Other locations for intelligence (Fermi Paradox Question)

freyar

Extradimensional Explorer
Well, it's not really about locales that might support intelligent life, but this new article may be interesting related reading for anyone interested in this thread. (Caveat: I haven't read it and probably don't have time to at the moment.)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

tomBitonti

Adventurer
Well, it's not really about locales that might support intelligent life, but this new article may be interesting related reading for anyone interested in this thread. (Caveat: I haven't read it and probably don't have time to at the moment.)

Fun to read. Select paragraphs:

Estimates for the number of visible galaxy-spanning civilizations and the cosmological expansion of life
S. Jay Olson
Department of Physics, Boise State University, Boise

P4:

"A basic input of an aggressive expansion scenario is the appearance rate of expanders per unit coordinate volume, per unit cosmic time, f(t). We will consider three such models for the time-dependence of f(t), leaving the overall proportionality constant as a parameter to be fixed by assumptions on the relative time of arrival of humanity in the next section. The baseline “non-catastrophic” model will set the appearance rate at time t to be proportional to the number of earthlike planets formed between 4.5 Gyr − 6 Gyr prior to t. This means that we assume it takes at least 4.5 Gyr for maximally advanced life to appear on a newly formed earthlike planet, and that the window for life to evolve is no more than 6 Gyr."

P5:

"In addition to the baseline model, we also introduce two models that include galaxywide extinction events, with a rate that changes as a function of cosmic time. These models assume that a life-harboring planet will be subject to a high-energy event, nearby gamma ray bursts (GRB’s) being the prototype example [17], that destroys planetary ozone layers, causing a mass extinction event which sets back the evolution of life by some amount of time. We will assume that such events are severe if they occur in the final stages of evolution towards intelligence, so that we reduce the pool of potential planets to those which have not seen such an extinction event in the last .2 Gyr."

P10:

"It is interesting to visualize just how rarely aggressively expanding civilizations arise, according to this analysis. A typical value for the appearance rate parameter α in a GRB-tracking scenario is of order 10−3 appearances per Gly3 per Gyr. In other words, it would take a sphere of radius ≈ 5 Gly to produce a single aggressive expander in a billion years. This is a volume encompassing many thousands of superclusters and perhaps a hundred million large galaxies. Similar numbers are implied by [10], in their calculation of the number of galaxies that could have reached and colonized the Milky Way in the last few Gyr. Any sufficient great filter [20] must be very great indeed."

Bold added by me.

Thx!

TomB
 

MarkB

Legend
Whales certainly can't use tools or develop technology. Sentience is one thing, but the Holy Grail would be an advanced, technological civilisation. And that means fire, which means it won't be water-based.
Fire is the path we took towards technology, but it's not necessarily the only path. Creatures in an oceanic environment have access to a different set of resources than our ancestors, and might leverage those resources in ways we haven't considered.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
Fire is the path we took towards technology, but it's not necessarily the only path. Creatures in an oceanic environment have access to a different set of resources than our ancestors, and might leverage those resources in ways we haven't considered.

Sure. We can insert the word "might" into any conceivable situation. :)
 



tomBitonti

Adventurer
I wonder if there aren't other factors which interfere with tool development in aqueous environments other than the problem of fire. There don't seem to be examples of non-fire tool use in the manner which is shown by primates and a few other species. (I'm not sure if hermit crabs borrowing shells or various nest building counts.). I'm trying to think why this is. One issue that stands out is a lack of enduring materials. I thing that maybe metal could be obtained, but salt water makes it very impractical.

Thx!

TomB
 

MarkB

Legend
I wonder if there aren't other factors which interfere with tool development in aqueous environments other than the problem of fire. There don't seem to be examples of non-fire tool use in the manner which is shown by primates and a few other species. (I'm not sure if hermit crabs borrowing shells or various nest building counts.). I'm trying to think why this is. One issue that stands out is a lack of enduring materials. I thing that maybe metal could be obtained, but salt water makes it very impractical.

Thx!

TomB

I believe there are some examples of primitive tool use by octopi. For instance:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlh0cS2tf24

And I'm not sure whether killer whales deploying artificial waves would count as tool use.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPge_0lea3o

The oceans present some interesting opportunities for advanced tool users. For instance, the massive pressures in the ocean depths are a resource that could be used productively. I'm not saying there is necessarily any easy alternative to fire for advancement, I just think that a creature which evolves to sentience in that environment might well find solutions that we, as humans, wouldn't even consider.
 

transtemporal

Explorer
have we determined if whales are sentient (or whatever we are that monkeys aren't)?

Maybe. I think we can describe whales and monkeys as having sapient qualities (capable of problem solving) and possibly even sentient qualities (awareness of existence and the ability to plan for the future) but I'm not sure you could say they had sophont qualities (self-awareness, self-reflection and metacognition, the ability to think about thinking).

I'm not sure that would stop us from recognising another sentient species since we are pretty good at detecting non-random patterns, and even if we didn't understand it, an attempt to communicate would probably be recognised as such.
 

Remove ads

Top