[JerryLove]

Obviously not a question for the creationists: What conditions do you think are, if not absolute prerequsites, likely prerequsites for technological civilization?

For example: Are they likely to need to be terrestrial (as opposed to aquatic) because fire is likely a all-but required step in technological development?

I've got a few in mind, but I'd like to see what others think.

[Demon_Hunter]

Im a creationist, but I feel that I can offer my own opinion without delving into creationism.

I agree that aquatic life probably could not develop into a technologically advanced civilization simply because the ability to create fire to forge steel and other materials that require superheating would not be possible.

Opposable thumbs.

The ability to lift, move, and controll heavy or akward loads.

The ability to develop advanced navigational skills beyond simple instinct (not that instinct is simple, but its a heck of alot simpler than what we has humans do with maps, gps, and our general sense of direction).

The ability to perform experiments and understand the outcome and be able to perform the experiment again and understand the results of those aswell.

Im sure there are others. I just cant think of any others right off.

[JerryLove]

Thanks for posting? I'm definately seeking input.

If fire is indeed neccessairy, then there are some other traits. A minimum percentage of oxygen in the air for example.

There's also likely a size-range. To small and fire can't be controlled. To big and about the same thing happens.

Opposeable thumbs? Hands at all implies one of a few evolutionary niches. Brachiators were our own ancestors (a group which is one of the few non-preditors to need binocular vision), though we also see near-hands in the weasel family.

For that matter, is vision going to be a likely trait, either because vision is the most useful sense for technology, or because of the pre-techonological niches (such as brachiators)?

There are some similar questions regarding habitat. I have a belief that complex life in Sol-like systems (and I'm not sure how to pull it off in non-Sol-like systems) will all-but-require that the terrestrial planet-of-orign have a large, impact-formed moon (in order to have a magnetic dynamo at the core making a magnetosphere protecting the planet from stellar and cosimic radiation).

If it doesn't show, I've been thinking about this a bit this week. I'm working on a hard-sci-fi setting; perhaps to write some stories in.

[Almost Enough]

Inherent shortcomings or obstacles with the environment in which they live.

For example, humans develop shelter to protect themselves from forces of nature. A need for more food for greater populations lead to developments in farming and hunting technologies.

Basically, the setting should not be perfect, it should have inherent problems that need to be overcome in order for the intelligent life to prosper and overcome.

Don't know if that helps.

[Nate]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Obviously not a question for the creationists:

Not really a question for evolutionists either, as the basic assumptions (namely, life as such at all) have never been shown.

Really, it's a question only for science fiction authors, at least until we find evidence of any life at all in the rest of the cosmos.

[tlj009]

For example: Are they likely to need to be terrestrial (as opposed to aquatic) because fire is likely a all-but required step in technological development?

Why is fire a requirement? I would think that a species would use tools before they learned about fire. And really there are several species of animal that do use tools but can't make fire.

I will agree with Almost Enough that there must be a need. I think that the need would likely have to come from other species or within the same species. The reason being that physical advances necessary for survival of the species would likely develop faster than mental advances necessary for survival of the individual that could then be passed on through some form of communication.

I also think that emotions of some kind would be necessary in order to create a need past immediate survival.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Nate

Not really a question for evolutionists either, as the basic assumptions (namely, life as such at all) have never been shown.

Intelligent life is made in God's image and therefore would look just like us.

That's why its not for creationists.

Since "what would it look like" is a combination of "what base conditions can lead to life" and "what evolutionary traits lead to intelligence" and "what conditions allow technology"...

Why is fire a requirement? I would think that a species would use tools before they learned about fire. And really there are several species of animal that do use tools but can't make fire.

And none of them build rocket ships.

Without fire there is no refining. Without refining, techonology seems to hit a very fast stop-point (no metals, for example).

I also think that emotions of some kind would be necessary in order to create a need past immediate survival.

Emotion is like a complex reflex. There's an easy slope from a man-o-war reflexivly letting go of something that's killing it and a horse running from a noise.

[Skeeter]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Intelligent life is made in God's image and therefore would look just like us.

That's a major misunderstanding of the "image of God."

[Demon_Hunter]

Originally Posted by tlj009

Why is fire a requirement? I would think that a species would use tools before they learned about fire. And really there are several species of animal that do use tools but can't make fire.

I will agree with Almost Enough that there must be a need. I think that the need would likely have to come from other species or within the same species. The reason being that physical advances necessary for survival of the species would likely develop faster than mental advances necessary for survival of the individual that could then be passed on through some form of communication.

I also think that emotions of some kind would be necessary in order to create a need past immediate survival.

Just echoing Jerry here, but...

Without fire you cant refine materials such as steel and the various petroleum products. Without those things, the ability to develop advanced technology is basically impossible.
Name a single thing you use in your home today (not counting floors, walls and cabinets) that doesnt use material that was refined in some way?

Not only that, but alot of the stuff we use to transport materials from one place to another are heat treated, or galvanized to protect against corrosion. Heat treating and galvanization are impossible without first inventing fire.

You would never be able to "cook" or transport fuel for vehicles without forged steel pipes and flanges that are heated to over a thousand degrees before being cooled and machined to shape. Fire, and the ability to control it, is pretty critical to alot of what we do today.

Creatures that havnt made fire, have not developed into technologically advanced civilizations.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Skeeter

That's a major misunderstanding of the "image of God."

Certainly there are billions who would disagree with you, but it's irrellevent... the same problem applies with the goal-posts moved.

I'm attempting to determine which evolutionary paths lead to technology... to say that involves evolution (and therefore not creation) is a truism.

One more note on fire: We didn't invent a fire-substitute that I can think of until electricity. That tends to say to me (unless there is a substitue which is not compatable with the environment we live in) that there is no simpler replacement.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Demon_Hunter

Without fire you cant refine materials such as steel and the various petroleum products. Without those things, the ability to develop advanced technology is basically impossible.

That may be true but that doesn't mean you lack intelligence or technology. Even non-human primates use technology.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't read the OP. If we're talking about building a civilization then you do need technology more advanced than a stick.

[Nate]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Intelligent life is made in God's image and therefore would look just like us.

If you're throwing away this assumption as part of your "intelligence [by which for some unfathomable reason you mean "technology"] has to arise from evolution" assumption, then I don't think you're being creative enough. You yourself are still creating a race of beings that look (not only physically and spiritually, but ecologically) "just like us."

Since, by virtue of the argument in the rest of my post that you apparently either accept enough of to not bother replying to or consider to silly to mention, you're pretty much free to make up your own science here (this is science fiction, after all, which can't be completely out in left field, but can take some crack shots now and again), you have some freedom.

No clue why you're conflating "intelligence" and "technology." Dolphins are well known to be one of the most intelligent forms of life apart from man, and they don't seem to have anything resembling technology. Are you asking what would lead to intelligent life or what would lead to a technological civilization that we would contact? The two are different.

I think you're pigeon-holing yourself by assuming-in evolution, or at least evolution as we know it historo-scientifically. Evolution is by definition a responsive and flexible process. Part of what I was trying to get across is that we just don't know (as scientists) what conditions are actually required for life to exist and evolve because we've never found any anywhere else.

We tend to assume that life somewhere else would have to start in a similar way as [the evolutionary scientists say] it started here on earth. This is a silly assumption, and not a question for evolution to answer. Once you've assumed away the fact that life elsewhere exists, why not take some crazy scenario (life in a gaseous planet, for example) and see where evolution would take that lifeform?

That seems to me to be more in-line with the science-fiction mode of thinking, which is what you've admitted to by mentioning this question as a possible source for a world to place some stories in. Science-fiction is wonderful; pseudo-science is not. I think by refusing to accept that "extraterrestrial life" at all is, for all intents and purposes, a fictional concept, you're really limiting yourself creatively.

Why couldn't there be forms of technology completely unlike the combustion-based technology we know on earth? Wouldn't evolution demand that the creatures in your fictitious world respond in a different way than we have to their different environment? Maybe they finally figured out how to create life [now I'm way outside my own creationist world, but this is fiction!]? Maybe their rocket-ships are part organic?

The whole point of my original post was that these possibilities aren't outside the bounds of the original question, because the question is for evolutionary science fiction (not as a Wheel of Fortune "Before and After" category, but as a three-part concept) and not just for evolutionary science. If you're asking these questions as a scientist, you're not doing real science. If you're asking them as a writer, you have some freedoms which you have yet to explore.

[tlj009]

Posted by Jerrylove
And none of them build rocket ships.

Without fire there is no refining. Without refining, techonology seems to hit a very fast stop-point (no metals, for example).

No kidding. But my point was that I can see an agricultural society functioning pretty readily without fire. I can see the intelligence developing in such a society without fire. Once the agricultural society is reached, then I don't see why agricultural technology shouldn't develop first and then proceed to other things like rocket ships. Granted fire may be necessary eventually or at least very useful. But I don't see the necessity for technology to develop but instead simply an area of study from which some technology could develop.

Posted by Demon_Hunter

Just echoing Jerry here, but...

Without fire you cant refine materials such as steel and the various petroleum products. Without those things, the ability to develop advanced technology is basically impossible.
Name a single thing you use in your home today (not counting floors, walls and cabinets) that doesnt use material that was refined in some way?

Not only that, but alot of the stuff we use to transport materials from one place to another are heat treated, or galvanized to protect against corrosion. Heat treating and galvanization are impossible without first inventing fire.

You would never be able to "cook" or transport fuel for vehicles without forged steel pipes and flanges that are heated to over a thousand degrees before being cooled and machined to shape. Fire, and the ability to control it, is pretty critical to alot of what we do today.

Creatures that havnt made fire, have not developed into technologically advanced civilizations.

As I mentioned above, I believe that fire would be useful but that technology could advance before fire is discovered. So if fire is a little harder to come by than it is on earth where you can just hit rocks together, then I don't see a problem with technology using fire developing later. The example was of an aquatic species, so if an aquatic species develops the intelligence to become an agricultural society, then I can see them someday learning to heat things using magnesium and sodium or something like that.

I don't know of any creature except humans that have developed into a technological society so I guess your last statement is true. I just think that the statement is also meaningless.

[doulos14]

Originally Posted by tlj009

No kidding. But my point was that I can see an agricultural society functioning pretty readily without fire. I can see the intelligence developing in such a society without fire. Once the agricultural society is reached, then I don't see why agricultural technology shouldn't develop first and then proceed to other things like rocket ships. Granted fire may be necessary eventually or at least very useful. But I don't see the necessity for technology to develop but instead simply an area of study from which some technology could develop.


As I mentioned above, I believe that fire would be useful but that technology could advance before fire is discovered. So if fire is a little harder to come by than it is on earth where you can just hit rocks together, then I don't see a problem with technology using fire developing later. The example was of an aquatic species, so if an aquatic species develops the intelligence to become an agricultural society, then I can see them someday learning to heat things using magnesium and sodium or something like that.

I don't know of any creature except humans that have developed into a technological society so I guess your last statement is true. I just think that the statement is also meaningless.

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).

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Nate

No clue why you're conflating "intelligence" and "technology." Dolphins are well known to be one of the most intelligent forms of life apart from man, and they don't seem to have anything resembling technology. Are you asking what would lead to intelligent life or what would lead to a technological civilization that we would contact? The two are different.

I'm interested in things we can meet in space... hence things which develop technology.

When did dolphins get promoted above chimps? I don't seem to have gotten that memo.

I think you're pigeon-holing yourself by assuming-in evolution, or at least evolution as we know it historo-scientifically. Evolution is by definition a responsive and flexible process. Part of what I was trying to get across is that we just don't know (as scientists) what conditions are actually required for life to exist and evolve because we've never found any anywhere else.

Evolution is tautological and therefore inevitable. Only the mechanisms of change change.

We tend to assume that life somewhere else would have to start in a similar way as [the evolutionary scientists say] it started here on earth. This is a silly assumption, and not a question for evolution to answer. Once you've assumed away the fact that life elsewhere exists, why not take some crazy scenario (life in a gaseous planet, for example) and see where evolution would take that lifeform?

Because it takes me to no technology.

That seems to me to be more in-line with the science-fiction mode of thinking, which is what you've admitted to by mentioning this question as a possible source for a world to place some stories in.

No. It's functionally disproveable. I might as well make FTL travel in realspace.

Science-fiction is wonderful; pseudo-science is not. I think by refusing to accept that "extraterrestrial life" at all is, for all intents and purposes, a fictional concept, you're really limiting yourself creatively.

Speaking of confusing words, you should look up the difference between "fiction" and "fantasy".

Why couldn't there be forms of technology completely unlike the combustion-based technology we know on earth?

Because I cannot come up with a reasonable path to one.

Wouldn't evolution demand that the creatures in your fictitious world respond in a different way than we have to their different environment?

Nope. Any realithy based life will get places by moving and get information through sensing.

Maybe they finally figured out how to create life [now I'm way outside my own creationist world, but this is fiction!]? Maybe their rocket-ships are part organic?

Such a scenerio falsely glosses over impossible steps.

The whole point of my original post was that these possibilities aren't outside the bounds of the original question, because the question is for evolutionary science fiction (not as a Wheel of Fortune "Before and After" category, but as a three-part concept) and not just for evolutionary science. If you're asking these questions as a scientist, you're not doing real science. If you're asking them as a writer, you have some freedoms which you have yet to explore.

Presume I'm talking about the real univerese... for convience, I merely listed some of actual reality's restrictions.

The way things are is not random. There are factors and responses. Horses will not develop technology for reasons of biology. There's no selective pressure towards neccessairy charicteristics.

Humans can manipulate because of graspers. We developed those because we were brachiators. We developed large brains as gatherers. It's a common trait in that group.

In fact large brains in general have to do with senses. Octopi develped them because of the complexity of working so many limbs. Indeed most of their brain is devoted to body-self-awareness. Dolphins have a very complex sense in echo-location, which requires signifigant processing. Apes are visual, tribal (complex inter-reliationship) gatherers.

There are social patterns as well. Grazers form large groups. Gatherers form small groups. Predators are either loaners or pack-hunters. This is true because other arrangements are less effective. It will always be selected for under the given conditions.