Natural vs Constructed Sports: A Philosophical Exploration of Human Movement

[Davino]

In contemplating the nature of sports, we can draw an interesting distinction between heavily constructed sports (like golf or basketball) that exist purely through social agreement and rule-setting, versus more fundamental physical activities that emerge from basic human survival needs.

To explore this concept, I propose a thought experiment: imagine being the only human alive, with no access to historical or cultural knowledge. What physical activities would naturally emerge? This helps identify the most basic, biologically-driven forms of human movement:

Running/Sprinting: Whether escaping threats or pursuing food, this fundamental movement pattern is deeply encoded in our evolutionary history

Swimming: Essential for crossing water bodies and accessing aquatic resources

Fighting/Self-defense: The need to protect oneself and hunt naturally lead to combat skills

Climbing: A crucial ability for accessing resources, finding safety, and navigating terrain

Throwing: A uniquely human adaptation vital for hunting and defense

Lifting/Carrying: Basic survival requires moving materials, food, and water

These activities aren't "sports" until humans add rules and social context, but they represent our most fundamental movement patterns. Modern sports could be viewed as ritualized versions of these survival skills - basketball draws on throwing accuracy, weightlifting on carrying strength, MMA on fighting instincts, etc.

This perspective suggests a spectrum of social construction in sports:

• Minimally Constructed: Wrestling, running, climbing (emerging directly from survival needs)
• Heavily Constructed: Football, basketball, cricket (requiring extensive rules and social agreement)

While even "natural" sports today involve some degree of social construction (rules, competitions, techniques), they tap into movement patterns that are encoded in us at a deeper biological level than socially invented sports. That is my understanding at least. This reflection helps us understand why certain physical activities feel more intuitive and spontaneous, even kids perform them as natural part of growing up. They're connected to our species' fundamental survival wiring rather than being purely social constructions. 

What are your thoughts on this spectrum of natural and constructed sports? Does this perspective change your view of different athletic activities?

[Basman]

I think this discussion has a definition a problem as it hinges on what you define "natural" to mean exactly. Arguably, there is nothing inherently unnatural about social constructs as its an expression of how humans survive. If you take away the ability to socially construct and create culture you take away what it means to be human.

In my opinion, there's nothing unnatural about sports and games. Its a natural way to hone our cooperation skills and exert ourselves in a safe way among various other things. Stone-Age people likely had games of some kind to. Prehistoric caves in Japan have paintings depicting wrestling on the walls.

21 minutes ago, Davino said:

To explore this concept, I propose a thought experiment: imagine being the only human alive, with no access to historical or cultural knowledge. What physical activities would naturally emerge?

If you do physical exercises with no socially constructed rules that would deem it a sport they would be simply be exercises or play. You'd eventually grow bored and think of limitations and rules to make things interesting.

[Davino]

25 minutes ago, Basman said:

I think this discussion has a definition a problem as it hinges on what you define "natural" to mean exactly. Arguably, there is nothing inherently unnatural about social constructs as its an expression of how humans survive. If you take away the ability to socially construct and create culture you take away what it means to be human.

Yes, that's something I mention. How from root or ancestral sports, the more socially constructed may have developed from.

26 minutes ago, Basman said:

Its a natural way to hone our cooperation skills and exert ourselves in a safe way among various other things. Stone-Age people likely had games of some kind to. Prehistoric caves in Japan have paintings depicting wrestling on the walls.

I agree

28 minutes ago, Basman said:

If you do physical exercises with no socially constructed rules that would deem it a sport they would be simply be exercises or play. You'd eventually grow bored and think of limitations and rules to make things interesting.

Rules are there for a reason. They're part of the game.

 

Overall, I think you missed the nuance. Most of your points were already thought of and expressed in my original post or easily derived from it.

[Leo Gura]

 

[Leo Gura]

 

[Carl-Richard]

So we're presumably talking about what is natural for humans specifically? 🧐

You're construing survival as a form of animalistic physical survival; fight or flight. But human survival also involves higher mental functions. That is why they evolved. Creating rules is human survival. Therefore, sports with an extreme amount of rules, like Chess, is a perfectly natural sport for us.

As for your thought experiment of placing a lone individual on an island and seeing what they would do; no human being has ever existed alone naturally. That is completely unnatural. We are a social species. Let's instead place a group of people on an island and see what they would do. You could conceive that they would construct a game that could eventually evolve into Chess. That is after all what happened historically.

So I would change the title to "animalistic vs human sports" ;D

Edited October 27 by Carl-Richard

[Davino]

11 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

 

Cringe

Don't straw man me

11 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

 

High skills for higly constructed sports

[Davino]

3 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

So we're presumably talking about what is natural for humans specifically? 🧐

Yes

3 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

You're construing survival as a form of animalistic physical survival; fight or flight. But human survival also involves higher mental functions. That is why they evolved. Creating rules is human survival. Therefore, sports with an extreme amount of rules, like Chess, is a perfectly natural sport for us.

As evolution goes, sports evolve from the primal branches to more evolved ones. True it is that I didn't account for purely mental sports. Mind comes after body is satisfied.

Chess is just one permutation of possible game, totally constructed. However, if earth was divided in two continents, both humans on each side would develop similar skills to climb trees, lift weights, run, fight and swim. There are biomechanics at play and more efficient ways of going about it. Literally they are born from principles and experience.

There aren't so many effective ways of lifting a heavy object, there are a few and you must discover them, because it increases survival. How many games like chess could be done? There are millions, yet chess is a sweet spot for playability, that is granted. Great inventation and mind sport.

3 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

As for your thought experiment of placing a lone individual on an island and seeing what they would do; no human being has ever existed alone naturally. That is completely unnatural. We are a social species. Let's instead place a group of people on an island and see what they would do. You could conceive that they would construct a game that could eventually evolve into Chess. That is after all what happened historically.

All societes developed wrestling. That's actually the first sport. I'm talking about historical facts. How much it took for chess to appear? My inquiry is on the constructed nature of sports and it took a lot of millenia of construction for that to happen. There are sports that are born from mundane and common taks. Literally wired in our DNA, evolved for millions of years so that the best in those physical activities would survive.

Our ancestors found ways of making their common tasks more efficient. As I said before, they discoverd biomechanical efficient ways to run, to swim, to lift objects, to climb and to fight. Then used their minds to evolve and make it more efficient with cars, boats, heavy machinery and guns.

Edited October 27 by Davino

[Girzo]

@Davino Have you read Peter Ralston? I think you might like Peter Ralston. Books like "Zen-Body Being" or "The Art of Mastery."

[Davino]

51 minutes ago, Girzo said:

Have you read Peter Ralston? I think you might like Peter Ralston. Books like "Zen-Body Being" or "The Art of Mastery."

I loved Zen-Body Being, quite impressive honestly. I am still surprised by the efficient method he discovered for walking up stairs. It's counter intuitive yet such an improvement in the way I use my body. The truth is most people are using their body in extremely unskillful ways. That's why developing Kinesthetic Intelligence has been a conscious priority for me.

In fact, in this regard I polished the way I hold a pen. I learnt it poorly and wasn't applying the most effective technique for it. Now I'm relearning the motor skills and feel grateful for improving myself. It's the little things that most matter.

I have still to check The Art of Mastery. I'll surely give it a check. Thanks for the recommendation