The fastest macro object we've ever created (I'm sure there's tiny things we've made and then gotten going really fast with a particle accelerator) can only go 0.058% of the speed of light. There's this speed limit of the universe at c, but it's so fast we can't even hit 0.1% of that speed limit.
That gets me to thinking about the Fermi paradox, and I wonder if other species might exist but never underwent a cognitive revolution the same way humans did. After all, there's all kinds of life on planet earth, but of all of them only humans ended up with the level of abstract thinking we have.
I've often thought about a gaseous lifeform that relies on photosynthesis. Such a lifeform would have a completely different view of the universe than we do. Things we consider normal such as being social animals might be completely different. I mean, what are the odds that some ape ends up becoming the most advanced intelligence on the planet and not one of the many other forms of life out there?
Imagine if something like hydras continued to grow and evolve down the route of intelligence and so you had this biologically immortal being. What a difference that would make! I wonder if an intelligent hydra would develop taboos against reproduction altogether? Basically you'd build up the safe population and only have a new hydra born if one dies from predation, disease, or accidents.
There's also as far as I know essentially 2 forms of multicellular life, and each relies on a symbiote to survive. The animals with mitochondria, and the plants with chloroplasts. Some microscopic creatures don't have mitochondria because they evolved a method to do the same thing independently, and others stopped symbiosis and absorbed the DNA that does the things mitochondria do, but complex multicellular life almost always required one of the two symbiotes to thrive. Does this mean that such symbiosis is a critical node on the path to what we might consider intelligent life?
That gets me to thinking about the Fermi paradox, and I wonder if other species might exist but never underwent a cognitive revolution the same way humans did. After all, there's all kinds of life on planet earth, but of all of them only humans ended up with the level of abstract thinking we have.
I've often thought about a gaseous lifeform that relies on photosynthesis. Such a lifeform would have a completely different view of the universe than we do. Things we consider normal such as being social animals might be completely different. I mean, what are the odds that some ape ends up becoming the most advanced intelligence on the planet and not one of the many other forms of life out there?
Imagine if something like hydras continued to grow and evolve down the route of intelligence and so you had this biologically immortal being. What a difference that would make! I wonder if an intelligent hydra would develop taboos against reproduction altogether? Basically you'd build up the safe population and only have a new hydra born if one dies from predation, disease, or accidents.
There's also as far as I know essentially 2 forms of multicellular life, and each relies on a symbiote to survive. The animals with mitochondria, and the plants with chloroplasts. Some microscopic creatures don't have mitochondria because they evolved a method to do the same thing independently, and others stopped symbiosis and absorbed the DNA that does the things mitochondria do, but complex multicellular life almost always required one of the two symbiotes to thrive. Does this mean that such symbiosis is a critical node on the path to what we might consider intelligent life?
- replies
- 0
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 1