Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Before Lucy, there was Ardi
Topic Started: Oct 2 2009, 05:58 AM (1,824 Views)
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
You're right, of course.

But it does show just how unlikely intelligence is - If the protein is not the story, something happened about then, and the disaster-caused bottleneck ensured that whatever genetic mutation happened, it happened to everyone before it was dissipated.

That combination seems extremely unlikely, and DOES limit how many intelligent species are out there...

But the Universe is a big place...
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Moderator
[ * ]
We always have to keep in mind that we're working with a single data point and any conclusions made from a single data point are usually... wrong.

I'm voting for a rarity of intelligence based on the fact that we've not found any yet. I think the Fermi Paradox -
Quote:
 
The apparent size and age of the universe suggests that many technologically advanced extraterrestrial civilizations ought to exist.
However, this hypothesis seems inconsistent with the lack of observational evidence to support it.
must be answered and the answer is intelligence is rare.

But, DAMN!, it would be exciting to hear something on all those billions and billions of SETI data sets!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Based on our one data set, I would tend to believe that one answer to Fermi's Paradox is that as technology advances, our capability to destroy ourselves grows exponentially.

We're not near ready technologically to go on interstellar expedition, but just think of what we can do to destroy ourselves already:

Resource Depletion
World War (Conventional)
World War (Nuclear)
Global Climate Change
Pandemics

And I'm sure you could add more if you set your mind to it.


Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Moderator
[ * ]
Ahhh.... but.... those all are based on planet based life! And life based on competition rather than cooperation.

That's the data point we know, but is it the basis for ALL life?

See Robert Forward's great science fiction novels of life on the surface of a neutron star. Dragon's Egg and Star Quake.

Where do you put your money if it turns out carbon-water based life is very rare compared to alternative chemistry based life forms?

Edited by ngc1514, Oct 4 2009, 02:49 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
I don't think it would change much, Eric.

I believe that any creature that climbed to the top in any evolutionary scenario would have to be intensely competitive and a good bit self centred, with the type of drive it takes to push technological advancement to the limit, no matter the cost.

And those are the exact characteristics that lead to the self-destructive actions I listed before.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Moderator
[ * ]
I disagree about evolution requiring "Tho' Nature, red in tooth and claw." Instead, I can envision a fully symbiotic biota requiring nothing but cooperation.

The mistake is in your use of "climbed to the top." Here you are putting the concept of a goal other than pure reproductive success as a driving evolutionary force. That's far closer to a LaMarckian description of evolution than Darwinian.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Maybe it's due to our limited experience with one planet, but I have difficulty imagining what would drive a "fully symbiotic biota" to develop tools beyond what is necessary for a comfortable life.

And without those tools, how would it become a spacefaring race, or even one with enough technology to communicate with us?

After all, the race to the Moon was a matter of competition, not need. And I would maintain that competitive urge, either individually or at a tribal level, has been developed as an advantageous trait by evolution.

My use of "climbed to the top" is not an evolutionary goal, but a species' one. In this case, I am considering "the top" a level of technology which would make our communication with them a mutually beneficial exercise.

As an alternate "Top", I would say that Killer Whales have climbed to the top within their environment, with no enemies worth mentioning, plenty of food, and enough intelligence to communicate and navigate with their own species. However, they seem to have no interest in competing among themselves, nor in toolmaking, nor anything else that would make a meaningful conversation with us.

I think that they may give you a good idea of just where a fully symbiotic biota would go - and stop.

As for "climbing to the top" in evolutionary terms, I think you would agree that there is no indication that evolution is aimed any more at intelligence than any other talent that would make a species more fit to survive.
Edited by Brewster, Oct 5 2009, 04:33 AM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Moderator
[ * ]
You are still thinking about earth-type life, Brew. Now imagine a life form that, rather than following the same technological path we did, followed a more biological path down the likes of which we now seem to be headed. Biotechnology rather than mechanical technology, if you will. Rather than a nano-tech gray goo, a biological equivalent that can be used to fabricate anything you like.

Or a life form evolved in the thin vapor of galactic nebulae that evolved the ability to travel in space - as we did on the earth - as part of their evolutionary pathway.

All just mental diddling, of course, but examples of why the problems we consider so difficult to solve, may not be a factor on life forms elsewhere.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Why would a biota evolving in space not follow the same rules re competitiveness, etc. as one based on a planet?

And if interstellar propulsion was a part of their natural evolution, competition would be less likely because of the sheer distances involved, but then I think you'd end up with a scenario very similar to the Orcas I mentioned before. Meeting such creatures would be fascinating, to be sure, but it's still unlikely we'd be able to have a meaningful conversation.

As for a species developing biotechnology as its primary tool source, once again, I don't see a fundamental difference re competitiveness.

A very good debate - mental diddling, as you say, but far more entertaining than the "Obama is the saviour / devil incarnate" mudslinging elsewhere.

Thank You!
Edited by Brewster, Oct 5 2009, 09:59 AM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Moderator
[ * ]
I think we are disagreeing on the idea of competition as an evolutionary factor rather than an artifact of our own human pathway.

I have here in front of me Peter J. Bowler's Evolution: The History of an Idea and can not help but notice that there is no index listing for competition. Nor is there an entry for that topic in Richard Milner's The Encyclopedia of Evolution: Humanity's Search for its Origins.

Wasn't it here (maybe over on the Fire and Ice forum) that we debated the question of the world if we dropped the human population down to 200 million? Why, under that scenario, would competition be a factor for anything? Inventiveness could continue apace, the pressure of a burgeoning population on every facet of the earth reduced to nothing and war for most of the reasons why we fight wars eliminated (or so we'd wish!)

This might be a good time for you to offer your thoughts on why you see competition necessary rather than a possible aberration of the human intellect.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · RV AND CAMPING DISCUSSION · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis