Possible Alien Life

[HydrogenBond]

Here is an interesting angle. If a species of giant aliens appeared which were omnivors, to take over the earth , America might be spared. We are overweight as a culture and might be considered too high in chloresterol.

[Boerseun]

All very good points.

 

However, continuing along UncleAl's reasoning a few posts ago, I'm sure that for similar planets, roughly similar solutions should develop.

 

Consider:

 

Oxygen in our atmosphere is plant waste. Animals thrive on it, and is dependent on enough plants being around so that they'd have a breathable atmosphere. CO2 in our atmosphere is animal waste, and conversely, plants thrive on it. They, too, are dependent on animals being around to continuously inject CO2 into the atmosphere. Sure, every now and then a volcano spews forth CO2, but plant life can't be successful based on unreliable volcanos. So, they are dependent on animals.

 

With this, we have achieved a dynamic system where resources like oxygen and carbon is continuously circulated throughout the biosphere. If this wasn't the case, then Life would have thrived, reliant on one specific element until it's used up. It's not being dynamically injected into the system, and the whole system would collapse.

 

So, making an observation of Earthlife, I suppose we could say that a biosphere of two vastly different life-forms (plant-life and animal-life) might also be essential. I suppose if the popular notion of Hollywood-biped large-eyed huge-brained aliens holds any truth, we can probably safely assume that their home planet should also harbour something similar to plant-life on Earth. Not?

[HydrogenBond]

Molecular oxygen or O2 is a plant bi-product, but only during the day when there is light for photosynthesis. Without light they use O2. The nitrogen or N2 within the atmosphere may have formed from bacteria, since bacteria exist that can convert nitrate into nitrogen gas. This shows that life can obtain oxygen from nitrates and sulphates to name a few without an oxygen atmosphere.

 

The CO2 as being an animal waste product is true, whoever the amount of CO2 within limestone deposits is too concentrated and localized to be explained it by coming from animals alone. Volcanoes show that CO2 is a natural product of the earth, stemming from conditions where life cannot exist. The existance of sulfides or hydrogen sulfide vents also shows reduction potential still existing within the earth even without the sun. This allows life to evolve even without photosynthesis.

 

Here is speculation for the natural formation of O2 by the earth itself. To form O2 from O (oxide) would require oxidizing oxygen. Since chlorine is more electronegative than oxygen, if both came from a mantle plasma where all the outer electrons are ionized, slow cooling might shift the lion's share of electrons to Chlorine to form Cl-. The oxygen's deficit of electrons might form O2 for stability. If hydrogen was in the plama mix hydrogen peroxide and Cl- might formed. Additional H as HCL would kick off the oxygen gas to make water.

[Boerseun]

The ability to manipulate the environment should be a universal feature of intelligent life. But this does not imply opposable thumbs, although in worked fine for us. And elephant's trunk might serve the same purpose, leaving a four-footed animal which can also manipulate stuff.

 

But the ability should be universal. Freaky possibilities exist - if a rabbit invested in proper muscle tissue and nerves, it might conceivably use its ears for hands. Tails, etc. might be adapted for this use as well.

[Moontanman]

Maybe intelligent life has a tendency to be humanoid for the same reason fish, sharks, ichthyosaurs, and dolphins are shaped similarly? It could be that intelligence is easier in a humanoid form. Or that the ability to manipulate the environment with technology is easier in humanoid form? Of course when I say humanoid form I don't mean anything we would likely think of as human. I'm sure dolphins don't mistake sharks for dolphins just because both were shaped into a stream lined form by their environment.

 

Michael

[Tormod]

Maybe intelligent life has a tendency to be humanoid for the same reason fish, sharks, ichthyosaurs, and dolphins are shaped similarly?

 

But there are many examples of intelligent life that is decidedly *not* humanoid - for example whales.

 

I think evolution would tend to apply to other things than intelligence, so that intelligence would be a byproduct of evolution, not a measure of it.

[Moontanman]

But there are many examples of intelligent life that is decidedly *not* humanoid - for example whales.

 

I think evolution would tend to apply to other things than intelligence, so that intelligence would be a byproduct of evolution, not a measure of it.

 

How do we know whales are intelegent? I did say the ability to use tecnology was the factor that might shape intellegence into humaniod shape. Whales just might be hypergenuises but it doesn't help much when the whaleing ships come around.

 

Michael

[Tormod]

How do we know whales are intelegent? I did say the ability to use tecnology was the factor that might shape intellegence into humaniod shape. Whales just might be hypergenuises but it doesn't help much when the whaleing ships come around.

 

Michael

 

It doesn't help to defined what requirements there are for intelligence when the people who define the requirements are using their own criteria.

 

I agree that we don't whether whales are "intelligent", but then we don't really have very good definitions for intelligence - if it is toolmaking, then we're definintely not alone:

 

Animal Tool Use

 

If it's "technology", I think we'd need to define that. Bats use natural radars, whales can communicate halfway around the globe using extremely fine-tuned sounds.

 

When the whaling ships come, I think you'd find that intelligence, or at least instinct, plays a big part when it comes to escaping. One animal being caught is not a sign of lack of intelligence - this is rather a typical sign of flocks and packs, or of good hunting. Humans also fall prey to predators, but you would not use that argument to say humans are not intelligent.

[Boerseun]

I personally like the definition of intelligence as the ability to consume energy extrasomatically. For humans, that would have started with the invention of fire.

 

Whales can't do it, and can't manipulate their environment.

 

But they do seem to have communication down to a 'T'.

 

But besides that, I am happy this thread has been resuscitated, but in defining 'intelligence', we're getting slightly off-topic! We're supposed to be hypothesising on the possible designs and similarities we might find between Earth-life and alien life.

[Moontanman]

It doesn't help to defined what requirements there are for intelligence when the people who define the requirements are using their own criteria.

 

I agree that we don't whether whales are "intelligent", but then we don't really have very good definitions for intelligence - if it is toolmaking, then we're definintely not alone:

 

Animal Tool Use

 

If it's "technology", I think we'd need to define that. Bats use natural radars, whales can communicate halfway around the globe using extremely fine-tuned sounds.

 

When the whaling ships come, I think you'd find that intelligence, or at least instinct, plays a big part when it comes to escaping. One animal being caught is not a sign of lack of intelligence - this is rather a typical sign of flocks and packs, or of good hunting. Humans also fall prey to predators, but you would not use that argument to say humans are not intelligent.

 

You are correct but i don't see whales building weapons to protect themselves from preditors either. Humans manipulate thier environemnt to their own benifit. the radar of bats is not tecnology any more than human eye sight is technology. There is different degrees of technology but I would propose that any animal that obtians tools from it's environemnt by changing a natural object into a tool is using technology. A few other animals do this in a minor way and they deserve credit for it. No other animal does it to the extent humans do. The making of tools is the first step of technology but i think that fire would have to be the next step. We humans have developed the second step to a high level but i'm not sure we have really gone beyond it. I faint memory haunts me from childhood, I read somewhere that the remains of a nonhuman creature that used fire used to live on madigascar. It was an up right lemure but it became extinct when humans invaded the island. i have looked in vain for years to find this information again and failed but i am sure it was not a dream or false memory. If true them we weren't the only uprite animal to get to the second step on this planet. If it was a memory of something I misread it did cause me to come up with the two steps of tecnology idea. Can you think of a third step? Or have we already passed the third step? I am thinking that maybe living on more than one planet is the third step.

 

Michael

[Moontanman]

I personally like the definition of intelligence as the ability to consume energy extrasomatically. For humans, that would have started with the invention of fire.

 

Whales can't do it, and can't manipulate their environment.

 

But they do seem to have communication down to a 'T'.

 

But besides that, I am happy this thread has been resuscitated, but in defining 'intelligence', we're getting slightly off-topic! We're supposed to be hypothesising on the possible designs and similarities we might find between Earth-life and alien life.

 

 

You are correct I did side track the thread and i apologize. but do you see what i mean about the humaniod shape being dirived from pressure of intellegence and use of tecnology? Animals are shaped by their environment and their use of it.

 

Michael

[Moontanman]

The ability to manipulate the environment should be a universal feature of intelligent life. But this does not imply opposable thumbs, although in worked fine for us. And elephant's trunk might serve the same purpose, leaving a four-footed animal which can also manipulate stuff.

 

But the ability should be universal. Freaky possibilities exist - if a rabbit invested in proper muscle tissue and nerves, it might conceivably use its ears for hands. Tails, etc. might be adapted for this use as well.

 

 

I don't think that an elephants trunk could ever really be as hands. Only one apendenge would severly handicap the elephant. It couldn't use a spear or a bow, all most all human endevors require two hands to manipulate the tools we use. what use would a hammer be if you couldn't hold the nail with your other hand? try to work a seine with one hand or catch a fish. I know one handed people make out pretty good. i had a cousin who only had one arm and don't think he couldn't manange to do an amazing number of things but he was at a definute disatvantage most of the time and with out objects that were made by two handed people he would have really been in trouble.

 

 

Michael

[Boerseun]

True enough, but the ability certainly doesn't imply a humanoid form. For instance, if an octopus ever decides to become intelligent enough to manipulate his environment in a human-like fashion, he'd be way advanced over humans. He can hold four nails and four hammers at once. Yet, at the very root of the tree of life, we share a common ancestor with an octopus. But it is very, very early in the history of life where we share common origins. Imagine how freaky aliens can be, with whom we share nothing!

[CraigD]

I don't think that an elephants trunk could ever really be as hands. Only one apendenge would severly handicap the elephant. It couldn't use a spear or a bow, all most all human endevors require two hands to manipulate the tools we use. …

Yeah. It’s hard to imagine an elephant making rope, or weaving a basket, either.

 

I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention a fictional alien species, the Fithp, from Niven and Pournelle’s memorable 1985 novel, “Footfall”. The lurid scifi cover art pretty much says it all, in terms of Fithp anatomy. IMHO, a very interesting alien psychology novel from a couple of major hard SF authors.

[Moontanman]

Yeah. It’s hard to imagine an elephant making rope, or weaving a basket, either.

 

I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention a fictional alien species, the Fithp, from Niven and Pournelle’s memorable 1985 novel, “Footfall”. The lurid scifi cover art pretty much says it all, in terms of Fithp anatomy. IMHO, a very interesting alien psychology novel from a couple of major hard SF authors.

 

yes, that is one of my favorite tales. A double trunked elephant would be wild to say the least. Have you read John Varleys trilogy "Titan" 'Wizard, and Demon? Intelegent centaurs. I thought the centaurs were almost more believable than humaniods.

 

Michael

[Boerseun]

Another interesting point:

 

We came from creatures resembling a Tupaia, probably one of the first primates. Then we refined tree-climbing to an art. Up in the trees, keen forward-facing vision for depth perception and the ability to grasp branches was much more important and profitable than a fine sense of smell and a turn of speed. So we traded the one for the other. Then, it seemed, life on the plains became a better prospect. Now, being on the plains, an upright posture gives an earlier warning of approacing danger. Analogies to this might be the prairie dogs and meerkats. Besides, we didn't have very comfortable front legs for walking - they were built for grasping. So, standing up not only gives you early visual warning of danger, but also frees up the front limbs for carrying food and weapons. So, in turn, we became very generalised in design.

 

We can't run very well (or fast), but we can climb trees. We can't exactly climb trees very well anymore, but at least we can run to some degree. It's a bit of a trade-off. We can't really do anything well, biologically speaking, but we've got a wide range to pick from. We can run, swim, climb, belly-crawl, do somer-saults, swing, etc. But none of them as well as animals specialised in it.

 

So, in order to overcome our unspecialised nature, and be able to hunt animals that are faster and bigger than us, we invented intelligence and technology to make up for our unspecialised design. We make up for our lack of sharp and dangerous teeth and claws by manufacturing bows and arrows, spears, etc. And then we make up for our limited gastronomical design by cooking the food first as an aid to digestion, by breaking down the cells in meat prior to ingesting it. Then we saw other uses for fire, and the rest, well, is history.

 

I'm not saying that another conceivable intelligence will follow the same path, but maybe a non-specialised design provided the environmental pressure to evolve intelligence in order to make up for it, and maybe the concept might be appliccable to other planets?

 

Thoughts?

[Moontanman]

Another interesting point:

 

We came from creatures resembling a Tupaia, probably one of the first primates. Then we refined tree-climbing to an art. Up in the trees, keen forward-facing vision for depth perception and the ability to grasp branches was much more important and profitable than a fine sense of smell and a turn of speed. So we traded the one for the other. Then, it seemed, life on the plains became a better prospect. Now, being on the plains, an upright posture gives an earlier warning of approacing danger. Analogies to this might be the prairie dogs and meerkats. Besides, we didn't have very comfortable front legs for walking - they were built for grasping. So, standing up not only gives you early visual warning of danger, but also frees up the front limbs for carrying food and weapons. So, in turn, we became very generalised in design.

 

We can't run very well (or fast), but we can climb trees. We can't exactly climb trees very well anymore, but at least we can run to some degree. It's a bit of a trade-off. We can't really do anything well, biologically speaking, but we've got a wide range to pick from. We can run, swim, climb, belly-crawl, do somer-saults, swing, etc. But none of them as well as animals specialised in it.

 

So, in order to overcome our unspecialised nature, and be able to hunt animals that are faster and bigger than us, we invented intelligence and technology to make up for our unspecialised design. We make up for our lack of sharp and dangerous teeth and claws by manufacturing bows and arrows, spears, etc. And then we make up for our limited gastronomical design by cooking the food first as an aid to digestion, by breaking down the cells in meat prior to ingesting it. Then we saw other uses for fire, and the rest, well, is history.

 

I'm not saying that another conceivable intelligence will follow the same path, but maybe a non-specialised design provided the environmental pressure to evolve intelligence in order to make up for it, and maybe the concept might be appliccable to other planets?

 

Thoughts?

 

I agree with you for the most part but humans are extremely good at long distance running. A man in good condition can run longer than almost any animal. The idea of non specialized design could be a template for most intellegent beings. Humaniod form doesn't nesesrrily mean human looking. Of corse as Gould said if we were to rewind the tape of life on this planet we might not even get vertabrates much less humans. I am torn between the idea of evolution shaping us to fit a tecnology role or just being lucky to have a shape that allowed us to develop tecnology. Another example would really help, ploting a line from one point is difficult.

 

michael