Intelligent and have the technology to be a space-faring species?
Established Member
Intelligent and have the technology to be a space-faring species?
Order of Kilopi
Sure. If you had six legs would that stop you?
Established Member
I have no idea why it wouldn't be. Do you know something that proves a humanoid body-plan is the only way to become a space-faring civilization?
What does God need with a starship?
Established Member
Why is being humanoid required for intelligence or technology? We have plenty of examples of non-humanoid life forms with considerable intelligence here on Earth and once you have intelligence all you need for tool use is a suitable set of manipulators, which again we have examples of here on Earth (often in the same species that show signs of intelligence).Originally Posted by Platinum Rhymer
Established Member
i still don't think its possible for humanoid alien species to become space faring.
and no, as a species we aren't space faring: the occasional half a dozen most physically fit members of our entire 6 billion members species going into space yet requiring a massive percentile of our industrial infrastructure just for them, nor do our probes or satellites, make us space faring as a species.
we have recently become culturally fit to be space faring, but to say that our form is physically fit is a joke: can a pregnant women withstand the G forces of a missile launch without any harm to her self or the fetus? can an entire generation grow healthy without the thousands of species we're biochemically dependent upon? can a population with frequent radiation exposure withstand sufficient fertility?
Established Member
If she's already spacefaring, why would you launch her on a missile? And besides it's only about 3-4g's. Not advisable but hardly unsurvivable.
I assume you are referring to intestinal bacteria and the like. As far as I know we get that from our environment and our mothers (missile launched or otherwise). Unless our space habitats are completely sterilized, why wouldn't the same processes occur?can an entire generation grow healthy without the thousands of species we're biochemically dependent upon?
How about if we take measures to prevent frequent radiation exposure? That would probably go a long way.can a population with frequent radiation exposure withstand sufficient fertility?
Member
Why not ask the dolphins? According to recent news, they're bound to be leaping out of the oceans, saying "So Long..." any time now.
Typical stereotypical bullpucky that says aliens should be "humanoid". Too much Star Trek/Star Wars there. Maybe some SG1 thrown into the mix.
Even "The Blob" had intelligence. It knew to go after the stupidest of teenie-boppers first to feed.
Established Member
"Are you talking to me, sir?"
Order of Kilopi
KAWAI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry, I am genetically programmed to find large braincases and sharp teeth cute.
Member
There could be Octopus look alike aliens who fit the requirement.
There is one shown in the following SciFi program, named Eosapien, theorized to have intelligence level of early humans.
http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence...et/splash.html
Last edited by canopuss; 2010-Jan-08 at 05:07 AM.
Established Member
Octopuses (sorry, don't like ..pi) are quite remarkable creatures, with a very different neural design to us - a lot more distributed, with their arms capable of independent, not-fed-back-to brain, responses to stimulu - and I don't mean reflex-type responses..
I've witnessed for myself their escapologist skills, as they lifted a quite heavy aquarium glass lid to escape from one aquarium and then find a way into a nearby one where they could see prey. They quickly learn/solve mazes (including more than one at a time) plus there are many reports of what seems to be playful behavior - something that is generally only seen in creatures regarded as being of a much higher order..
All in all, if ability, potential and design are criteria, then I reckon the octopus has more going for it than a dolphin.. (sorry guys, and I do love dolphins... but they lack a certain dexterity)
Have you ever seen a dolphin work out how to unscrew a jar lid? (an octopus can - google it). And as far as I know, the octopus is the only invertebrate to use tools...
Lastly, according to one book, the octopus is the sole survivor of the previous universe, according to a Hawaiian creation myth...
(cue scary music)
Established Member
i'm assuming space faring isn't just standing at the place and moving at the same rate earth is moving around the sun since that would make camels into space faring. rather, it would mean space traveling, which suggest propulsion, which suggest inertia.
i was thinking more of the various oxygen and nutrition supplies.
which we can build, as well as we can build:
radiation shields.
we'll need to do a hell of a lot of building, which right now would require a very large ratio between the population required to do the building and the population that can enjoy the supporting infrastructure.
given that case, how fit are our humanoid bodies to be spacefaring?
Order of Kilopi
Yeah, yeah, but that still doesn't mean that we need to be accelerating pregnant women at ridiculously high accelerations in order to be "space-faring". Space travel doesn't require very high accelerations, and in fact the 1 gee acceleration we can obviously live our entire lives in is actually rather high compared to most relevant space maneuvers.
Why would it require a large population to do this building? As it is, we already "suffer" from a lack of manufacturing jobs. Modern technology, including robotics, has made us able to build more things with less people.i was thinking more of the various oxygen and nutrition supplies.
which we can build, as well as we can build:
radiation shields.
we'll need to do a hell of a lot of building, which right now would require a very large ratio between the population required to do the building and the population that can enjoy the supporting infrastructure.
given that case, how fit are our humanoid bodies to be spacefaring?
I'm pretty excited about the prospects of sending an EBF3 fabrication machine to the ISS, which might represent the last moment in time in which humanity is truly dependent on Earth for all of its manufacturing needs.
If we're lacking in "space-faring" capability, it's insufficient technology and hardware, not biology.
Established Member
i'm not sure how to expand on it without being political, but to be blunt:
no, we don't, you do.
we refers to humanity as a whole, you refers to the section of it that your assumption that there aren't enough manufacturing jobs suggest you're part of.
nope. it could potentially, but in theory, but there's a reason the theory hasn't competed with globalization: price vs. flexibility.
now, this might seem to a lot of people like some odd technicality, but it is directly corresponding to the manufacturing price of the basic tools compared to there increasingly shorter periods of use (between product version to product version).
contrary to common belief, not-economical doesn't mean "we could do it in theory", it means there are practical reasons for why we can't.
it doesn't mean we aren't close to a point in time in which we can: rapid-prototyping (like the EBF3) combined with knowledge for robotic construction and mining processes might bring "the ultimate resource inflation", but its not going to be today.
but our extreme need for that technology & industrial capacity to be space faring does say a lot about the fitness for space of our own biological forms, which seems rather relevant to me in a thread questioning the fitness of other biological forms.
Order of Kilopi
You say this as if it's either/or. It isn't. Manufacturing has boomed in places like China where you get to have cheap(er) labor and modern technology.
Not really. Any difficulties we have with the environment of space mainly have to do with our biology on a cellular level--the basic cellular respiration requirements of oxygen, food, water, and temperature/pressure. It has nothing to do with the humanoid form.but our extreme need for that technology & industrial capacity to be space faring does say a lot about the fitness for space of our own biological forms, which seems rather relevant to me in a thread questioning the fitness of other biological forms.
Established Member
i'm not saying that it's either or, i am saying that as our industrial infrastructure and economic supply currently stands, we need a very large labor population to space tourists population ratio.
my point being that we as a species - meaning the human population - are currently incapable of going into space, only select few members.
many of earth's oceanic mammals do well with infrequent oxygen supplies, there are jellyfish with plankton symbiosis as intimate as our digestive bacteria forming a "closed system" (albeit sunlight dependent).
and yet with all of trouble, with all that our bodies can't do, we are getting into space anyway, aren't we? our bodies aren't fit, our industrial capacity to do it is in the diapers and we barely have enough knowhow, but we're doing it anyway, because its not the human body, not even the capacity of human society, that is fit to be space faring. its our culture to overcome the limits of both.
given that, how does it make sense to assume that the limits of non humanoid forms would restrict aliens from going into space?
the reality is that our alien imagination has largely being restricted to what Hollywood production can afford to put into makeup and head accessories and the risks it has being willing to make when doubting the mass audience capacity for empathy overcoming visual differences, and neither have anything to do with scientific plausibility regarding space faring alien forms.
the only possible cure for that syndrome is that when bollywood gets to sci-fi level budgets they'll do a better job.
Order of Kilopi
So what?
You were saying something about thick radiation shielding requiring a large labor population. That made no sense, and it still doesn't make sense.
Okay, but this says nothing about the suitability of our biology. It only says that we have a lack of hardware and/or technology.my point being that we as a species - meaning the human population - are currently incapable of going into space, only select few members.
Those oceanic mammals still require the same amount of oxygen supply, more or less, they just have big lungs suitable for holding their breath a long time. Humans can get the same effect with simple breathing tanks, and in fact greatly surpass those mammals with them.many of earth's oceanic mammals do well with infrequent oxygen supplies, there are jellyfish with plankton symbiosis as intimate as our digestive bacteria forming a "closed system" (albeit sunlight dependent).
As for a lichen-like "closed system" symbiosis--we get the same sort of effect with gardens of cyanobacteria/algae/plants. But it's superior our way because we don't have to drag around heavy and bulky photosynthetic "solar panels" to power us.
No, it hasn't. Read a book. The written word is not limited by visual effects capabilities, and as such the variety and scope of aliens in written science fiction greatly exceeds that of movies.the reality is that our alien imagination has largely being restricted to what Hollywood production can afford to put into makeup and head accessories
You don't need audience empathy for scary killer aliens, which is one of their most prominent traditional roles.and the risks it has being willing to make when doubting the mass audience capacity for empathy overcoming visual differences,
Why? You think Bollywood artists and audiences are less human than Hollywood's?the only possible cure for that syndrome is that when bollywood gets to sci-fi level budgets they'll do a better job.
BTW, a good fraction of modern film/television sci-fi is animated (and I don't mean just in English); there's plenty of non-humanoid aliens and monsters in them.
Anyway, this talk of aliens in fiction is irrelevant to the topic at hand. We're supposedly talking about the suitability or non-suitability of humanoid or non-humanoid forms of life for space travel. This has nothing to do with the suitability or non-suitability of humanoid or non-humanoid forms of life for Hollywood movies.
Established Member
Going back to the original question, in what sense would any alien species be classed as humanoid?
Order of Kilopi
Space kangaroo = Humanoid
Space bird = non-humanoid
Established Member
Hmm. I just wonder (although I would not press the point) whether "humanoid" is a well enough defined category on which to base detailed speculation.
Order of Kilopi
I would define "humanoid" to be bilaterally symmetric, with two legs, which is usually uses for locomotion, and two arms, which it usually uses for manipulation, a distinct head, which would hold a brain, visual and auditory organs, and maybe a mouth (with a jaw) and a nose or some similar respiratory opening. By my rather lax standard, Deinonychus would count as humanoid. Something resembling a cephalopod wouldn't.
I don't consider my definition of "humanoid" to be that improbable, mostly because I think that it's the most likely body plan to evolve into a tool user from a ground-dwelling tetrapod, but I don't consider four limbs to be particularly more or less likely than just about any number from zero to a dozen or so.
I suspect (and my evidence is exactly the same as anybody else's here: none) that intelligent ET's will usually be endoskeletal, bilaterally symmetric, and have a distinct head. Of course, they could also resemble bushbots. The likelihood of an ET resembling us as closely as an ostrich, I'd view as quite low, if for no other reason than the evolution of the jaw seems to be quite unlikely.
Established Member
Although nature does not rule out critters with more than two locomotion and two manipulation appendagess becoming the technically competent dominant species within an evolving biota, nature strongly favors them. Brain loading and oxydizer circulation system loading seem to be more easily optimized using such appendages. Although cephalopoda seem to support trends contrary to this, they haven't won the race to technical competence on Earth yet.
The humanoidness of critters needs to be definitionally constained if the argument is to be pursued rationally. It seems that the technically competent winners won't necessarily have to be mammal like much less human like; however I would expect body temperature control to be essential if the critter is in competition with critters that have this trait. If the path that evolution takes to technical competence happens to isolate "cold-blooded" arthopod-like, amphibian-like and reptilian-like critters from mammalian-like critters until one of them passes some threshold of technical competence, the "warm-blooded" critters will have an exceedingly difficult challenge to overcome and will likely not become the technically dominant species capable of interstellar space travel.
The driver of curiosity and its ratio to the other elements of technical competence will have a substantial effect on affecting whether a species makes it into interstellar travel.
Member
All in all, if ability, potential and design are criteria, then I reckon the octopus has more going for it than a dolphin.. (sorry guys, and I do love dolphins... but they lack a certain dexterity)
Have you ever seen a dolphin work out how to unscrew a jar lid? (an octopus can - google it). And as far as I know, the octopus is the only invertebrate to use tools...
Wow, I love this site and I love this particular topic. I've been browsing here for a few weeks and am floored by the intellects that abound here (compared to the usual places I visit) ... very knowledgable and interesting. Actually far out of my league to be honest ... but like said, I love this topic and one opinion that I could contribute would have been reminiscent of a post I made to another forum years ago, so I'll copy it here:
Well, Dolphins evolved to be quite well adapted to their environment. They are warm blooded and have a bullet shape which helps evade predators, and catch prey. A relatively large brain to aid in hunting strategy. Sonar to help with all of the above. So to say that they are smart is undeniable, but intellegence and technological proficiency do not go hand in hand.
Having dexterous limbs is not the be all end all to physical evolution. Arthropods like crabs and lobsters have opposable appendages. Cephelopods like squid and octopi have tremedously versatile limbs. And they use them to great effect for building homes and processing their environment in many ways.
But there are some impedements to these creatures independently developing technology. Most notably the ability to fashion tools.
They live in an aquatic environment which precludes the use of fire, and other submarine heat sources to fashion complicated tools. And the discovery and use of electricity would be rather disasterous for an aquatic species. Also water, especially salt water is highly reactive and corrosive and would prevent, or at least hamper metal refinement for tool making and chemistry.
It'd be nice to imagine that simple technical improvements would enable another species to attain some of the technological abilities that we have, but in reality, it's far more complicated.
... My point is that aquatic life forms have pretty steep challenges to over come and would probably need to evolve into a land occupying life form before being able to become a technologically advanced species. I certainly don't think that life form has to be "Humanoid" however.
Thank you !
Order of Kilopi
Just one quick note:
Here on Earth, the use of electricity is exceedingly common in aquatic species, but non-existent in non-aquatic species (with one noteworthy exception). Many aquatic species directly sense electricity, and a number of them even use electricity as a weapon.
This shows that use of electricity is not disastrous for an aquatic species, and it seems inherently easier for aquatic species to discover/use it at least on some level.
Member
... Well any lifeform on Earth with a nervous system "uses" electricity ... but that's not technology. And I'm positive that no electric eel or any of its' prey give any serious thought when they "discover" electricity.
I would still think it's highly unlikely ... even practically impossible for an aquatic lifeform to even remotely come close to developing at best a stone age technology; let alone dolphin domestication of the electric eel, a tuna version of Nikola Tesla, octopi with the ambition of Robert Goddard, radio astronomy or polaris missiles
... meanwhile even ants farm aphids and fungus.
But then, who could have imagined that cyanobacteria could eventually contemplate the cosmos ?
Order of Kilopi
Electric eels and rays use electric shock as a defense as well as offense. At least some of the victims of these shocks have given it "serious thought".... Well any lifeform on Earth with a nervous system "uses" electricity ... but that's not technology. And I'm positive that no electric eel or any of its' prey give any serious thought when they "discover" electricity.
For example, I was a victim of a torpedo ray shock. I had stepped on a fish, and while dazed in pain I saw it fleeing--clearly either a ray or a flatfish. Since I had previously seen a nearby stingray, I first thought it was a stingray. But there was no blood, and the lack of lingering pain proved it wasn't poison. I deduced that it was a torpedo ray, by using "serious thought".
Anyway, an aquatic ETI may be more likely than non-aquatic ETIs of having an inherent electric sense. The ability to sense small voltages at a distance may improve their ability to study electricity and eventually learn to use it for advanced technology.
I don't see any reason why an aquatic ETI wouldn't be able to develop complex mathematical theory, as well as the principles of mechanical engineering and physics.I would still think it's highly unlikely ... even practically impossible for an aquatic lifeform to even remotely come close to developing at best a stone age technology;
Even if they initially lack metals, they could build complex machines out of composites. This requires sculpting and moulding, but not fire.
Ancient humans did use electric ray shocks to dull pain, so the potential for domestication and eventual technological use is there.let alone dolphin domestication of the electric eel,
Also, an aquatic ETI may be fortunate enough to have its own inherent electric shock capability.
There is aquatic animal tool use and farming.a tuna version of Nikola Tesla, octopi with the ambition of Robert Goddard, radio astronomy or polaris missiles
... meanwhile even ants farm aphids and fungus.
Indeed.But then, who could have imagined that cyanobacteria could eventually contemplate the cosmos?
I remember when I first pondered the possibilities of aquatic technological life, I thought in terms of metals. I took it as a given that metals were required and wondered how they might take an alternative path to metal development.
But lately I've taken the opposite line of thought. So what if there aren't metals? There are a lot of things they could still figure out before they get around to figuring out metals.
And I've been thinking in terms of fully aquatic biospheres--something like Europa where there's neither dry land nor an oxygen atmosphere available. This means they can't just use floating platforms for fire and metal-working.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
