suppose underwater creatures were thrice as smart as us?

[far out right]

okay, let's say there were underwater creatures 3 times as smart as
us. could they have developed high civilizations? unlikely since they
can't use fire.

but, suppose they found a way to create outfits that could make them
come to the surface and use land technology and take what they made
back into the sea?

we have scuba diving but how about an abovewater gear for underwater
creatures that allow them to remain wet and breathe water on land?

suppose they build aqua houses onland so they could remain above water
for prolonged periods.
on land, they can build factories that produce items that can't be
made underwater. and these can then be carried back down into the sea.

we do this when we go into outerspace, wearing spacesuits, etc.

[David Friedman]

In article >,
(far out right) wrote:

> okay, let's say there were underwater creatures 3 times as smart as
> us. could they have developed high civilizations? unlikely since they
> can't use fire.

Why do you assume fire is required for high civilization? There are lots
of other relevant technologies--selective breeding of useful species,
for example. Mechanical devices not driven by fire.

--
Remove NOSPAM to email
Also remove .invalid
www.daviddfriedman.com

[Microbot]

Even many underwater creatures rely on fire......... the Sun..
Fire is but only one element, and life did alright without control of it up
till we came along..
Self awareness, imagination and understanding our limits and finding new
ways to extend those limits are what makes us so special, not just being
able to use one element.

Cheers
Microbot

"David Friedman" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (far out right) wrote:
>
> > okay, let's say there were underwater creatures 3 times as smart as
> > us. could they have developed high civilizations? unlikely since they
> > can't use fire.
>
> Why do you assume fire is required for high civilization? There are lots
> of other relevant technologies--selective breeding of useful species,
> for example. Mechanical devices not driven by fire.
>
> --
> Remove NOSPAM to email
> Also remove .invalid
> www.daviddfriedman.com

[David Johnston]

On Wed, 12 May 2004 04:30:40 GMT, David Friedman
> wrote:

>In article >,
> (far out right) wrote:
>
>> okay, let's say there were underwater creatures 3 times as smart as
>> us. could they have developed high civilizations? unlikely since they
>> can't use fire.
>
>Why do you assume fire is required for high civilization? There are lots
>of other relevant technologies--selective breeding of useful species,
>for example. Mechanical devices not driven by fire.

Made out of what? And when drawn into responding to one of Gaza's
threads, please be careful to delete the newsgroups for which it
will be off topic.

[Stephen Smith]

The need to use fire for an underwater civ would be minimal....
Ever heard of bio engineering.... tayloring the many and varied
creatures of the sea to do specific tasks...

jonalpha

far out right wrote:

>okay, let's say there were underwater creatures 3 times as smart as
>us. could they have developed high civilizations? unlikely since they
>can't use fire.
>
>but, suppose they found a way to create outfits that could make them
>come to the surface and use land technology and take what they made
>back into the sea?
>
>we have scuba diving but how about an abovewater gear for underwater
>creatures that allow them to remain wet and breathe water on land?
>
>suppose they build aqua houses onland so they could remain above water
>for prolonged periods.
>on land, they can build factories that produce items that can't be
>made underwater. and these can then be carried back down into the sea.
>
>we do this when we go into outerspace, wearing spacesuits, etc.
>
>

[Kevin & Donna Sanders, M.D.]

That's funny I have wondered since I was a kid what if Dolphins are as
smart as we are but would never be able to develop one of our greatest
achievements electricity and electronics because of the salt water shorting
out everything. Also it would be tough " Look Ma no hands" to build things.
It would be like Stephen Hawking
Kevin




"Stephen Smith" > wrote in message
...
> The need to use fire for an underwater civ would be minimal....
> Ever heard of bio engineering.... tayloring the many and varied
> creatures of the sea to do specific tasks...
>
> jonalpha
>
> far out right wrote:
>
> >okay, let's say there were underwater creatures 3 times as smart as
> >us. could they have developed high civilizations? unlikely since they
> >can't use fire.
> >
> >but, suppose they found a way to create outfits that could make them
> >come to the surface and use land technology and take what they made
> >back into the sea?
> >
> >we have scuba diving but how about an abovewater gear for underwater
> >creatures that allow them to remain wet and breathe water on land?
> >
> >suppose they build aqua houses onland so they could remain above water
> >for prolonged periods.
> >on land, they can build factories that produce items that can't be
> >made underwater. and these can then be carried back down into the sea.
> >
> >we do this when we go into outerspace, wearing spacesuits, etc.
> >
> >
>

[David Tomlin]

David Friedman wrote

> In article >,
> (far out right) wrote:
>
> > okay, let's say there were underwater creatures 3 times as smart as
> > us. could they have developed high civilizations? unlikely since they
> > can't use fire.
>
> Why do you assume fire is required for high civilization? There are lots
> of other relevant technologies--selective breeding of useful species,
> for example. Mechanical devices not driven by fire.

Obviously it depends on the definition of "high civilization".

I thought about this once, and decided fire was essential for smelting
metals. Reflecting on your observation, it occurs to me that metals
may be dispensable. Perhaps organisms could be bred to produce ceramic
materials as good as metals or better.

I pictured the marine intelligences making devices to trap air bubbles
of various sizes, just as we have water tanks and swimming pools, or
tanks of petroleum. We use "fire" in outer space, by taking along
tanks of liquid oxygen. For marine intelligences both fuel and
oxidizer would be scarce resources, needing to be "extracted" and
stored. It's not that big a difference.

Marine intelligences could find ways to use fire, or ways of doing
things without fire. Either approach is interesting.

[Mike Dworetsky]

"Stephen Smith" > wrote in message
...
> The need to use fire for an underwater civ would be minimal....
> Ever heard of bio engineering.... tayloring the many and varied
> creatures of the sea to do specific tasks...
>

They could breed domesticated jellyfish into giant lenses that could focus
sunlight and heat rocks enough to smelt metals out. Have to do something
about the cooling problem of being under water, though. Hmmmm.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)

[David E. Siegel]

Stephen Smith > wrote in message >...
> The need to use fire for an underwater civ would be minimal....
> Ever heard of bio engineering.... tayloring the many and varied
> creatures of the sea to do specific tasks...
>
> jonalpha
>
> far out right wrote:
>
> >okay, let's say there were underwater creatures 3 times as smart as
> >us. could they have developed high civilizations? unlikely since they
> >can't use fire.
> >
<snip>

Such a civ, based on biotech, was shown in Hal Clement's "Stuck With
it", an intersting story. Certainly wothough fire you don't get
metals, much, and that means that most of tech as we know it doesn't
happen. I presume that by "High Civ" the poster meant "technological
civ". what replacement tech can be deveoped under those circs is an
interestign question.

-DES

[Jordan179]

David Friedman > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (far out right) wrote:
>
> > okay, let's say there were underwater creatures 3 times as smart as
> > us. could they have developed high civilizations? unlikely since they
> > can't use fire.
>
> Why do you assume fire is required for high civilization? There are lots
> of other relevant technologies--selective breeding of useful species,
> for example. Mechanical devices not driven by fire.

Indeed, we tend to assume our own tech track (first fire to induce
chemical changes in other substances like food and clay, then other
stuff) is the "natural" one because it's the path we took. But there
may well be other tech tracks, ones which _start_ with things like
genetic engineering or atomic energy and don't reach "fire" until the
equivalent of the 20th century.

(Civilization scenario designers take note!)

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan

[Jordan179]

(David Johnston) wrote in message >...
> On Wed, 12 May 2004 04:30:40 GMT, David Friedman
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > (far out right) wrote:
> >
> >> okay, let's say there were underwater creatures 3 times as smart as
> >> us. could they have developed high civilizations? unlikely since they
> >> can't use fire.
> >
> >Why do you assume fire is required for high civilization? There are lots
> >of other relevant technologies--selective breeding of useful species,
> >for example. Mechanical devices not driven by fire.
>
> Made out of what?

For undersea creatures, two obvious possibilities are shell and
various naturally secreted glues and gums. If the submarine sapients
have a biotech driven society, they may breed or genetically engineer
life forms specifically to produce shells etc. of the appropriate
shapes and sizes.

Jack Vance often wrote about this sort of thing.

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan

[Jordan179]

(David Tomlin) wrote in message >...
> David Friedman wrote
>
> > In article >,
> > (far out right) wrote:
> >
> > > okay, let's say there were underwater creatures 3 times as smart as
> > > us. could they have developed high civilizations? unlikely since they
> > > can't use fire.
> >
> > Why do you assume fire is required for high civilization? There are lots
> > of other relevant technologies--selective breeding of useful species,
> > for example. Mechanical devices not driven by fire.
>
> Obviously it depends on the definition of "high civilization".
>
> I thought about this once, and decided fire was essential for smelting
> metals. Reflecting on your observation, it occurs to me that metals
> may be dispensable. Perhaps organisms could be bred to produce ceramic
> materials as good as metals or better.

Or, for that matter, of concentrating metals in their bodies and
shaping it according to forms placed within their bodies, as an oyster
produces pearls or coral produces reefs (though they concentrate
calcium carbonate, not metals).

> I pictured the marine intelligences making devices to trap air bubbles
> of various sizes, just as we have water tanks and swimming pools, or
> tanks of petroleum. We use "fire" in outer space, by taking along
> tanks of liquid oxygen. For marine intelligences both fuel and
> oxidizer would be scarce resources, needing to be "extracted" and
> stored. It's not that big a difference.

Right. By the way, once they developed hermetically sealed vessels
(not too hard, they could start with shells and learn to stop their
ends) they could import air from the surface; once they developed
electricity (perhaps by starting from an electric eel like creature)
they could electrolyze oxygen and hydrogen out of water.

> Marine intelligences could find ways to use fire, or ways of doing
> things without fire. Either approach is interesting.

What's interesting is that for them, biochemistry would be basic and
pyrochemistry high tech -- the opposite of our situation!

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan

[David Tomlin]

(Jordan179) wrote

> But there
> may well be other tech tracks, ones which _start_ with things like
> genetic engineering or atomic energy and don't reach "fire" until the
> equivalent of the 20th century.

On a younger planet than ours, you can make a fission reactor by
bringing together chunks of uranium ore.

[Thomas]

Bha. A hyper-intelligent water dweller is somewhat screwed
by its enviorment and possibly even more thouroughly screwed
by their likely biology. Orca F.ex: certainly have the brains
to be quite clever, but they don't have hands or the equivalent
thereoff.- But supposing the existance of watery intellects
vast, cool and oh so very, very, quick on earth I think that
the most likely pathway to technical, as opposed to cultural
civilisation would be the establisment of trade* with those
not-overly-bright monkeys on the beach, which should fairly
quickly result in a costal civilisation dominated by the water
dwellers and quite capable of kicking in the teeth of all other
contenders. Oceanic or land dvelling.

*When I say trade, I include arrangements like: "We'll guide
you from port A to port B in return for a percentage of profits."

[Jordan179]

(Thomas) wrote in message >...
> Bha. A hyper-intelligent water dweller is somewhat screwed
> by its enviorment and possibly even more thouroughly screwed
> by their likely biology. Orca F.ex: certainly have the brains
> to be quite clever, but they don't have hands or the equivalent
> thereoff.-

_Cephalopods_ (squids and octopi) have absolutely no problem
manipulating things. _They_ are screwed by very short lifespans.
There is no logical reason why a sapient, tentacled water creature
could not evolve which had a longer lifespan than real cephalopods --
it just hasn't happened (afawk) on Earth.

For that matter, a _mammal_ might evolve a tentacle or tentacles.
Arguably, elephants have a tentacle, and furthermore elephants nearly
became aquatic at one stage in their evolution.

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan

[Stephen Smith]

This contends that we have a total knowledge of the cephalopods which
includes a giant species of either the squid or octopus families as yet
unidentified,
This species is believed to be far larger than any currently documented
- in the order of 5 to 10 times, it would either have to have a
phenomenal growth rate to achieve this size or a vastly greater life
span than biologist currently allow for. It is not inconceivable for
this species to be deliberately keeping out of our way......... after
all we only find dead bits of them........

how's that for a spoon to stir the pot....

Steve

Jordan179 wrote:

(Thomas) wrote in message >...
>
>
>>Bah. A hyper-intelligent water dweller is somewhat screwed
>>by its environment and possibly even more thoroughly screwed
>>by their likely biology. Orca F.ex: certainly have the brains
>>to be quite clever, but they don't have hands or the equivalent
>>thereof.-
>>
>>
>
>_Cephalopods_ (squids and octopi) have absolutely no problem
>manipulating things. _They_ are screwed by very short life spans.
>There is no logical reason why a sapient, tentacled water creature
>could not evolve which had a longer life span than real cephalopods --
>it just hasn't happened (afawk) on Earth.
>
>For that matter, a _mammal_ might evolve a tentacle or tentacles.
>Arguably, elephants have a tentacle, and furthermore elephants nearly
>became aquatic at one stage in their evolution.
>
>Sincerely Yours,
>Jordan
>
>

[Dave Sheehy]

Stephen Smith ) wrote:

: --------------040905030903030405050501
: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

: This contends that we have a total knowledge of the cephalopods which
: includes a giant species of either the squid or octopus families as yet
: unidentified,
: This species is believed to be far larger than any currently documented
: - in the order of 5 to 10 times, it would either have to have a
: phenomenal growth rate to achieve this size or a vastly greater life
: span than biologist currently allow for. It is not inconceivable for
: this species to be deliberately keeping out of our way......... after
: all we only find dead bits of them........

Except that as a general rule squids are the *least* 'intelligent' of the
cephalopods (with the exception of the Nautilus) so 'intelligent' giant
squids would be bucking that general trend.

Another problem for cephalopods is that their sensory nervous structure does
not provide orientation information for their arms. They can discern texture
and shape but they couldn't tell you if a rod was lying down or upright
simply by feel. OTOH, octopus have to ability discern the polarization of
light (it helps them locate prey) which is a capability we don't have.

BTW, octopus have arms, not tentacles. Squids, cuttlefish, and Nautilus have
8 arms and 2 tentacles. The tentacles are very different from the arms and
are adapted for prey capture.

Dave

: how's that for a spoon to stir the pot....

: Steve

: Jordan179 wrote:

: (Thomas) wrote in message >...
: >
: >
: >>Bah. A hyper-intelligent water dweller is somewhat screwed
: >>by its environment and possibly even more thoroughly screwed
: >>by their likely biology. Orca F.ex: certainly have the brains
: >>to be quite clever, but they don't have hands or the equivalent
: >>thereof.-
: >>
: >>
: >
: >_Cephalopods_ (squids and octopi) have absolutely no problem
: >manipulating things. _They_ are screwed by very short life spans.
: >There is no logical reason why a sapient, tentacled water creature
: >could not evolve which had a longer life span than real cephalopods --
: >it just hasn't happened (afawk) on Earth.
: >
: >For that matter, a _mammal_ might evolve a tentacle or tentacles.
: >Arguably, elephants have a tentacle, and furthermore elephants nearly
: >became aquatic at one stage in their evolution.
: >
: >Sincerely Yours,
: >Jordan
: >
: >


: --------------040905030903030405050501
: Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

: <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
: <html>
: <head>
: <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
: <title></title>
: </head>
: <body>
: This contends that we have a total knowledge of the cephalopods which includes
: a giant species of either the squid or octopus families as yet unidentified,
: <br>
: This species is believed to be far larger than any currently documented -
: in the order of 5 to 10 times, &nbsp;it would either have to have a phenomenal
: growth rate to achieve this size or a vastly greater life span than biologist
: currently allow for. &nbsp;It is not inconceivable for this species to be deliberately
: keeping out of our way......... &nbsp;after all we only find dead bits of them........<br>
: <br>
: how's that for a spoon to stir the pot....<br>
: <br>
: Steve<br>
: <br>
: Jordan179 wrote:<br>
: <blockquote type="cite"
: ">
: <pre wrap=""><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" </a> (Thomas) wrote in message news:<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" &gt;</a>...
: </pre>
: <blockquote type="cite">
: <pre wrap="">Bah. A hyper-intelligent water dweller is somewhat screwed
: by its environment and possibly even more thoroughly screwed
: by their likely biology. Orca F.ex: certainly have the brains
: to be quite clever, but they don't have hands or the equivalent
: thereof.-
: </pre>
: </blockquote>
: <pre wrap=""><!---->
: _Cephalopods_ (squids and octopi) have absolutely no problem
: manipulating things. _They_ are screwed by very short life spans.
: There is no logical reason why a sapient, tentacled water creature
: could not evolve which had a longer life span than real cephalopods --
: it just hasn't happened (afawk) on Earth.

: For that matter, a _mammal_ might evolve a tentacle or tentacles.
: Arguably, elephants have a tentacle, and furthermore elephants nearly
: became aquatic at one stage in their evolution.

: Sincerely Yours,
: Jordan
: </pre>
: </blockquote>
: <br>
: </body>
: </html>

: --------------040905030903030405050501--

[Jordan179]

Stephen Smith > wrote in message >...
> This contends that we have a total knowledge of the cephalopods which
> includes a giant species of either the squid or octopus families as yet
> unidentified,
> This species is believed to be far larger than any currently documented
> - in the order of 5 to 10 times, it would either have to have a
> phenomenal growth rate to achieve this size or a vastly greater life
> span than biologist currently allow for. It is not inconceivable for
> this species to be deliberately keeping out of our way......... after
> all we only find dead bits of them........
>
> how's that for a spoon to stir the pot....

Oh, actually I wouldn't be surprised if giant squids were sapient.
They are hunted by near-sapient creatures (sperm whales), after all;
cephalopods are generally very smart, and a _huge_ cephalopod would
have room for a truly gigantic brain. The dead giant squids we have
found are usually in rather poor physical states, and it's difficult
to estimate their organ volumes when alive from their decomposing
remains.

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan

[David Tomlin]

(Jordan179) wrote

> _Cephalopods_ (squids and octopi) have absolutely no problem
> manipulating things.

An analogue to cephalopod molluscs is what I pictured for high-tech
marine ETs. Arthropods are another way to go.

A marine arhropod could evolve hive organization like social insects.
The hive could be intelligent, but not the individuals.