The drive to compete comes mainly from scarcity, not only human nature
My suggestion, and this is probably pretty basic to economics, is that scarcity drives competition. With abundance, people do not compete to obtain the thing because they do not need to. Rather, they must compete for it when there is less of it then there are people who want it.
I agree that sports themselves are fundamental human behaviors in their most simple form, which I would define as groups of people engaging in physical activity that challenges and tests their skills for the purpose of play or ceremony. Note, I do not include “competition” in my definition. So I disagree with your definition of sports. The purpose can be any one or combination of play, ceremony, or skill testing.
The other day, I saw some Shinto priests engaged in an ancient Japanese sport that was originally practiced by Japanese royalty centuries ago. In the sport, the participants stand in a circle facing each other and endeavor to keep a ball in the air by kicking it back and forth to each other, with another member again kicking it up before it hits the ground. This struck me in that it was a fundamentally cooperative sport, the object being to have fun for as long as possible, rather than to determine who was the best.
So, it seems to me that you are suggesting that competition and cooperation are two fundamental, juxtaposed human traits that drive human activity. In contrast, I suggest that competition between individuals is not as fundamental a trait as cooperation in a group, but rather a less fundamental trait that is driven by environmental factors, such as a state of scarcity, real or artificially imposed.
I have argued in the past that competition used poorly within an organization has the effect of reducing efficiency, as when the organization must also compete with other organizations. In that case, the organization that can cooperate within most effectively in order to put all of its energy into competition with the other group will likely win. An example is when Sony, in the domestic Japanese market in the early ’00s, had two competing DVR products on the market based on competing technology (licensed Tevo tech versus something domestic) produced by two different branches of the company and marketed separately. Thus even the most conformist consumer could see that Sony seemed to be competing with itself. Mr. Ide’s idea was to do so to get one group or the other to come up with the best DVR. Unfortunately the result was that resources were squandered in in-house competition, reducing the effectiveness of both products, allowing the competition, such as Panasonic, to win.
NOTES
Without social connection we have less chance of even satisfying the most fundamental of Maslow’s needs.
Humans are social animals for good reason. Without collaboration, there is no survival. It was not possible to defeat a Woolley Mammoth, build a secure structure, or care for children while hunting without a team effort. It’s more true now than then. Our reliance on each other grows as societies became more complex, interconnected, and specialized. Connection is a prerequisite for survival, physically and emotionally.
What drove this was not idealism but pragmatism
In hunting-and-gathering groups, nobody can own more than they can carry, so there is no way to accumulate wealth. If you want meat, then you’ll have to cooperate in the hunt. These were societies where nobody could control anybody else, and so they had to make their decisions democratically.
Which kind of makes sense that cooperation outperforms selfishness; it doesn’t at the one on one level, but it does at the group level.
Place an altruist and a selfish individual next to each other and the selfish individual wins. How can a behavior evolve in the total population when it is never at a local advantage?
This is true, but how do we explain why we are still all here…
Darwin also clearly understood the nature of the solution: Altruism is advantageous at a larger scale. Groups of altruists out-compete groups of non-altruists, even if altruism is selectively disadvantageous within each group
When we cooperate in groups it keeps us alive (from each others harm, from natures harm, etc…)
Mammals we adhere to group behaviour as it sustains our survival and reproductive wiring
They evolved to live in groups for protection from predators. Weaker individuals must learn to live alongside stronger individuals in order to retain the protection of the group. Mammals submit to stronger group mates to avoid getting bitten and scratched. Most chimpanzees are missing a finger, toe or ear lobe due to past conflicts with more dominant troop mates. But the mammal brain stays alert for opportunity. When it sees a way to dominate without getting hurt, it goes for it. That’s why mammals become aggressive when group mates are weak. And it’s why authoritative leadership calms down dogs, children, and committees
Mammals seek dominance because the serotonin feels good. Dominant animals get more food, which builds the strength it takes to keep their DNA alive. Strength helps males vanquish predators and compete for sex
Related
…cooperative behavior results from a rational calculus encoded as a behavior in our genetic makeup. It turns out that we can almost never be sure that someone might not be in a position to return the favor in the future, and we do not want to miss out on that possibility. The cost of losing out is greater than the cost of making the investment.
