9 ms·

It would be great it was true Extraterrestrial life would be great? I'm not sure. I think the 2 most likely scenarios are: 1. ET would be far less evolved 2.

by riggins 14y ago

It would be great it was true Extraterrestrial life would be great? I'm not sure. I think the 2 most likely scenarios are: 1. ET would be far less evolved 2. ET would be far more evolved #1 wouldn't be terribly interesting. So what about #2. What would that be like? Well, we have some relevant experience from planet earth. How do humans view/treat organisms that are far less evolved ... like bugs?

ecto 14y ago
You are assuming that a highly evolved lifeform would act like us humans, barely out of the trees socially and spiritually. You may be right. However there are many people I know that wouldn't hurt a bug. Tangentially, #1 would be incredibly interesting to many people. We (the general public) have no definite indications that we /aren't/ on the only rock in the Universe with life, and #1 would hold great consequences.
- codeulike 14y ago
  Agreed, #1 would still be earth-shaking. At the moment, we're the only life we know of. Finding evidence of extraterrestial microbes in the same solar system would suggest a much higher probability for life all over the galaxy.
tripzilch 14y ago
Bugs are going to eat us all, one day.
- cleis 14y ago
  My whole family was in Buenos Aires
  - lutusp 14y ago
    I don't think many will get this reference to Starship Troopers, a rather good film in spite of its reliance on endless gore.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      A good book also, despite its senselessly piled on militarism. Strangely quite the opposite of the film in that regard.
themstheones 14y ago
Comparing amounts of evolution isn't really valid. This implies that evolution has a directional trend, but it does not. Humanity wasn't the goal of evolution. Given a different climate 10 or 15 thousand year ago, things could have been a lot different. Neanderthals could have won out, or both our species could have gone extinct. I think a better, and similar, comparison would be of intelligence. We treat less intelligent animals quite poorly for the most part. Hopefully the correlation between empathy and intelligence is universal and not just a trend among humans.
- lutusp 14y ago
  > Hopefully the correlation between empathy and intelligence is universal and not just a trend among humans. I hate to rain on your parade, but empathy and intelligence are selected only insofar as it supports survival and procreation -- only to the degree that it supports natural selection. Empathy and intelligence are just neutral terms in a complex equation by which natural selection chooses the fittest genotype. They have no special standing, and a fair reading of human and natural history shows that, overall, they're not correlated with the survival of the species that possesses it. Evidence? Count the number, or the biomass if you prefer, of the species that survive in a brainless, ruthless manner. Compare to those whose fitness is enhanced by empathy and intelligence. And remember that overall we can't be included in the intelligent, empathic column, at least not when we're doing our best to survive.
- btilly 14y ago
  The best-informed speculation of today says that within the last 150,000 years (different methods give different dates, the Toba supervolcano is often fingered as a culprit) we went through a population bottleneck with as few as a thousand people alive. This evolutionary episode would have been a period of rapid adaptation, and amusingly is suspected to have been when our ancestors acquired a tendency towards religious belief. (We are the only known hominid with things like burial rites.)
btilly 14y ago
How do humans view/treat organisms that are far less evolved ... like bugs? Any time someone says something like this, that's proof that they don't actually understand evolution. Bugs have been evolving for exactly as long as we have. Bugs outnumber us, outweigh us, and there are ridiculously more types of them than there are of all kinds of vertebrate life. We have been able to achieve an undue impact on our environment. But bugs are not less evolved than we are. Let me add to the surprises. Most fish are evolved from air breathing animals. Our eyes contain a trivial design mistakes that an octopus does not. And we are more closely related to a goldfish than either is to a shark. If any of this comes as a surprise, then you have confirmed my comment that you don't actually understand evolution. Edit: Originally I said "land-dwelling" instead of "air-breathing". I do not know of direct evidence about land dwelling, however the swim bladder is believed to be evolved from a lung.
- base698 14y ago
  And if he would like an overview of evolution An Ancestor's Tale would be a great book to pickup. www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/061861916X/ref=redir_mdp_mobile/185-0865240-1556308
- riggins 14y ago
  Any time someone says something like this, that's proof that they don't actually understand evolution. I won't be snarky. I'll just point out that evolution has multiple meanings and I think that it's obvious from context that in this case I'm using 'evolved' as shorthand for more intelligent/advanced/sophisticated.
  - lutusp 14y ago
    > I'll just point out that evolution has multiple meanings and I think that it's obvious from context that in this case I'm using 'evolved' as shorthand for more intelligent/advanced/sophisticated. Yes, but that's not what evolution means. Natural selection chooses the fittest genotype, not the "more advanced". The idea that evolution progresses from simple to complex is a myth -- a persistent myth, but a myth nevertheless. Evolution isn't a program with a specific outcome, it's a blind algorithm that chooses the fittest genotype at every turn. If the "fittest" genotype is a cockroach, for example after a nuclear war, that's the outcome. Evolution doesn't care about our tastes because nature doesn't care about our tastes.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
Xion 14y ago
> #1 wouldn't be terribly interesting. The scary implication of #1 is that it updates our probability for long-term survival and becoming a technologically advanced, space-faring species: by _lowering_ it. That's because it pushes the potential Great Filter [1] closer to our present condition and increasing the odds that it's actually somewhere in our future. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_filter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_filter
- Arelius 14y ago
  Though, statistically, if you push the "the great filter" closer to our present condition, don't you actually push the bulk of the probable filter events to before our present condition, events which are evidently not true in our case, and actually _raise_ our probability of long-term survival?
  - Xion 14y ago
    Remember that you still need to explain the Fermi paradox [1]. If you apply the above logic to life & civilizations in general, you conclude that it's actually quite likely for them to survive long enough and become widespread. Yet, our experience contradicts that assertion, for we don't know any other race at even comparable level of technical development Of course, this (i.e. civilization quickly become extinct) is just one possible resolution to the paradox, but the arguably simplest one. If the actual reason(s) we don't see advanced life are different, the Great filter hypothesis holds less water. We don't know that yet, though. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
    - Arelius 14y ago
      I've always thought the fact that the vast open spaces in the universe is really quite sufficient to explain the fermi paradox
ignostic 14y ago
I don't know. We actually seem to have a pretty strong affinity for other forms of life. I can't imagine any other animal on earth preserving dumber animals they could potentially eat. We like other animals - especially those with faces and discernible intelligence. Now you might say that this is irrelevant. Just because we like other animals doesn't mean the aliens will. This is a good point, except that it completely invalidates the premise put forth of "experience from planet earth." I have to believe that any organism sophisticated enough to find us would be amazed. They may be far more advanced, but seeing the lifelessness of space and the complexity of our civilization, anything with a shred of intelligence would be at least intrigued. Speculating on their nature and disposition is meaningless and arbitrary at this point.

by riggins 14y ago

ecto 14y ago

You are assuming that a highly evolved lifeform would act like us humans, barely out of the trees socially and spiritually. You may be right. However there are many people I know that wouldn't hurt a bug. Tangentially, #1 would be incredibly interesting to many people. We (the general public) have no definite indications that we /aren't/ on the only rock in the Universe with life, and #1 would hold great consequences.

codeulike 14y ago
Agreed, #1 would still be earth-shaking. At the moment, we're the only life we know of. Finding evidence of extraterrestial microbes in the same solar system would suggest a much higher probability for life all over the galaxy.

tripzilch 14y ago

Bugs are going to eat us all, one day.

cleis 14y ago
My whole family was in Buenos Aires
- lutusp 14y ago
  I don't think many will get this reference to Starship Troopers, a rather good film in spite of its reliance on endless gore.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    A good book also, despite its senselessly piled on militarism. Strangely quite the opposite of the film in that regard.

themstheones 14y ago

Comparing amounts of evolution isn't really valid. This implies that evolution has a directional trend, but it does not. Humanity wasn't the goal of evolution. Given a different climate 10 or 15 thousand year ago, things could have been a lot different. Neanderthals could have won out, or both our species could have gone extinct. I think a better, and similar, comparison would be of intelligence. We treat less intelligent animals quite poorly for the most part. Hopefully the correlation between empathy and intelligence is universal and not just a trend among humans.

lutusp 14y ago
> Hopefully the correlation between empathy and intelligence is universal and not just a trend among humans. I hate to rain on your parade, but empathy and intelligence are selected only insofar as it supports survival and procreation -- only to the degree that it supports natural selection. Empathy and intelligence are just neutral terms in a complex equation by which natural selection chooses the fittest genotype. They have no special standing, and a fair reading of human and natural history shows that, overall, they're not correlated with the survival of the species that possesses it. Evidence? Count the number, or the biomass if you prefer, of the species that survive in a brainless, ruthless manner. Compare to those whose fitness is enhanced by empathy and intelligence. And remember that overall we can't be included in the intelligent, empathic column, at least not when we're doing our best to survive.
btilly 14y ago
The best-informed speculation of today says that within the last 150,000 years (different methods give different dates, the Toba supervolcano is often fingered as a culprit) we went through a population bottleneck with as few as a thousand people alive. This evolutionary episode would have been a period of rapid adaptation, and amusingly is suspected to have been when our ancestors acquired a tendency towards religious belief. (We are the only known hominid with things like burial rites.)

btilly 14y ago

How do humans view/treat organisms that are far less evolved ... like bugs? Any time someone says something like this, that's proof that they don't actually understand evolution. Bugs have been evolving for exactly as long as we have. Bugs outnumber us, outweigh us, and there are ridiculously more types of them than there are of all kinds of vertebrate life. We have been able to achieve an undue impact on our environment. But bugs are not less evolved than we are. Let me add to the surprises. Most fish are evolved from air breathing animals. Our eyes contain a trivial design mistakes that an octopus does not. And we are more closely related to a goldfish than either is to a shark. If any of this comes as a surprise, then you have confirmed my comment that you don't actually understand evolution. Edit: Originally I said "land-dwelling" instead of "air-breathing". I do not know of direct evidence about land dwelling, however the swim bladder is believed to be evolved from a lung.

base698 14y ago
And if he would like an overview of evolution An Ancestor's Tale would be a great book to pickup. www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/061861916X/ref=redir_mdp_mobile/185-0865240-1556308
riggins 14y ago
Any time someone says something like this, that's proof that they don't actually understand evolution. I won't be snarky. I'll just point out that evolution has multiple meanings and I think that it's obvious from context that in this case I'm using 'evolved' as shorthand for more intelligent/advanced/sophisticated.
- lutusp 14y ago
  > I'll just point out that evolution has multiple meanings and I think that it's obvious from context that in this case I'm using 'evolved' as shorthand for more intelligent/advanced/sophisticated. Yes, but that's not what evolution means. Natural selection chooses the fittest genotype, not the "more advanced". The idea that evolution progresses from simple to complex is a myth -- a persistent myth, but a myth nevertheless. Evolution isn't a program with a specific outcome, it's a blind algorithm that chooses the fittest genotype at every turn. If the "fittest" genotype is a cockroach, for example after a nuclear war, that's the outcome. Evolution doesn't care about our tastes because nature doesn't care about our tastes.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

Xion 14y ago

> #1 wouldn't be terribly interesting. The scary implication of #1 is that it updates our probability for long-term survival and becoming a technologically advanced, space-faring species: by _lowering_ it. That's because it pushes the potential Great Filter [1] closer to our present condition and increasing the odds that it's actually somewhere in our future. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_filter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_filter

Arelius 14y ago
Though, statistically, if you push the "the great filter" closer to our present condition, don't you actually push the bulk of the probable filter events to before our present condition, events which are evidently not true in our case, and actually _raise_ our probability of long-term survival?
- Xion 14y ago
  Remember that you still need to explain the Fermi paradox [1]. If you apply the above logic to life & civilizations in general, you conclude that it's actually quite likely for them to survive long enough and become widespread. Yet, our experience contradicts that assertion, for we don't know any other race at even comparable level of technical development Of course, this (i.e. civilization quickly become extinct) is just one possible resolution to the paradox, but the arguably simplest one. If the actual reason(s) we don't see advanced life are different, the Great filter hypothesis holds less water. We don't know that yet, though. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
  - Arelius 14y ago
    I've always thought the fact that the vast open spaces in the universe is really quite sufficient to explain the fermi paradox

ignostic 14y ago

I don't know. We actually seem to have a pretty strong affinity for other forms of life. I can't imagine any other animal on earth preserving dumber animals they could potentially eat. We like other animals - especially those with faces and discernible intelligence. Now you might say that this is irrelevant. Just because we like other animals doesn't mean the aliens will. This is a good point, except that it completely invalidates the premise put forth of "experience from planet earth." I have to believe that any organism sophisticated enough to find us would be amazed. They may be far more advanced, but seeing the lifelessness of space and the complexity of our civilization, anything with a shred of intelligence would be at least intrigued. Speculating on their nature and disposition is meaningless and arbitrary at this point.