to the cultural construct of land as a commodity (all parts of the rules of Game #2). That last by itself - land as commodity - means Game #1 has no place to be played, even if we were capable of playing it.

Mostly we are not, because when we attempt to start these communities we find we do not know how to live Game #1. Not so much the lack of practical 'survival' skills that aboriginal children know by the age of five or six. More intractable is our hyper-individualistic "me" culture. There is no quick and easy switch from that to a Game #1 "we" culture of collaboration, implicit mutual support, and inherent interdependent social relatings. That is not who we are, and we cannot just become it all of a sudden.

So in theory this is speaking to a useful direction. In practice, there is scant if any space in Game #2 to start Game #1 communities. More fundamentally, we collectively suck at Game #1.

We can however focus on re-learning key elements of Game #1, without triggering the enforcers of Game #2, so that we have at least some start on Game #1 culture when Game #2 disintegrates.