[tlj009]

I would ask you to define what you mean by a aquatic species? Something that lives both in and out of water (amphibian) or something completely aquatic such as a fish that is completely dependent upon water (Dolphin is one of the most intelligent). Further I would beg to differ that magnesium or sodium would not be good sources of energy, because there is no sodium in water, and when it does touch water (burn then boom), so if these aquatic species could retrieve the substance, how would they control the reaction (i.e. boiling the water).

I don't think that the different species really matters for the point that I was trying to make. Magnesium or sodium has problems but the point was that once a species develops enough intelligence to become a complex agricultural society then they have enough intelligence to solve complex problems and therefore become more technologically advanced. I don't see fire as a necessity for an agricultural society. Now assume that environmental conditions are not favorable for combustion, then I can see it taking a longer time to develop the techniques necessary for combustion related technologies. But I do think that the society would still develop technologies associated with combustion.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by tlj009

I don't think that the different species really matters for the point that I was trying to make. Magnesium or sodium has problems but the point was that once a species develops enough intelligence to become a complex agricultural society then they have enough intelligence to solve complex problems and therefore become more technologically advanced.

I'm not sure you can build an agracultural civilization without fire. You can't make metal implaments.

I don't see fire as a necessity for an agricultural society. Now assume that environmental conditions are not favorable for combustion, then I can see it taking a longer time to develop the techniques necessary for combustion related technologies. But I do think that the society would still develop technologies associated with combustion.

Name another way to refine metals.

[tlj009]

I'm not sure you can build an agracultural civilization without fire. You can't make metal implaments.

You can farm, raise animals, etc. without metal implements. Metal implements are an improvement but not a necessity. There is a reason that many American Indians were highly impressed by metal needles and knives.

Name another way to refine metals.

Not my area of expertise and I am not going to look into it. Obviously to refine metals, there is a requirement of a certain temperature and a certain pressure. Your argument seems to be that even with the necessary intelligence, if it is difficult to create fire or at least heat then the society will hit a certain point and stall. I think that given the intelligence, the society would eventually overcome its obstacles and advance. The more difficult the obstacle, the longer it takes to overcome it but I think that eventually they would overcome their obstacles. So if it took us 100,000 years to learn fire, in a more difficult environment it may have taken 100,000,000 years. The only question that I have is if the extended timeframe would matter.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by tlj009

You can farm, raise animals, etc. without metal implements. Metal implements are an improvement but not a necessity. There is a reason that many American Indians were highly impressed by metal needles and knives.

The Native Americans had both fire and metal. They were, perhaps, sohrt on refining facilities. That's likely a good deal of the reason their technological advancement had stalled.

Not my area of expertise and I am not going to look into it. Obviously to refine metals, there is a requirement of a certain temperature and a certain pressure. Your argument seems to be that even with the necessary intelligence, if it is difficult to create fire or at least heat then the society will hit a certain point and stall.

Pretty much, yes. I can think of some other ways to do smelting and refining; but every one of them relies on already refined materials.

I don't think it's completely, totally, impossible; but I do think it's pretty unlikely.

[doulos14]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

The Native Americans had both fire and metal. They were, perhaps, sohrt on refining facilities. That's likely a good deal of the reason their technological advancement had stalled.

Pretty much, yes. I can think of some other ways to do smelting and refining; but every one of them relies on already refined materials.

I don't think it's completely, totally, impossible; but I do think it's pretty unlikely.

Well there's evolution based upon odds, but yes the metal needles that the pilgrims and such had were far more refined than a bone needle that any Indian had.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by doulos14

Well there's evolution based upon odds, but yes the metal needles that the pilgrims and such had were far more refined than a bone needle that any Indian had.

Of course evolution is based on likely responses to given situations. There's a reason that lions didn't develop electrical sensors like fish use... because they aren't useful.

[tlj009]

I don't think it's completely, totally, impossible; but I do think it's pretty unlikely.

See that is the point that I am stuck on. I don't think it is impossible. I can see it taking a really long time. But will their planet become inhabitable before they are able to get over that hump? In the history of the earth what is 1,000,000 years. Would the species evolve into something less intelligent? Would there be a global catastrophe to kill off this species?

[Skeeter]

There seems to be confusion between intelligence and technological advancement. Surely no one here is claiming that Native Americans were not "intelligent life" simply because they did not have metal needles...

I don't think that technology (or even fire) is the best yardstick or requirement for intelligent life.

[tlj009]

There seems to be confusion between intelligence and technological advancement. Surely no one here is claiming that Native Americans were not "intelligent life" simply because they did not have metal needles...

I don't think that technology (or even fire) is the best yardstick or requirement for intelligent life.

If it was something I said, then you misunderstood.

I was saying that once you reach a level of intelligence then you would eventually become more technologically advanced. It just may take longer to become technologically advanced if the environment doesn't cooperate.

[Skeeter]

Originally Posted by tlj009

If it was something I said, then you misunderstood.

I was saying that once you reach a level of intelligence then you would eventually become more technologically advanced. It just may take longer to become technologically advanced if the environment doesn't cooperate.

It was more a response to the general intent of the thread. As Nate has pointed out, this is entirely in the realm of science fiction; what Jerry really seems to be asking is what are the traits likely to create us, namely humanity. Science-fiction writers have come up with all sorts of plausible to absurd ideas on what traits intelligent life could take, many of them far removed from humanity.