io9 
Enter your username and password.
San Francisco, 1:55 PM
Mon Dec 21
19 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz |
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders |
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner |
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis |
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan |
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier |
Ed Grabianowski |
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan |
Lauren Davis |
Chris Hsiang |
Lynn Peril |
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins |
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox |
Interns:
Tim Barribeau |
Julia Carusillo |
Alex Eichler |
Cyriaque Lamar |
Caitlin Petrakovitz |
Mary Ratliff |
Josh Snyder |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
12/03/09
If not, he must've gotten into the movie industry because he couldn't hold down a job at McDonald's.
-Kle.
12/02/09
"Their is something that wants something and they will do stuff to get that thing"
12/02/09
They've got a very specific agenda. That agenda is not global domination. It's an agenda...
Really, though, do they have an agenda?
12/02/09
12/02/09
I don't get it. A vast arsenal of talent and ideas. Why is it not being tapped? Why are we stuck with indies (the only real good movies) and crap like this?
12/02/09
12/02/09
But, there are talented writers out there trying to sell their own adaptations. And they are getting nowhere. I really think this is a lack of creativity on the Hollyweird scene.
12/02/09
What is weird is that there are books where the movie rights were sold years ago which still haven't been adapted. Richard Morgan's ALTERED CARBON would make a badass movie (body-swapping soldier of fortune investigates murder with aid of sentient hotel equipped with miniguns) and Joel Silver spent a million dollars on the rights seven years ago, and the thing still hasn't moved out of development hell. Same with Scott Lynch's LIES OF LOCKE LAMORA, where the film rights were sold before the book came out and zilch has happened with it.
You don't even need a high-concept novel. There are plenty of good, action-based books out there if you want something as widescreen entertaining as say 2012 without the resulting mental retardation. Harry Turtledove's WORLDWAR book series is bonkers as hell (lizard-like aliens invade Earth in 1942) but would be great fun as a popcorn flick.
12/02/09
So Jeff Goldblum is going to be on the Aliens' side this time? Maybe we should all up date our virus protection.
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
This one:
[www.gamesmuseum.uwaterloo.ca]
12/09/09
I have actually met people who have not idea about board games. Met a girl once who couldn't play solitaire with really cards.
12/02/09
12/02/09
Other than District 9, all alien encounter movies have focused on the false dichotomy: they're here to enlighten us and take us to the stars, or they're here to annihilate us, strip-mine our planet, steal our women and precious metals, whatever. An alien civilization could have a number of other reasonably dramatic reasons to come to Earth.
Something that's always haunted me as an aspiring sci fi writer is the line in Contact when an alien attack is compared to us going out of our way to step on an anthill in Africa. There is a strong likelihood that aliens would come to this planet and be completely ambivalent to humans, must like we would be ambivalent to those ants in Africa. If our evident symbols of planet-dominance (cities, minimal space travel, ecosystem-shaping, etc) aren't anything which catches the attention of an alien race, it's completely reasonable to assume that they would have limited to no interest in us as a species whatsoever.
Which could be problematic if they start, for example, pumping our oxygen into space to terraform our planet!
12/02/09
"uncommonly logical approach to an alien invasion"
Are you kidding? A civilization capable of traveling between stars must, by necessity, be capable of harnessing and controlling massive amounts of energy, which is to say, their weapons would most certainly be far superior and destructive than ours.
Far enough that the aliens initial agenda might not be to exterminate us but once an armed conflict starts, you can't argue that the aliens having the same level of weapon's technology that we do is logical.
At most, you could argue that the aliens are against the extermination of another species, but even that is illogical in the face of their own annihilation.
It's basic biology: when attacked to the point that your survival is at risk, you defend yourself with everything you have.
12/02/09
12/02/09
"If a species evolved without the self destructive drive that we have"
That's a huge if. Competition and survival are essential features of evolution, and that's true for any kind of life, not just humans. Because of that, every species has in it a destructive drive. We're not special in that regard. Here's a simple example: put several individuals of any species together in a cramped environment with little food and they'll start eating one another.
True, a highly intelligent species could outgrow the need to compete with members of its own species, but given the unlikelihood of something like that being common in the universe, any space-faring species traveling to another planet would not survive long if they decided not to protect themselves.
They might not harm themselves, but others might harm them. It's again a biological imperative to protect oneself, and one's species, against aggressors.
That's even more important when you're going somewhere where you haven't been before and don't know that kind of life you'll find. Therefore, any alien species intelligent enough to achieve star travel would necessarily have weapons.
Having established that, it's a simple deduction to conclude that if they have the technology to travel to the stars, they must be capable of harnessing massive amounts of energy, which they surely would take advantage of when creating their weapons.
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
According to some scale which I believe was created by Carl Sagan, we're a level-0 civilization, one which isn't even capable of harnessing and controlling the energy of its own planet.
A level-1 species would be able to harness such energy and even do something like terraforming another planet. A level-2 species would be capable of harnessing the energy of a single star. A level-3 would be able to manipulate an entire solar system to its own advantage. Finally, a level-4 would be capable of harnessing and controlling the energy of an entire galaxy.
I'd imagine that a species capable of traveling between stars would be like level 1.8, clearly capable of changing a planet's orbit, though not necessarily capable of controlling a star.
So, if they wanted to destroy us, it would be easy.
12/02/09
Absolutely.
I haven't read the novel, but I love the (first) movie, despite the obvious stupidity of its plot. I love it for the amazing CGI effects.
Klandatu is in another galaxy, as I recall from the movie, but - hey - the bugs managed somehow to change an asteroid's orbit so that it would travel to Earth, and that happened in the short time during which Ricco is in training. So... faster than light asteroids!
And, yes, plasma bombs shot from their asses. Okey...
12/02/09
As for your enclosed environment suggestion, I put forward three examples:
1. The rabbits of Australia. No natural predators, they breed like, well, like rabbits.
2. Galapagos Islands. No predators, the species have evolved in a harmonious way.
3. Those little enclosed ecosystems you can buy and put on your desk. As long as they get the right sunlight and are kept at the right temperature, they will continue living until death of old age.
They may have a limited concept of aggression and hostility. Look at the aliens in Galaxy Quest. In the beginning of the Man-Kzin wars, humanity had nearly forgotten how to fight. It was just luck their ship was equipped with a mining laser. And if they have never encountered another intelligent species, they would be ill-equipped to deal with our aggressive hostile nature.
There is another option. The Ender's Game option. What if the Aliens do not understand they are attacking a sentient species?
Some days I feel like we think about this stuff more then the movie people them selves. If we ever do get attacked I think that it will be the Io9ers of the world who save it.
12/02/09
And if they are after our planet, it would not be a good idea to wreck it.
12/02/09
12/02/09
"When theorizing about alien races, every thing is a big "if"."
Touché!
"1. The rabbits of Australia.
2. Galapagos Islands."
Both are large enough enclosures. I was talking about *really* cramped spaces, with little food or water. But it was merely an example to illustrate the fact that all species have in themselves the capacity to become self-destructive. It's built-in in their genes, because evolution depends on competition and adaptability.
"3. Those little enclosed ecosystems you can buy and put on your desk."
I'm not sure which ecosystems you're referring to, but if you're talking about, say, ant-farms, you can get them to self-destruct too, and it's not that hard. I shamefully admit having done that when I was a kid.
"They may have a limited concept of aggression and hostility."
Limited, yes, but still existing. Besides, my point was not so much that they'd necessarily have self-destructive tendencies, but that they'd know better than not to be prepared for whatever they might encounter in their travels.
"Look at the aliens in Galaxy Quest."
That's one of my favorite movies, but - come on - you can't seriously be suggesting that such a species would/could really exist.
"In the beginning of the Man-Kzin wars, humanity had nearly forgotten how to fight. It was just luck their ship was equipped with a mining laser."
Sorry, I don't recognize the reference.
"And if they have never encountered another intelligent species, they would be ill-equipped to deal with our aggressive hostile nature."
If you're willing to accept the existence of a star-traveling species, then clearly you should accept that there are many others. Life is actually quite resilient and expected to flourish all over the universe. Intelligent life wouldn't be far behind.
But let me turn the argument the other way around. If you're so sure that we're the aggressive ones and that aliens might not be, what about the possibility that aliens might be far more aggressive than we are? And I don't mean against themselves (they wouldn't survive long enough to achieve star traveling capacity if they were particularly aggressive against themselves [my problem with Klingons, by the way]), but against other species.
"There is another option. The Ender's Game option. What if the Aliens do not understand they are attacking a sentient species?"
Now, that's a more likely scenario, I think. Even then, however, it's hard to imagine that they would not be able to recognize that a species on this planet has achieved some control over artificial light and built machines. Clearly that's a sign of sentience (or at least of technological intelligence). Imagine an alien species approaching the Earth. The Earth on its night side is lit like a christmas tree. Also, there are airplanes and satellites circulating the planet at all times. And radio waves, lots of them. Clearly these are not naturally produced phenomena, meaning that some intelligent life form must exist to have produced these things.
"Some days I feel like we think about this stuff more then the movie people them selves. If we ever do get attacked I think that it will be the Io9ers of the world who save it."
Very true.
12/02/09
12/02/09
Scale is the key. Think god-like aliens who have no reason to be concerned that our pea-shooters could harm them.
12/02/09
I take pride in the fact that I always try to be accurate about things that I say in public. Of course, I don't always succeed, but then I try to correct myself. On an earlier post, I said:
"According to some scale which I believe was created by Carl Sagan, we're a level-0 civilization, one which isn't even capable of harnessing and controlling the energy of its own planet.
A level-1 species would be able to harness such energy and even do something like terraforming another planet. A level-2 species would be capable of harnessing the energy of a single star. A level-3 would be able to manipulate an entire solar system to its own advantage. Finally, a level-4 would be capable of harnessing and controlling the energy of an entire galaxy."
I did some googling just now and found out that (a) it wasn't Sagan who proposed the scale and (b) the scale doesn't go to level 4, but only to level 3. Details here:
Kardashev scale
[en.wikipedia.org]
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
But you raise some valid and intriguing points.
12/02/09
12/02/09
"But you raise some valid and intriguing points."
Thanks, so did you. That's why I keep coming back to io9. Every now and again I get engaged in interesting conversations.
12/02/09
I am unconvinced of the relationship between "capacity to become self-destructive" and "competition and adaptability". I do think adaptability is key, but do not think it needs to be linked to aggression. And since we are discussing the evolution of a species on a planet I think the Galapagos and rabbits are our best examples.
I don’t know if they have them in stores near you, but here they have these little glass globes that are full of water and have a couple of small fish and a plant in them. It is an entirely contained ecosystem. It just as to be kept at the correct temperature and in the right light and it will self regulate for quite a while.
I don’t think we can expect them to prepare for something out here. There is a book called Nightfall if I remember correctly about a planet with something like 6 suns. The inhabitants have never experienced darkness in their living memory. Finally it is revealed that there is to be a planet wide eclipse. Many of them thought they knew what to expect, but when faced with the darkness of night, they went mad. Theory is easy, reality is a bitch, but a pretty one. And why couldn’t the Galaxy Quest aliens be real?
The Man-Kzin books are about a war like cat race kind of like the Klingons, set on universal conquest. When they first encounter us, we had socially evolved into a race so peaceful that war and violence was a strange and alien concept. Granted we rediscovered our blood lust real fast and kicked their cute fuzzy butts.
"If you're willing to accept the existence of a star-traveling species, then clearly you should accept that there are many others."
While I share your opinion on this, I have met far to many people with really strange ideas. What of the people who think that we are alone in the universe? And back to the Ender’s Game aliens. If their technology is vastly different from ours it is possible that they would not recognize our radio waves or our technology as technology. In their mind(s) our planet may simply appear to be a strange scientific anomaly. They may not recognize our sentience or our technological intelligence as such.
I make no assertion that we are the aggressors in the cosmos. Who knows what role we will play, if we make it that far. But at the same time, I am willing to entertain any possibilities of life out there, even Galaxy Quest aliens. I actually quite like the idea of no lies, but not the idea of no fiction. As for the Klingons, as I understand it both the Klingons and the Vulcans were on the verge of destroying themselves when one of them knocked their heads together. The Vulcans controlled their emotions and perused knowledge, the Klingons adopted a social structure similar to a merging of Viking and Japanese. They don’t just go on killing sprees. There is honor and discipline. When two houses were at odds there were duels.
12/02/09
12/02/09
"I am unconvinced of the relationship between "capacity to become self-destructive" and "competition and adaptability". I do think adaptability is key, but do not think it needs to be linked to aggression."
You may be right.
This wikipedia article ([en.wikipedia.org]) says:
Indeed, whereas at low densities organisms do not compete for resources, at higher densities resources become limiting, and the population size can no longer increase.
but doesn't mention aggressive behavior explicitly as a factor. I seem to recall reading about an increase in aggression within a species when resources are severely limited, but I can't locate any references to that at the moment, so maybe I'm dreaming the whole thing up.
"And since we are discussing the evolution of a species on a planet I think the Galapagos and rabbits are our best examples."
Not if you consider that, in both cases, the environmental resources are plentiful.
"I don’t know if they have them in stores near you, but here they have these little glass globes that are full of water and have a couple of small fish and a plant in them. It is an entirely contained ecosystem. It just as to be kept at the correct temperature and in the right light and it will self regulate for quite a while."
Interesting. I have never seen one of those. Of course, I know of home aquariums, but I had never heard of such self-contained mini aquariums. I wonder how long they last before they die.
"I don’t think we can expect them to prepare for something out here."
I respectfully disagree. Any species capable of building very very sophisticated technological things must necessarily know about redundancies and contingency plans. I don't think it's a stretch to try to prepare for the unknown. You can always make educated guesses of some kind.
"There is a book called Nightfall..."
I saw the movie, a long time ago. Your description sounds very accurate from what I remember of the movie.
Putting aside the lack of plausibility of a stable orbit for a planet with so many suns, the fact is that they surely knew what darkness is. They must have houses where they can completely hide themselves from sunlight. And, as I recall, some people were blind. The point is, it's illogical to assume that *no one* would know what darkness is like.
Regardless, I think that the fear of being attacked by a predator or another species competing for the same resources is very powerful and totally built-in in every species. You don't get to survive in the wild if you don't learn to be afraid. Granted, a highly intelligent species might shed that fear, in time, but its roots are still in their DNA, no?
"Theory is easy, reality is a bitch, but a pretty one."
To that I can only say that I'm a theorist by nature. Always have been, at least in physics. I don't profess to be completely right and I might in fact be completely wrong about my POV in this discussion, but that's kinda of irrelevant too. I'm having a blast just having this conversation.
"And why couldn’t the Galaxy Quest aliens be real?"
They probably could, but somehow I don't think it would be very likely.
"we had socially evolved into a race so peaceful that war and violence was a strange and alien concept."
I don't see how that's possible. What factors would be strong enough to turn an aggressive species into a non-aggresive one? Species-wide biological changes don't happen overnight. Any peaceful individuals that might spring up would be quickly killed by the more aggressive members and wouldn't pass their non-aggressive genes forward.
"What of the people who think that we are alone in the universe?"
They're crazy. Life on this planet is incredibly resilient. You find life in the most extreme environments. If you find them here, and given the number of extra-solar planets being discovered every month, it's a statistical certainty that life must exist elsewhere. And since we're not as old as the universe (the Earth is 4.6 bi years old, the universe is around 13 bi years old), there's a fairly large chance that not only we're not alone, but there are others out there much more advanced than us.
"If their technology is vastly different from ours it is possible that they would not recognize our radio waves or our technology as technology. In their mind(s) our planet may simply appear to be a strange scientific anomaly."
See, now that's not possible. The laws of physics are the same all over the universe (at least we have very good reasons to think so), so light is a universal concept, be it infra-red, ultra-violet, visible to humans, radio waves, x-rays, gamma rays, or any other part of the spectrum. And one thing about light is that natural sources of it aren't structured at all or are structured in very specific ways. The radio waves that we send out into space would not be interpreted as a natural phenomenon because there is no natural phenomenon that would produce them with the properties that they have (frequency and amplitude modulations with the characteristics that our radio signals have).
Now, granted, they might not recognize our radio signals as messages, or if they do, they might not be able to make sense of them, just as we don't understand what whales tell each other when they sing, but the fact is that they would ascribe some degree of intelligence to the species producing those radio signals, just as we ascribe a degree of intelligence to whales that is superior to that of other species.
"They may not recognize our sentience or our technological intelligence as such."
See above.
"I actually quite like the idea of no lies, but not the idea of no fiction."
Same here. I think that there is honor in being truthful, but I don't equate being truthful with being non-aggressive, necessarily.
"They don’t just go on killing sprees. There is honor and discipline. When two houses were at odds there were duels."
Hmm... I don't know. All the ST episodes I remember, Klingons are always bullying other species.
Sorry for the long long post, but I'm really enjoying this conversation.
12/02/09
12/02/09
:) That's ok, my post are getting long as well. lol That seems to happen the longer you and I talk about something. I have had to start typing in a word document next to your posts so I don't have to keep scrolling back up to read what you said.
"Not if you consider that, in both cases, the environmental resources are plentiful."
But we are comparing the situation with a planet, in which the environmental resources are plentiful, to a point. Go back a few thousands years on Earth and the resources were plentiful.
I don’t know how long those glass globes last, I knew one person who had one for two years until they left it in the sun one day for to long and cooked the insides. They are very interesting. I would like to have one for my desk someday.
"Any species capable of building very very sophisticated technological things must necessarily know about redundancies and contingency plans. I don't think it's a stretch to try to prepare for the unknown."
I agree to some extent. Recognizing that a door will eventually brake and the probabilities that a solar flare will shot out and damage your systems and making plans to deal with them, makes sense, and I can’t see a space fairing species not have some understanding of this. But sentient life is something else. First it must recognize it. Does a crab see a shark and understand it is a shark and what a shark is? Possibly. I am not a crab.
We can guess that there is sentient life out there, but I don’t think we can assert that they can. We don’t know how they think or perceive the universe. Maybe they are a bunch of religious crazed zealots who think that they are little gods and that the universe is lifeless until they spread across it. Perhaps they are photon based life forms that do not recognize carbon based life forms. We base all of our assumptions on our own perspectives.
I have not seen the movie Nightfall. The book is very interesting. I think it talks about all of the issues you mention, plus some other ones. They explain so much more then I can in a short post. They do have houses but all the houses have lots of windows and lights inside. And since at least one of the suns was always shining, they evolved with that constant illuminations, similarly to that animals of the deep seas that evolve with out the sun.
I disagree that the fear of being attacked by a predator or competitor is built into every species. It is only built in if that threat exists. And even then it is not a set thing. Do all creatures on this planet experience fear? Most have defense mechanisms, but I don’t think that constitutes fear. And if they do have it in their genes, as you say, if they are advanced enough, couldn’t they have removed those genes?
"I don't profess to be completely right and I might in fact be completely wrong about my POV in this discussion, but that's kinda of irrelevant too. I'm having a blast just having this conversation."
I am having a blast as well. And when the aliens descend on our planet as an aggressive violent race that is scared of bread mold, I will know that I should have listened to you all along :) . Some times I find it is more interesting to have theoretical conversations then ones that can be settled by a little internet research, because these ones can go in more directions and can be more challenging.
"What factors would be strong enough to turn an aggressive species into a non-aggressive one? Species-wide biological changes don't happen overnight."
I think they talked briefly about what had turned us all into hippies, but can not remember the details. But we hadn’t become non-aggressive. Aggressive being defined as assertive, bold, energetic, intense, and even hostile. Just non-violent. And I don’t think that is so far fetched. Most people are hostile and aggressive these days, but society does not tolerate violent individuals out side of specific roles (solders, police, entertainment fighters).
I agree that those people who think we are alone are nuts, but they do exist and up until recently they were the dominate paradigm. I do not think it would be inconceivable to think that aliens, if any thing like us, have similar factions, and they could theoretically to the ones in charge. (oh my, that is a lot of ifs)
I once know a girl who said the US should not send soldiers to Jerusalem because war in the holy land would bring about the end of the world, when I pointed out that people had been fighting in the "holy land" for a long time, she responded that it would bring about the end of the world for the US. She was 100% convinced. Funny, but I didn’t know the end of the world worked like time zones. Sorry about wandering off topic.
I agree that the laws of physics are the same (as far as we know) across the known Universe, but the perceptions and uses may not be. But we are talking about a race that has crossed the vast emptiness of space, something that most people today think is not possible. Their technology could be so vastly different from ours that we would not recognize it as technology. If a cave man found a laptop, what would he thing it is? And like wise, what would a suburbanite kid think a metate or awl was? And these are all items used by the same species. They may see our lights the way we see fireflies and glowing algae.
I agree with you about truthfulness and non-aggressive. Some of the most truthful people out there are the most aggressive, using truths as weapons.
The Klingons were bullies to most other species, but within their own they had laws. They were tough laws, but look at the societies today that have adult hood trials like going off for weeks by yourself. They are the ways of the warriors and of the people who live in harsh places. Just because they are hard people does not mean they can not advance technologically.
12/02/09
I find LittleDragon's other postulates/examples to be a little more solid as well. I think she's winning on points here.
I've always wanted one of those ecospheres but have never been able to afford one. So cute!
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
Roklimber is a great conversationalist. We are always getting into longer and longer posts. I keep expecting us to get kicked off of a board. He knows more then I do about hard science.
12/02/09
12/02/09
"Your not being familiar with MAJOR works by Asimov (Nightfall) and Niven (Kzin) isn't helping your arguments any on a science fiction site. Just FYI."
I wouldn't expect otherwise, but I don't see why that's so relevant. Works of fiction can't be considered solid arguments against observations made by science.
"I find LittleDragon's other postulates/examples to be a little more solid as well. I think she's winning on points here."
I'm not here for points. I love a good conversation/debate, and I don't claim to have the truth on my side. That's another reason why I love a good debate. I get to learn new facts and arguments from other people.
12/02/09
Not if they're capable of terraforming the Earth afterwards. If they can wait the kind of time you need to travel between star systems, they can wait a few hundred or thousand years for terraforming to work its magic.
12/02/09
"Roklimber is a great conversationalist."
So are you. I've greatly enjoyed our conversations, and this one is no exception.
"He knows more then I do about hard science."
If that's true, then it's just a historical accident. I happen to have gone into physics, math, and computer science (spent the better part of my life as a student, even while already teaching and doing some research). I wish now that I had spent some time learning to play an instrument or learning to draw really well. The right side of my brain needs some nourishment too.
12/02/09
"That seems to happen the longer you and I talk about something."
Indeed. It's a sign that we're having a good time.
"But we are comparing the situation with a planet, in which the environmental resources are plentiful, to a point. Go back a few thousands years on Earth and the resources were plentiful."
I'm a bit confused by your argument now. My argument was that potential aggression is always a result of evolution, by means of competition for scarce resources. Your argument, as I understand, is that it would be possible for a species to evolve without aggression. I then gave the example of species living in a limited environment, but you mentioned rabbits in Australia, which I counterargued is not a limited environment. Now you're saying that the Earth a few thousand years ago wasn't limited either. Ok, true, but then why did we evolve aggression in the first place? By your argument, then, it has nothing to do with limited environments, in which case it's even more likely that alien species would evolve aggression (because now there are *more* possible reasons for it to evolve).
"They are very interesting. I would like to have one for my desk someday."
I don't like to keep anything alive close to me that's not a person. I'm too lazy to take care of pets, and I don't like the idea of confining another living organism.
"But sentient life is something else. First it must recognize it."
True, but I'd think that the more technologically advanced a species is, the more understanding of what sentience is they have, meaning that it would be easier for them to recognize it in other species. A hundred years ago no one on Earth thought that dolphins, whales, elephants, and cephalopods were more intelligent than other species. As our understanding of biology improves, we're going to understand the differences in those species. Significantly more technologically advanced species than ourselves are likely to be able to recognize and understand sentience in ways that we are not capable of yet.
"We can guess that there is sentient life out there, but I don’t think we can assert that they can. We don’t know how they think or perceive the universe."
Well, we can make some educated guesses. Assuming the laws of physics and biology are the same all over, any species will perceive the universe at large using electromagnetic and gravitational sensors, because those are the only two long-range forces. A species capable of space travel will have to perceive some part of the light spectrum, which means they must have something akin to eyes (not necessarily like ours and not necessarily sensitive to what we call the visual spectrum - bees, for instance, can see in the ultraviolet, something we can't do). Also probably some means of detecting sound, ie, some form of ears (which, again, might look entirely different than ours, but with the same overall function). They must be able to manipulate tools, and build machines, so they'll probably have to be terrestrial. Thus, very likely, they must have limbs that are very dextrous, like our hands. Put all of these together and you need a brain that can organize their sensory data in ways that aren't *really* all that different from the way that our brains work. Sure, they might use eco-location and "think in sounds" rather than "in images" but, the point is, if the laws of physics and biology are the same, certain basic structures won't be much different *in function* (though almost certainly in shape and look) than our own. That, in turn, means that their understanding and interpretation of the universe around them can't be completely totally absurdly different than ours. Or so I think and hope... I could be wrong.
"Maybe they are a bunch of religious crazed zealots who think that they are little gods and that the universe is lifeless until they spread across it."
I find hard to believe that a highly technologically advanced species is driven by religion.
"Perhaps they are photon based life forms that do not recognize carbon based life forms."
Not possible. Photons don't interact in ways that can produce stable structures. Sorry, but that's how it is.
"We base all of our assumptions on our own perspectives."
True but, as I pointed out, if the laws of physics and biology are the same, things can't be too different.
"I have not seen the movie Nightfall. The book is very interesting. I think it talks about all of the issues you mention, plus some other ones."
I'll add the book to my list of things to read soon.
"I disagree that the fear of being attacked by a predator or competitor is built into every species. It is only built in if that threat exists."
And that threat always exists. One might argue that great white sharks, for example, don't have fear because they don't have predators, but they do: they compete with one another for food, for instance.
"Do all creatures on this planet experience fear? Most have defense mechanisms, but I don’t think that constitutes fear."
I wasn't explicitly speaking of fear per se, but fear *is* a defense mechanism, and that's really all that matters.
"And if they do have it in their genes, as you say, if they are advanced enough, couldn’t they have removed those genes?"
Great question. Yes, I suppose so. But, what if those genes have other functions as well, functions that they don't want to lose?
"Some times I find it is more interesting to have theoretical conversations then ones that can be settled by a little internet research, because these ones can go in more directions and can be more challenging."
Absolutely!
"Aggressive being defined as assertive, bold, energetic, intense, and even hostile. Just non-violent."
Good point, to define what we mean by aggressive. I think the original idea is of hostile, possibly violent aliens. That's my working definition of aggressive for the purpose of this conversation.
"I agree that those people who think we are alone are nuts, but they do exist and up until recently they were the dominate paradigm. I do not think it would be inconceivable to think that aliens, if any thing like us, have similar factions, and they could theoretically to the ones in charge. (oh my, that is a lot of ifs)"
True, but I shudder at the thought of The Flat-Vulcan Society. :)
"I agree that the laws of physics are the same (as far as we know) across the known Universe, but the perceptions and uses may not be."
I addressed this issue a few paragraphs above.
"Their technology could be so vastly different from ours that we would not recognize it as technology. If a cave man found a laptop, what would he thing it is?"
Yes, I'm aware of Clarke's prediction laws, but I don't think the comparison is a fair one in this case, because cavemen had no concept of science or of the fact that the universe follows certain rules that can be studied and understood. Sure, if an alien simply appeared in front of me, out of thin air (a la ST transporter, only much sleeker and smoother), I'd be surprised, shocked, and all that, but I wouldn't think it's magic. Sure, I would not be able to understand it, but I would certainly think that it's a scientific achievement. I wouldn't think it's magic or that the alien is a ghost. We are no longer cavemen, even if the aliens in question are far far far more advanced than we are. Being a cavemen, in this scenario, is not a relative concept. We *know* already that science exists and that the universe works through certain rules, even if we don't know them or understand them.
"They may see our lights the way we see fireflies and glowing algae."
Very interesting, and poetic, analogy. I would argue, though, that fireflies and algae do not produce light in patterns like those we do. But, you know, now that I wrote the sentence above, I'm beginning to think that maybe you're right. We produce radio waves to communicate. To advanced aliens, it could look as though these attempts to communicate are nothing but pure instinct (no sentience), much like we think fireflies do. I owe you a big thanks for making me realize that point.
12/03/09
You said that potential aggression is always a result of evolution by means of competition for scarce resources. Which I generally disagree with on a planet wide scale. I think aggression results from predatorial forces and assert that it is possible for evolution to occur with out predators as in Australia and the islands.
I am not convinced that to be capable of space travel they must be able to perceive some part of the light spectrum. There is a chance that they evolved using echo location. But While not convinced, I am more in favor of some form of eyes. If you define ears as the organ with which we hear sound, I can not agree. On the other hand, if you define them as organs with which we sense vibrations in our atmosphere then I agree. Why do you think they would have to be terrestrial and have limbs like our hands (I don't mean just like our hands). Look at the octopus. I think with the right genetic engineering they could easily take over the planet.
Now the issue of the brain is a much more complex issue. I do think that theirs could be vastly different. They will have to obtain, organize, and analyze sensory
data, but they don't have to do it the way we do. They could have a hive mind. It could be that certain individuals have different mental functions. The only things I feel confident in are that they will have to be capable of perceiving the world around them, that they will have to be able to create and operate machinery, and that they will carry a copy of Good Omens.
While I agree that it is unlikely that an advanced species would be driven by religion, I can't count it out. Just imagine if the Church had embraced science and had set itself up as a controlling figure. I know they did to some extent but imagine if they had more control.
The Photons bit was a little joke reference to an episode of Star Trek: Voyager.
I don't think the threat of being attacked always exists. It only exists in the presence of predators.
My definition of aggressive was not violent, but bold and assertive. Those Flat-Vulcans have nothing on the triangular Klingons. :D
Ok instead of a caveman take a learned man from 300 hundred years ago. If you gave him a powered down laptop (so he didn't erase your digital music collection), what would he think of it. But that would be our point of view. The aliens point of view would be closer to that of the suburbanite with a awl or even stranger a book. They would spent a full minute trying to turn it on before checking their Iphone for twitter messages. Oh great Om, I don't think any of this made sense. I go hence from this happy place to seek my rest among dreams of Pratchett-Gaiman reading Octopus aliens from a world where everything from trees to the dominate life form all look like octopi.
And because I said I would. What if they have gotten to the point where they are mono-gender? What if they have reached the point where they are breed to be socially compatible which would work best if violent tendencies were breed out. My stars. We are going to be attacked by middle aged gay men. Or a bunch of Susie homemakers.
12/03/09
"You said that potential aggression is always a result of evolution by means of competition for scarce resources. Which I generally disagree with on a planet wide scale. I think aggression results from predatorial forces and assert that it is possible for evolution to occur with out predators as in Australia and the islands."
I think I argued (at different times) for both sources of aggression, competition and self-defense. My very first post in this thread ended with
It's basic biology: when attacked to the point that your survival is at risk, you defend yourself with everything you have.
The point we seem to disagree on is that I think competition and predation are always present to some degree. To be honest, I don't know enough biology to make a solid argument on behalf of my point of view, so you may very well be correct.
"I am not convinced that to be capable of space travel they must be able to perceive some part of the light spectrum. There is a chance that they evolved using echo location."
How else would they perceive the sky, ie, planets and stars? Sound doesn't propagate in space.
"If you define ears as the organ with which we hear sound, I can not agree. On the other hand, if you define them as organs with which we sense vibrations in our atmosphere then I agree."
Sound is *precisely* vibrations of an elastic medium (be it solid, liquid, or gas). In other words, vibrations in the atmosphere propagate as sound waves.
"Why do you think they would have to be terrestrial and have limbs like our hands (I don't mean just like our hands). Look at the octopus. I think with the right genetic engineering they could easily take over the planet."
Terrestrial because you can't do astronomy from within an ocean. Light (visible and otherwise) does not propagate well nor deep enough in the ocean (water, methane, or something else). And, without astronomy, you can't find out about stars and planets. Without them, no space travel.
In fact, you can't do much physics at all from within a medium as dense as an ocean. Think about the LHC, for example. It would be impossible to build it underwater because the majority of its components wouldn't work there.
Likewise, you couldn't do much physics without a solid ground to rest your equipment on, so a highly intelligent "bird" species on a planet without a solid surface wouldn't be space faring.
I used the term limbs in a generalized sense, as organs that can manipulate tools with the necessary dexterity. Octupi qualify for that, but they're not terrestrial.
"Now the issue of the brain is a much more complex issue. I do think that theirs could be vastly different. [...] They could have a hive mind. It could be that certain individuals have different mental functions."
Yes, I suppose it's possible that their mental functions could be distributed among different individuals, but you have to agree that that would make space faring a more difficult proposition. For one thing, their early attempts to space travel (think Apollo program) would require many more astronauts per mission, making it far more difficult in several areas. I'm not arguing that it's impossible, only that it's unlikely.
"The only things I feel confident in are that they will have to be capable of perceiving the world around them, that they will have to be able to create and operate machinery, and that they will carry a copy of Good Omens."
As I pointed out, the first two of your requirements imply certain constraints, for instance, that of being terrestrial species. Having a sense of humor, I'm afraid, isn't a likely requirement.
"While I agree that it is unlikely that an advanced species would be driven by religion, I can't count it out."
No, see, here's something I very strongly disagree with. In my view, science and religion are ultimately completely at odds and contradict one another. But this is a pandora box in a conversation like this. We could be arguing about this point alone for the rest of the century.
"The Photons bit was a little joke reference to an episode of Star Trek: Voyager."
Ah, yes, I know what you're referring to. Unlike many people here on io9, I actually like Voyager quite a bit, though its first 2 seasons sucked.
"I don't think the threat of being attacked always exists. It only exists in the presence of predators."
Yes, that's a point of contention between us in this discussion. As I said, I don't know enough biology to make a solid argument in my favor, but somehow I find it difficult to believe that intraspecies competition does not lead to aggression instincts being developed.
"My definition of aggressive was not violent, but bold and assertive."
Ok, but that's not what the original aggression of this thread referred to, since the original post that started this discussed talked about an armed conflict.
"Those Flat-Vulcans have nothing on the triangular Klingons. :D"
Oh, I think you missed my joke. I was referring to the flat-Earth society, a real society (up to some time in the past) where people believed the Earth is flat. As I said, I shudder at the thought of Vulcans thinking that Vulcan is flat.
"Ok instead of a caveman take a learned man from 300 hundred years ago. If you gave him a powered down laptop (so he didn't erase your digital music collection), what would he think of it."
Who are we talking about here? A peasant or someone like Galileo, Newton, Faraday, Darwin, etc? A peasant would freak out, no doubt, but a learned man of science would consider it an interesting scientific challenge.
"The aliens point of view would be closer to that of the suburbanite with a awl or even stranger a book. They would spent a full minute trying to turn it on before checking their Iphone for twitter messages. Oh great Om, I don't think any of this made sense."
I don't know if it makes sense, but it sure confused me.
"We are going to be attacked by middle aged gay men. Or a bunch of Susie homemakers."
Well, then we'd better allow gays and lesbians to marry and have other social rights, just in case. I mean, we don't want to upset those aliens when they get here. :)
12/03/09
12/09/09
"How else would they perceive the sky, ie, planets and stars? Sound doesn't propagate in space." Sound may not propagate in space but they may have invented something that would translate into sound. Similar to what we do with certain inventions for the blind. The device translates things into data the brain can understand. It would be similar to what we are trying to do with Dark matter. We can’t see it so we are having to invent things that allow us to see it.
"Terrestrial because you can't do astronomy from within an ocean." Perhaps we can’t and I doubt they could do it from deep water. But if they evolved in that environment, they may be able to study astronomy near the surface and they may have invented probes that could leave the water like we have done with satellites. If they were an intelligent, inquisitive species, it makes sense they would wonder what is outside their habitat and take steps to discover it.
The LHC would not work but they may have different technology. Just because we don’t understand it or have invented it does not mean that it can not exist. A species evolves to use and work with its environment. I do agree that a species from a gas planet with out a solid surface could not be space faring, but for a different reason. The reason being, there would be no materials to build a space ship with. There has to be a source of materials for tools.
""The only things I feel confident in are that they will have to be capable of perceiving the world around them, that they will have to be able to create and operate machinery, and that they will carry a copy of Good Omens."
As I pointed out, the first two of your requirements imply certain constraints, for instance, that of being terrestrial species. Having a sense of humor, I'm afraid, isn't a likely requirement."
The ability to perceive the world and operate machinery does not require it to be terrestrial. Octopi and otters both are capable of using tools while in aquatic environment and of perceiving the world around them.
If they can’t appreciate Good Omens, I am not sure it I can send them Holiday cards.
I did get your joke about the Flat Vulcan society. I have actually met one of those flat earth people. There has got to be something off inside their heads, some neurons that just aren’t connecting properly.
"a learned man of science would consider it an interesting scientific challenge." They would still have no idea what it was.
I think that the advance space fairing aliens would be closer to a modern person looking at some rocks that were once tools of an ancient undocumented village, then a medieval person looking at a laptop.
I fully support that we allow gays to have full and equal rights, and if we have to tell people it will save us from being destroyed by a race of advanced space faring aliens, fine.
12/09/09
Anyway, sorry, but I think you're making way way too many unjustifiable assumptions now. You can't break the laws of physics.
For instance, before they can interpret observations in terms of sound, they require astronomical instruments that would not be possible to construct underwater. Astronomical observations simply do NOT lend themselves well to observation in any dense medium. Even air is too dense to obtain quality astronomical results. Do a google search on adaptive optics.
Besides, there is another problem with doing any underwater observation near the surface: it's severely limited by something called "total internal reflection." Next time you're in a swimming pool during the day, dive in and look up. Rather than see the outside, you'll see what looks like a mirror. And that's because, effectively, that's what the surface has become, because of total internal reflection. Outsiders can see you in the pool, but you can't see most of the outside.
"The LHC would not work but they may have different technology. Just because we don’t understand it or have invented it does not mean that it can not exist."
Different technology for what? The LHC does five things and only five: produce beams of protons with a sharply-defined energy distribution, circulate them at high energies in opposite direction, forcing high energy collisions, then capture the resulting debris, and analyze that debris using automated means (ie, lots of computing power).
None of them can be done underwater, no matter how intelligent an alien species is.
"A species evolves to use and work with its environment."
Yes, but that does not involve breaking the laws of physics.
The bottom line is that what we've been talking about here isn't up to biology anymore.
12/09/09
I am including a few links, because they may better explain my points.
I am not very good at breaking any laws, and have yet to find a away to break those of physics. Adaptive optics could work under water from what I have read. See:
[www.astroday.net]
Not terribly technical but does, I think covers fish glasses. If we can do it for the environment we evolved in, why couldn’t an equally intelligent, inquisitive species do it for their environment?
While it has been a while since I have had the opportunity to go swimming, I do recall diving in and looking up. On a few occasions when the light was at the correct angles I did get the mirror effect. The rest of the time, while the images I saw were distorted, I could still see what was above the water. This works with what I just read on total internal reflection. While the IR would interfere with some observation I doubt there would be TIR all the time. The first image here is a good example. The next one would lead a sentient curious species to ask "What is that?"
[dearmond.net]
[www.rivierawaveriders.org]
[3.bp.blogspot.com]
Not different in purpose perhaps, but different in design. And for the LHC, we are using a vacuum for that, what is to prevent them from doing the same?
In some ways we are talking Biology, in that we are talking about how evolution shapes our technology.
12/09/09
[www.space.com]
[lhc-machine-outreach.web.cern.ch]
12/10/09
"Adaptive optics could work under water from what I have read. See:
[www.astroday.net]
Not terribly technical but does, I think covers fish glasses."
I think you missed his point that the fish glasses were merely an analogy. He never claimed that it was possible to actually make them. In fact, it isn't. For one thing, there would have to be a very large number of them, they'd have to be very small, they'd have to be optically flexible, and they'd have to be swapped in and out with a frequency so high that it would result in a lot of turbulence in the water, defeating their purpose. Hence, it's a practical impossibility.
In regards to total internal reflection, it is true that looking straight up you can see the outside, but as the angle with which you gaze out increases away from the vertical, absorption increases until you reach the so-called Brewster angle, at which point TIR kicks in. As a result, the range of angles where you could do anything useful is very narrow.
I think you're missing the point here. We were talking about making astronomical observations from under water, ie, we were talking about observing stars and planets. It is already difficult to do so through the air. Any water creatures would have to contend with the air and the water. Water is far denser, far more turbulent, far "dirtier", causes far more absorption, it's an electric conductor (sea water is), it has a much greater heat capacity than air (which means that cooling equipment would be a far greater challenge to accomplish).
Now, a more general problem. How do you extract chemicals and perform chemistry under water? How do you do particle physics? How do you make tools?
Sure, an underwater intelligent species could bio-engineer a bio-computer where all the electric pathways and gates would work the way they work in electric eels. They could have nano-chemistry labs just as our own bodies. But all of that requires that the expertise and the tools come first. This is the chicken and the egg problem. You need the tools to make the tools.
"Not different in purpose perhaps, but different in design."
I think you missed my point. How do you extract protons in large quantities, isolate them, and throw them at one another? This isn't a matter of design.
"And for the LHC, we are using a vacuum for that, what is to prevent them from doing the same?"
Ok, let's say that they bio-engineer a creature that sucks water from within a region, creating a vacuum. Considering that the pressure underwater increases by 1 full atmosphere for every 33 feet, how do you achieve the kind of vacuum necessary for the LHC without imploding the region due to the differential pressure? You'd need a "building" with extremely thick walls. How would you make that and how long would it take?
Ok, you could bio-engineer some small creature that secrets cement or something. But, again, how do you do all your bio-engineering without the tools to create tools and materials to study genetics in the first place?
12/10/09
[www.space.com]"
Yes, the vacuum of space isn't empty, but space is sooooooooooo thin that to hear anything you'd have to have humongous ears. Moreover, any sound produced by, say, the motion of a planet would be so completely dissipated by the atmosphere that you couldn't possibly detect it. It's an issue of signal to noise ratio. How do you separate the sound made by Mars as it disturbs the precious few atoms in space, when those sound waves reach the Earth, from the sounds of the atmosphere? Then, how do you separate those from the sounds in the water? To make such extremely sensitive equipment, you'll have to cool your equipment down to extremely close to absolute zero temperature, to avoid the thermal radiation of anything warm from causing sound noise of its own.
"[lhc-machine-outreach.web.cern.ch]"
Note this at the very top:
Ultrahigh beam vacuum 10-10 Torr (~3 million molecules/cm3)
3 million molecules per cubic centimeter. It looks like a lot, right? Well, water density at standard pressure and temperature is roughly 1 gram per cubic centimeter. Now, 18 grams of water contains the Avogadro number of molecules, so 1 gram of water contains 3 x 10^22 water molecules. So, the density of water is "only" 10^16 times larger than the density of the LHC beam vacuum. That's 10 000 000 000 000 000 times as large. How do you achieve that kind of vacuum under water without imploding your equipment?
12/10/09
"We'd have to change glasses constantly since water continuously flows above him but nonetheless we could figure out what would be needed. That's a classical adaptive optics system: a pair of glasses, good for one direction that the fish looks. For other directions he needs a different prescription. You could have a stack of lenses and have each lens in the stack corrected for the effects of different layers of water. That's multi-conjugate adaptive optics. Finally imagine, and if you can imagine a fish with glasses this shouldn't be a large leap, a school of fish all looking up. Thy'll each need a different set of glasses. That's multi-objet adaptive optics. These systems will be coming soon to telescopes on Mauna Kea and around the world. Combined with the large telescopes, they will bring new views of the universe unrivaled even from space (or from the sea)."
Not to mention we are not necessarily talking about little tiny fish and not all of them would use these lenses. Not every one on earth uses the Large Binocular Telescope in Germany or the Gran Telescopio Canarias, but we still benefit from the knowledge.
"As a result, the range of angles where you could do anything useful is very narrow." But they do exist.
I am not missing the point. I get it. Making astronomical observations from under water is hard, most likely impossible for US. We don’t need to do it because we are terrestrial critters. Perhaps if we tried we could, but what is the point when we can do it in air. For all we know they didn’t start out looking at the stars. We started out not knowing what stars were. They may have started out wondering what the surface was and started with exploration of that and then as they mastered the surface started wondering about outer space. At which point they could set up observation sites out side their aquatic environment. Our technological development started with using stones and sticks to get at food and our knowledge of the stars didn’t come for a long time. We had to invent things to help us as would they.
We didn’t start out doing particle physics. And our chemistry is air based. There is aquatic based chemistry happening all the time in our oceans. They will be studying the chemistry of their environment at first until the master the tools and skills just as we have done. As for making tools, the first tools they would be making would be rudimentary. Shovels, picks, cups; all of which can be fashioned out of rocks and shells. String could come from some kind of coral. Harder tools could come from some think like a clam. They could even figure out have to get shells to grow in specific ways and shapes.
They couldn’t need to bioengineer a creature to act as a vacuum. They would just need to create a basic pump of some sort. Just remember that they are not going to go from brainless fish to intergalactic explorers instantly. There is going to be a very long process of genetic and technological evolution just as there has been with us. There are already creatures on this planet that create hard shells. It is not inconceivable that there might be ones on other planets that could be raised so that the shells would develop in a certain shape. You don’t need to study genetics to do that. I can force a Bonsai tree to grow how I want it to with out having a clue about its genetic make up.
"How do you separate the sound made by Mars as it disturbs the precious few atoms in space, when those sound waves reach the Earth, from the sounds of the atmosphere?" I have a clue, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be done. And several scientists seem pretty excited about this and think we could do it outside of the atmosphere. For all we know some blind race build a space elevator and stuck a super sensitive microphone on the end. After having evolved with just sound to navigate their world they may be able to separate those sounds.
There are two ways I think to do the vacuum. One: drill, or burrow, or grow the structure in the rocky bottom. Two: float the structure at the surface. There is a reason we do certain types of research in specific places, it is not that far of a stretch of the imagination to think they would do the same.
12/10/09
Your arguments, in the end, boil down to "just because we don't know how, it doesn't mean it can't be done" and that's not a very strong argument when faced with counter-arguments based on scientific fact.
For instance, I gave you a specific number, taken from a link that you provided: a pressure ratio of 10 000 000 000 000 000 to 1. I haven't actually done the calculation but I suspect that a chamber of the necessary size, made of graphene (the strongest material known to mankind) would have to exhaust the entire amount of carbon not bound to living organisms on Earth to be able to withstand that kind of differential pressure.
Now, you might say that maybe in their planet there is something stronger than graphene. Well, no, chemistry works there as it works here.
Moreover, how do you pump water out of the chamber against that huge pressure differential? You're talking about one freaking hell of a pump.
What I've been saying all along is that the laws of physics put some very strict restrictions on what evolution can and cannot do. At the end of the day, certain things are simply not possible.
Up until now, I was under the impression that the discussion was restricted to doing things underwater and, if that's the case, certain things just will not happen, period.
I really think it's just not possible for an aquatic species to develop an advanced enough science if they stay underwater.
Now, you mentioned that perhaps they'd venture onto land and do their research there. Ok, fair enough, that makes things easier for them. Still, however, you need some sort of protective suit filled with water to keep our aquatic scientists alive on the surface.
How would you make that and what would you make that out of? Again, you need tools, and not just rudimentary tools. Also, how would you refrigerate the environment inside the suit? If the scientists are out under the sun, they'd be boiling after a while.
I'm not going to be as definitive in regards to an aquatic species doing research on land as I have been in regards to them doing research underwater. Is it possible? Yes, I suppose so. Is it likely? I don't know. I don't have enough data to judge, so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt.
But, if your aquatic species is restricted to doing all its research underwater (think ST Voyager episode where Lt. Paris got 30 days in the brig for trying to save a species living on a world *completely* covered by water), then I'm sorry, but you're out of luck there.
12/11/09
Thats ok. It seems to me your just being stubborn and unimaginative. Sorry.
"Your arguments, in the end, boil down to "just because we don't know how, it doesn't mean it can't be done" and that's not a very strong argument when faced with counter-arguments based on scientific fact."
No. My argument has made use of plenty of facts. And while you just say that it can't be done because an aquatic species wouldn't have this technology or that technology, I have to theorize their entire biological, social, and technological evolution.
"I haven't actually done the calculation but I suspect that a chamber of the necessary size, made of graphene (the strongest material known to mankind) would have to exhaust the entire amount of carbon not bound to living organisms on Earth to be able to withstand that kind of differential pressure."
But we have done it.
"Now, you might say that maybe in their planet there is something stronger than graphene."
I wouldn't say that. Everything I have said (as far as I can remember) has conformed to the sciences as we know them.
"You're talking about one freaking hell of a pump."
Humans started with small pumps for wells and what not and as our technology advanced we learned to improve them and to use the technology to create vacuums. I think that if a species as evolved to the point of colliding particles, they probably have suction figured out, at least a little bit.
"Now, you mentioned that perhaps they'd venture onto land and do their research there. Ok, fair enough, that makes things easier for them. Still, however, you need some sort of protective suit filled with water to keep our aquatic scientists alive on the surface."
We are sending humans into space to run experiments. We send them out in suits filled with air.
"But, if your aquatic species is restricted to doing all its research underwater (think ST Voyager episode where Lt. Paris got 30 days in the brig for trying to save a species living on a world *completely* covered by water), then I'm sorry, but you're out of luck there."
I agree that a space fairing species could not evolve in a world made only of water for the same reason that one could not evolve in a purely gas planet: no materials for tools. In the episode you refer to (Thirty Days), the species did not evolve in that ocean world. They had been space travelers who discovered it and they were actually a terrestrial species. Tom got the thirty days because he tried to destroy a machine that was harvesting oxygen from the water that was depleting the density of the world.
I suggest a different challenge. I will come up with a reason why they could not evolve and you will dispute it. And you will come up with one as to why they would, and I will dispute it.
12/12/09
"Thats ok. It seems to me your just being stubborn and unimaginative. Sorry."
Stubborn, perhaps. Imaginative, no, because even imagination must be bound by the restrictions of nature when it comes to physics and biology in the actual universe.
"No. My argument has made use of plenty of facts."
Such as?
"I have to theorize their entire biological, social, and technological evolution."
Aren't you exaggerating a little now? Regardless, which hard facts are your theories based on?
"But we have done it."
Yes, we have, in AIR, not underwater. Water is a thousand times denser than air, and is not a compressible fluid. As I mentioned before, for every 33 feet you go underwater, you gain the entire weight of the atmosphere above you (not counting the actual atmosphere above the surface).
"Everything I have said (as far as I can remember) has conformed to the sciences as we know them."
That's debatable.
"Humans started with small pumps for wells and what not and as our technology advanced we learned to improve them and to use the technology to create vacuums. I think that if a species as evolved to the point of colliding particles, they probably have suction figured out, at least a little bit."
Again, you're forgetting the fundamental differences between air and water, namely, water is far denser than air and an incompressible fluid. That makes a world of difference.
"We are sending humans into space to run experiments. We send them out in suits filled with air."
Again, water isn't air. Another difference between them, which is important for the suits, is that air is a thermal insulator, whereas water has a large heat capacity (which is to say, it's a pretty good heat conductor). So, out under the Sun, our aquatic scientists would boil rather quickly.
Look, as I said before, I'm not as adamant that an aquatic species venturing onto land could not develop space travel as I am about a species that does its thing entirely underwater.
"I agree that a space fairing species could not evolve in a world made only of water for the same reason that one could not evolve in a purely gas planet: no materials for tools."
The ocean bed is made of the same stuff as the land above the surface, so availability of materials is not an issue on a planet where no land masses are above the surface. I agree with you, however, on a planet without any solid core.
"In the episode you refer to (Thirty Days),..."
Ah, yes, I didn't remember the episode correctly. I stand corrected.
"I suggest a different challenge. I will come up with a reason why they could not evolve and you will dispute it. And you will come up with one as to why they would, and I will dispute it."
Tempted as I am, I fear it won't be a very productive use of our time.
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
#@!
12/02/09
Le sigh...
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
PT Barnum was right, it doesn't mean I have to like it.
12/02/09
I waited for a sequel to Independence Day with no success. I think I'm going to get my wish.
12/02/09
12/02/09
I rest my case.
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
1. Take a board game that has a built in marketing.
2. Integrate one minor aspect of the game into the script so you can say it's based on said game.
3. Add in an antagonist that has absolutely nothing to do with the board game.
4. Get it produced by Michael Bay or Jerry Bruckeimer.
5. Profit!
I'm going to make a movie based on Candyland. It will take place in an FAO Scharwz type store, but filled with all kinds of delicious candy. But... and get this, it all takes place during a zombie outbreak. The customers must defend themselves from a zombie horde, as they make their way through the building to safety. It is no way a rip off of Dawn of the Dead. Now, someone get me Michael Bay's number!
12/02/09
Needs more explosions, and Megan Fox in a superfluous role.
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
F**k moral equivalence. Blast those alien mofos back to the hellhole they came from!!!
12/02/09
Are there really no more good scripts being created or laying around Hollywood anymore? C'mon Those-Who-Make-Movies, this is getting absurd now.