Life can have infinite forms and can exist and evolve in the most inhospit environments. But an advanced tecnologig species only can exist in certain environments and with reduced posibility in their appearence.
Aquatic beeings can be intelligent, but never can create advanced tecnologies. The basic condicion of advanced tecnology is the domination of fire and electricity, not possible in the water, it need Oxign in the atmosphere.
They must have limbs skilled enough to handle and construct this technology, a complex communication system, and a binocular vision system (for this reason the most used in all species) to perceive their environment.
The humanoid shape is one that best fits these maxims and therefore it is quite possible that an advanced species would also have a more or less similar shape.
It is known as convergent evolution, when unrelated species have a very similar physique to each other by living with the same challenges in similar environments. Evolution always use similar solutions for similar tasks.
A good example is the genet, which looks and behaves very similar to cats, even with retractil claws), but they are a completely different species (Viverridae)
Genets are bad example, because Viverridae are the closest relatives to Felidae. Convergent evolution would be better illustrated by fish and dolphins.
Tech needs electricity and fire is not universal. That is what we use.
Our brain is lot more complicated and efficient than the computers we make and it uses ions, in liquid media. So something that lives in water could definitely be able to make something that would be able to use similar things to do processing. Water is also really good with doing things, it’s flexible but doesn’t compress/expand like air does. Think about hydraulic systems. You can make them smaller and smaller as your tech progresses. Mechanical things using metals and such would work in water as well. Think about gold and such that can be used for electricity as well, we don’t use it because it’s valuable, but an alien world could have abundance of gold for them to use.
Don’t care how smart you are, you ain’t shit without metallurgy followed by electricity. No metallurgy, no electricity, no tech.
Ever read a science fiction novel where the aliens evolved underwater? The author has to twist the story in knots to try and explain how they gained anything advanced without fire.
It can be cristals and photons. Carbon is the basis of life because it’s good for looooong molecules. But it’s not like it’s the only option. It may not even be the best option on planets with different temperatures or pressures.
Anyway life may not even need food or care about the passage of time.
They must have limbs skilled enough to handle and construct this technology, a complex communication system, and a binocular vision system (for this reason the most used in all species) to perceive their environment. The humanoid shape is one that best fits these maxims and therefore it is quite possible that an advanced species would also have a more or less similar shape.
Elephants meet all of these criteria as well. A complex limb (their trunk), a complex communication, and binocular vision (although I don’t see why this is necessary).
Complex limb? Let me see an elephant tie a granny knot. Maybe with training? OK. Do a square knot.
Complex communication? Elephants have communication skills on par with a 3-4 year old human. An intensely trained dog might top 200 words. My vocabulary is an easy 50,000 words. Yours is too.
Binocular vision is a must, that’s a given. Damn near every animal on the planet has it, even some worms.
I can’t help but notice that you didn’t list a whole lot of traits that would be considered vital to having a fairly human sillhouette. There’s nothing here about obligate bipedalism, for example, or having just two legs in the lower part of the body at all. There’s nothing here about how the forelimbs are articulated, and whether it would look meaningfully like hands or an array of dexterous tendrils or something. And all this gritty realist speculative biology seems out of place when most sci-fi is basically a particular sub-genre of fantasy anyway. Even being generous to the sci-fi writers, supposing the universe works in a fundamentally different way from how ours does (breaking laws of relativity and entropy, commonly), why can’t some ecosystems work out to stretch your imagination of what could be an advanced species? It all seems very narrowly prescriptivist, even beyond the fact that this is fiction to the point of taking negative liberties with the bounds of what is truly realistic.
Edit: idk, it just seems obtuse. Like, “Advanced life can only be carbon-based because being that way affords these benefits” without considering that other models could provide other benefits (I’m sure you know better than I about the use of silicon-based life in speculative biology). And that’s if the subject is addressed at all.
Dr Angela Collier has done a video essay on why aliens won’t be silicon-based. She’s not a biologist but an astrophysicist but the focus of her video is mostly about how carbon chemistry and cosmic abundance is better suited to producing life.
Maybe there’s a rock out there made, by complete chance, in such huge proportion of silicon that it becomes more viable, I don’t give a shit. It was just an aside anyway, pick another based on the same principle if you like. Why an obligate biped? Why this size? Why not a flying creature? Why not a rotationally-symetrical monstrosity? Why not an intelligent species that physically couldn’t really be engineers but happen to live on the same planet as creatures who can? Or who just get contacted by outside life that can? I’m a dipshit who mostly prefers pulp and cosmic horror (read: fantasy) science fiction, so I’m sure someone who knows more could come up with more and better prompts.
Life can have infinite forms and can exist and evolve in the most inhospit environments. But an advanced tecnologig species only can exist in certain environments and with reduced posibility in their appearence. Aquatic beeings can be intelligent, but never can create advanced tecnologies. The basic condicion of advanced tecnology is the domination of fire and electricity, not possible in the water, it need Oxign in the atmosphere.
They must have limbs skilled enough to handle and construct this technology, a complex communication system, and a binocular vision system (for this reason the most used in all species) to perceive their environment. The humanoid shape is one that best fits these maxims and therefore it is quite possible that an advanced species would also have a more or less similar shape.
It is known as convergent evolution, when unrelated species have a very similar physique to each other by living with the same challenges in similar environments. Evolution always use similar solutions for similar tasks. A good example is the genet, which looks and behaves very similar to cats, even with retractil claws), but they are a completely different species (Viverridae)
Genets are bad example, because Viverridae are the closest relatives to Felidae. Convergent evolution would be better illustrated by fish and dolphins.
Tech needs electricity and fire is not universal. That is what we use.
Our brain is lot more complicated and efficient than the computers we make and it uses ions, in liquid media. So something that lives in water could definitely be able to make something that would be able to use similar things to do processing. Water is also really good with doing things, it’s flexible but doesn’t compress/expand like air does. Think about hydraulic systems. You can make them smaller and smaller as your tech progresses. Mechanical things using metals and such would work in water as well. Think about gold and such that can be used for electricity as well, we don’t use it because it’s valuable, but an alien world could have abundance of gold for them to use.
Don’t care how smart you are, you ain’t shit without metallurgy followed by electricity. No metallurgy, no electricity, no tech.
Ever read a science fiction novel where the aliens evolved underwater? The author has to twist the story in knots to try and explain how they gained anything advanced without fire.
It can be cristals and photons. Carbon is the basis of life because it’s good for looooong molecules. But it’s not like it’s the only option. It may not even be the best option on planets with different temperatures or pressures.
Anyway life may not even need food or care about the passage of time.
Land octopi would be pretty cool though.
Elephants meet all of these criteria as well. A complex limb (their trunk), a complex communication, and binocular vision (although I don’t see why this is necessary).
You can’t compare an elephant trunk to the human hand
Not with that attitude
Nothing in nature comes close to the dexterity of human hands.
Raccoon paws and octopus tentacles both rival the dexterity of human - and other primates’ - hands in my opinion. They even have certain advantages.
Complex limb? Let me see an elephant tie a granny knot. Maybe with training? OK. Do a square knot.
Complex communication? Elephants have communication skills on par with a 3-4 year old human. An intensely trained dog might top 200 words. My vocabulary is an easy 50,000 words. Yours is too.
Binocular vision is a must, that’s a given. Damn near every animal on the planet has it, even some worms.
I can’t help but notice that you didn’t list a whole lot of traits that would be considered vital to having a fairly human sillhouette. There’s nothing here about obligate bipedalism, for example, or having just two legs in the lower part of the body at all. There’s nothing here about how the forelimbs are articulated, and whether it would look meaningfully like hands or an array of dexterous tendrils or something. And all this gritty realist speculative biology seems out of place when most sci-fi is basically a particular sub-genre of fantasy anyway. Even being generous to the sci-fi writers, supposing the universe works in a fundamentally different way from how ours does (breaking laws of relativity and entropy, commonly), why can’t some ecosystems work out to stretch your imagination of what could be an advanced species? It all seems very narrowly prescriptivist, even beyond the fact that this is fiction to the point of taking negative liberties with the bounds of what is truly realistic.
Edit: idk, it just seems obtuse. Like, “Advanced life can only be carbon-based because being that way affords these benefits” without considering that other models could provide other benefits (I’m sure you know better than I about the use of silicon-based life in speculative biology). And that’s if the subject is addressed at all.
Dr Angela Collier has done a video essay on why aliens won’t be silicon-based. She’s not a biologist but an astrophysicist but the focus of her video is mostly about how carbon chemistry and cosmic abundance is better suited to producing life.
Maybe there’s a rock out there made, by complete chance, in such huge proportion of silicon that it becomes more viable, I don’t give a shit. It was just an aside anyway, pick another based on the same principle if you like. Why an obligate biped? Why this size? Why not a flying creature? Why not a rotationally-symetrical monstrosity? Why not an intelligent species that physically couldn’t really be engineers but happen to live on the same planet as creatures who can? Or who just get contacted by outside life that can? I’m a dipshit who mostly prefers pulp and cosmic horror (read: fantasy) science fiction, so I’m sure someone who knows more could come up with more and better prompts.