Astronomy / Space Aliens!

[Ydiss]

What is interesting is that humans are the only species on Earth that have evolved to our level (the ability to reason and create/innovate, with the ability to learn to culture language).

I wonder what life would be like had another species managed this. Such as primates or birds.

There isn't any evidence that suggests this is even possible, however. So it's not really surprising that a lot of science fiction depicts sentient aliens as humanoids.

It doesn't mean it's not possible that sentient aliens could be like us but have totally different anatomist (such as feline, insectoid or whatever). But I'm a firm believer that everything happens for a reason. And I think that if it were possible for other known species to be like us, then over several million years you would have thought it would have happened by now.

So the way I see it is aliens are either primitive and based on similar life forms on Earth (Alien, Alien 2), sentient and based on humanoids (most other Sci fi) or sentient and absolutely nothing like what we know.

 

[Pendra]

This discussion recently overran in the thread about Steam Keys with a discussion that somehow Thargoids are unrealistic.

Evolution was discussed, as was biomass.

So - here's a dedicated thread to discuss the important questions:-

1. Are humans or humanoid species the only ones capable of reaching Space Travel?
2. If not, what would Aliens look like?
3. <late edition> What is needed for a species to develop space travel?

To get you started, I reckon that it's a big stretch that dinosaurs in over 100m years of existence didn't evolve some brains. I've no evidence, except that episode of ST:V.

Also someone else mentioned insectoid biomass not being as much as our. According to some rudimentary google-fu and Wikipedia it turns out that termites do. So there.

I'll be patrolling this thread with the Stick Of Logical Fallacies, the Grammar and Spelling Police have had their funding cut and therefore will not be present.

Sophistry is right out.

GO!

1: No.
2: Different.
3: Methods to leave the planet it lives on. Methods to survive the hard vacuum or hostile environment. Being pure energy would help a ton here.

Insectoid biomass is unbelievable. If you gave unlimited resources to flies and removed all the predators that prey on them, in 1-2 months, the planet would be covered by flies miles deep.
Ants wage wars and create super colonies. Their nests can be as massive as our greatest cities (compared to ant sizes, of course). They have health care, army, ruling cast, farmers creating composte to growing fungus. Even alcohol addiction as ants can get addicted on some bug's output material.

And I don't want to get started on how superior spiders are. Good thing they did not develop lungs and the O2 levels dropped. The simple trachea system of an insect and the O2 ratio in the air determines its maximum size. I tend to keep an eye on gene splicing research that aims to inject spider dna into a cow. The idea is to turn the cow's milk glands into spider web glands. You know for bulletproof wests. Current spider milking yields a low. You need tons of them to spool enough for a west.

 

[digitalscream]

Most of those aren't poor design at all:
-Having one shared entrance of food/air is efficient, reduces water loss which is one of the chief stresses on our bodies so has a greater impact on the entire species than the very rare chance of choking. Land dwelling animals that aren't insects, arachnids etc use this system precisely because of its efficiency.
-Those organs are protected by instinct and again, across the species doesn't really matter.
-Vitamin C, while on the surface may look silly, humans are very good at recycling it and we have no shortage of external sources. Not only that but in order for the entire species to have lost it, it generally means either it has a negative impact on surviving to reproduce or a positive impact on another area of our biology.
-The blind spot doesn't matter as our brains fill in the blank just fine with information from both eyes and surrounding data from one eye.
-The breathing thing isn't backwards. CO2 is used because when it dissolves in water it produces an acid. This is detectable by chaemo recepters in the carotid and aortic arteries. O2 doesn't have the same effect.
-Only thing here that is slightly relevant, but as long as across the species those vestigial parts are not effecting our ability to reproduce they're irrelevant to our design.
-3 methods of communication. Visual clues, smell and sound. Sound is the most superior of the 3 in that it can travel faster and further at lowest sensitivity of the relevant organ and doesn't require being relatively close to the subject.

All of those are justifications based on the behaviours that we've had to develop in order to cope with the flaws.

- It's far more efficient to be able to breathe and eat at the same time, especially in a competitive environment where eating is best done fast so you can get out of there. Water loss is a complete red herring, because there's nothing that says you can't have separate closable entry points for both. In fact, it's not especially difficult to modify the human body to do exactly that.
- We had to develop the ability to find vitamin C from elsewhere; the mutation which prevents production most likely occurred at a coalescence point in the human genetic population, namely from the mitochondrial Adam and Eve.
- Our brains had to develop this behaviour to cope with the flaw.
- The breathing thing *is* backwards. CO2's presence is used as a proxy for the lack of oxygen. You're explaining the mechanism; that's irrelevant, because it's based on a flawed premise. The presence of CO2 does not cover all situations where there's a lack of oxygen, which is what the mechanism is supposed to detect. Try breathing a 95% nitrogen mix; the first you'll know about it is that you get light-headed, not that your instinct to find oxygenated air is triggered.
- The body's development would be more efficient without them. They're like go-faster stripes that you can't see.
- Using all of those methods of communication, you still can't communicate as fast as you think. That's my point.

EDIT: What I'm trying to say is twofold:

1 - As any engineering course will tell you, the presence of a workaround doesn't justify bad design.
2 - These are all areas where the human body can be significantly improved, which is why I made that post in the first place

 

[superflyguy]

Most of those aren't poor design at all:
.................

Touche.

Initially i thought some of Digitalscream's post was good and it made me chuckle. Your reponse is excellent (and made me chuckle)

good stuff chaps.
rep+

 

[Stigbob]

What is interesting is that humans are the only species on Earth that have evolved to our level (the ability to reason and create/innovate, with the ability to learn to culture language).

I wonder what life would be like had another species managed this. Such as primates or birds.

There isn't any evidence that suggests this is even possible, however. So it's not really surprising that a lot of science fiction depicts sentient aliens as humanoids.

It doesn't mean it's not possible that sentient aliens could be like us but have totally different anatomist (such as feline, insectoid or whatever). But I'm a firm believer that everything happens for a reason. And I think that if it were possible for other known species to be like us, then over several million years you would have thought it would have happened by now.

So the way I see it is aliens are either primitive and based on similar life forms on Earth (Alien, Alien 2), sentient and based on humanoids (most other Sci fi) or sentient and absolutely nothing like what we know.

I think the main reason we are the only intelligence on earth is because we ate the neanderthals (honestly), any planet could only support one intelligent species as belligerence is a survival strategy.

The all intelligent species must be humanoid theory took off (IMHO) thanks to star-trek having a limited special effects budget. Why make insectoids when you can just have a variety of foreheads.

Alan Dean Foster wrote a good book about a world of silicon based life called Sentenced to Prism, well worth a read.

My current favorite alien species are the prador from Neal Ashers books.

 

[Aldaris]

All of those are justifications based on the behaviours that we've had to develop in order to cope with the flaws.

- It's far more efficient to be able to breathe and eat at the same time, especially in a competitive environment where eating is best done fast so you can get out of there. Water loss is a complete red herring, because there's nothing that says you can't have separate closable entry points for both. In fact, it's not especially difficult to modify the human body to do exactly that.
- We had to develop the ability to find vitamin C from elsewhere; the mutation which prevents production most likely occurred at a coalescence point in the human genetic population, namely from the mitochondrial Adam and Eve.
- Our brains had to develop this behaviour to cope with the flaw.
- The breathing thing *is* backwards. CO2's presence is used as a proxy for the lack of oxygen. You're explaining the mechanism; that's irrelevant, because it's based on a flawed premise. The presence of CO2 does not cover all situations where there's a lack of oxygen, which is what the mechanism is supposed to detect. Try breathing a 95% nitrogen mix; the first you'll know about it is that you get light-headed, not that your instinct to find oxygenated air is triggered.
- The body's development would be more efficient without them. They're like go-faster stripes that you can't see.
- Using all of those methods of communication, you still can't communicate as fast as you think. That's my point.

-Whether or not they're closable still means an avenue for water loss. Your mouth is closable, still causes water loss. You can eat and breathe at the same time, you just can't swallow, which is an action that takes very little time compared to the eating. Across an entire species it does not impact on your ability to survive. Water loss does however.
-We did, because we didn't need to produce our own vitamin C. When the source is readily available in our diets it is less efficient to produce it yourself. You could make the same argument about essential amino acids for example but that happens across far more than our species. Not only that but due to this wide availability of it there's no chance we'd be affected by other species dying out, either locally or full extinction event.
-And as the brain copes with it, it's not inefficient. It is quite literally irrelevant to our design.
-No it isn't backwards. It is the only method of detecting when we need to breathe. No it doesn't cover all situations, but those situations are outside our evolutionary norms and irrelevant to our efficency and our design. We'd never breathe 95% nitrogen naturally. You're using extreme scenarios to prove your point.
-No it wouldn't, at least in terms of our entire species and our ability to reproduce. The appendix is functionally vestigial. Doesn't stop our species though. These vestigial organs don't impact on our ability to reproduce.
-Your point is irrelevant. Telepathy doesn't exist. Speech is not a poor design compared to the methods that actually exist.

 

[pippo]

The thing is, that our minds are NOT capable of imagining something that is really alien to it. Thats why all and every concept of an "alien species" looks like combination of thing we know about...

I remember my older brother when we were kids saying that if we were to ever meet aliens, we probably wouldn't even realize it, like if they were made of gas or something…
He was a big fan of star trek already.
Smart cookie my brother...

 

[digitalscream]

My current favorite alien species are the prador from Neal Ashers books.

My favourite aliens have to be the Primes from Peter F Hamilton's Commonwealth saga. Sentient, advanced, more adaptable at speed than any other species, so utterly convinced of their logic that there's simply no way to reason with them, and they reproduce so fast that there's no way to beat them with numbers. If Heineken made bad guys etc.

 

[Arkhanist]

copied from other thread


Its true that evolution generally leads to survival of the fittest, but if anything "intelligence" screws that up (this may not be a politically correct thing to say, and I may be on thin ice, but civilised society weakens our genome not the other way around....... Take me... I am an over weight athsmatic with serious allergies and eczema..... modern medicine allows me to do ok, and marry as well as possibly have kids. My genes however are unlikely to strengthen the gene pool and in nature I would (should??) probably be weeded out)
.

Well it's not quiiite that simple. Evolution does two things - traits that give you an advantage to surviving long enough to reproduce (and/or stronger offspring) are more likely to be passed on, and traits that harm your chances of having offspring are less likely to make it. Sometimes, a trait that is both will end up being common, even though there's a 'better' version in another species. It just had to be 'good enough'. Like the s-bend in our spine; being able to stand up is advantageous, even though it means we suffer all sorts of lower back problems in later life and you wouldn't design it that way from scratch.

That also means that traits that are not currently disadvantageous aren't selected against. In our current environment, asthma, short sightedness, allergies etc are not sufficiently counter-productive to end up being selected out. And mutations are rarely single-action. Being a carrier for sickle cell also helps protect against malaria. And that's not even going into the various psychological traits that can be disadvantageous in some circumstances but highly useful in others. The ability to easily convert excess calories into fat was a strength when food was scarce, but now it's become a disadvantage - but not a sufficiently large one to be selected against, at least in the short term.

So sure, short-sighted, asthmatic, obese modern humanity wouldn't be well suited for a neolithic environment - but we don't live in one any more, and hopefully never will again. And for all the costs, who knows what we'll end up evolving into over time as constraints on us now (such as heavy gravity) cease to be so in our future?

 

[greenlantern]

.the human body as it currently stands is an extraordinarily poor design.

Ummm compared to what, your imaginary vision of human perfection? Think I'll side with evolution on this one.

 

[Stigbob]

My favourite aliens have to be the Primes from Peter F Hamilton's Commonwealth saga. Sentient, advanced, more adaptable at speed than any other species, so utterly convinced of their logic that there's simply no way to reason with them, and they reproduce so fast that there's no way to beat them with numbers. If Heineken made bad guys etc.

Yeah I agree they are good (as are the books), however giant psychotic crabs with rail-guns, impenetrable ship armor and a taste for human flesh are great (if space opera is your thing).

 

[digitalscream]

Ummm compared to what, your imaginary vision of human perfectio? Think I'll side with evolution on this one.

Yes! That's the whole damn point!!!!!!

Well, that and the fact that there are many, many improvements which could be made for specific purposes. It would start as specialisation up to the point where a standard set of base improvements are settled upon - that then becomes the new baseline.

It's the same as any technological advancement. You don't have to have a mobile phone, but most people do because it's advantageous and convenient; the same may well be said for bodily improvements a few hundred years into the future. As has already been mentioned, we've effectively stopped human evolution in its tracks with the development of technology and the desire to help everybody overcome their genetic flaws (which, ordinarily, would prevent them passing on the flaws); if we're to continue evolving, we'd have to either build it ourselves or employ a eugenics programme.

Ask the Swedish government how the latter worked out for them

 

[ethelred]

Is technological adaption of a base organic form not evolution too?

I would say the societal benefits of helping the less fortunate are also a positive in evolutionary terms (though this is maybe crossing into a political/philosophical reason)

 

[Hootmon]

Yeah I agree they are good (as are the books), however giant psychotic crabs with rail-guns, impenetrable ship armor and a taste for human flesh are great (if space opera is your thing).

...of Sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads.

 

[who?]

It's hard to answer, because it's so open-ended. It's easy to find define them by seeking parallels with our own evolution..

- they need to have limbs / appendages for complex interactions with their environment.. maybe they don't? Maybe they're a parasitical that takes over other creatures and uses their abilities. We know such organisms exist here on Earth so why not elsewhere?

- they need to have a written language or some way of encoding/recording knowledge; to ensure their "intellectual" progress isn't limited by their individual lifespan.. maybe they don't? Maybe there are specialised sub-class of creature whose role is to record data - in whatever bio-chemical form - and pass it on to others? Some are workers, some are thinkers, some are memory banks..

For the sake of the game, they're likely to be vaguely humanoid, perhaps with insect origins; because that's what we expect and can relate to. Thinking of something brand new isn't actually something we're good at; many new creations are either a result of accidents, or simply by combining two existing ideas, or taking a concept from one domain and moving it into another.

 

[Stigbob]

...of Sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads.

And an enormous "layyzer"

 

[EAGLE 5]

For me it starts with the basic building blocks which is carbon. An alien life form in order to be truly alien should have fundamental differences to Earth based animal physiology. It's been thrown out before but something evolving out of silicon based cells would definitely be it for me.

 

[se_thrax]

1. Are humans or humanoid species the only ones capable of reaching Space Travel?
2. If not, what would Aliens look like?
3. <late edition> What is needed for a species to develop space travel?

Anything that develops tools will be my answer. An entity with curiosity to more effeciency and taking that leap. That is a species thinking, wondering, improving, waging war.

 

[Roninpaul]

So if the Gravity was a little stronger , we would all be having sex on all fours.

 

[nedeaalex]

Well the moment a species realises that instead of fighting eachother they should cooperate i believe space travel is achieved in a very short time. Think about it. We put billions of dollars every month into armies. Now imagine all that money went into space travel. We would already be taking selfies at Sag A* ^^. On another note, i guess any life form would be simillar to us. I mean you need means to eat, sense and move around. Be it ultrasounds or infrared, they would be similar at least functionally. At appearances, it depends and i would say no. While humans live on Earth where sun is plenty and O2 and well, water. Others might look like a big sponge, because maybe water would be scarce on their planet.