# A Question for the Sci Fi writeres Here..



## T.S.Bowman (Mar 22, 2014)

...and anyone else who wants to answer as well.

Let's say you are writing a Sci Fi novel or even a short story involving an alien species recently discovered by the SETI Institute.

When you wrote about the alien race, do you make them more technologically advanced? Why?

I have seen a lot (well...almost ALL) of thee Sci Fi writers I have read make that assumption and it's always baffled me.

Wouldn't it be just as likely that a newly discovered alien race could be the galactic equivalent of Forrest Gump?

I know, I know. That wouldn't really make for good Science Fiction in most cases. 

But that assumption holds in the scientific community as well. 

I just don't get why it is so automatically assumed.


----------



## Potty (Mar 22, 2014)

Omg you've just given me a great idea for a scifi comedy. Keep posting!


----------



## MJ Preston (Mar 22, 2014)

Well, I guess it depends on the Alien Species and if they are interacting with mankind. If at all. Guys like Forrest Gump don't really exist, or at least those who rise to Gump's stature.


----------



## popsprocket (Mar 22, 2014)

The movie Outlander has an alien race that are bestial and hence 'lesser' beings, yet possess a high level of intelligence. That's probably one example of less technologically advanced aliens who are still able to make problems for the humans.


----------



## Gavrushka (Mar 22, 2014)

On behalf of Forest Gump, I object to the tone of this post! :tongue:

I'd not realised that scifi put restrictions on how such a story was approached other than the limitations on the science side of it. - IF we're talking about current day, then how would you have a story develop? You'd have an inept species, who struggle to wipe their own backside, light years from man who have no means to reach, communicate or discover them.

WHAT COULD BE DONE was have a world of Forest Gumps who'd suffered an invasion from an advanced third party species. The conquerors could have suffered a natural disaster (mass flatulence near a naked flame) and exploded, leaving their fart-resistant technology behind. - The Forest Gumps, having run short of sugar, could then leap in their inherited space ships and come to Earth and the story could take place within the aisles of Walmart.

*Edit* I have a strange feeling this would be the direction Potty would take it too! *snickers*


----------



## Cran (Mar 22, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> ...and anyone else who wants to answer as well.
> 
> Let's say you are writing a Sci Fi novel or even a short story involving  an alien species recently discovered by the SETI Institute.
> 
> ...


I'm afraid your premise is flawed; there are probably as many alien  contact stories where humans are the more advanced species as the other  way around. It appears to be weighted the other way because the more  popular stories are those which pit humanity against vastly superior  foes. Earth visitation and Earth invasion stories are bound by their  very nature to require technologies more advanced than ours at present;  otherwise, they couldn't get here. 

Alien contact stories where humanity is the more advanced almost always require humans to have achieved interstellar space-faring technologies, or some form of spacetime folding ability.

The Alan Dean Foster story,  Alien, included both; the nasty aliens were simple parasitic predators -  monsters in space - the ancient ship which contained the eggs belonged  to a different and highly technological species.

Side stories set  in Isaac Asimov's Foundation universe also included less developed  planetary species - Blind Alley, for instance.

An alien  civilisation discovered by SETI, however, would be either close to our  own in both evolutionary age and location, or much more advanced in age if not in  technological ability. This is due to the nature of SETI's investigation - survey sampling of electromagnetic frequencies we use for the transmission of radio and television signals, or similar "quiet" bands of the EM spectrum. 

The assumption - or wishful thinking - in  the scientific community, including Seth and the SETI team, is based on  an overly simplistic comparison of the age of the observed universe and  the age of the Earth. The reasoning is that the observable universe is  roughly three times as old as the Earth, therefore civilisations like  our own could have arisen three times over, and those who survived the  category six catastrophic challenges* could continue to develop  throughout time.  

The line of reasoning fails to take into account things like the changing nature of the universe throughout time, the mathematically rare set of circumstances which fostered the continuing evolution of life on Earth, and the very rare examples of species on Earth surviving unchanged (successful evolutionary dead ends) for more than ten million years.  

_*category six catastrophes are extinction  level events caused by the dominant species; they include things like  nuclear holocaust, unchecked pollution, overpopulation,  over-exploitation of the environment, etc. _


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Mar 22, 2014)

Fair enough, Cran. Your point is well taken.

But, even with those examples, the "they are going to be far more advanced" camp is still pretty overwhelming. You gave some good examples, but how many average citizens would know them? 

@potty - Glad to be of service. Your post made me chuckle because I sort of figured _someone_ might decide to run with the Gump reference. 



> I'd not realised that scifi put restrictions on how such a story was  approached other than the limitations on the science side of it. - IF  we're talking about current day, then how would you have a story  develop? You'd have an inept species, who struggle to wipe their own  backside, light years from man who have no means to reach, communicate  or discover them.



Gav - If you have seen Forrest Gump then you know this description is not realy accurate. He may not have been very bright, but he was a genius in his own right. He also had a lot of things fall into place at opportune times.


----------



## A_Jones (Mar 22, 2014)

I havnt read everyones posts but my thought was always: If they were able to travel to our planet then they must be more advanced then us because we cant do that yet.


----------



## Apple Ice (Mar 22, 2014)

Have you seen the South Park episode with the really stupid aliens who come to Earth and get put in to a reality game show? Even cartoons have done the idea, so it's certainly not taboo in any sense. Whenever I have seen humans being the dominant species we're the bad guys. In Avatar for example, (I hate that film) the Americans first instinct is to what? Kill everything in the universe and bring home the treasure. I think if you approached it from a different angle then I would perhaps be more inclined to read/watch.


----------



## Bishop (Mar 22, 2014)

In my current series, there's many alien species of all varying degrees of tech prowess, but I will say that humanity is a relative underdog (which plays a big part in the lives of the characters).

That being said, the main reason I don't often use under-teched or severely under developed races is because I grew up on Star Trek and the prime directive says not to.  No, actually, it's because in my stories the tech is more of a setting than a plot device. It's there so that the characters I have can live and experience the cultures of deep space. I planned for a future book where my main characters are forced into a society that could be considered pre-industrial through a crash, so I suppose I'm somewhat on both sides of the coin here.


----------



## Terry D (Mar 22, 2014)

If an alien signal was detected by SETI (an extremely remote possibility) they would have to be at least as advanced as we are because SETI is looking for electromagnetic signals like radio and television broadcasts. The aliens would have to have developed to the same level as us to have those signals (give or take 75 years).


----------



## Outiboros (Mar 22, 2014)

Cran said:


> The line of reasoning fails to take into account things like the changing nature of the universe throughout time, the mathematically rare set of circumstances which fostered the continuing evolution of life on Earth, and the very rare examples of species on Earth surviving unchanged (successful evolutionary dead ends) for more than ten million years.


Well, this is in itself somewhat flawed reasoning. The chances of a planet being suited for terrestrial life are extremely low, but in the same instance, the total number of planets is extremely high. And even then, those are only the chances of suitability for _terrestrial _life. We don't know what the absolute chance of the existence of life on a planet is, because we can only take into account the one form of life we know. There might be 'planetary niches' other than our own water/carbon-DNA/cellular form, and we simply can't do any calculations on those because we don't have any reference material.

It's all just wishful thinking of a biologist who'd really like to see astrobiology become a valid field, though. It might just as well be that we are the one unique instance of life, alone in a dead universe. Or perhaps those other forms of life lack the potential to reach our level of chemical and mechanical complexity.

The point about species survival is a good point. We're not just looking for life; we're looking for life in our astral back yard, and even then we're looking for those instances of life that coincide with us on a narrow line of the galactic time scale. Still, our own life has had a strong effect on the chemical makeup of this planet for over two billion years, so it might not be that narrow. On a species level, though, it's definitely hair-thin. We might leave behind some traces for future forms of life to find, or we might find theirs, but whichever way it goes, we're unlikely to shake their hands (or other available appendages).


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Mar 22, 2014)

Terry D said:


> If an alien signal was detected by SETI (an extremely remote possibility) they would have to be at least as advanced as we are because SETI is looking for electromagnetic signals like radio and television broadcasts. The aliens would have to have developed to the same level as us to have those signals (give or take 75 years).



Right. But I was just pointing out that there is an almost automatic assumption that they would be far more advanced than that.


----------



## Terry D (Mar 22, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> Right. But I was just pointing out that there is an almost automatic assumption that they would be far more advanced than that.



For us to simply know about them, based on signal reception for instance, there is no need to assume that they would be more advanced, but where is the story in that? You could write a book dealing with the social, political, and psychological effects of such a contact, but if you want the two species to actually interact, somebody is going to need to possess technology far more advanced than what exists on Earth today.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Mar 22, 2014)

Terry D said:


> but if you want the two species to actually interact, somebody is going to need to possess technology far more advanced than what exists on Earth today.



Again, why would it be assumed that it's the aliens? Most of the Sci Fi I have read deals with a futuristic Earth anyway.  

I'm not trying to be contrary. I'm just really curious why that particular "stereotype" (if you will) is so popular.


----------



## Bishop (Mar 22, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> Again, why would it be assumed that it's the aliens? Most of the Sci Fi I have read deals with a futuristic Earth anyway.
> 
> I'm not trying to be contrary. I'm just really curious why that particular "stereotype" (if you will) is so popular.



I think, at its core, there's much less conflict when we have all the tech and power. It's just too easy for us to win if we're already so high on top. People like an underdog, especially in sci-fi which is a genre that for the longest time (and still in most high school locker rooms) is seen as overly nerdy. For lack of a better term.

It might also serve a testament to human spirit, that they overcome something against all odds because of what makes our race unique. A vanity angle, if you will.


----------



## Kevin (Mar 22, 2014)

> why would it be assumed that it's the aliens?


I'm guessing that it's assumed we already know what happens when humans encounter others that are in a weaker position: we take and do whatever we feel is for our pleasure or to our advantage. It's what we always do.  Avatar is simply a retelling of what happened in the Americas, like the Japanese in Taiwan... or when the Maori went to the Chathams. Same, predictable story; different characters. I guess the challenge is to come up with a 'new' spin.


----------



## Cran (Mar 22, 2014)

Outiboros said:


> Well, this is in itself somewhat flawed reasoning. The chances of a planet being suited for terrestrial life are extremely low, but in the same instance, the total number of planets is extremely high.


Not necessarily, and yes. 

The chances for life "as we know it" are mathematically quite high, certainly much higher than believed thirty years ago. But it is two more leaps to get from "haven for life as we know it" to "comparable or superior technological society". What we've learned, particularly in the last thirty years is that the chemicals and chemistry for life as we know it are very common as far as we can observe (and confidently extrapolate beyond), and that simple forms of life can and do exist in conditions not previously thought possible (nuclear reactors, deep hot rocks, cold high pressure methane seeps and sulphur smokers, for examples). As long as there is a suitable fluid medium and exchangeable chemical energy, life at its most basic can exist.

The first leap from basic life is to intelligent life - life which can communicate abstract concepts, life which can learn and remember. Again, this appears to be more common than once thought, with a small number thought to even rival us in this aspect.

The second leap is to technological life - life which not only uses tools but makes tools, life which can not only communicate but make permanent external records that can be passed unchanged through many generations, life which does not need to adapt to the external environment because it can alter its external environment. On this planet, only one species can do these things.



> And even then, those are only the chances of suitability for _terrestrial _life. We don't know what the absolute chance of the existence of life on a planet is, because we can only take into account the one form of life we know. There might be 'planetary niches' other than our own water/carbon-DNA/cellular form, and we simply can't do any calculations on those because we don't have any reference material.


We can, and we have. Surely you don't think that "can't do it" or "it's impossible" is going to stop a bunch of determined science students and graduates? Alternative chemistries have been devised and tested - substituting water with other fluid media and/or carbon with other multivalent elements - and these alternatives turn out to be very niche indeed. 

No other element comes close to carbon for the sheer number of possible compounds it can form, and the one that might have been possible in terms of valency and universal abundance - silicon - has problems with energy exchange; silicon dioxide is a solid, as are most silicon compounds - until we get into very high temperatures, where silicon itself becomes a fluid. Silicon-based life, therefore, is much more likely to prefer Venus over Earth, is highly likely to be shape-shifting (think intelligent lava), and not likely to need or want to make tools or alter its environment for its own comfort. 

Again, apart from silicon at very high temperatures, and methane at very low temperatures, no other fluid medium has the range of chemical properties for energy exchange that water offers, or its universal abundance. In terms of available and suitable materials across a range of environments, water and carbon are by far the most common and therefore the most likely to form the basis of technological life.



> It's all just wishful thinking of a biologist who'd really like to see astrobiology become a valid field, though. It might just as well be that we are the one unique instance of life, alone in a dead universe. Or perhaps those other forms of life lack the potential to reach our level of chemical and mechanical complexity.


Take heart; the first is mathematically improbable, but the second is the more common challenge that frustrates our Seth. The set of conditions required to foster evolution and eventually to encourage technological development should be common enough, but it may turn out that the rate of evolution and technological development on Earth is somewhat above average due to factors that are not mathematically common - in particular, our comparatively large moon, and our lovely axial tilt.  



> The point about species survival is a good point. We're not just looking for life; we're looking for life in our astral back yard, and even then we're looking for those instances of life that coincide with us on a narrow line of the galactic time scale. Still, our own life has had a strong effect on the chemical makeup of this planet for over two billion years, so it might not be that narrow. On a species level, though, it's definitely hair-thin. We might leave behind some traces for future forms of life to find, or we might find theirs, but whichever way it goes, we're unlikely to shake their hands (or other available appendages).


It may well turn out that we are among the first space-faring species, and that we are the UFOs our parents warned us about.


----------



## Terry D (Mar 22, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> Again, why would it be assumed that it's the aliens? Most of the Sci Fi I have read deals with a futuristic Earth anyway.
> 
> I'm not trying to be contrary. I'm just really curious why that particular "stereotype" (if you will) is so popular.



I'm not assuming it would b the aliens, and much of science fiction doesn't either. As has been said there is a lot of science fiction which has humans as the more advanced species technologically. A 'first contact' situation requires technology which doesn't yet exist. If we go to 'them' then we will need to be far more advanced than we are now. If 'they' come to us, they will need technology far ahead of what we have. So, the stereotype (plot device) employed depends on the story being told.


----------



## Morkonan (Mar 22, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> ...and anyone else who wants to answer as well.
> 
> Let's say you are writing a Sci Fi novel or even a short story involving an alien species recently discovered by the SETI Institute.
> 
> When you wrote about the alien race, do you make them more technologically advanced? Why?



Because it's highly unlikely that we would be able to detect them otherwise. We're talking about "light years", here, with EM signals. Odds would be increased if they purposefully directed a transmission at our planet/solar-system, but only if it was done relatively recently. (I presume you are fixing the Setting in the "present" with your use of SETI.)



> I have seen a lot (well...almost ALL) of thee Sci Fi writers I have read make that assumption and it's always baffled me.
> 
> Wouldn't it be just as likely that a newly discovered alien race could be the galactic equivalent of Forrest Gump?



Maybe... But, it's very doubtful. I suppose a "decadent" race, like Hubbard's "Psychlos" or, to borrow a term, an "uplifted" race, like Niven/Pournelle's "Fithp", could fit your "Forest Gump" description. But, these are "fictional" species, after all. 

If you mean that a newly discovered species might be "primitive", that's not going to happen. If you mean that they should be similarly technologically capable as us, that's not going to happen. If you mean that they might be advanced, but be bumbling idiots, that's going to be... doubtful.

However, do not assume that one species' idiocy is the same as another's.... For instance, once a year, an alien species could attempt to murder itself. It could be a huge celebration of life/death/rebirth/whatever. Every year, they all attempt to kill each other for the space of, oh, and hour or so. So, are they idiots? No, not at all. It's just that their culture dictates different social behaviors. Social behaviors and cultural imperatives are different than "intelligence." If you wanted a "backward" seeming species, work on their cultural imperatives and social behaviors. (Just as other authors have done, like Brin, Card and even Foster, Heinlein etc..)



> I know, I know. That wouldn't really make for good Science Fiction in most cases.



No, it can make for excellent science-fiction, if you present it plausibly enough. For instance, in today's day and age, we are not going to "discover" an intelligent alien species that is less technologically capable than us. (The odds are so low as to be practically nonexistent.) So, take a sufficiently advanced, but not too advanced, species and contrast their social or cultural differences with ours, making ours appear to be "smarter." For instance, in Foster's "The Damned" series, technologically backward humans encounter highly evolved races that are embroiled in a war against what can only be called the ultimate "Communist" culture. (The political themes can get somewhat deep in that series...) However, mankind is in high demand, being one of the very few intelligent species that will actually engage in combat without going catatonic. So, humans have a very pivotal role in the series, despite their technological inferiority in all things but war.

Now, let's take Turtledove's "World War" and "Colonization" series. In this series, we are confronted by a species of reptilian invaders with somewhat advanced technology. However, much like Niven and Pournelle's aliens, the invaders have underestimated humanity's technological prowess and startling rate of advancement. The invaders arrive as the world is embroiled in World War II. Despite their superior, if somewhat sparsely distributed, weaponry, the invaders are forced to make concessions after some initial gains.

But, there are some things about the invaders that are portrayed as "inferior" to humans. For instance, they breed only once a year and, during that cycle, males and females are practically helpless and enter into rut with complete abandon. Well, it turns out that sort of behavior can be stimulated by a simple Earth herb - Cinnamon. Humans run around, selling cinnamon like crack and spreading it everywhere, hilarity ensues, the invaders are confronted with huge social problems. There are other socio-political "defects" that Turtledove presents for his humans to exploit, as well.




> But that assumption holds in the scientific community as well.
> 
> I just don't get why it is so automatically assumed.



The assumption, at least with harder science-fiction, is based in fairly well-reasoned "assumption." We are simply not technologically capable of detecting anything other than an advanced species. We are not capable of traveling to any nearby stars and it's extremely unlikely that any intelligent alien species exists within our solar system. In order to discover less technologically advanced intelligent species, we will have to develop the technology to "go to them."

Note: There is, also, the considerations of "Story" and "Theme" that have to be included in any answer to your question. If you want to write a hard science-fiction book that is exciting and that has high-stakes, what are you going to shoot for? Are you going to shoot for an existential survival story with a struggle against a seemingly overpowering foe or are you going to write a native-exploitation story with greedy corporations? It's not that these are mutually exclusive, but there's something to be said regarding the ease and suitability of choosing one sort of story over another.


----------



## Schrody (Mar 22, 2014)

In one of my novels, aliens are technologically advanced, but not _that _much, lets say, like people will (possibly) be in 22-3 century... Also, if they came to Earth, it means that they know how to build a spaceship which means they're not that dumb. If they master travelling the speed of light (we know it's currently impossible, but they may come from another universe with different laws of physics), they're definitely technologically advanced.


----------



## Cran (Mar 22, 2014)

> We are simply not technologically capable of detecting anything other than an advanced species.


Not quite. We are sufficiently advanced to detect planets that harbor surface life in some other stellar systems, but we are not yet able to detect intelligent or technological life except for the roughly 250 year stage from the industrial revolution to the new millennium. 

We can do this by analysing the change in the light spectrum emitted during the planet's transit of its parent star, and this can reveal the chemicals and impurities in the planet's atmosphere. 

H2O+O2(or O3)+CO2+CH4=confident evidence of life


----------



## Outiboros (Mar 23, 2014)

Cran said:


> Not necessarily, and yes.
> 
> The chances for life "as we know it" are mathematically quite high, certainly much higher than believed thirty years ago. But it is two more leaps to get from "haven for life as we know it" to "comparable or superior technological society". What we've learned, particularly in the last thirty years is that the chemicals and chemistry for life as we know it are very common as far as we can observe (and confidently extrapolate beyond), and that simple forms of life can and do exist in conditions not previously thought possible (nuclear reactors, deep hot rocks, cold high pressure methane seeps and sulphur smokers, for examples). As long as there is a suitable fluid medium and exchangeable chemical energy, life at its most basic can exist.


Exist, yes; but this goes further than just existing. The same goes for the mention of extremophile species. You sometimes hear people say, "oh, Venus is perfectly suitable for life, look, we've got micro-organisms that live in the boiling, acidic breath of black smokers!" Yes, those organisms live there, and they can exist there, but that haven't originated there. The environmental variables necessary for the origin of life are much more narrow than those for the existence of life.




Cran said:


> Silicon-based life, therefore, is much more likely to prefer Venus over Earth, is highly likely to be shape-shifting (think intelligent lava), and not likely to need or want to make tools or alter its environment for its own comfort.


Perhaps it will have no notion of comfort. There's a big gap between 'living' lava and 'intelligent' lava; keep in mind, we humans and all our mammal friends are cases of macro-life. It might well be possible that even if life originates in an environment that we'd label extreme, and even if it is subject to some evolutionary force, it never gets beyond the micro-scale. Perhaps it has some analogue to our cells that are incompatible with multi-cellular cooperation, or only relatively simple cooperation as we see in some species of amoebas.



Cran said:


> Take heart; the first is mathematically improbable, but the second is the more common challenge that frustrates our Seth. The set of conditions required to foster evolution and eventually to encourage technological development should be common enough, but it may turn out that the rate of evolution and technological development on Earth is somewhat above average due to factors that are not mathematically common - in particular, our comparatively large moon, and our lovely axial tilt.


Or our DNA-based nature, multicellularity, mobile body and electrical nervous system.


----------



## Kyle R (Mar 23, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> Again, why would it be assumed that it's the aliens? Most of the Sci Fi I have read deals with a futuristic Earth anyway.
> 
> I'm not trying to be contrary. I'm just really curious why that particular "stereotype" (if you will) is so popular.



Two reasons (in my opinion):



People read/watch shows to experience something new and different. The premise of encountering an inferior alien species can be less exciting than encountering a superior one, simply because a superior species will have new and different things (technology). An inferior species will have nothing we haven't already discovered and moved past (fire, sticks...).
Speaking in terms of the craft of fiction, an advanced species creates a better opportunity to raise the stakes, making the aliens antagonists with superior abilities. An antagonistic species that's less-advanced than us is not much of a threat at all—the characters can just defeat them with a simple push of a button. (The exception would be if technology were taken off the table, for instance. Then you'd have a basic man-vs-animal survival story, like _Pitch Black_.)

The first reason can go either way, as _Avatar_ demonstrated (a less-advanced alien race, but it was still "new and different" because of their world, creatures, and tribal lifestyle).

It's mostly the second reason that gives us the "advanced aliens" trope in a lot of SciFi. Like Terry stated, it's often a plot device, an easy way to create a formidable enemy. Imagine if _War of the Worlds_ involved an invasion attempt by aliens swooping in and throwing water balloons in hopes of defeating us!


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Mar 23, 2014)

That would have made for good quality comedy. LOL


----------



## Riptide (Mar 23, 2014)

Well I didn't read all of the responses, but I read some, so that's good enough. You wanted to know why aliens always have to be smarter? I would assume because they came to us while we can't go to them, so they must have that technology, which is more advanced than ours. Another thing... we are kind of a young species with regards to the how old our Earth is so maybe they started evolving way earlier than us.


----------



## Morkonan (Mar 23, 2014)

Cran said:


> Not quite. We are sufficiently advanced to detect planets that harbor surface life in some other stellar systems, but we are not yet able to detect intelligent or technological life except for the roughly 250 year stage from the industrial revolution to the new millennium.
> 
> We can do this by analysing the change in the light spectrum emitted during the planet's transit of its parent star, and this can reveal the chemicals and impurities in the planet's atmosphere.
> 
> H2O+O2(or O3)+CO2+CH4=confident evidence of life



We can not detect things like methane with any certainty as to its process origins. Ozone is a naturally occurring compound, as well as water, oxygen and carbon dioxide. The problem is that methane and other compounds can be generated by natural processes, though those processes must be ongoing and extensive in order to either continue to produce some of these compounds or to have it present in large quantities, depending upon the mass of the body and other factors. (Holistic analysis is necessary) The problem with detecting naturally occurring elements and compounds is that they're naturally occurring... Detection does not equate to artificial generation in these cases. (For instance, the recent controversy over methane detection and Martian atmosphere) Compounds we would normally consider to be clearly artificial, however, must still have unique natural possibilities ruled out for the host system. Even if clearly artificial materials were detected, (for instance, certain isotopes, should we have the means available) those isotopes would not likely be produced by species that were inferior in technological capability...  

However, no detection of naturally occurring materials would, necessarily, indicate the technological capability of a species, at least not within a reasonably predictable spectrum. (In and of itself, that is. Again, the holistic problem.) There could, however, be certain detectable traces that might indicate technological capabilities. For instance, if a very large hunk of clearly artificial material (Material with isotopes not capable of naturally forming within that system) fell into or orbited in front of the host-planet's sun, we could possibly detect it and its artificial material construction by examining its spectra. The same goes for something like a Dyson Sphere, for obvious reasons. Other probable methods of detection could also speak to technological capability. For instance, laser communication has been posited as a possible method a species may try and it would take a very powerful laser, indeed, to be detectable over vast distances. (Depending upon the intervening matter/gas/dust, that is.) 

But, those means I mentioned above all involve a technological capability greater than our own. I suppose it's just a matter of _scale._ A species with lesser technological capabilities is not sufficiently able to generate, or likely to, the means by which we would detect them. No number of bonfires or fishing fleets and farms are going to be detectable by our current level of technology. Even radio transmissions will imply a species that is likely much older than we are and reasonably likely to have expected to mature in technological capability. (Depending upon the source, of course.)


----------



## Cran (Mar 23, 2014)

No one mentioned artificial generation in detection of life - and I'm sorry, but free oxygen in an atmosphere containing methane and carbon dioxide has only one known cause - photosynthetic life.

_ETA: At least, that's the rationale behind the searches since the 90s._


----------



## Morkonan (Mar 23, 2014)

Cran said:


> No one mentioned artificial generation in detection of life - and I'm sorry, but free oxygen in an atmosphere containing methane and carbon dioxide has only one known cause - photosynthetic life.
> 
> _ETA: At least, that's the rationale behind the searches since the 90s._



There is photosynthetic life on Jupiter? Mars?

(Though, the specific "free oxygen" requirement in your statement might not apply as being _directly_ detected in Jupiter's atmosphere, but, IIRC, it's strongly implied by the presence of other detected compounds.)

Even should your statement be considered true, that still does not speak to the presence of any "civilization" or intelligent species and certainly does not speak to its level of technology. The presence of life, if we accept your statement as true, does not have technological or other implications for intelligence. Should we, however, attain the ability to conduct very detailed measurements of a planet's atmosphere, we might be able to make certain assumptions that could prove to be true and could prove to be indications of a technological stage we're capable of identifying. But, that's a lot of "coulds" and it certainly isn't something we're capable of doing right now. A lot of carbon in such an atmosphere as you describe might indicate an "Industrial Age" or that a meteor recently landed and set off world-wide forest fires - We wouldn't know which.

PS - I have no argument with your statement as basic principle. My contention is that there is only so much we can "definitely" say is true given the means of detection we have at the moment. And, if we are to say that a species is "definitely" at a certain technological level, we could only detect those levels that require an extreme degree of technological capability, given the comparably severe limitations of our own tools.


----------



## Cran (Mar 24, 2014)

No - it has to be free oxygen and with the other compounds to indicate life - not intelligence, but life. Free oxygen on its own is not sufficient, because oxygen can be produced by photochemical dissociation, just not in sufficient quantities on a global scale to survive long as isolated molecules when there is methane, carbon, sulfur, and available cations. Combined oxygen is its natural state, so oxygen compounds are ranked only behind hydrogen compounds as expected to be found just about anywhere we look. 

I was, as are the astronomers, very specific about the range of industrialisation that can (not could, can) be detected by spectroscopic analysis if measurable amounts exist in a planet's atmosphere, and that is the 250 year window from the industrial revolution to the turn of the millennium. Not because of carbon or carbon compounds, and not because of sulfur compounds, both of which are predominantly found in terrestrial atmospheres from tectonic processes, but because of lead compounds from early industrial furnaces and more recent fuel additives, and purely artificial compounds like ClFCs and HFCs; ie, industrial age pollutants. 

Bolide impacts which have global effects can be identified by other unique atmospheric pollutants, mostly things like iron and aluminium compounds thrown up from the crust.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Mar 24, 2014)

Cran said:


> I was, as are the astronomers, very specific about the range of industrialisation that can (not could, can) be detected by spectroscopic analysis if measurable amounts exist in a planet's atmosphere, and that is the 250 year window from the industrial revolution to the turn of the millennium. Not because of carbon or carbon compounds, and not because of sulfur compounds, both of which are predominantly found in terrestrial atmospheres from tectonic processes, but because of lead compounds from early industrial furnaces and more recent fuel additives, and purely artificial compounds like ClFCs and HFCs; ie, industrial age pollutants. .



Now this is something that bugs me as well. This paragraph makes the assumption that any other industrialized civilization would have used the same fuels for the process. Hell...it assumes they would use the exact same process for that matter.

To me, that goes along with assuming that life can ONLY occur with certain elements. 

What if there is a life form out there that is "industrialized" but didn't get there the same way we did? What if there is a life form out there that isn't carbon based like we are?

This may make me see like an idiot, and believe me, I am used to people thinking that, but all these assumptions drive me bonkers because they are based only our very limited knowledge.

I just love it when someone says something is "impossible" because there is no way for them to actually KNOW that it's impossible. Unless, of course, they happen to know everything to know about everything in the entire universe.


----------



## Terry D (Mar 24, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> Now this is something that bugs me as well. This paragraph makes the assumption that any other industrialized civilization would have used the same fuels for the process. Hell...it assumes they would use the exact same process for that matter.
> 
> To me, that goes along with assuming that life can ONLY occur with certain elements.
> 
> ...



First off, you'll never hear a scientist talk about the concept of life based on other-than-carbon compounds being "impossible". And, of course, a different path through the evolution of technology is possible, probably even likely. What astronomers will tell you is that they invest most of their resources--which are quite limited in today's economy--into looking for signs of what we know has worked in the one example we have for comparison; Earth. Anything else is pure speculation--great for those of us who don't have to justify the results of that speculation to our bosses--and not a very healthy career path.

Speaking of speculation--and this is just my own mind wandering around a bit--what makes us think that technology is a good thing from an evolutionary perspective. We are still in our infancy as a species, and have only been technological for a couple of centuries (only an eye-blink evolutionarily), and yet we've polluted our air and water, developed weapons capable of wiping ourselves out, and--should you choose to believe it--have even altered our planet's climate. I submit that technology may not be a survivable trait for us, or possibly any other species. Maybe that's why the most successful life forms on Earth are non-technological?


----------



## Outiboros (Mar 24, 2014)

Terry D said:


> Speaking of speculation--and this is just my own mind wandering around a bit--what makes us think that technology is a good thing from an evolutionary perspective. We are still in our infancy as a species, and have only been technological for a couple of centuries (only an eye-blink evolutionarily), and yet we've polluted our air and water, developed weapons capable of wiping ourselves out, and--should you choose to believe it--have even altered our planet's climate. I submit that technology may not be a survivable trait for us, or possibly any other species. Maybe that's why the most successful life forms on Earth are non-technological?


It is, because we survive.

Evolution does not look forward. Evolution does not look back. It has no aim and no drive other than a purely mechanical set of rules. We have survived; we've spread far past our original habitats, even, and we've managed to survive at a population level hundreds of times higher than what we'd been able to do without our tools. Will it, eventually, be our end? Maybe. But so far, it helps is survive.

Evolution doesn't care about climate, or other species, or even other individuals. If you manage to survive and produce offspring, your genes are continued. That's all that matters. But with all this tool-building going on, you could ask if we're still subject to evolution at all, and I think it's having a considerably lesser effect on us than it used to have. That's only true for the last century, though, and by far not for every one of us.

Also, we are hardly at our infancy. The average length of time a species manages to survive is around five million years, and we're just over that at six million.


----------



## Terry D (Mar 24, 2014)

Outiboros said:


> It is, because we survive.
> 
> Evolution does not look forward. Evolution does not look back. It has no aim and no drive other than a purely mechanical set of rules. We have survived; we've spread far past our original habitats, even, and we've managed to survive at a population level hundreds of times higher than what we'd been able to do without our tools. Will it, eventually, be our end? Maybe. But so far, it helps is survive.
> 
> ...



That's like the man who fell off a building and, as he was falling past open windows, was heard to say, "It's okay so far..."

_Homo sapiens_ is only about 200,000 years old. Other species of homonids go further back, but our species is young. Even if techno-man 'survives' for 10,000 years it would still be considered an evolutionary failure.


----------



## Outiboros (Mar 24, 2014)

Terry D said:


> That's like the man who fell off a building and, as he was falling past open windows, was heard to say, "It's okay so far..."
> 
> _Homo sapiens_ is only about 200,000 years old. Other species of homonids go further back, but our species is young. Even if techno-man 'survives' for 10,000 years it would still be considered an evolutionary failure.


That's just because we like giving ourselves lots of little names. We don't like being the same species as those guys two-hundred thousand years ago, because those guys were idiots. They didn't invent nuclear fission and the Apollo program, now did they? If we'd have been just another species of songbird, it might all have been filed under the same species. There is no arbitrary value to judge what amount of variation validates a new name.

But yes, sorry, our genus is about six million years old, not necessarily our species. But there really is no such thing as evolutionary failure, because there isn't an evolutionary success, either. That's what we call them because we see survivors as winners. In the end, no single species survives. An individual can fail by not producing offspring, or succeed by producing large amounts of it; a gene can fail by being out-competed. I don't know if the same can be said for species. The dinosaurs didn't fail at anything - they just had plain bad luck.


----------



## Terry D (Mar 24, 2014)

Outiboros said:


> That's just because we like giving ourselves lots of little names. We don't like being the same species as those guys two-hundred thousand years ago, because those guys were idiots. They didn't invent nuclear fission and the Apollo program, now did they? If we'd have been just another species of songbird, it might all have been filed under the same species. There is no arbitrary value to judge what amount of variation validates a new name.
> 
> But yes, sorry, our genus is about six million years old, not necessarily our species. But there really is no such thing as evolutionary failure, because there isn't an evolutionary success, either. That's what we call them because we see survivors as winners. In the end, no single species survives. An individual can fail by not producing offspring, or succeed by producing large amounts of it; a gene can fail by being out-competed. I don't know if the same can be said for species. The dinosaurs didn't fail at anything - they just had plain bad luck.



And I'm just saying we may be creating our own "bad luck". Not that I believe it, I just think it's an interesting premise.


----------



## Outiboros (Mar 24, 2014)

Terry D said:


> And I'm just saying we may be creating our own "bad luck". Not that I believe it, I just think it's an interesting premise.


Oh, that wouldn't be bad luck. That's just the natural population fluctuation of a species that has filled its habitat to the brim. Sooner or later, they expand beyond their habitat's capability to support them, and the population crashes. We've just been stalling our own crash - farming, crop rotation, GMO's, antibiotics, vaccinations, hormone therapies, etcetera.


----------



## Blade (Mar 24, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> Again, why would it be assumed that it's the aliens? Most of the Sci Fi I have read deals with a futuristic Earth anyway.
> 
> I'm not trying to be contrary. I'm just really curious why that particular "stereotype" (if you will) is so popular.



Have not men always had Gods? When faced with the experience of novel/unknown/alien the intuitive and instinctive reaction may likely, and cautiously, be to ascribe god like superior qualities. A reasonable reaction to forces which intrude on the pedestrian life of men, I think.:unconscious:


----------



## thepancreas11 (Mar 24, 2014)

To Blade's point, would it not be interesting to see how humans reacted to being treated like gods? We definitely have experience with more advanced civilization less advanced civilizations, and the result has pretty much always been the same. It might be a nice twist on the classic narrative to see us do it from a space-aged point of view.

The way I see it, you could either do it like the movie District 9 where the aliens have been suddenly degraded beneath human standards even thought they were at one point far more technologically savvy than us, or you could try something completely new and explore how humans make contact with the alien race and what they do after that, kind of like what Star Trek: Into Darkness touched on at the beginning of the movie.


----------



## Cran (Mar 24, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> Now this is something that bugs me as well. This paragraph makes the assumption that any other industrialized civilization would have used the same fuels for the process. Hell...it assumes they would use the exact same process for that matter.


Not really; only that it's something we can detect. 

It's not unreasonable to assume similar enough, if not identical, processes because we didn't bother to develop the hard way to do things. 

After figuring out that - 
a) fire burns things, and 
b) fire burns some things better than others, and 
c) some things make hotter and/or longer lasting fires than others, and 
d) one can make or do a lot of good stuff with the right controlled fires, 
- all that's left is to make the tools and get on with it.



> To me, that goes along with assuming that life can ONLY occur with certain elements.


No, only the most commonly available combinations that work; the less commonly available combinations that work are not ruled out, simply deemed less likely to happen and less likely to be understood by us if they did happen. 



> What if there is a life form out there that is "industrialized" but didn't get there the same way we did?


Then it wouldn't be at that very narrow window of technology that we can currently detect, so they will continue on without us looking at them unless they drop by and say, "hi!"



> What if there is a life form out there that isn't carbon based like we are?


Then, unless they do something that makes them noticeable, we aren't likely to detect them without actually tripping over them ... or they drop by and say, "hi!"



> This may make me see like an idiot, and believe me, I am used to people thinking that, but all these assumptions drive me bonkers because they are based only our very limited knowledge.
> 
> I just love it when someone says something is "impossible" because there is no way for them to actually KNOW that it's impossible. Unless, of course, they happen to know everything to know about everything in the entire universe.


The sun and stars are lumps of burning coal; the Earth is flat and at the centre of the universe; there are only three states of matter; the atom is the smallest possible particle; anyone traveling faster than 35 miles per hour will not survive the experience - not impossible, perhaps, but unlikely or improbable, even falsified by empirical evidence. Whether we "know" something, or simply assume that fundamental principles or verified laws will not suddenly change, and the world will keep turning so that the sun will appear to rise again when it's due, is more a matter of semantics and expedience than anything else. For instance, you don't "know" that anyone else exists outside of your mind, and yet you'll accept it as a working premise and take part in a discussion that might not, in fact, exist.


ETA: Terry - 





> We are still in our infancy as a species, and have only been *technological* for a couple of centuries ...


I assume you mean "industrialised"; we can trace technologies back much further than that, to roughly 7500 years ago* when I last checked. 

_*earliest known (there's that word again) water diversion construction, believed to be for irrigation._


----------



## Morkonan (Mar 24, 2014)

Cran said:


> No - it has to be free oxygen and with the other compounds to indicate life - not intelligence, but life.



I understand what you are stating, that's why I included my own disclaimer, carefully noting that "free oxygen" has not yet been directly identified in Jupiter's atmosphere, despite the strong suggestion that it exists, beyond the reach of current detection methods. But, just a point - "Oxygen" is not an indicator of life, in and of itself. If, however, a process was deemed necessary in order to continue to produce the detected levels, then "photosynthesis" could be a good candidate. But, we're talking about something that needs much more analysis than just a few sentences, back and forth.



> I was, as are the astronomers, very specific about the range of industrialisation that can (not could, can) be detected by spectroscopic analysis if measurable amounts exist in a planet's atmosphere, and that is the 250 year window from the industrial revolution to the turn of the millennium. Not because of carbon or carbon compounds, and not because of sulfur compounds, both of which are predominantly found in terrestrial atmospheres from tectonic processes, but because of lead compounds from early industrial furnaces and more recent fuel additives, and purely artificial compounds like ClFCs and HFCs; ie, industrial age pollutants.
> 
> Bolide impacts which have global effects can be identified by other unique atmospheric pollutants, mostly things like iron and aluminium compounds thrown up from the crust.



What if a civilization never discovered how to add lead to to their Exxon gasoline in order to reduce engine degradation in their Cadillacs? IOW - While I do agree, very honestly, that we can cite certain compounds as being likely results of industrial processes, I am not as confident as you that they would engage in the same exact uses for those materials. A clearly artificial material, whatever its nature, determined to be nearly impossible or highly unlike to be able to be formed by natural processes, depending upon a host of factors, would be a good indicator of some sort of life-form. But, that material/compound can not speak to the level of technology. It "could" speak to a minimum technological level necessary to produce it, but that is all. Considering the distances involved and our current capabilities, which are vanishingly small in this category, that technological civilization, if it existed at all, would likely be much further advanced than we are at the time of discovery, given the light-cone. 

At this point, I am not convinced that we can detect the composition of any extra-solar planetary atmosphere with the sort of precision necessary to deduce anything about a possible inhabiting civilization's technology level.


----------



## Cran (Mar 24, 2014)

Morkonan said:


> What if a civilization never discovered how to add lead to to their Exxon gasoline in order to reduce engine degradation in their Cadillacs?


Then we can't detect it yet; that's why I was very specific about what we can detect - really, it's not that hard; we're not supermen, we have limits - we also have an awareness of what we can do, so we do that until we can do more or decide that a limit has been reached. 

ETA: You must have missed the earlier similar question and reply:


> What if there is a life form out there that is "industrialized" but didn't get there the same way we did?





> Then it wouldn't be at that very narrow window of technology that we can  currently detect, so they will continue on without us looking at them  unless they drop by and say, "hi!"





> At this point, I am not convinced that we can detect the composition of any extra-solar planetary atmosphere with the sort of precision necessary to deduce anything about a possible inhabiting civilization's technology level.


That's OK - you don't need to be convinced for the efforts to continue.

ETA: 





> But, just a point - "Oxygen" is not an indicator of life, in and of itself.


Now you are just paraphrasing me, and claiming it as your own point?



> H2O+O2(or O3)+CO2+CH4=confident evidence of life /
> 
> Free oxygen on its own is not sufficient, because oxygen can be produced  by photochemical dissociation, just not in sufficient quantities on a  global scale to survive long as isolated molecules when there is  methane, carbon, sulfur, and available cations.



As to my confidence, it is in what we can do with our current technology; suggesting otherwise is pointless. And yes, whatever we can detect is of a time past, not the present.


----------



## Morkonan (Mar 25, 2014)

Cran said:


> Then we can't detect it yet; that's why I was very specific about what we can detect ...



And, that was my point that you appeared to take exception to.

There's no true disagreement here. We just can't detect a civilization that is less advanced than our own using the means at our disposal _right now_. We have an idea how that could be accomplished, but we do not yet have the necessary tools to accomplish it.

I will add the caveat that while the above is true, it is not true in the face of another civilization attempting to alert us of their presence. In fact, that's really the only way SETI would be likely to be fruitful - A purposefully directed radio or laser signal could be detected by our civilization at this time. I will also add, however, that the technical means necessary to generate such a cohesive signal increase drastically the further removed the origin happens to be. (It's also worth noting that because this situation depends upon a self-motivated and overt act by an alien species, it's not a very likely one, in my opinion. Just my opinion there, not worth digging around in.  )


----------



## Cran (Mar 25, 2014)

Morkonan said:


> There's no true disagreement here. We just can't detect a civilization that is less advanced than our own using the means at our disposal _right now_. We have an idea how that could be accomplished, but we do not yet have the necessary tools to accomplish it.
> 
> I will add the caveat that while the above is true, it is not true in the face of another civilization attempting to alert us of their presence. In fact, that's really the only way SETI would be likely to be fruitful - A purposefully directed radio or laser signal could be detected by our civilization at this time. I will also add, however, that the technical means necessary to generate such a cohesive signal increase drastically the further removed the origin happens to be. (It's also worth noting that because this situation depends upon a self-motivated and overt act by an alien species, it's not a very likely one, in my opinion. Just my opinion there, not worth digging around in.  )


^This. Yes.


----------



## movieman (Mar 25, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> Wouldn't it be just as likely that a newly discovered alien race could be the galactic equivalent of Forrest Gump?



The odds of any sentient alien race being within a few centuries of our level of development are about zero, unless they've deliberately crippled that development. To us, they'd probably either be apes or Gods.


----------



## bazz cargo (Mar 26, 2014)

I feel rather lost amongst all this technobabble,  all I was going to add to the conversation was a recommend of an old movie, Morons From Outerspace.


----------

