Extraterrestrials: Hope or Threat

[dan_inbox]

How about a civ that would have found a way to evolve intellectually and have great power and stay in harmony with his environment , is that possible ? dunno...

I am sure that there were plenty such early civilisations around the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean.
Their obvious fate was to be conquered, butchered and enslaved by the nearest militaristic dictatorship. Your choice of Hittites, Pharaohs, Spartans, Romans, Babylonians, Medes, or plenty other early variants.

Being flower children in peace and harmony with nature is trumped any day by an aggressive militaristic a$$hole.

So much for Shalom Akhshav and the other idealistic lefties. Besides the fact that their economics don't work, they get butchered by everybody else. And there's no shortage of aggressive militaristic types in our beautiful Middle East...

 

[galgot]

How about a civ that would have found a way to evolve intellectually and have great power and stay in harmony with his environment , is that possible ? dunno...

I am sure that there were plenty such early civilisations around the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean.
Their obvious fate was to be conquered, butchered and enslaved by the nearest militaristic dictatorship. Your choice of Hittites, Pharaohs, Spartans, Romans, Babylonians, Medes, or plenty other early variants.

Being flower children in peace and harmony with nature is trumped any day by an aggressive militaristic a$$hole.

So much for Shalom Akhshav and the other idealistic lefties. Besides the fact that their economics don't work, they get butchered by everybody else. And there's no shortage of aggressive militaristic types in our beautiful Middle East...

You're talking about humans here . And don't even need to restrict the location to middle east... Human nature shows her talent worldwide.

I was talking about an hypothetical alien civ on another world.

 

[Hood]

Is intelligence even that important? The desire for life is surely is the basic block of all living organisms?

Consciousness and our personalities reside in the brain, arguably a byproduct of whatever process enables it to operate and store memories. The only task the brain has is keeping us alive to reproduce. Perhaps our conscious thought is just a neat trick to entertain us enough to keep living?
Every living thing that has DNA or RNA has a drive to reproduce itself, whether its a fruitfly, a human or a flu virus. Plants also share this desire to breed and multiply. When we can answer the 'why' then we might be able to get to the bottom of what life really is.
We have to assume that lifeforms on other planets share some kind of inbuilt programme (whether its a nucleic acid-based system or something else) to replicate itself.

 

[dan_inbox]

Every living thing that has DNA or RNA has a drive to reproduce itself, whether its a fruitfly, a human or a flu virus. Plants also share this desire to breed and multiply. When we can answer the 'why' then we might be able to get to the bottom of what life really is.
We have to assume that lifeforms on other planets share some kind of inbuilt programme (whether its a nucleic acid-based system or something else) to replicate itself.

Isn't that exactly the gist of Darwin's thesis? Either a species is that way and it has a chance to survive competition, or it isn't and hasn't.

And as much as I agree with Galgot that it happens worldwide, I am not sure whether it is "human nature's talent" or whether it is simply the result of Darwinian competitive pressure. I tend to suspect the latter, even though obviously plenty humans show special talent.
Without even considering organized religions...

So back to his original question, for a civ to "evolve intellectually and have great power and stay in harmony with his environment", it would need to be sheltered from competitive evolutionary pressure. Theoretically not impossible, but surely a very special and rare occurence.

 

[Arjen]

Consider an individual who has inherited the altruism/cooperation gene within a population of other altruism/cooperation gene carriers. His/her actions to saving/helping others may be detrimental to his/her own chances of survival, but they improve the survival chances of the altruism/cooperation gene. The bigger the population's share of altruistically-/cooperation-inclined individuals, the stronger this mechanism works.

A chicken is just an egg's way of producing more eggs.

Two books by Richard Dawkins, recommended reading:
- The Extended Phenotype
- The Selfish Gene

 

[TomcatViP]

The convergent evolution seen in the higher cortical structures of bird, mammal (from human to dolphin) and cephalopod alike suggests that at least some fundamental aspects of intelligent thought are universal. The fact that we all like to watch TV supports that idea. However when it comes to say choosing what channel to watch, finding a home or fighting off a small shark, all bets are off.

A civilisation born on a very relaxed (or conversly) gravity planet will have for us all the aspect of a dematerialised life form (think Ether like).

Once again it's not about how and where to search but what. More precisely by encompassing all aspect of medium used for any communication attempt.

 

[TomcatViP]

@galgot : Old European view of things...

 

[Orionblamblam]

Agree, but do we know how consciousness is "stored" and work ? What if it was at subatomic particles level ?

How do you know that the much-vaunted "consciousness" is anything more than advanced programming? Hell, can you even *define* "consciousness" in clear objective and measurable terms that everyone can agree on?

A whole lot of people thnk that there's someth mystically or trascendentally special about what they think of as their consciousness. But as medical history has shown, relatively small physical changes to the brain can fundamentally alter peoples perceptions of the world *and* their personalities. People can be turned into fundamentally *different* people by tweaking brain chemistry or structure. This simple fact argues against things like a "soul" and argues for the brain simply being a vastly complex meat-computer.

 

[TomcatViP]

Brain and body act as a unified entity.

 

[Hood]

Given that microorganisms were formed relatively quickly around 3.7-4.0 billion years ago on earth, it seems likely that similar results from early natural chemistry have happened on other planets where the conditions and raw materials allowed. Although we know very little of how the process actually occurred.
What we don't know is if the formation of RNA and DNA and self-replication would occur every time. The last universal common ancestor kick started everything for us. That it happened relatively quickly could be a good sign that the statistical chances are favourable everywhere. That would give any planet over a billion years old a certainty of life if the right conditions were present (assuming we know what the Goldilocks range is for life to form) and therefore the old the planet the more chance of advanced 'intelligent' life.

So back to his original question, for a civ to "evolve intellectually and have great power and stay in harmony with his environment", it would need to be sheltered from competitive evolutionary pressure. Theoretically not impossible, but surely a very special and rare occurrence.

True but having competitors is a great spur for evolutionary development.
Of course we don't know what happened to the Neanderthals and Divionians. Their genes live on so evidently some interactions happened. It may be Homo Sapiens were genocidal and wiped them out but equally we have to ask why the Neanderthals didn't wipe out the 'invading' Homo Sapiens as they appeared when they would have been in smaller numbers, assuming they were as competitive and tribalistic as us?

 

[edwest4]

A bit tiring to find a fatalist thread...

 

[galgot]

How do you know that the much-vaunted "consciousness" is anything more than advanced programming? Hell, can you even *define* "consciousness" in clear objective and measurable terms that everyone can agree on?
...

Hey, hey ! I don't ! I'm not here to prove that consciousness is this or that ... and no one know what it is really.
Given that, One can choose he is just a chemical/biological reaction if he likes, for what I care.
Don't get upset because I post an *idea* , completely hypothetical, that don't suits you...

 

[dan_inbox]

relatively small physical changes to the brain can fundamentally alter peoples perceptions of the world *and* their personalities. People can be turned into fundamentally *different* people by tweaking brain chemistry or structure.

It is painfully obvious when a loved one goes through Alzheimer. And when a small change in the desease or the meds upsets the brain's hydric equilibrium (whatever is the proper wording in English), then the effects on the personality are startling. Just like re-booting with a different OS. Yes the brain is just a meat-computer.

 

[Tony Williams]

Given that microorganisms were formed relatively quickly around 3.7-4.0 billion years ago on earth, it seems likely that similar results from early natural chemistry have happened on other planets where the conditions and raw materials allowed. Although we know very little of how the process actually occurred.
What we don't know is if the formation of RNA and DNA and self-replication would occur every time. The last universal common ancestor kick started everything for us. That it happened relatively quickly could be a good sign that the statistical chances are favourable everywhere. That would give any planet over a billion years old a certainty of life if the right conditions were present (assuming we know what the Goldilocks range is for life to form) and therefore the old the planet the more chance of advanced 'intelligent' life.

Simple life (unicellular) may well arrive quickly, but to get beyond that may be much less likely. From my article on Fermi:

"Then we come on to the biological improbabilities. A key one identified by Webb is the development of multi-cellular eukaryotic life, compared with much simpler prokaryotic life such as bacteria. This was a remarkable event which took billions of years to happen – possibly, it's uncommon. So might be the development of intelligence at our level. Perhaps most significantly, of all of Earth life, we are the only one to develop the sophisticated language without which our civilisation could never have arisen, so this may be a very rare feat. And we cannot assume that every intelligent civilisation will be a technological one."

 

[Arjen]

I concur with Tony. As this is a discussion about the consequences of extraterrestrials making contact with us, and as contact would probably be impossible without technology of some kind, discussing the chances of tool using intelligent species emerging anywhere is a legitimate point. Do not, however, confuse the absence of tool use in a species with the absence of intelligence.

 

[Fluff]

Every living thing that has DNA or RNA has a drive to reproduce itself, whether its a fruitfly, a human or a flu virus. Plants also share this desire to breed and multiply. When we can answer the 'why' then we might be able to get to the bottom of what life really is.
We have to assume that lifeforms on other planets share some kind of inbuilt programme (whether its a nucleic acid-based system or something else) to replicate itself.

Isn't that exactly the gist of Darwin's thesis? Either a species is that way and it has a chance to survive competition, or it isn't and hasn't.

And as much as I agree with Galgot that it happens worldwide, I am not sure whether it is "human nature's talent" or whether it is simply the result of Darwinian competitive pressure. I tend to suspect the latter, even though obviously plenty humans show special talent.
Without even considering organized religions...

So back to his original question, for a civ to "evolve intellectually and have great power and stay in harmony with his environment", it would need to be sheltered from competitive evolutionary pressure. Theoretically not impossible, but surely a very special and rare occurence.

The Darwin point is very good. Why drag your swimmer body onto the beach for the first time, because the tiny 'shark' is going to bite your ass off, like it just did to Auntie Mary. It all flows from there, so wherever there was a 'survival of the fitest' you are likely to get those A$$hole militarists popping up, and giving it to the flower girls.

There are some nice SciFi aliens, that weren't dragged up this way, the puppeteer was mentioned earlier, but it had the ability to kill with one kick, as an old reflex.

Sure someone with 'infinite' resource could create a 'pet' species, nice, furry, fun, play catch, play violin, but as soon as some stray, get lost in space, they too are going to get eaten/recruited/cybermanned into this aliens war.

Peace love and happiness v WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

in our history War wins - as mentioned above, much of our science started as how to kill you quicker further way etc.

 

[Foo Fighter]

The fact that we modern hominids have DNA from Neanderthal etc posits a possible cooperation and merging of species rather than the removal of species from the planet via conflict or their failure to compete effectively for resources. If we cannot clean up our act though, we will rubbish ourselves and many other species out of existence.

 

[Orionblamblam]

The fact that we modern hominids have DNA from Neanderthal etc posits a possible cooperation and merging of species rather than the removal of species from the planet via conflict or their failure to compete effectively for resources.

Not sure how you come to that. The Neanderthals didn't get absorbed into Homo Sapiens; they went extinct. *Why* they went extinct is unclear other than "they all died," but it's a reasonable assumption that modern humans either killed them through conflict or displaced them by wiping out their food source. Americans nearly did that to Native Americans; settlers and the military outright massacred them, and drove the bison nearly to extinction in part to deprive them of their food source. With a lot more effort, the effort *could* have led to the extinction of native Americans... while still leaving a number of people with Cherokee or Navajo DNA.

 

[steelpillow]

The fact that we modern hominids have DNA from Neanderthal etc posits a possible cooperation and merging of species rather than the removal of species from the planet via conflict or their failure to compete effectively for resources.

Not sure how you come to that. The Neanderthals didn't get absorbed into Homo Sapiens; they went extinct.

Foo Fighter is evidently more up on the latest scientific research than you are, you are somewhat out of date. Over recent years, DNA analysis has identified a significant amount of Neanderthal DNA surviving in modern humans, proving that we once interbred extensively. The same is true of the Denisovans, who were actually first discovered through DNA analysis of Central Asian remains and subsequently found widely in modern East Asian populations. Since their discovery in our DNA were we have begun to ascribe a growing pile of palaeontological/archaeological finds to them. At least one other such race has been identified in DNA from Africa but (AFAIK) not yet named, there are likely others waiting in the wings. There is now some debate as to whether these coexisting ancestors of ours are really distinct species or better seen as subspecies. What is "extinction" when your children and grandchildren live on?

Some other human DNA is known to have come from bacteria or viruses, more still remains of unknown source. It is technically possible that at least one of those unknown sources might be of alien origin.

 

[galgot]

Last thing I read about that was in fact that only humans of European origin have a bit of Neanderthal DNA.
This due to the fact that Neanderthals where mostly living in Europe. Then there was interbreding with the growing population of Sapiens, and Neanderthals were "absorbed".
Also was in play the fact that a metis subject was fertile or not depending if the father or the mother was the Neanderthal, this disavantaged the Neanderthal DNA over the Sapien. Something like that... And anyway, it took lot of time, as researches shows that the two were contemporaries in same places for long times (1000 x years +).
Nothing like a Neanderthal genocide.
It's very much like nowaday the population of real Wildcats (a distinct specie) in Europe slowly disapearing because they are interbreding with domestic cats returned to wild.
Now, some conflicts between Neanderthals and Sapiens must have taken place of course over the course of so much time, but the fact that there was interbreding suggest that it was not much more than like Sapiens where fighting other Sapiens...

 

[steelpillow]

Neanderthals were "absorbed".

Absorbed by the Borg. Could be worse.

 

[edwest4]

Scientists are not done sorting out the modern human and Neanderthal situation. I watched official artwork that first showed Neanderthals as these brutish, hunched over cave dwellers change to people that look like us. In fact, they walked like we do.

Neanderthals walked upright just like the humans of today

Neanderthals are often depicted as having straight spines and poor posture. However, these prehistoric humans were more similar to us than many assume. Researchers have shown that Neanderthals walked upright just like modern humans -- thanks to a virtual reconstruction of the pelvis and spine of...

www.sciencedaily.com

 

[galgot]

Yes, recents researches shows that they were in fact as "advanced" as Sapiens of the time. They buried their dead , they crafted artifacts, ect... Some cave paintings are now attributed to Neanderthals artists.
A tribe of Neanderthal would not be very different from a early Sapien tribe, appart from physical differences, they were generally stronger, more adapted to cold ...
Not surprising that there was a mixing between the two species.
Views that Neanderthals were hunched ape men dates from the first remains finds in the 19th century, and it remained like that long time.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Foo Fighter is evidently more up on the latest scientific research than you are, you are somewhat out of date. Over recent years, DNA analysis has identified a significant amount of Neanderthal DNA surviving in modern humans, proving that we once interbred extensively.

You are incorrect: I am fully aware of the DNA evidence of cross-species happy fun times. But not every human has Neanderthal DNA; Europeans do, sub-Saharan Africans don't. And yet, the same species. But the Neandethals themselves are *gone,* and it's ludicrous to believe that the Neanderthals went away because every single one of them interbred with Homo Sapiens, deciing that it was betterto have kids with these dark, lanky strangers than with their own people. The evidence is that they were a going concern for a long time, then fairly suddenly disappeared, region by region.

Back to my Native American analogy; let's say someone rather lacking in ethics thought it would be a fun thing to wipe out all of the currently existing Navajo. Further, lets assume this person somehow succeeded. Suddenly... no more Navajo. But: there are people all over the place who have some fraction of Navajo heritage. Some Whitey McWhiteperson had a Navao great great great grandmother, say. Navajo DNA still exists, but would you not agree that the Navajo themselves, as a culture and an ethnic group, are, in this example, now exticnt? If this hypothetical bothers you, instead of the Navajo, say it's the Ainu, or the native Tasmanians, or Kalahari bushmen, or some Amazonian tribe... any ethnic group that is distinct and easily wipe-outable. As the Neanderthals were.

 

[steelpillow]

You are incorrect: ... it's ludicrous to believe that the Neanderthals went away because every single one of them interbred with Homo Sapiens, deciing that it was better to have kids with these dark, lanky strangers than with their own people.

That's not what I am suggesting, nothing like what I said. Your straw enemy may be incorrect, I am not. Let me repeat my question which you so studiously evaded, what does "extinct" mean if even some of your children and their children's children's children have made it through to make Moody Blues albums?

 

[Orionblamblam]

Views that Neanderthals were hunched ape men dates from the first remains finds in the 19th century, and it remained like that long time.

And that's because one of the first nearly complete Neanderthal finds was of an old man, bent and hunched over with age and sickness. This senior citizen had lost most of his teeth and was riddled with arthritis, leading to the assumption that he was cared for by others. He's thought to have reached the astonishingly advanced age of perhaps 40. (Yeeeeeeesh...)

A lesson here: the general assumption when an archeologist or a paleontolist finds a brand new specimen is that that specimen is an average example of it's type. And usually that's fair... pick something at random, chances are you'll get an average example. But in this case, the Old Man was an outlier, and because the original investigators didn't really understand that he was bent with age, the depictions based on the reconstruction messed with the common view of the Neanderthal. This should be kept in mind when and if we finally come across aliens: sure, they'll *probably* be statistically average, but, perhaps not.

 

[edwest4]

Robot Chicken is on my 'do not watch' list.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Let me repeat my question which you so studiously evaded,

Calm yourself.

what does "extinct" mean if even some of your children and their children's children's children have made it through to make Moody Blues albums?

extinct
[ ik-stingkt ]

adjective
no longer in existence; that has ended or died out:

There are a lot of species that led from Pikaia through Australopithecus to modern humans. Each one of these species necessarily had "children who have made it through to make Moody Blues albums." Do you argue that they are *not* extinct?

 

[galgot]

Ok... How to tell a bent octopus from an unbent one ?...

 

[steelpillow]

what does "extinct" mean if even some of your children and their children's children's children have made it through to make Moody Blues albums?

extinct[/SIZE]
[ ik-stingkt ]
adjective[/SIZE]
no longer in existence; that has ended or died out:

There are a lot of species that led from Pikaia through Australopithecus to modern humans. Each one of these species necessarily had "children who have made it through to make Moody Blues albums." Do you argue that they are *not* extinct?

Those are held to have evolved into us, not to have interbred with us. There is a big difference. When you evolve into something else you become extinct, when you merge with another viable strain that you once separated from, neither of you becomes extinct because you are by definition the same species (see also below). This is not democracy, we do not count DNA codons and declare 50% plus the winner. Thank you for highlighting the difference so clearly.

There is a lovely example of a seagull which was long thought to be distinct species in the US and Western Europe, as they could not interbreed. However the West European gulls bred with East European gulls who bred with West Asian gulls and so on round the globe until they reached the US Western seaboard. Taken as a whole, the entire population interbreeds. If one end of the chain were to die out, the species as a whole would not become extinct.

There is a growing suggestion that this is the best way to view our relationship with the Neanderthals. Of course you may take the conventional view but then that view is currently embroiled in controversy over how to define a "species". How could we and the Neanderthals have been distinct species if they were not our forebears yet we could still interbreed with them? By the conventional definition that makes us members of the same species, yet conventional taxonomy contradicts that. It's a poser - unless you adopt the idea of subspecies or something like that. There was a nice long article in New Scientist about the controversy a while back.

 

[Arjen]

There is the possibility that (some of) the features that we think identify 'europeans' are down to neanderthal DNA. There is some discussion among biologists about how distinct the divides between groups of humans really are. There is the age-old struggle in taxonomy between lumpers and splitters - lumpers identify one type of splitter, splitters identify at least five kinds of lumpers.

 

[edwest4]

Neanderthal DNA did not do nothing. So-called modern humans had kids with them. So, no evolving into but interbreeding. Today, scientists identify two birds as looking just like each other but they can't interbreed. They are separated by distance and lost the ability to interbreed.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Those are held to have evolved into us, not to have interbred with us. There is a big difference. When you evolve into something else you become extinct, when you merge with another viable strain that you once separated from, neither of you becomes extinct because you are by definition the same species (see also below).

So if a *single* instance of human/Neander interbreeding led to a very minor change to the humans, while the rest of the Neanderthals were wiped out through war or disease or booze or whatever, you hold that the Neanderthals didn't go extinct? That's an interesting point of view. Thus genocide never happens, because there'll always be hidden "half breeds" somewhere.

 

[steelpillow]

Thus genocide never happens

Genocide is not species extinction, don't lose your head here.
I present scientific facts and understandings as I find them, sorry if that fits ill with your opinions.
Anyway, I think this off-topic excursion has gone on quite long enough. Drop me a PM if you want the full half-hour argument.

 

[Orionblamblam]

I present scientific facts and understandings as I find them, sorry if that fits ill with your opinions.

You mistake "logical inferences" for "opinion." Neanderthals were not a single small band in a single small location, but a wide-ranging species, from Europe to the Middle East to Asia, possibly further. And they *all* died out. They did not all interbreed with Homo Sapiens. A *few* did, perhaps as few as one.

Genocide is a valid comparison here. The complete wiping out of an ethnic group would be genocide even if there were descendants bred with other ethnic groups.

 

[galgot]

Well Scott, latest researches shows that the two species were contemporaries for very long time. Min 1000 to max 5000 or more years.
So if you absolutely want to be right on an internet forum, no prob. We are no Neanderthal experts here. ok it was a genocide. but a very long one...

Anyways, I watched K-Pax, didn't saw the end yet.
Thks to CiTrus90 for the suggestion , I had never seen it.
Interesting. Yes that would be the kind of travel I was thinking about.

 

[Arjen]

Neanderthal man's scientific name is Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, it is considered a subspecies of H. sapiens. Some anthropologists regard Denisova man as another subspecies, H. sapiens denisova - the jury is still out on that.
Humans of mainly Eurasian origins have DNA that for some 2% can be traced to Neanderthals, I don't know the percentages for Denisovan DNA. Those 2% Neanderthal genes are not identical over the entire population, it is estimated ~20% of all Neanderthal DNA survives to this day in modern humans. This points to rather more than the occasional tryst between H. sapiens neanderthalensis and H. sapiens sapiens.

One theory about the Neanderthal's demise was put forward by Chris Stringer and William Davies and others: Neanderthal man was less adaptable to the sudden climate changes that occurred ~30,000 years ago.

Increased knowledge of the vagaries of Europe's climate over the past 100,000 years is beginning to influence thinking about Neanderthal extinction. Cores from the Greenland icecap and the floor of the North Atlantic reveal remarkable oscillations in temperatures during that time. Figure 1 shows a vegetation curve based on pollen from the sediments of Lake Monticchio2, Italy — the dramatic fluctuations show how severe the effects of the changing climate could have been on both Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons in reducing the environment's capacity to support them. According to one view (C. Finlayson, Gibraltar Museum), Neanderthals became extinct simply because they could not cope with the increasing severity of climatic change around 30,000 years ago. The Cro-Magnons, who according to Finlayson were better adapted to the increasing open-country environments, simply colonized the vacant habitats. An alternative view (proposed by R. White, New York Univ., and ourselves, among others) is that extinction probably stemmed from various factors, including climatic instability coupled with competition for resources from Cro-Magnons.

Or, something completely different:
1) diseases carried by H. sapiens sapiens
2) the domestication of dogs by H. sapiens sapiens, leading to an unfair advantage when hunting

On balance, climate has my vote. Human populations were much smaller than today (think tens of thousands globally), which made them more vulnerable.

Well Scott, latest researches shows that the two species were contemporaries for very long time. Min 1000 to max 5000 or more years.
So if you absolutely want to be right on an internet forum, no prob. We are no Neanderthal experts here. ok it was a genocide. but a very long one...

To be honest, I don't know. Life being life, it will throw you a curve ball. Sometimes with catastrophic effects. Contact with extraterrestrials might just be another curve ball.

 

[Hood]

It could well of been climate, although there remains the puzzle that if Neanderthals and H. sapiens were living fairly closely (assuming they did interbreed) then why didn't they simply copy whatever hunting/food gathering advances H. Sapiens were making? Were they disinclined to follow an alien culture or did they lack comparable intelligence to fully understand their rivals techniques?

 

[Fluff]

It could well of been climate, although there remains the puzzle that if Neanderthals and H. sapiens were living fairly closely (assuming they did interbreed) then why didn't they simply copy whatever hunting/food gathering advances H. Sapiens were making? Were they disinclined to follow an alien culture or did they lack comparable intelligence to fully understand their rivals techniques?

Sounds like they were more British, than German - logically we should copy our alien neighbours, emotionally b**l*cks to that, im not growing weeds, lets go hunt a walking mountain.....

 

[Arjen]

Who knows? Cultural differences? With the thousands of years both subspecies coexisted, the scale of genetic mixing might be due to mixed offspring being not as hardy as either subspecies. Combine that with isolated small populations being more vulnerable to catastrophic change than the larger H. sapiens sapiens reservoir, and trouble is your new neighbour.