![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
garoteWhy would we assume that our drive to communicate would apply to them?
We communicate in order to barter, develop resources, or expand our territory. We do these things because it helps the species avoid extinction. Can we therefore conclude that life MUST have been exposed to the pressure of evolution to develop the traits that would drive it to contact us?
On the other hand, what would "life" look like, if it hadn't formed in the pressure of evolution? Would we even call it "life"?
Exploration of territory is an animal behavior, which demands an animal shape. If an animal is going to climb the technology ladder that we have - fire, steam, electricity - and then climb that ladder into space the way we have, doesn't that mean it must be a land-dweller - or at least not an ocean or air dweller? How would an air dweller build a rocket or a space suit? How would an ocean dweller develop sufficient propulsion technology?
Perhaps I haven't read enough science fiction, or chemistry textbooks. This is probably not a hard restriction - creatures living in the depths of a gas giant could have very solid bodies but never stand on land. And if they were to explore their upper atmosphere and beyond into space, they could easily build robots to do it by proxy, like we have.
The first question still remains though, and it's the one that really bothers me: Why would they do it? What other reasons would they have than our own?
We communicate in order to barter, develop resources, or expand our territory. We do these things because it helps the species avoid extinction. Can we therefore conclude that life MUST have been exposed to the pressure of evolution to develop the traits that would drive it to contact us?
On the other hand, what would "life" look like, if it hadn't formed in the pressure of evolution? Would we even call it "life"?
Exploration of territory is an animal behavior, which demands an animal shape. If an animal is going to climb the technology ladder that we have - fire, steam, electricity - and then climb that ladder into space the way we have, doesn't that mean it must be a land-dweller - or at least not an ocean or air dweller? How would an air dweller build a rocket or a space suit? How would an ocean dweller develop sufficient propulsion technology?
Perhaps I haven't read enough science fiction, or chemistry textbooks. This is probably not a hard restriction - creatures living in the depths of a gas giant could have very solid bodies but never stand on land. And if they were to explore their upper atmosphere and beyond into space, they could easily build robots to do it by proxy, like we have.
The first question still remains though, and it's the one that really bothers me: Why would they do it? What other reasons would they have than our own?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-07-28 05:00 am (UTC)I sometimes imagine Earth is a particle in a much larger organism, and that we're smaller components of the particle. It's like imagining bacteria on our own bodies. We don't commune with them or anything. Most of us don't know anything about them and so on.
Is curiosity something only an animal quality?
no subject
Date: 2010-07-28 02:27 pm (UTC)On the other hand, perhaps a more removed look at curiosity is in order. What is the external effect? Animals go places or try things that do not promise any benefit to them, just in case there is an unexpected reward. Could the crazed scuttlings of a bacteria around a petri dish be considered curious exploration?
I don't think so, since those movements are not deliberate. Curiosity is always a deliberate action.