• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Requirements for Intelligent Life

shadron

Philosopher
Joined
Sep 2, 2005
Messages
5,918
I was having a conversation with amb about Fermi's Paradox, and it occurred to me that it would be useful to be able to point to a list of requirements that are prerequisites for intelligent life evolving. I am attracted by the arguments for assuming that evolution of intelligent life is inevitable, but that necessarily sets bounds on the initial conditions, does it not? If so, then what are they?

Being an engineer and all fussy about requirements, I'd like to hear what sorts of cosmological, geological, chemical, biological and other conditions can be postulated for various steps in the process and for the final result. Indeed, is evolution necessarily inevitable as I've sort-of assumed it to be? I am aiming for a minimal list of independent requirements.

I can start off with a bunch of items that have occurred to me. Any additions, real numbers for values, arguments, etc are on-track for this thread.

- sufficient time in peace and quiet:
- two billion years or so of relative stability.
- a galaxy that is relatively quiet - not undergoing collision with another galaxy or other reason for undergoing star bursting, at least within a radius of, say, 10K light years.
- a similar radius within which a supernova event has not occurred (what radius?).
- being out of the "gun sight" of Wolfe-Rayet star's jet, or other aimed source of energy (gamma ray burster) to a somewhat higher radius.
- a star of the right mass to have been stable in the main sequence for the required time (hereinafter the "sun").
- a stable, near circular orbit around the sun, or, perhaps, around a planet that has such an orbit, such as Ganymede (yup, I'm a RAH worshipper).
- the elimination of planet busting debris (big enough to have stopped all life on he planet by melting it's entire surface).
- reducing remaining debris to sufficient rarity to make global catastrophe a muli-10 to 100 million year occurrence.
- enough planetary mass to have a long-lifetime central self-heating planetary core (see other requirements below about radioactive elements).
- enough turbulence to challenge life and occasionally to wipe the slate partially clean:
- occasional total and subtotal life threatening happenings, such as a large meteor collision, snowball earth, large volcanic events, some atmospheric disturbances.
- physical requirements:
- a moon large enough to raise respectable tides (requirement? Could be supplied, if needed, by the primary, I suppose).
- not so much time that the planet has become rotationally locked to the sun; a fast enough rotation to keep surface temperature within some limits.
- a physically large enough planet to have a core kept molten by radioactivity (since part of that requirement is for enough "insulation"). Also, large enough to promote tectonics to a degree sufficient to raise dry continents (I can sense my POV is interfering some with possibilities that I have no way of scoping here).
- temperature from internal and external sources and atmospheric pressure such as to keep water, to some large extent, in the liquid phase on the surface.
- chemical requirements:
- late enough in cosmological evolution to have a dust cloud with sufficient "dirt" (non-H, He atoms) to create solid planets of sufficient size.
- enough light elements (carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and other elements) to promote interesting organic chemistry. In particular, enough oxygen for surface oceans.
- enough heavy radioactive isotopes to fuel an interior furnace (see time requirement above) and a magnetic core.
- a planetary melting event sufficient to concentrate iron and the radioactive elements into the core, promoting a magnetic field around the planet and heat to drive tectonics and general chemistry. Secondarily, remove a large amount of the iron, inevitably a common substance, from the ability to soak up oxygen.
- biological requirements: (Is there anything here not covered above? Or is biology in some form inevitable given the above?)
- a sufficiently diverse planet (environmentally, resources) which promotes evolution.
- evolution of a monocellular entity, sufficiently prolific, whch can capture solar energy and use it to overcome the general chemically reducing conditions and charge tha gaseous atmosphere with a respectable fraction of elemental oxygen (inevitable?).
- intelligence requirements (likewise, anything additional here?)
 
Last edited:
My biggest problem with your list is that it seems to be very human-centric. I know we only have one sample point to look at right now, but some of the items on your list seem to be taken directly from that one sample point.

While a large moon and tides may be "desirable" for our kind of intelligent life, I would hesitate to label it a requirement. Many of the items on your list could probably fall in the "nice to have" category as well. We just don't know; and in my experience, us humans have been incredibly unimaginative when thinking about lifeforms on THIS planet.

This sort of speculation, while incredibly fun in my opinion, is also incredibly difficult. One datapoint, and who's to say we have truly arrived at intelligence? Maybe Clarke was right in "Childhood's End" that we're just not to the point yet of being able to detect that there is other intelligence out there, and as far as the rest of the universe is concerned, we're still too undeveloped to be noticed. :cool:
 
Well, all the things you've listed don't apply in the 14th dimension of one particular black hole, BUT that shouldn't stop us from recognizing entities that dwell therein as intelligent if it is in our common interest to do so, as it would be if they had something to trade us.

See, economic action is the ultimate source of all rights: the capacity to make rational decisions about one's property and to understand the consequences of one's actions. That is what divides humans from animals, adults from children, and what was once thought to divide free men from slaves.

Failure to recognize basic rights in other economic actors makes civilized society impossible. Attributing rights to irrational beings (chairs, earthworms, etc) puts a society at a competitive disadvantage. Thus successful societies evolve to recognize natural rights - what continent, planet, or universusality one comes from does not matter.
 
My biggest problem with your list is that it seems to be very human-centric. I know we only have one sample point to look at right now, but some of the items on your list seem to be taken directly from that one sample point.

While a large moon and tides may be "desirable" for our kind of intelligent life, I would hesitate to label it a requirement. Many of the items on your list could probably fall in the "nice to have" category as well. We just don't know; and in my experience, us humans have been incredibly unimaginative when thinking about lifeforms on THIS planet.

This sort of speculation, while incredibly fun in my opinion, is also incredibly difficult. One datapoint, and who's to say we have truly arrived at intelligence? Maybe Clarke was right in "Childhood's End" that we're just not to the point yet of being able to detect that there is other intelligence out there, and as far as the rest of the universe is concerned, we're still too undeveloped to be noticed. :cool:

Oh, for sure. But what else do we have to do for the next million or so years unil we attain the galactic age of reason? There is no reason to speculate just because we don't have any harder data, and probably won't see any (short of Mars and perhaps Europa and Titan) in the next couple of hundred years?

Well....OK, if you think it is that useless.

Wild strawman, Alex. Strictly left field. Did I say something demeaning about human/ET rights that you feel needed informing?
 
Last edited:
Well....OK, if you think it is that useless.

Maybe "useless" is too strong a word. I did say it's fun! I just want to steer people away from the earth model, and expand it.

I would love to find/see what we may come up with for Mars, Europs, Titan, Enceladus, or wherever we may find life forms (or evidence of lifeforms). Hopefully that will expand many definitions, and aid our imaginations.
 
Surely there are only two possibilities:

  1. Spontaneous creation of intelligence at some point in some time. IE, pure chance.
  2. An environment that selects for intelligence via natural selection.
Forget all the carbon based, energy requirements nonsense.

Read the works of Olaf Stapledon if you want some ideas on this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olaf_Stapledon
 
J.B.S. Haldane said "The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we can imagine".
After all, one indication of extraterrestial intelligence may very well be the avoidance of Earth's current intelligent species by those which know better.
 
Maybe "useless" is too strong a word. I did say it's fun! I just want to steer people away from the earth model, and expand it.

Well, then, lay on, Scottish Warlord. That's what I'm here for.

Gord_in_Toronto said:
Surely there are only two possibilities:

  1. Spontaneous creation of intelligence at some point in some time. IE, pure chance.
  2. An environment that selects for intelligence via natural selection.
Forget all the carbon based, energy requirements nonsense.

Well, it seems to me that in order to have intelligent life you have to have life as we know it as a prerequisite. I am fully aware of all kinds of intelligence as designed by science fiction writers, including Stapledon, but since I know little about how they would evolve then I'm sort of hamstrung there. I only have one model, but we do have a lot of data about that.

I don't believe in the pure chance idea. It pretty well seems to me that we have at least one good flesh and blood design on Earth that certainly didn't arise from any particular chance occurrence (or, at least, that's what all the forum threads have been telling me).

As for the second, would you have said that Earth, as it was 4.3 billion years ago, was an "environment that selected for intelligence" (and "apparently" is not an answer)? How did it do that? Or does everywhere have that potential, and we just don't "get it" yet?

quarky said:
Define intelligence?

I'll define it provisionally as the demonstrated capability to visit nearby planetary objects (moons, other planets, etc) at will. That makes us (barely) intelligent. :dig:
 
Last edited:
We will need spores to achieve intelligence. We're too big to travel well.
 
I was having a conversation with amb about Fermi's Paradox, ...

There's your first problem, there is no paradox, it's just plain garbage.

Regarding intelligence, I agree with the previous comment that your list is too anthropocentric. Nothing to say that there won't be smart slugs on QFX376.772.

Or one of its moons.
 
J.B.S. Haldane said "The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we can imagine".
After all, one indication of extraterrestial intelligence may very well be the avoidance of Earth's current intelligent species by those which know better.

I think that was Eddington. Haldane's term was queerer which meant the same thing then, but is open to reinterpretation now...


We need to define life as well as intelligence.
Robert Forward's Cheela are a believable race that live on a neutron star, whose biology is not chemical, but nuclear.

And the truth may be even queerer...
 
I agree with sufficient time and probably variety of elements, but I disagree with most of your other requirements. I very much doubt intelligent life couldn't evolve in a galaxy undergoing a collision, for example.

My favorite resolution of Fermi's paradox is that all intelligent life destroys itself shortly after evolving intelligence.
 
<snip>

Well, it seems to me that in order to have intelligent life you have to have life as we know it as a prerequisite.

Now that's a scientific argument I'm always amused to hear. :boggled:

I am fully aware of all kinds of intelligence as designed by science fiction writers, including Stapledon, but since I know little about how they would evolve then I'm sort of hamstrung there. I only have one model, but we do have a lot of data about that.
Ditto! :boggled:2
I don't believe in the pure chance idea. It pretty well seems to me that we have at least one good flesh and blood design on Earth that certainly didn't arise from any particular chance occurrence (or, at least, that's what all the forum threads have been telling me).
It's a very big Universe. There is some possibility of intelligence arising spontaneously by accidental, but rare, circumstances.

As for the second, would you have said that Earth, as it was 4.3 billion years ago, was an "environment that selected for intelligence" (and "apparently" is not an answer)?
Well of course Earth was. We are here aren't we?

How did it do that?
Beats me? Random chance perhaps?

Or does everywhere have that potential, and we just don't "get it" yet?

We don't know do we? It's hard to generalize from a single example.

Your OP defines life as we know it from this single example. I just generalized things. :D
 
Life ' as we know it ', is just that .. I have no reason to believe that what we ' know ', is very far reaching at all .....

If things were different, they'd be different - and so would ' life as we know it ' .
 
Our one example so far, Earth, shows us that life teems under extraordinary circumstances and produces great variety maintained over long periods of time. Occasional disasters happen en route - snowball Earth (did you see channel 4 this evening?), catastrophic meteor strikes, dramatic volcanic/atmospheric changes, etc - but life in all its complex glory bounces back.

From this single example, it is plausible to imagine that life occurs elsewhere too and maybe in many places.

But the same single example we have, that is Earth, would seem to indicate that intelligence - as we understand the term - has only arisen once. (It's possible that velociraptors or something similar circa 65m BPE were as bright or brighter than us, and I do have a soft spot for modern squid, but no evidence yet for either).

Biology on Earth got on really very well for hundreds of millions of years without evolving an intelligent creature, so I see no reason to presume that under other circumstances extra-terrestrial evolution will neccesarily select intelligence.

Which leads me to the conclusion that a likely status of galactic biology is that it is teeming everywhere, but intelligent life that would care to communicate with similar might well be vanishingly rare.

In other words, Fermi's Paradox is not a paradox: Life could well be everywhere, but there's nothing to say that any of it has to be 'intelligent'.
 
Last edited:
So far we have nothing suggesting that there is a barrier between intelligent and non intelligent life so there is little reason to think that the requirements are much different to life itself. So that would be the ability to form stable large structures and an energy source.
 

Back
Top Bottom