4 ms·

That seems like a very landbased mindset. From a high level, what is an ocean but a thick atmosphere? I could even imagine an underwater culture would be quic

by slg 2y ago

That seems like a very landbased mindset. From a high level, what is an ocean but a thick atmosphere? I could even imagine an underwater culture would be quicker to explore because they would surely discover the surface of the ocean quicker than we discovered the concept of the atmosphere and that innately leads to the questions of whether the atmosphere has a "surface" and what is above it.

Jedd 2y ago
> From a high level, what is an ocean but a thick atmosphere? "Now you have two atmospheres."
- upghost 2y ago
  Ha. Ha ha. Nice.
fhdkweig 2y ago
There is also the issue that they will likely never discover fire and thus chemistry and metallurgy.
- johntitorjr 2y ago
  [dead]
- slg 2y ago
  This still seems to be based on assumptions coming from our own history and situation. I don't know why some hypothetical species needs fire for chemistry or even metallurgy for that matter or why an underwater civilization couldn't eventually discover fire themselves. There is also the potential that our reliance on combustion based rocketry is actually a crutch preventing us further space exploration considering how impractical it seems for interstellar travel.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- frogeyedpeas 2y ago
  Chemistry and reactions would absolutely still be a thing. Reactions happen underwater all the time such as the complex decay of organic matter. The fire meta get's postponed until trapping air inside bags happens (could be seaweed/skin based bags). Then you need to make a habit of collecting a bunch of air and trapping it and then can begin exploring chemical reactions in the air. ex: take dead but not decomposed organic matter, dry it out in hot air bag (maybe cover the bag in black squid ink and float the bag of air in the ocean out in the sun's rays for day to warm it up. Then eventually you need to have the insight to do friction based experiments in the bag with dried materials and then one discovers fire in a massive breakthrough not dissimilar to when humans created Bose Einstein Condensates for the first time in highly specialized environments. Nothing here says "impossible" to me. I bet if whales had fingers to easily manipulate matter they might've already done all this by now.
  - baranul 2y ago
    While I agree that there is no logical reason that underwater organisms could not become highly intelligent or advance to the level of doing experiments with fire, it is clear that being underwater is an additional barrier. As such, the number of intelligent underwater civilizations, that could get near our present level of advancement, would likely be significantly lower. Not impossible (because of how large the universe is), but some order of magnitude, less possible.
    - rsynnott 2y ago
      > While I agree that there is no logical reason that underwater organisms could not become highly intelligent or advance to the level of doing experiments with fire, it is clear that being underwater is an additional barrier. Meanwhile, a few thousand lightyears away, some sort of talking crab is rubbishing the idea that industrial civilisation could arise on land; after all, they wouldn't even have access to hydrothermal vents! What would they do for energy, burn plants? (I really think we're inclined to build a _lot_ of unwarranted assumptions into what industrial civilisation has to look like and how you have to get there, because it's what we did.)
    - 2y ago
- Teever 2y ago
  Why is fire the only chemical pathway to metallurgy? Can they not discover fire in underwater caves? Can they not build underwater containers that hold the necessary materials to do chemistry, similar to what we do with bioreactors, flasks, beakers, and pressure vessels?
- LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
  They could roll nodules near black smokers, and have fun with methane hydrates instead? Also electricity be experiencing shocks from electric eels, or similar. Economic lighting by bioluminescence.
jjallen 2y ago
To support this: Oceans are more conducive to exploration due to their natural currents and lack of mountainous regions or rivers which inhibit movement. Like the comment below was getting at: if you are water bound, you are very unlikely to discover or become proficient with fire, which to us, as if now seems like a requirement to travel through space. There’s also the massive weight disadvantage water has compared to “air”. So no fire and have to travel with a water filled rocket instead. But again maybe these are just land centered views. Maybe you can just inject oxygen into the water that merely surrounds your head. And maybe there’s a hydrogen power rocket that is more efficient than our fire ones.
- lwo32k 2y ago
  Volcanoes can launch things into space. There are already systems that try to tap into it. So its possible in theory to trigger it underwater.
- RandomBacon 2y ago
  For traditional rockets, it's not so much fire, as it is the rapid expansion of matter and the force that it generates. Fire just happens to be the most convenient method for us. There could be metals under an ocean that could be mined. An underwater civilization could potentially harness nuclear power.
Buttons840 2y ago
Land animals are more likely to develop hands. Hands wouldn't give a fish any advantage, because there is nothing to climb. Building a rocket requires hands, and the type of intelligence that evolves only after having hands.
- jemmyw 2y ago
  I don't think this is a great argument. Crabs and lobsters have claws which are almost hand like. And Octopus have tentacles, which can be highly manipulative. So those limbs must give those creatures an advantage even in water. It wouldn't be too much of a leap from those appendages to something as good as hands.
  - Buttons840 2y ago
    I agree. I made my argument, but think it's flawed now. Appreciate the responses.
- onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
  What about an octopus?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Terr_ 2y ago
  > Hands wouldn't give a fish any advantage, because there is nothing to climb. The ocean floor has plenty of stuff to dig into, pick up, and manipulate, along with un-anchored things like mats of seaweed. > Land animals are more likely to develop hands. I can easily imagine sea-creatures making the same kinds of assumptions in reverse: "Sir Blub-blub, while this hypothesis of 'land' animals is indeed intriguing, they would undoubtedly be primitive, far less likely to develop intelligent grabbers. After all, there will be nothing worth grabbing but hard 'dry' rocks! They wouldn't even be useful for propulsion, given the intangibility of this 'air'."
- Teever 2y ago
  This all pre-supposes that evolution will lock alien organisms into a specific and static body configuration on other planets like it has done to organisms on Earth. Is there any particular reason why an intelligent organism couldn't evolve to be able to grow and change its body into any arbitrary size and shape that it wanted to merely by thinking about it? Perhaps aliens from another planet would consider our limitation as four limbed bipedal organisms to be absurd. Why can't organisms chose to grow eight hands each with 16 opposable digits?
idkfasayer 2y ago
[dead]

by slg 2y ago

Jedd 2y ago

> From a high level, what is an ocean but a thick atmosphere? "Now you have two atmospheres."

upghost 2y ago
Ha. Ha ha. Nice.

fhdkweig 2y ago

There is also the issue that they will likely never discover fire and thus chemistry and metallurgy.

johntitorjr 2y ago
[dead]
slg 2y ago
This still seems to be based on assumptions coming from our own history and situation. I don't know why some hypothetical species needs fire for chemistry or even metallurgy for that matter or why an underwater civilization couldn't eventually discover fire themselves. There is also the potential that our reliance on combustion based rocketry is actually a crutch preventing us further space exploration considering how impractical it seems for interstellar travel.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
frogeyedpeas 2y ago
Chemistry and reactions would absolutely still be a thing. Reactions happen underwater all the time such as the complex decay of organic matter. The fire meta get's postponed until trapping air inside bags happens (could be seaweed/skin based bags). Then you need to make a habit of collecting a bunch of air and trapping it and then can begin exploring chemical reactions in the air. ex: take dead but not decomposed organic matter, dry it out in hot air bag (maybe cover the bag in black squid ink and float the bag of air in the ocean out in the sun's rays for day to warm it up. Then eventually you need to have the insight to do friction based experiments in the bag with dried materials and then one discovers fire in a massive breakthrough not dissimilar to when humans created Bose Einstein Condensates for the first time in highly specialized environments. Nothing here says "impossible" to me. I bet if whales had fingers to easily manipulate matter they might've already done all this by now.
- baranul 2y ago
  While I agree that there is no logical reason that underwater organisms could not become highly intelligent or advance to the level of doing experiments with fire, it is clear that being underwater is an additional barrier. As such, the number of intelligent underwater civilizations, that could get near our present level of advancement, would likely be significantly lower. Not impossible (because of how large the universe is), but some order of magnitude, less possible.
  - rsynnott 2y ago
    > While I agree that there is no logical reason that underwater organisms could not become highly intelligent or advance to the level of doing experiments with fire, it is clear that being underwater is an additional barrier. Meanwhile, a few thousand lightyears away, some sort of talking crab is rubbishing the idea that industrial civilisation could arise on land; after all, they wouldn't even have access to hydrothermal vents! What would they do for energy, burn plants? (I really think we're inclined to build a _lot_ of unwarranted assumptions into what industrial civilisation has to look like and how you have to get there, because it's what we did.)
  - 2y ago
Teever 2y ago
Why is fire the only chemical pathway to metallurgy? Can they not discover fire in underwater caves? Can they not build underwater containers that hold the necessary materials to do chemistry, similar to what we do with bioreactors, flasks, beakers, and pressure vessels?
LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
They could roll nodules near black smokers, and have fun with methane hydrates instead? Also electricity be experiencing shocks from electric eels, or similar. Economic lighting by bioluminescence.

jjallen 2y ago

To support this: Oceans are more conducive to exploration due to their natural currents and lack of mountainous regions or rivers which inhibit movement. Like the comment below was getting at: if you are water bound, you are very unlikely to discover or become proficient with fire, which to us, as if now seems like a requirement to travel through space. There’s also the massive weight disadvantage water has compared to “air”. So no fire and have to travel with a water filled rocket instead. But again maybe these are just land centered views. Maybe you can just inject oxygen into the water that merely surrounds your head. And maybe there’s a hydrogen power rocket that is more efficient than our fire ones.

lwo32k 2y ago
Volcanoes can launch things into space. There are already systems that try to tap into it. So its possible in theory to trigger it underwater.
RandomBacon 2y ago
For traditional rockets, it's not so much fire, as it is the rapid expansion of matter and the force that it generates. Fire just happens to be the most convenient method for us. There could be metals under an ocean that could be mined. An underwater civilization could potentially harness nuclear power.

Buttons840 2y ago

Land animals are more likely to develop hands. Hands wouldn't give a fish any advantage, because there is nothing to climb. Building a rocket requires hands, and the type of intelligence that evolves only after having hands.

jemmyw 2y ago
I don't think this is a great argument. Crabs and lobsters have claws which are almost hand like. And Octopus have tentacles, which can be highly manipulative. So those limbs must give those creatures an advantage even in water. It wouldn't be too much of a leap from those appendages to something as good as hands.
- Buttons840 2y ago
  I agree. I made my argument, but think it's flawed now. Appreciate the responses.
onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
What about an octopus?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Terr_ 2y ago
> Hands wouldn't give a fish any advantage, because there is nothing to climb. The ocean floor has plenty of stuff to dig into, pick up, and manipulate, along with un-anchored things like mats of seaweed. > Land animals are more likely to develop hands. I can easily imagine sea-creatures making the same kinds of assumptions in reverse: "Sir Blub-blub, while this hypothesis of 'land' animals is indeed intriguing, they would undoubtedly be primitive, far less likely to develop intelligent grabbers. After all, there will be nothing worth grabbing but hard 'dry' rocks! They wouldn't even be useful for propulsion, given the intangibility of this 'air'."
Teever 2y ago
This all pre-supposes that evolution will lock alien organisms into a specific and static body configuration on other planets like it has done to organisms on Earth. Is there any particular reason why an intelligent organism couldn't evolve to be able to grow and change its body into any arbitrary size and shape that it wanted to merely by thinking about it? Perhaps aliens from another planet would consider our limitation as four limbed bipedal organisms to be absurd. Why can't organisms chose to grow eight hands each with 16 opposable digits?

idkfasayer 2y ago

[dead]