23 ms·
Why are you confident that underwater technical civilization isn't possible? It would seem to me that techniques like hydraulics would emerge quickly, and larg
by debatem1 9y ago
Why are you confident that underwater technical civilization isn't possible?
It would seem to me that techniques like hydraulics would emerge quickly, and large pressure and temperature differentials over small distances are considerably more common and easier to harness underwater than above. Fabrication is certainly harder, but not impossibly so. Some weapons like thrusting spears might be easier to make and more advantageous in the water than on land, and those developed pretty early for us.
- dogma1138 9y agoBecause show me an evolutionary path into fine tool making and complex chemistry. Chemistry is virtually impossible underwater, were not talking about an octopus using a stick even some birds use tools that's not exactly what we would call a technological intelligence. No fire, no smelting no metalworking, no complex materials.
- StephenMelon 9y agoIf you can’t do an experiment in your own environment, you improvise. Humans have done experiments in space that couldn’t be done on earth, so an advanced aquatic species could do experiments above the surface, given enough time, intelligence and inclination. Intelligence might also take different forms, so an ocean-sized equivalent of a termite colony comprised of specialised molluscs that were collectively intelligent and had selectively bred themselves into specialised roles for millennia could achieve a great deal?
- dogma1138 9y agoWe’re talking here about very specific intelligence a technological one. Humans can do experiments in space because we have the technology to do so, show me an evolutionary path to technology capable of overcoming environmental barriers without fire and chemistry.
- hossbeast 9y agoBecause you can't conceive of it in 5 minutes, it doesn't exist?
- debatem1 9y agoYou're making three specific claims and have provided zero evidence: that it is impossible to develop fire underwater, that it is impossible to develop chemistry underwater, and that it is impossible to build a technological civilization without these things. I say hogwash; show me the proof for your claims. Your proposed alternative is to play "what if" until either I come up with an imaginary scenario that strikes your fancy or, more likely, you reject out of hand anything brought to you and claim to be right by default. Well, that's hogwash too. It's certainly no way to advance a scientific claim, let alone three of them. I'm particularly skeptical of the claim that you could not develop chemistry underwater; it seems equally as implausible as saying that you could not develop chemistry in air for exactly the same reasons.
- autokad 9y ago"I'm particularly skeptical of the claim that you could not develop chemistry underwater; it seems equally as implausible as saying that you could not develop chemistry in air for exactly the same reasons." what? you think its possible to develop fire under water? chemistry? have you done any chemistry? what about electricity? (a huge but impossible one to do under water)? I am trying really hard not to say something mean
- aalleavitch 9y agohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baKdHa5TlYM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baKdHa5TlYM We did it.
- dogma1138 9y agoNow show me an evolutionary path towards that that is feasible underwater.
- 9y ago