What is necessary for technology to occur?

[Doctordick]

Moderation Note: This post has been moved from "Darwin revisited" as it addresses a philosophical issue of the prerequisites of intelligence and technology.

I am posting here only because of the title “Darwin re-visited”. I have a question which seems to me quite interesting and I was hoping some expert on evolution could enlighten me. As far as I understand the circumstances, life on earth began in the seas. The total size of the habitat represented by the seas is considerably larger than the habitat occupied by land animals. Human beings appear to have developed into a rather technically advanced society in something less than a million years (maybe even as short as one tenth that long). Other “land animals “ appear to have developed somewhat complex social orders.

 

Sea animals, on the other hand, seem to have been inhabiting the sea orders of magnitude longer than land animals have been around and yet I see no technically advanced fish (sea mammals don't count as they are supposedly land animals who went back to the sea). The suggestion embedded in such statistics is that, denied a gaseous oxygen atmosphere, evolutionary achievement of intelligent life is, for all practical purposes, impossible. Is this a reasonable deduction or not?

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Moontanman]

I am posting here only because of the title “Darwin re-visited”. I have a question which seems to me quite interesting and I was hoping some expert on evolution could enlighten me. As far as I understand the circumstances, life on earth began in the seas. The total size of the habitat represented by the seas is considerably larger than the habitat occupied by land animals. Human beings appear to have developed into a rather technically advanced society in something less than a million years (maybe even as short as one tenth that long). Other “land animals “ appear to have developed somewhat complex social orders.

 

Sea animals, on the other hand, seem to have been inhabiting the sea orders of magnitude longer than land animals have been around and yet I see no technically advanced fish (sea mammals don't count as they are supposedly land animals who went back to the sea). The suggestion embedded in such statistics is that, denied a gaseous oxygen atmosphere, evolutionary achievement of intelligent life is, for all practical purposes, impossible. Is this a reasonable deduction or not?

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

I think you should start a new thread with this post Docdick, but I think a real argument can be made that if not intelligence then at least a technologically advanced creature is impossible with out fire. since fire doesn't burn under water technology it is if not impossible then much less likely under water than on land.....

[jedaisoul]

The suggestion embedded in such statistics is that, denied a gaseous oxygen atmosphere, evolutionary achievement of intelligent life is, for all practical purposes, impossible. Is this a reasonable deduction or not?

I would suggest that there are other factors that weigh more heavily than a gaseous environment. After all, fishes gain enough ovygen from the water to live an active life. Just try and out-swim a shark! It's not just streamlined, it's a very powerful swimmer. So, no, lack of oxygen does not seem to fit the facts.

 

Fire is an interesting suggestion, but I would suggest a more mundane argument (that probably is not original) - hands with opposable thumbs. These served an evolutionary purpose, grasping on to braches in trees. It's a lot safer and easier to survive in the canopy than on the ground. But they are also ideal for tool use. You don't have to have hands with opposable thumbs to use tools, but it helps. Tool use requires, and hence promotes, imagination and ingenuity. You have to make the connection between the tool and your objective.

 

So if fish has an evolutionary use for hands, they might have developed tool use and hence higher intelligence. Or, rather, only the fish that left the water for the land developed arms (to move around on) and then hands (to grasp with), which led to advanced tool use.

 

How's that?

[Doctordick]

So if fish has an evolutionary use for hands, they might have developed tool use and hence higher intelligence. Or, rather, only the fish that left the water for the land developed arms (to move around on) and then hands (to grasp with), which led to advanced tool use.

 

How's that?

No, I can't accept that argument as porpoises have been shown to use tools (which they hold in their mouths) so the trait does not require hands. But it does require intelligence which I presume the porpoises had already achieved before they returned to the sea.

[Boerseun]

Interesting thread!

 

The argument for opposable thumbs might be a bit antropocentric. The argument roughly go as follows: We are the most advanced species on the planet, hence reaching this point requires all the physical attributes we have.

 

There are plenty other configurations out there that might have beaten us opposable-thumb primates to the post. For instance, a very good argument can be made that the octopus' physical configuration is much more practical than ours. All it lacks is a brain. Or an elephant. They are very handy with their trunks, and would not require opposable thumbs. Both can perfectly well manipulate their environment, given the proper brains to do it with.

 

I think the requirements for technology in the sense of the OP, is much more subtle than mere limb geometry. I think one of the base requirements would be the loss of specialization. A species that is so specialized that it fits its niche perfectly, has no real drive to devise technology. There would be no need. But a species who's sense of smell atrophied because the eyeballs have grown forward and suppressed the nasal cavity in order to judge 3D better when jumping from branch to branch, and have developed opposing thumbs to grip branches with, and then suddenly found themselves out in the open when trees diminished, won't be specialized in anything, and will have to make up for that by employing the environment in different ways. This can be seen amongst chimps who employ sticks and stones when fighting and hunting, to make up for their relative slow speed vs. prey, their lack of claws, etc. And once the environment is being used to make up for your lack of specialization, technology is born.

 

Humans are not very good runners, seers, listeners, smellers - basically, any trait you'd care to mention, there will be some animal somewhere or another that kicks humanity in the teeth by outperforming us by a few orders of magnitude. We are so unspecialized its not even funny. Yet, our brains make up for it and we get to employ the environment in weird and wonderful ways to make up for it. No other species has been on the moon, after all.

 

But apart from the subtleties as pointed out above, I do believe that an oxygen-rich environment is imperative. Be it some sort of a weird and magical liquid which allows for fire, or a gaseous atmosphere is besides the point. But fire itself is imperative. The ability to smelt metals and shape it into useful articles is the next step up from merely flaking rocks into useful tools - which can conceivably be done by an aquatic species. That will be the limit to their technology.

 

So, I believe a species must shed specialization, and live in an oxygen-rich atmosphere. This is getting to be a bit anthropic, once again - but I think the argument is valid up to this point, at least.

[jedaisoul]

No, I can't accept that argument as porpoises have been shown to use tools (which they hold in their mouths) so the trait does not require hands. But it does require intelligence which I presume the porpoises had already achieved before they returned to the sea.

I'm not saying that hands are essential for tool use. Indeed I said:

You don't have to have hands with opposable thumbs to use tools, but it helps.

There are birds that use tools. But their tool usage is largely limited to what they can find lying around. They have limited ability to fashion tools.

 

The fashioning of tools gives rise to technology. I suggest that to fashion tools (other than at a rudimentary level), you require hands. For example, the stone axe is a remarkable tool. You have to chose the right sort of stone, and work it in a sophisticated manner to produce the cutting edge. The stone axe is, itself, a product of technology. I don't think you could produce a stone axe without hands.

[jedaisoul]

The ability to smelt metals and shape it into useful articles is the next step up from merely flaking rocks into useful tools - which can conceivably be done by an aquatic species. That will be the limit to their technology.

I think you made a good case up to this point, but I think that you underestimate the sophistication of "flaking rocks into useful tools". As far as I'm aware few species have done that, and all of them have hands. Yes, fire for smelting metals is the next step. But we needed hands to get that far.

 

That is, unless I'm wrong, and there are species without hands that flake rocks into useful tools.

So, I believe a species must shed specialization, and live in an oxygen-rich atmosphere. This is getting to be a bit anthropic, once again - but I think the argument is valid up to this point, at least.

Perhaps there is a hierarchy of needs for technology to arise? I suggest the order: Lack of specialisation (to create a need for tools), hands (to create tools, rather than just use them), then fire (to create better tools).

[Boerseun]

Perhaps there is a hierarchy of needs for technology to arise? I suggest the order: Lack of specialisation (to create a need for tools), hands (to create tools, rather than just use them), then fire (to create better tools).

That's certainly possible, but I wouldn't say "hands". I would rather say "the ability to manipulate the environment". An elephant's trunk is as agile, or more, than a human hand. I suppose a species can be imagined with no hands, but with limbs suitable for the purpose, that can successfully manipulate objects.

[Boerseun]

I think you made a good case up to this point, but I think that you underestimate the sophistication of "flaking rocks into useful tools". As far as I'm aware few species have done that, and all of them have hands. Yes, fire for smelting metals is the next step. But we needed hands to get that far.

 

That is, unless I'm wrong, and there are species without hands that flake rocks into useful tools.

Well, to be fair, I did say "conceivably" - because there is nothing in the aquatic environment to prevent stone flaking. All that is necessary, is the need for it, and brains. If an octopus had the necessary brains, its body geometry is perfectly suitable to flake stones without hands.

 

I do suppose a brain, then, is the ultimate requirement. But this brain, once again, probably would not have come to be if the species was sufficiently specialized in a given niche.

 

So I suppose when it comes to priority, losing specialization trumps brains in the "requirements for technology" department. Lose specialization, and the brain will follow, so to speak.

[freeztar]

I suppose a species can be imagined with no hands, but with limbs suitable for the purpose, that can successfully manipulate objects.

 

Check this video out.

 

YouTube - Skilled octopus opens bottles - un pulpo, Octi abre botellas http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfRqYjv9QgA&feature=related

 

Octopuses do have brains. They're quite intelligent actually (as witnessed above).

 

I've never heard of one fashioning a tool, but I wouldn't say it's impossible.

 

EDIT: Found this short article on Octopus tool use. It seems one species harvests live jellyfish stingers and holds them up when threatened.

 

http://radthoughts.com/2007/02/01/octopus-tool-use/

[Boerseun]

Octopuses do have brains. They're quite intelligent actually (as witnessed above).

 

I've never heard of one fashioning a tool, but I wouldn't say it's impossible.

Brains they certainly have. I just said the "necessary" brains in order to flake tools.

 

My point was that there is nothing physically limiting to their body geometries to stop them from picking up rocks and flaking it, to illustrate the point that "hands" shouldn't necessarily a precursor to technology. Any limb (octopus, elephant) that can manipulate the environment would do, I guess - and an octopus passes with flying colours. Say that they did evolve the proper brains to start making tools and such - then they will slam into a brick wall with them not being able to light a fire to progress, technologically speaking. That will be their limit, not the fact that they don't have "hands". Am I making sense, at least? I'm battling to read my own text this morning...:smilingsun:

[freeztar]

It makes perfect sense to me.

 

If we place fire as one of the necessary elements of technology, then no underwater creature will ever have technology. If we take away fire as a requirement, then we are left with tool use, which requires some sort of manipulating arm/tentacle/etc..

 

But "tool" is pretty vague. Would we say that a bird's nest is a tool, or at least a "compilation of tools". Is it technological?

[Boerseun]

That's an interesting question.

 

But I suppose an argument can be made that a bird's nest, or any other instinctively built "tool", like a termite nest, is not so much a "tool" as it is an "extrasomatic" gene expression - if you will excuse me taking some linguistic liberties here.

 

There's the observation of certain chimpanzee troops who live in the vicinity of termite nests, and are very adept at fashioning short little twigs into the proper shape and size to poke around the termite nest with, catching hundreds of termites who cling on to the invading twig. Chimps who grew up in troops where there are no termites, don't have the foggiest notion of "fishing" for termites with these twigs. They have to "learn" by imitating others, and once they grasp the concept, they carry on and improve their designs and techniques. The point I'm trying to make is that the ability, so to speak, of fishing for termites with these twigs are not instinctive, and is a learnt trait. The passing on of technical knowledge like this might be the first vestiges of what we might term "culture". So, can it be that apart from losing specialization and having limbs capable of manipulating the environment (be it hands, tentacles or trunks), a social setup is required that allows the development of "culture"?

 

Is "culture" then a prerequisite for technology?

 

This is an endlessly amazing topic!

[jedaisoul]

Is "culture" then a prerequisite for technology?

I think that you have a point. Without social groups, there is no passing on of knowledge, including technology. We'd all have to start right back at learning by trial and error how to make a stone axe.

 

But making a stone axe is "technology". So perhaps it is more accurate to say that,

without culture, technology would have no opportunity to develop beyond it's simplest beginnings.

[jedaisoul]

On second thoughts, I would draw a distinction between the requirements for technology to occur and for its further development.

 

On that basis, I would suggest that a need for technology (such as a lack of specialisation) plus the ability to make tools (which requires hand-like appendages) are the requirements for technology to occur.

 

Fire and culture are requirements for its further dissemination and development.

 

Is that a valid distinction?

[Boerseun]

I suppose, but then we have to consider the vast amounts of animals who would then qualify to be "technologists". Would this include otters who use rocks to crack open shells?

 

They don't have jaws strong enough to open the shells (lack of specialisation), and then use their hand-like paws to select the proper rock and manipulate it in the proper fashion to crack the shell open. So they qualify.

 

That might be fair, but should our description of "technology" be a bit more defined? Something like "technology occurs when naturally occurring objects are collected, or fashioned into some other shape, with a future application in mind". Then simply picking up a stone to whack a shell won't count. Picking up a stone to whack a shell at some future date, however, might count, because that implies forethought and planning.

[jedaisoul]

...but should our description of "technology" be a bit more defined? Something like "technology occurs when naturally occurring objects are collected, or fashioned into some other shape, with a future application in mind". Then simply picking up a stone to whack a shell won't count. Picking up a stone to whack a shell at some future date, however, might count, because that implies forethought and planning.

I agree with the first point. That is why I said make tools rather than use tools, to exclude just picking up a stone a whacking something with it.

 

I'm not sure about including collecting stones for future use as technology. I'll have to think about that.