Narrowing Down The Possibilities

Hard SF : Aliens : Narrowing Down The Possibilities

When trying to imagine the possibilities for extraterrestrial life, it's hard to say much unless one gets less general. On the most general level we're talking about life forms that evolved on another world. What we might refer to as "extraterrestrial plants and animals" (we can ignore microbes for now). We can't even be sure these will clearly fall into one and only one of the categories "plant" or "animal".

For the most part whatever I say refers to life as we understand it. It can't be said there absolutely can't be a kind of life that is beyond our current definitions and speculation. However, we may never identify such things as "life". I will not delve into that.

For the purposes people are usually most interested in, we could divide extraterrestrial "plants and animals" into several categories:

1. Nothing more than simple "plants and animals"
2. Those which have significant mental ability, but aren't fully intelligent or tool users (such as dolphins)
3. Those which have significant mental ability and some tool use (such as chimps)
4. Those which are "more than animals"
   1. Those on the level of Paleolithic hominids
   2. Those on the level of Neolithic humans
   3. Those comparable to metal age humans
   4. Those comparable to industrial humans
   5. Those with technology comparable to ours
   6. Those with more advanced technology than ours

Generally, the further down this list we go, the more we know about the beings. The more we know about them, the more we can make reasonable assumptions about additional facts.

Genetic Diversity

It might be possible for life to begin on a planet and have its reproduction occur in a way that there were almost no mutations or other change in the characteristics. However, by virtue of not changing, the simple, early-life forms would remain simple, early-life forms. On a planet where complex, intelligent beings have evolved, we can assume their reproduction occurs in a way that allows a significant amount of mutation / change. Therefore, the members of an intelligent species probably will have individuals with diverse characteristics, at least until they develop technology capable of genetically altering themselves.

We can speculate on the possible implications of this:

1. Will this mean ethnic groups with ethnic identification, preferences or prejudices?
2. This will probably mean a statistical variation in individual intelligence, but not necessarily to the same degree as with humans. What would be the result of greater or lesser diversity in intelligence?
3. There must be an upper limit for mutation rates after which its costs outrun its benefits. Where does Earth life's mutation rate fall compared to the minimum needed to develop complex life and the maximum rate where it is too problematic? What can we conclude the lower and upper limits would be like? What might the life on a planet with mutation rates just above the minimum or just below the upper limit be like?

Evolutionary Background

An intelligent species will have evolved from a series of pre-intelligent species. Those species will be adapted to certain niches and fall into a combination of different categories. The niches and categories of the recent predecessor species will define what options are possible or likely as evolution branches off the intelligent species. Once the intelligent species develops some it can break out of some of these categories, such as expanding from living in the tropics to living in temperate zones. Still, these backgrounds could influence the path the species takes.

Below are examples of different possible types within a list of categories. The ancestor species will have been some combination of types from the various categories. Not all combinations are realistic possibilities. It's beyond my current ambitions to try to figure the feasibility and implications of all the possible combinations. But well-founded speculation about aliens should consider what their background was and how that would be likely to shape their culture and psychology.

1. Aquatic, amphibious, ground, burrowing, cave dwelling, arboreal, flying...
2. Desert, mountain, grassland, forest, jungle, wetlands, shore, fresh water, sea water, tundra...
3. Tropical, subtropical, temperate, sub-artic, artic
4. Herbivore, omnivore, carnivore
5. Grazing, gathering, hunting, herding, scavenging, sap-drinking...
6. Herd, band, couple, lone wolf
7. Walk on all limbs, walk on some limbs, climb with all limbs, climb with some limbs, swing/jump with all limbs, swing/jump with some limbs, swim with all limbs, swim with some limbs, fly with [some] limbs...
8. Young are raised by mother, young raised by mother & father, young raised by group, young has little raising
9. Young are raised as "only child", as twins or "litter" of siblings, raised with older and younger siblings
10. Defense by: fight, flight, camouflage, playing dead, has no natural predators...
11. Only intelligent species on planet, multiple intelligent species (but related, i.e. all primates), multiple intelligent species (very different)

Physiology & Psychology of Tool Users

In the case of tool users, we can draw probable conclusions such as:

1. Their bodies have appendages able to manipulate tools
2. Those appendages should have some evolutionary logic for their pre-tool predecessors. For instance, arboreal primates had somewhat different purposes for their lower and upper limbs. This gave them a starting point for acquiring an ability to balance on their lower limbs while doing something else with their upper limbs. A direct transition from a quadruped standing on all 4 limbs to a tool using species seems rather doubtful. The pre-tool ancestors of a species that stands on 4 limbs and has 2 extra limbs for tool use should have had some other function for those two limbs.
3. They have a way to move from place to place (to get materials to make tools, to make the tools, to use the tools, to do things with the product of the tool use, etc.) There are issues (such as maintaining circulation of body fluids, maintaining nervous/sensory system connections and such) that make wheel-like locomotion highly improbably for life-forms. Other practical issues make locomotion using springs unlikely.
4. Most likely they aren't all-soft bodied
5. They have a nervous/sensory system for perceiving the world they use their tools to affect
6. Young individuals are not isolated from adults. The adults are capable of and inclined to convey their knowledge of tool making and use to the young.
7. It's unlikely that in Stone Age times adults will invest time aiding and teaching young of unknown parentage. Therefore, it's likely it will be a species that knows the parentage – that is, a species with live births, parents who protect their eggs in nests or something like that.
8. They act under the assumption that their actions can make a difference in how they experience the world. A presumption that the world will or should do as it pleases without regard to one's actions would make tool use pointless.
9. They act under the assumption there is room for improvement in their condition in the world. If they were entirely satisfied with their lives without tools, they wouldn't invest in tool making and use. They aren't entirely satisfied with life in the wild, but that does not necessarily mean they will feel the need for what hi-tech tools provide.
10. There is probably a minimum size for a brain-type organ for a tool-using species. This, in turn, would seem to require a minimum body size. Aliens will evolve their brain-type organs in their own way. They could be more efficient than ours and therefore smaller. But most probably not that much smaller. Also, the smaller the body size, the smaller the tools it can handle and the smaller the tools the smaller the effect of the tool. So more effective tool use may also encourage a minimum body size.
11. t seems unlikely photosynthesis could provide enough energy for beings with the above characteristics. If simply absorbing sunlight did give them enough energy, they might then lack enough motivation to acquire tool use. Therefore, photosynthesis seems improbable as more than a secondary source for tool users.
12. The survival of any species depends on balances with its food consumption and reproduction rates. It must get enough nourishment, but not eat its food sources into extinction. It must have enough offspring, but not so many as to destroy the food sources. The introduction of various tools can destabilize these balances. Therefore, the manner in which the balances are maintained and how well they are maintained prior to tool use could determine survival as tool use spreads.

Post-Paleolithic traits

For those above the Paleolithic stage we might assume:

1. A more than animal means of communication capable of language
2. An extensive memory ability for holding the various information regarding tool use, what things in the natural world can be taken advantage of with tools, etc. This level may also call for greater social organization and knowledge to be remembered.
3. More sophisticated tools and technology is likely to require a range of materials to work with. This may exclude some types of species. A species that was too limited to staying in the trees would have little or no access to stones or metals for those kinds of tools. The same may be true of a species limited to wetlands or some other habitats. Even if metal ores are available, aquatic beings may be unable to heat them to extract the metals.

The Technological Goal

We tend to be most interested in those extraterrestrials that are technological. Is it reasonable to assume others will aspire to and work towards that goal?

Tool users, more or less by definition, don't want to live strictly in the wild. Chimps make limited use of tools, but live in the wild. Above a certain level of tool use, there is a dynamic that tools are for the purpose of taming nature. Nevertheless, there could be limits to when certain hurdles, such as agriculture for humans, is reached.

For humans, settling down to year-round agricultural communities was a major transition. Later the change to hierarchical societies was not taken by most peoples (prior to colonization) and tended to take place in certain kinds of geographic areas.

There is what may be a pattern in where civilizations began on Earth. Early civilizations tended to appear at lower latitudes (probably more often in areas with climatic or geographic challenges). This could be interpreted as meaning those locations which were tropical without challenges gave people enough of what they wanted with not enough pressures to get them to change their lifestyles to a different stage. It may mean early civilizations were needed to raise technology to a level that could support more extensive economies before civilization worked in the temperate climates of higher latitudes.

Later, civilizations moved their way into the temperate zones. It is not merely that the old civilizations colonized the higher latitudes or that new civilizations in those latitudes appeared side-by-side the old civilizations. The old civilizations "disappeared". I'm not sure how much this reflects the old civilizations truly ceasing to be, or to what extent they stagnated and no longer looked like civilizations compared to the newer ones. But the civilizations of Egypt, Babylon, Persia, India, etc. did not end by assimilating into Greek, Roman or European societies and losing their identity that way.

This may reflect a limited potential of the locations of early civilizations. The factors that make them challenging enough to motivate the people to change lifestyles may not be challenges well suited for modern civilizations. The temperate zones may offer a different kind of challenge that lends itself better to modern civilizations.

Whether or not this theory is true, there may be associations between climate, geography and such which will effect whether, when and how a species makes such social / economic transitions. Without knowing more about an extraterrestrial species, we can't be sure how their dietary, familial / community structures and other factors would make their transition stages the same as ours. It does seem unlikely they would have a smooth, gradual rise without transition hurdles.

Given a planet with a generally tropical climate or a species that developed and remained in a region with a tropical climate with plentiful food, there may not be motivation to transition from a hunter and/or gatherer stage. Perhaps hominids would not have if population growth, climate change, etc. have placed pressure on some groups of hominids to move out of the ancestral habitat. Those that found themselves in less generous surroundings could have been more motivated to broaden their use of tools. More developed species may be associated with climates and environments that place these kinds of pressures on them.

Cooperation

There would be a limit to the social, technological or economic level a species could reach without coordinated group activity. This could potentially be accomplished by instinct as in a hive or some form of coercion. Those two approaches may also put limits on the potential as well as have consequences in conflicts between groups. The most advantageous approach may be an inclination to cooperation and/or an ability to resolve conflicts.

It might be that a species with dual brains or some kinds of distributed brains would have to evolve a means of cooperation and compromise within each individual, and that would contribute towards similar abilities between individuals. We may be able to get a better understanding of the validity of this theory by studying the cooperation between the two hemispheres of the human brain and any influence this has on interpersonal behavior. Similarly, scientists studying the human mind sometimes view our minds as a number of interacting components. However, our brain hemispheres, the mind components and their interactions are probably not well designed for this purpose. Other species might have different structures that favor cooperation more strongly.