5 ms·

Multiple hominid species on Earth have had a technology gap on an unfathomable timescale. Indeed, the Denisovans developed stone tools tens of thousands of year

Multiple hominid species on Earth have had a technology gap on an unfathomable timescale. Indeed, the Denisovans developed stone tools tens of thousands of years before our own species. We often look to the stars and wonder what other intelligent life is out there. I'm sure it's captured every one of our minds at some point. Dark Forest theory of the Fermi Paradox be damned, we want to share in the comfort of knowing that intelligent life exists. That we are not all alone. But I wonder - had things been not much different, might we be cohabiting with an intelligent species, one perhaps tens of thousands of years ahead of us? Aliens on our own planet? Would we even realize their sentience - would our minds even be comparable? Would their civilization fade to ruins before we came to sentience, and would we discover remnants of a long-lost civilization? Would they raze the planet to the ground and never provide us the opportunity to develop sentience? So many questions. Are we in a similar situation right now with other hominids, who we've found to have a "theory of mind"? Are we morally obligated to not cut the nip of societal development in the bud for these species? And if this species suffers in developing and advancing, are we obligated to ease and accelerate their development? For example, if a far advanced civilization was out there, merely observing us while they knew they had the cure to our dying loved ones and general suffering on this planet, would we not find the only ethical solution to provide said cure? As such, are we in a similar situation with other developing hominids? When you think about it, it is possible that intelligent life developing on other planets is not a singular species but multiple species. And that's fascinating. I wonder what it must be like, to cohabit with a different species that is effectively your equal with respect to self-awareness/sentience, even if they are not your equal with respect to technology.

The_rationalist 7y ago
In many cases I guess one genocide the other specie. They represent too much of an existential threat before both of those species reach rationality and altruism as constitutional finalities.
coldtea 7y ago
>Are we morally obligated to not cut the nip of societal development in the bud for these species? That's a question that is more of a decision. The universe doesn't care either way, and wouldn't care if tomorrow a comet extinguished life on Earth entirely.
usrnm 7y ago
> the Denisovans developed stone tools tens of thousands of years before our own species I wonder if it's possible that stone tools were developed only once by some early species and then just passed down through generations? What do we really know about those times?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- gus_massa 7y ago
  Stone tools are very arkeological friendly, because they don't rot and because they are not reused later (like iron tools or marble blocks). So the story of stone tools is well documented. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_tool https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_tool A few of our ancestor species used the exact same model of stone hand tool (it's like a small axe) for a million years! It was even inherited between a few species. Something like 1.5 million years ago, someone had the brilliant idea of improving it. It was another of our ancestor species. (I think that Denisovans branched before this but IANAA.) After that there are a few (slow) step of progressing. --- You may be interested to read about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_culture Some theory says that they were the first human to reach America. Other theories says that humans had already come to America but they had older stone technology and the Clovis people just brought the new stone technology that was much better. I can't find a clear report, and I'm not sure if there is a clear evidence of both theories. It's easier to track the use of the new arrow heads than track the users.
amelius 7y ago
> I wonder what it must be like, to cohabit with a different species that is effectively your equal with respect to self-awareness/sentience, even if they are not your equal with respect to technology. It sounds intriguing but unfortunately, I think that history teaches us that in reality we'd eventually end up with the problems of racism, but at a whole new level.
- missosoup 7y ago
  Don't bring sjw terminology into this. There would certainly be competition for resources, the same that we see across any kind of genetic/ideological/political divide. It's the inherent outcome of multiple entities competing for finite resources. Labelling it racism is about as laughable as calling ant colony wars racism, and shows a deep misunderstanding of the issues that surround actual racism.
phs318u 7y ago
> But I wonder - had things been not much different, might we be cohabiting with an intelligent species, one perhaps tens of thousands of years ahead of us? Aliens on our own planet? I really loved your post especially that paragraph, which could easily spawn a dozen sci-fi stories or conspiracy theories.
- xvector 7y ago
  Thanks, that really means a lot. This really captures my imagination and it’s hard to put into words.
gambiting 7y ago
>For example, if a far advanced civilization was out there, merely observing us while they knew they had the cure to our dying loved ones and general suffering on this planet, would we not find the only ethical solution to provide said cure? I mean, we already do that to an extent. There are "wild" tribes living in remote areas of the planet and surely they must suffer from illnesses which we have cures for, but in the name of leaving them alone we don't provide them with anything.
- psychoslave 7y ago
  That seems a rather different situation : we are not a difference species, and this "no contact initiative from our part" policy include consideration on our own civilization defects. That doesn't discard the interest of the point, but that brings a call for more specific nuances depending on civilization discrepancies.
- fao_ 7y ago
  Uh, no. In the name of leaving them alone we don't bring disease and destruction to their culture and community.
  - joenot443 7y ago
    Do you think we could interact with them in a beneficial way without bringing disease or drastically changing their way of life?
    - drdeadringer 7y ago
      Ethics and moralities of actually doing so aside for two moments... 1) I'm trying to imagine a sterilized delivery system of treatments that such tribes would be able to understand enough to use. 2) Similar to "how do we communicate to the deep future not to enter nuclear waste storage facilities", how do we communicate to such people when not only is there a language barrier but also a gap of hundreds [thousands?] of technological &c progress as well.
    - fao_ 7y ago
yqx 7y ago
> Are we morally obligated to not cut the nip of societal development in the bud for these species? And if this species suffers in developing and advancing, are we obligated to ease and accelerate their development? Perhaps we can start by preventing their extinction by stopping the destruction of of their natural habitat.
shubrigast 7y ago
Truly a captivating thought. Though I must point out that stone tool technology has existed for over 3 million years. Doesn't take away from the questions you pose, however.
ummwhat 7y ago
I learned yesterday that the Koala population is projected to go extinct in 15 years because a highly virulent strand of chlamydia has rendered them infertile. Scientist are researching a cure for them. So yeah, I guess incomprehensibly advanced technological interjection isn't unprecedented.
Haga 7y ago
Like a genocide on Neanderthals or megafauna that never happened
meiraleal 7y ago
there are some theories about humans been the apex of physical evolution for things like body function, intelligence, memory, etc. So in other environments, human-like animals would also appear at some point. Later we have what we are creating now, a world not limited to our own physical limits. A digital/virtual and why not, spiritual world.
WhompingWindows 7y ago
You've described the situation from 1-2 million years ago. Homo sapiens were not the only intelligent species, there were numerous hominid species at various points. We interbred, killed, dominated, and out-competed these species, to their ruin. I don't fancy meeting another, slightly more capable version of ourselves, as that would likely lead to the same outcome for us.
methodover 7y ago
> Would we even realize their sentience (Minor nitpick, but I think you meant "sapience" rather than "sentience." Sentience is something that essentially all animals on this planet have, and just means the ability to experience sensations. Sapience appears to be unique to humans (and perhaps a small number of animal species) and refers to the ability to reason.)
- statusquoantefa 7y ago
  > while they knew they had the cure ... would we not find the only ethical solution (while we are minor nitpicking, they have the cure, our view of their ethics might not be the same as their view of theirs)
- xvector 7y ago
  Thanks!
statusquoantefa 7y ago
> observing us while they knew they had the cure to our dying loved ones Good! I, for one, appreciate selection pressure from our insect overlords, it's the only way Darwinism works. Seriously, science is serious business, and I can't stand namby-pambyism. We are supposed to die, it's narcissistic to believe you and yours are more important than the species. it's healthy for forest fires to periodically burn out the accumulated brush and revitalize the ecosystem.
- xvector 7y ago
  I disagree with just about everything you said. The ecosystem is worthless without an intelligence to experience it. For self-aware species, death is a disease despite the fact that it maintains a consistent ecosystem. As a self-aware being, we all should have the right to live and die on our own terms. I doubt you would speak as you did if were, in fact, next to a loved one on their death bed. But then again, this is all a matter of opinion. We're all entitled to our right answers :)
  - jly 7y ago
    I think you both have some good points. Escaping death and disease with technology is a slippery slope. If that technology disappears or is unavailable, it puts a species in potential peril. Selection pressure keeps the fitness of the gene pool resilient, although at a cost to many individuals. This is relevant to all species, human and otherwise.
fossuser 7y ago
Your comment reminds me a little bit of Ted Chiang's short story: http://nautil.us/issue/75/story/the-great-silence http://nautil.us/issue/75/story/the-great-silence
jdsully 7y ago
We know elephants grieve for lost family members. We probably have the tools to cure many diseases they experience in the wild but yet we do not. We have started to apply serious medical care to dogs and cats though. I can see perhaps over the longer term as material abundance increases we would actively setup "nature hospitals".
Keysh 7y ago
> Multiple hominid species on Earth have had a technology gap on an unfathomable timescale. Indeed, the Denisovans developed stone tools tens of thousands of years before our own species. Nonsense. Hominin toolmaking and tool use go back more than 2 million years, long before the last common ancestor of humans and the Neanderthal/Denisovan branch. About all we can say about Denisovan tool use is that their technology, circa 100,000 or 150,000 years ago, was roughly the same as contemporary Neanderthal and human technology.
kromem 7y ago
Is it ethical to meddle? Look at how we don't expose isolated tribes in Brazil to civilization. If we found a struggling intelligent alien species on a planet somewhere, would we interfere? Looking at how we handle the issue even within our own species, possibly not.

The_rationalist 7y ago

In many cases I guess one genocide the other specie. They represent too much of an existential threat before both of those species reach rationality and altruism as constitutional finalities.

coldtea 7y ago

>Are we morally obligated to not cut the nip of societal development in the bud for these species? That's a question that is more of a decision. The universe doesn't care either way, and wouldn't care if tomorrow a comet extinguished life on Earth entirely.

usrnm 7y ago

> the Denisovans developed stone tools tens of thousands of years before our own species I wonder if it's possible that stone tools were developed only once by some early species and then just passed down through generations? What do we really know about those times?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
gus_massa 7y ago
Stone tools are very arkeological friendly, because they don't rot and because they are not reused later (like iron tools or marble blocks). So the story of stone tools is well documented. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_tool https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_tool A few of our ancestor species used the exact same model of stone hand tool (it's like a small axe) for a million years! It was even inherited between a few species. Something like 1.5 million years ago, someone had the brilliant idea of improving it. It was another of our ancestor species. (I think that Denisovans branched before this but IANAA.) After that there are a few (slow) step of progressing. --- You may be interested to read about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_culture Some theory says that they were the first human to reach America. Other theories says that humans had already come to America but they had older stone technology and the Clovis people just brought the new stone technology that was much better. I can't find a clear report, and I'm not sure if there is a clear evidence of both theories. It's easier to track the use of the new arrow heads than track the users.

amelius 7y ago

> I wonder what it must be like, to cohabit with a different species that is effectively your equal with respect to self-awareness/sentience, even if they are not your equal with respect to technology. It sounds intriguing but unfortunately, I think that history teaches us that in reality we'd eventually end up with the problems of racism, but at a whole new level.

missosoup 7y ago
Don't bring sjw terminology into this. There would certainly be competition for resources, the same that we see across any kind of genetic/ideological/political divide. It's the inherent outcome of multiple entities competing for finite resources. Labelling it racism is about as laughable as calling ant colony wars racism, and shows a deep misunderstanding of the issues that surround actual racism.

phs318u 7y ago

> But I wonder - had things been not much different, might we be cohabiting with an intelligent species, one perhaps tens of thousands of years ahead of us? Aliens on our own planet? I really loved your post especially that paragraph, which could easily spawn a dozen sci-fi stories or conspiracy theories.

xvector 7y ago
Thanks, that really means a lot. This really captures my imagination and it’s hard to put into words.

gambiting 7y ago

>For example, if a far advanced civilization was out there, merely observing us while they knew they had the cure to our dying loved ones and general suffering on this planet, would we not find the only ethical solution to provide said cure? I mean, we already do that to an extent. There are "wild" tribes living in remote areas of the planet and surely they must suffer from illnesses which we have cures for, but in the name of leaving them alone we don't provide them with anything.

psychoslave 7y ago
That seems a rather different situation : we are not a difference species, and this "no contact initiative from our part" policy include consideration on our own civilization defects. That doesn't discard the interest of the point, but that brings a call for more specific nuances depending on civilization discrepancies.
fao_ 7y ago
Uh, no. In the name of leaving them alone we don't bring disease and destruction to their culture and community.
- joenot443 7y ago
  Do you think we could interact with them in a beneficial way without bringing disease or drastically changing their way of life?
  - drdeadringer 7y ago
    Ethics and moralities of actually doing so aside for two moments... 1) I'm trying to imagine a sterilized delivery system of treatments that such tribes would be able to understand enough to use. 2) Similar to "how do we communicate to the deep future not to enter nuclear waste storage facilities", how do we communicate to such people when not only is there a language barrier but also a gap of hundreds [thousands?] of technological &c progress as well.
  - fao_ 7y ago

yqx 7y ago

> Are we morally obligated to not cut the nip of societal development in the bud for these species? And if this species suffers in developing and advancing, are we obligated to ease and accelerate their development? Perhaps we can start by preventing their extinction by stopping the destruction of of their natural habitat.

shubrigast 7y ago

Truly a captivating thought. Though I must point out that stone tool technology has existed for over 3 million years. Doesn't take away from the questions you pose, however.

ummwhat 7y ago

I learned yesterday that the Koala population is projected to go extinct in 15 years because a highly virulent strand of chlamydia has rendered them infertile. Scientist are researching a cure for them. So yeah, I guess incomprehensibly advanced technological interjection isn't unprecedented.

Haga 7y ago

Like a genocide on Neanderthals or megafauna that never happened

meiraleal 7y ago

there are some theories about humans been the apex of physical evolution for things like body function, intelligence, memory, etc. So in other environments, human-like animals would also appear at some point. Later we have what we are creating now, a world not limited to our own physical limits. A digital/virtual and why not, spiritual world.

WhompingWindows 7y ago

You've described the situation from 1-2 million years ago. Homo sapiens were not the only intelligent species, there were numerous hominid species at various points. We interbred, killed, dominated, and out-competed these species, to their ruin. I don't fancy meeting another, slightly more capable version of ourselves, as that would likely lead to the same outcome for us.

methodover 7y ago

> Would we even realize their sentience (Minor nitpick, but I think you meant "sapience" rather than "sentience." Sentience is something that essentially all animals on this planet have, and just means the ability to experience sensations. Sapience appears to be unique to humans (and perhaps a small number of animal species) and refers to the ability to reason.)

statusquoantefa 7y ago
> while they knew they had the cure ... would we not find the only ethical solution (while we are minor nitpicking, they have the cure, our view of their ethics might not be the same as their view of theirs)
xvector 7y ago
Thanks!

statusquoantefa 7y ago

> observing us while they knew they had the cure to our dying loved ones Good! I, for one, appreciate selection pressure from our insect overlords, it's the only way Darwinism works. Seriously, science is serious business, and I can't stand namby-pambyism. We are supposed to die, it's narcissistic to believe you and yours are more important than the species. it's healthy for forest fires to periodically burn out the accumulated brush and revitalize the ecosystem.

xvector 7y ago
I disagree with just about everything you said. The ecosystem is worthless without an intelligence to experience it. For self-aware species, death is a disease despite the fact that it maintains a consistent ecosystem. As a self-aware being, we all should have the right to live and die on our own terms. I doubt you would speak as you did if were, in fact, next to a loved one on their death bed. But then again, this is all a matter of opinion. We're all entitled to our right answers :)
- jly 7y ago
  I think you both have some good points. Escaping death and disease with technology is a slippery slope. If that technology disappears or is unavailable, it puts a species in potential peril. Selection pressure keeps the fitness of the gene pool resilient, although at a cost to many individuals. This is relevant to all species, human and otherwise.

fossuser 7y ago

Your comment reminds me a little bit of Ted Chiang's short story: http://nautil.us/issue/75/story/the-great-silence http://nautil.us/issue/75/story/the-great-silence

jdsully 7y ago

We know elephants grieve for lost family members. We probably have the tools to cure many diseases they experience in the wild but yet we do not. We have started to apply serious medical care to dogs and cats though. I can see perhaps over the longer term as material abundance increases we would actively setup "nature hospitals".

Keysh 7y ago

> Multiple hominid species on Earth have had a technology gap on an unfathomable timescale. Indeed, the Denisovans developed stone tools tens of thousands of years before our own species. Nonsense. Hominin toolmaking and tool use go back more than 2 million years, long before the last common ancestor of humans and the Neanderthal/Denisovan branch. About all we can say about Denisovan tool use is that their technology, circa 100,000 or 150,000 years ago, was roughly the same as contemporary Neanderthal and human technology.

kromem 7y ago

Is it ethical to meddle? Look at how we don't expose isolated tribes in Brazil to civilization. If we found a struggling intelligent alien species on a planet somewhere, would we interfere? Looking at how we handle the issue even within our own species, possibly not.