Where is everybody? (Fermi paradox)

[Umbran]

The smartest birds aren't eagles or hawks, they're ravens and crows.

Actually, I think, depending on the form of intelligence you're talking about, the winner may well be some of the parrots.

Be that as it may, whatever logic we may construct to say what is or is not more likely - I don't think any reasonable scheme we can construct will actually *prohibit* intelligence from arising in any of these branches. And, in terms of keeping our minds open, that's pretty important.

 

[Umbran]

Also, that is considering that (arguably) we can't even achieve sustainability here on the Earth.

Yes, well, if that's the case, then no colony has ever become sustainable. But at some point we have to say it's "good enough" - Europeans started colonizing North America over 400 years ago. How long does it have to be there before it is "sustainable"? I mean, ultimately, remaining in this solar system is "not sustainable", because the Sun will eventually die. You have to draw a line somewhere...

But to a degree, I agree with you - our economic systems don't know how to deal with a situation in which markets and resources are not growing. If we hit a flat period, we freak out as if lack of growth is the end of the world. Maybe we will never learn how to manage a steady-state economy.

Then perhaps colonizing becomes crucial, rather than questionable - we will need access to resources and locations for continued growth, and there's a whole lot of material and space out there....

 

[Nellisir]

Yes, well, if that's the case, then no colony has ever become sustainable. But at some point we have to say it's "good enough" - Europeans started colonizing North America over 400 years ago. How long does it have to be there before it is "sustainable"? I mean, ultimately, remaining in this solar system is "not sustainable", because the Sun will eventually die. You have to draw a line somewhere...

But to a degree, I agree with you - our economic systems don't know how to deal with a situation in which markets and resources are not growing. If we hit a flat period, we freak out as if lack of growth is the end of the world. Maybe we will never learn how to manage a steady-state economy.

Then perhaps colonizing becomes crucial, rather than questionable - we will need access to resources and locations for continued growth, and there's a whole lot of material and space out there....

I think, as you say, you have to draw the line somewhere, and you have to define your terms. Sustainable at current rates of growth is very much different than sustainable human life. Europeans couldn't manage sustainable colonies for quite a period with their culture, but the Native Americans had no such issues. The North American continent is clearly capable of sustainable living.

I don't think colonizing is crucial in that regard: we might not be sustainable now, but if that's the case, there will be a correction. I doubt it'll be an extinction (of us, at least).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That's a binary choice, but there are others. I think intelligent life is more likely in something that both preys and is preyed upon. The more specialized the diet, the more specialized and hardwired the instincts. The smartest birds aren't eagles or hawks, they're ravens and crows. Octopi are predators, but they're also prey. Ditto chimpanzees. I'm not sure about dolphins, but I suspect they experience occasional predation from sharks and killer whales.

I wasnt suggesting it was a binary choice- odds are good that, unless you're the biggest, baddest thing in your ecosystem, it doesn't matter if you are a predator, you will also be prey. As the children's song goes, the big big fish eat the little bitty fish...

Further, in some cases, who is prey may depend on the individual circumstances. In one example, an aquarium was setting up a natural reef display. They included sharks at first, then added octopi. They were worried that the sharks would decimate the new additions, though. And they did lose some. Then sharks started disappearing. As film revealed, at least one of the octopi did enjoy the occasional shark for supper...

And as I recall, parrots outscore the corvids on the IQ scales. Both, though, predate on insects and the like.

 

[Umbran]

I
And as I recall, parrots outscore the corvids on the IQ scales. Both, though, predate on insects and the like.

My understanding of the arguments behaviorists and biologists give for why parrots are intelligent isn't their food source, but the complexity of their environment. The rainforest canopy is a pretty darned complicated and active place, and it turns out that social groups and a quick mind are good for surviving there. So, parrots have some high levels of cognition in relevant areas.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

My understanding of the arguments behaviorists and biologists give for why parrots are intelligent isn't their food source, but the complexity of their environment. The rainforest canopy is a pretty darned complicated and active place, and it turns out that social groups and a quick mind are good for surviving there. So, parrots have some high levels of cognition in relevant areas.

Right, that's the standard view. But it's not incompatible with the predator/prey theory.

The person making the assertion about intelligence in predator species versus prey species isn't claiming that it is the determinative factor, but one of several.* In a way, it dovetails- the claim is that predators interact with their environment in a more complex way than do prey species. Part of that is virtually requiring binocular vision in order to actually be able to judge distances and catch moving prey.

There would be exceptions, of course, and exhibit one would be pachyderms. No one questions their status as ranking among the more intelligent creatures on the planet, and they're clearly herbivores. And like parrots, they have very complex interactions with their vast territories.







* in marketing, the number one factor correlating with success in any given market is being first into that market. It isn't the ONLY factor, but it is the strongest one.

 

[Nellisir]

I guess I just find predator/prey a binary choice that doesn't well suit a number of intelligent species and seems to require a lot of exemptions and special cases. Parrots might eat insects, which is technically a predator/prey relationship, but do insects really require the same amount of cognition as, say, gazelle? And sharks. Sharks are the number one example of a predatory animal, but they're not winning any IQ exams. They are almost completely hardwired. Ditto crocodiles. Great cats are predatory, but they don't sign half so well as herbivorous gorillas. And us. We're omnivorous, and we prey on large species now because of tool use, but what about before tools? I think we were more likely food than fed upon, at least for anything much larger than insects and an occasional small animal.

So I'm sticking with flexible, omnivorous diets (which allow for protein rich meat in good times and fruits & veggies in tougher times) and complex environments as a better marker than predator/prey.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

...do insects really require the same amount of cognition as, say, gazelle?

No, but they do require more cognition than finding the right plants to eat.

And sharks. Sharks are the number one example of a predatory animal, but they're not winning any IQ exams. They are almost completely hardwired. Ditto crocodiles.

And they're demonstrably smarter than most of their prey. Take a shark tourism trip or visit a croc farm and you'll see some behaviors you would not expect from stupid predators.

Great cats are predatory, but they don't sign half so well as herbivorous gorillas.

Hard to use ASL without digits. Also, gorillas are not herbivores, they're quite fond of insects, with a strong preference for termites. Because of the structural strength of their mounds, harvesting african termites in meaningful quantities requires either adaptive physiology (long sticky tongue and powerful claws as per anteaters) or tool use. (They also eat soil.)

And us. We're omnivorous, and we prey on large species now because of tool use, but what about before tools? I think we were more likely food than fed upon, at least for anything much larger than insects and an occasional small animal.

So? That a predator may also be prey has virtually no impact on the theory.

So I'm sticking with flexible, omnivorous diets (which allow for protein rich meat in good times and fruits & veggies in tougher times) and complex environments as a better marker than predator/prey.

Again, he's not trying to supplant the complex environment theory or even say it's superior. He's asserting it is one major factor among other major factors.

 

[Nellisir]

No, but they do require more cognition than finding the right plants to eat.

Elephant vs woodpecker.

And they're demonstrably smarter than most of their prey. Take a shark tourism trip or visit a croc farm and you'll see some behaviors you would not expect from stupid predators.

I don't do boats well, but I've been to several croc farms. I don't know what you're seeing, but the behaviors I see are hardwired. People take advantage of the hardwired behaviors to make them into tricks. I'm not saying they're running into walls stupid; but they are pretty much mono-focused on getting food, and almost all of their behavior is instinctual. There's not a lot of extra cognition going on.

Hard to use ASL without digits.

I didn't think someone would actually think that was supposed to be literal. Communication. Dolphins don't have digits either. Parrots. Capacity for self-recognition.

Also, gorillas are not herbivores, they're quite fond of insects

Herbivorous insectovores, then. Or omnivores. Either way, you're casting the net for "predators" so wide it's essentially lost all meaning. (Eastern lowland gorillas are noted as "also eating insects", while mountain gorillas do not. Neither species seems to derive a significant daily portion of its diet from predation.)

Again, he's not trying to supplant the complex environment theory or even say it's superior. He's asserting it is one major factor among other major factors.

And I'm asserting it's not a major factor, or it's misleadingly labelled if the definition for "predator" is "derives some percentage of diet greater than 1% from non-plant life" AND the most intelligent species known aren't particularly aggressive predators (dolphins excepted). It becomes so broad as to be meaningless, since eventually a very very large number of species are classified as "predators".

Ambush predators.
Venus fly-trap.
baleen whales.

A specialized predator, IMO, is likely to be of less intelligence than an unspecialized predator. A creature of unspecialized diet, such as an omnivore, is likely to be of greater intelligence than a creature of specialized diet, either carnivorous or herbivorous.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I don't do boats well, but I've been to several croc farms. I don't know what you're seeing, but the behaviors I see are hardwired. People take advantage of the hardwired behaviors to make them into tricks. I'm not saying they're running into walls stupid; but they are pretty much mono-focused on getting food, and almost all of their behavior is instinctual. There's not a lot of extra cognition going on.

Well, I know of one gator that, after getting a mouthful of chicken (its usual food) still in its feeder's hand, let go. Instead of dragging the caretaker in, it let go. It passed on a big, easy meal in favor of a dependable food supply.

Furthermore, as of 2013, we now have confirmation of tool use/baiting in hunting by alligators and crocodiles. Scientists have recorded the use of twigs and sticks by crocodiles & alligators to lure birds...only during birds' nesting seasons:

"What's really remarkable — they are not only using lures, but they are timing it to just when the birds they want to capture are nesting and looking for sticks to use," said Gordon Burghardt, an ethologist (animal behaviorist) and comparative psychologist specializing in reptiles at UT-Knoxville. "They are making some assessment of the birds themselves."

"This is indeed the first convincing evidence of tool use in any reptile," said Burghardt, who wasn't involved in the study.

http://www.livescience.com/41898-alligators-crocodiles-use-tools.html

And

In recent years it has – I really, really hope – become better known that non-bird reptiles (turtles, lizards, snakes, crocodiles, alligators and so on) are not boring dullards, but behaviourally complex creatures that get up to all sorts of interesting things. Play behaviour, complex social interactions, gaze recognition, pair-bonding and monogamy, social hunting, speedy learning abilities and good memories have all been demonstrated across these groups.

(edit)

The possibility that stick-displaying behaviour results from a random association between rookery-frequenting crocodylians and floating sticks was deemed unlikely by the authors, since floating sticks are extremely rare in the pools concerned, especially at the time of year concerned (partly this is because the local trees – bald cypresses and water tupelos – don’t shed twigs, but also because the nesting birds rapidly remove floating sticks for nest-building). Therefore, deliberate collection and employment of sticks by the crocodylians seems most likely (Dinets et al. 2013): it seems that they are practising baiting behaviour, whereby predators use objects in order to get potential prey to closely approach and hence become easier to catch. Even better, they are seemingly only practicing this baiting behaviour during a specific part of the year.

The finding, along with other recent work, suggests reptiles are much more intelligent than generally acknowledged, Dinets said. As anybody who studies the beasts can attest, they are quite smart, he added. Crocodiles, for example, have complex communication systems, can hunt in coordination and ambush prey, and both parents may help raise young, he said.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/2013/11/30/tool-use-in-crocs-and-gators/

As for sharks, Allison Kock, marine biologist, had this to say of sharks to Smithsonian:

...Kock and other researchers claim that the shark has been defamed: its reputation as a ruthless, mindless man-eater is undeserved. In the past decade, Kock and other shark experts have come to realize that sharks rarely hunt humans—and that the beasts are sociable and curious. "Unlike most fish," Kock says, "white sharks are intelligent, highly inquisitive creatures."

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/forget-jaws-now-its-brains-48249580/

In addition, some species have been observed using cooperative tactics to herd prey, which they then take turns feeding upon.

IOW, neither is just muscle and teeth.

Now, the fact that we're only just now recognizing higher intellectual functions in these alpha predators says something about recognizing alien intelligence in general. I mean, these creatures are from the same global ecosystem. We share a lot in common with them. But we don't recognize their minds fully.

Doing that with aiiens face to face will be at least as difficult...

But we'll go into such an encounter expecting intelligence assuming we've seen the by products of their existence- radio or other EMF emissions, space travel, the presence of rare molecules in their planetary spectroscopic signatures, etc.