“Creation, preservation, and destruction represent the universal forces present in all activity from the micro atomic and sub-atomic all the way to the macro cosmic. These dynamic forces have been recognised from the realms of evolutionary biology to spiritual transcendentalism as the most basic level of instinct or consciousness in the cycle of life as we know it. Whether it is at the level of a single cell, a multi-cellular organism (including human beings) or a collective of organisms, the basic instinct to create, preserve, and destroy is ever present. These dynamics are continuously in play in nature, in business (value creation, preservation, and destruction), and indeed in every aspect of life on this planet.” – Project P.O.P.E.
Value dynamics
In the context of the 21st century concept of Value, the dynamics of three universal forces, value creation, value preservation, and value destruction, mean that, rationally, in an increasingly volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) world, a sustainable future requires a specific focus on the interaction of all three.
While there is a multitude of literature specifically focused on value creation and a smaller amount on value preservation, there appears to be very little publicly available literature on value destruction. As a result, in the mainstream the concept of value destruction remains misunderstood, underexplored, and often lacks due consideration and formal discussion in the corporate boardroom and beyond.
Value destruction
Value destruction is not a new phenomenon and has been a fundamental force of existence, both positive and negative, throughout history. It is as old as human civilisation itself, during which time it has evolved, adapted, morphed, and mutated across historical epochs. In the dynamic environment of the 21st century, value destruction is increasingly complex and multi-dimensional. Today, it needs to be viewed as a matrix of interwoven dimensions, whereby one form may trigger or accelerate other forms, often in unpredictable ways.
Typically, value destruction refers to decisions, actions, or inactions which can erode, reduce, deplete, or eliminate different types of value (e.g. tangible and intangible), in different contexts (e.g. individuals, groups, organizations, and systems), and with different impacts (e.g. profit, people, and planet). It can be considered from both an active and passive perspective, depending on whether it is deliberate or unintentional. Passive value destruction arises unintentionally, often due to neglect, inaction, or a lack of oversight. Distinguishing between active and passive value destruction is critical to understanding whether damages and losses were the result of ignorance, systemic failure, or wilful intent.
Active value destruction (AVD)
Active value destruction refers to deliberate actions, decisions, or policies taken by individuals, groups, organizations, or states with the knowledge that they will lead to destruction of value (e.g. financial, manufactured, intellectual, human, social & relationship, and natural) but are pursued nonetheless due to perceived strategic, financial, political, or ideological benefits.
AVD itself can be constructive or destructive. Constructive AVD is rooted in the idea that progress often requires dismantling outdated, inefficient, or harmful systems to make room for innovation and renewal.
Destructive AVD, on the other hand, involves destroying value without the capacity, capability, or intention to rebuild, and is often enacted for short-term gain, power consolidation, revenge, ideology, or spite. This reflects a more malevolent side of AVD whereby value is sacrificed for narrow interests, leaving lasting collateral damage. It can occur as a result of misaligned incentives, ethical blind spots, and cultural dysfunction.
A focus on AVD challenges humanity to assess conscious trade-offs, power dynamics, strategic aggression, and systemic exploitation. It forces us to explore how intentionally harmful decisions or strategies can be driven by narrow self-interest in search of gain, manipulation, survival, or control. At the extreme end, destructive AVD can be viewed through a Machiavellian lens.
The Machiavellian incentive – the ends justify the means
For although the act condemns the doer, the end may justify him…
Niccolò Machiavelli
A Machiavellian framing of AVD shines a spotlight on the ethically corrosive dimensions of power in the 21st century, particularly as global complexity, asymmetrical warfare, and technological capabilities have evolved. It is sometimes referred to in terms of the black arts or the dark side of the force, due to its malevolent nature. It is often linked to wilful, deliberate, and malicious destruction of value.
It may involve rogue actors engaging in covert missions involving black ops and clandestine forces. Destructive AVD is typically adversarial and offensive, and can often be considered illegal, illicit, and unethical. It may be deceptive, occur in secrecy, and lurk in the shadows. In this context, AVD is not an unfortunate by-product but a core instrument of dominance, deception, and coercion.
This form of AVD is not merely competitive behaviour. It involves strategic domination through destruction, often cloaked in legality, secrecy, or complexity. Often it is not just what is done but how it is justified, concealed, or institutionalised that reveals its malevolent aspect.
Malicious actors may include state and non-state actors. State threat actors typically engage in activities such as cyber warfare, espionage, economic disruption, and military operations. Examples include foreign governments, hostile nations, military forces, state-sponsored terrorists, intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and other nation-state actors.
Non-state actors can wield significant influence in economic, political, technological, and social spheres. They may include corporate entities, ideological groups, cybercriminals, and extremists. Examples include disgruntled employees, vandals, saboteurs, terrorists, anarchists, activists, extremists, hackers, cybercriminals, organised crime, rivals, competitors, industrial spies, social engineers, and propagandists.
Malicious threat actors vary in intention, commitment, and motivation. They may be driven by values, beliefs, morals, and ethics, or by visions, missions, and strategies. Their reasons for seeking destruction of value are usually rooted in manipulation for power, profit, or ideology.
In 2025, malicious AVD does not appear to be fringe behaviour. It appears embedded in the cultural DNA of some dominant players. It is often camouflaged in complexity, accelerated by technology, and justified through narratives of national interest, market survival, or ideological victory.
Malicious AVD in an age of AI
A recent article A Theory of Universal Defense addressed how, in 2025, advances in AI technology have the power to enhance and potentially turbocharge defence management capabilities across diverse domains. While this is potentially positive, the flip side also requires consideration.
Malevolent foresight
It seems logical to assume that progressive malicious actors at national and global levels are already incorporating futures thinking and strategic foresight as core competencies. It also seems logical that they are using AI-powered technology to amplify and turbocharge value destruction.
AI-powered AVD
The potential of AI-powered AVD to transform the competency and capability of threat actors, and to augment their destructive activities across physical, digital, cognitive, and societal domains, requires due consideration and should not be underestimated.
While no universally accepted value destruction framework exists, threat actors can hack, invert, and reverse engineer value preservation activities to develop their own frameworks, manuals, and playbooks. AI may also help them devise new, sophisticated methods of value destruction.
Given the asymmetric nature of value destruction, this weaponisation of AI represents a paradigm shift. It may not be an incremental improvement but the next stage in its evolution, enabling actors to operate at previously unattainable levels. Unless appropriate steps are taken, the only limit may be how quickly threat actors adapt AI for this purpose.
Existential risk in a dystopian world
In a world that increasingly resembles a dystopian novel, where the rule of law is disappearing, humanity appears to be descending into self-inflicted chaos. The notion of expert teams of malicious actors, backed by substantial resources and focused on exploiting AI-powered value destruction, should concern not only corporate boardrooms but humanity in general (governments, civil society, and business).
One can imagine how modern equivalents of the Borgias (Machiavelli’s inspiration), or of Sun Tzu or Clausewitz, might use advances in AI to develop strategies, tactical plans, and operational execution in offence, warfare, and destruction.
On top of this, the idea that AI itself may one day become the dominant malevolent actor is unsettling. This existential threat is why the issue cannot be ignored. We cannot turn a blind eye as we descend into the abyss. AI safety and governance need to be addressed at a global level before we reach the tipping point.
The author
Sean Lyons, Value preservation & corporate defence author, pioneer, and thought leader
