8 ms·

I don't think so, though. I think that unless there are limiting factors (no ores or some other necessary component) life would tend toward technology. Curiosi

I don't think so, though. I think that unless there are limiting factors (no ores or some other necessary component) life would tend toward technology. Curiosity as an evolutionary trait is quite an advantage, and I would think is necessary for intelligent omnivores. It's what helped us figure out what we could and couldn't eat, and taught us better techniques for living. Curiosity naturally leads to technological developments, I would argue.

andrewflnr 2y ago
> life would tend toward technology Based on what evidence? We only know if it happening once, after a very long delay.
- Loughla 2y ago
  I think it's a natural product of curiosity. And I think that intelligent life would only be so because of curiosity. You want to figure things out or you're interested in seeing what happens when you fuck around with things. So I think a technological progression is a natural progression for intelligent life. Does that make sense? I feel like I'm not explaining myself well.
  - andrewflnr 2y ago
    Lots of animals have been curious for hundreds of millions of years, but technology more advanced than breaking bits off rocks and sticks has only been around a couple thousand years. If you say it's a "natural progression", you also have to say there are serious barriers that most species will never pass.
    - Loughla 2y ago
      Okay?
      - andrewflnr 2y ago
        So the notion that "life would tend toward technology", charitably speaking, does not make any useful predictions. Based on all evidence available, including the dearth of extraterrestrial technosignatures, you can't rely on it happening in any particular situation or timeframe. At best it's speculation, more likely it's just false.
        Loughla 2y ago
        Correct, we disagree in what we think.
npc_anon 2y ago
All humanoids except our species are extinct, and it's not because we killed them.
- Scarblac 2y ago
  It's not? Didn't most of them coexist with us until they didn't?

andrewflnr 2y ago

> life would tend toward technology Based on what evidence? We only know if it happening once, after a very long delay.

Loughla 2y ago
I think it's a natural product of curiosity. And I think that intelligent life would only be so because of curiosity. You want to figure things out or you're interested in seeing what happens when you fuck around with things. So I think a technological progression is a natural progression for intelligent life. Does that make sense? I feel like I'm not explaining myself well.
- andrewflnr 2y ago
  Lots of animals have been curious for hundreds of millions of years, but technology more advanced than breaking bits off rocks and sticks has only been around a couple thousand years. If you say it's a "natural progression", you also have to say there are serious barriers that most species will never pass.
  - Loughla 2y ago
    Okay?
    - andrewflnr 2y ago
      So the notion that "life would tend toward technology", charitably speaking, does not make any useful predictions. Based on all evidence available, including the dearth of extraterrestrial technosignatures, you can't rely on it happening in any particular situation or timeframe. At best it's speculation, more likely it's just false.
      - Loughla 2y ago
        Correct, we disagree in what we think.

npc_anon 2y ago

All humanoids except our species are extinct, and it's not because we killed them.

Scarblac 2y ago
It's not? Didn't most of them coexist with us until they didn't?