Re: Intelligent Dinosaur Paleo Civilization?

Dewi Morgan (D.Morgan@brad.ac.uk)
30 Jun 1995 13:57:50 GMT

davidwss@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca () wrote:
>Tom Lathrop (tlathrop@netcom.com) wrote:
>: In article <3rmq6n$ju4@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
>: Ethan Vishniac <ethan@grendel.as.utexas.edu> wrote:
>: >brian hval <74641.2061@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>: >>Considering the short time span it has taken mankind to develop
>: >>civilization, perhaps in the long history of earth it has happened
>: >>before, maybe more than once and perhaps to more than one
>: >>intelligent species.

>: One possibility is that they were intelligent, but their hands were
>: unsuited for using any kind of tools (think T. Rex). Imagine also that
>: unlike us they were physically well adapted to their environment, and
>: didn't really need tools for protection or food gathering. Creatures
>: such as this could have been highly intelligent and led highly
>: elaborate social and cultural lives without it ever occurring to them
>: fabricate the sort of objects that would survive until today.

Such a creature would not have had civilisation, only habit. IMHO, our poor
adaptation to our environment was directly responsible for our rapid
development. Our civilisation has been characterised by improved
communications,
creating our own environments, and thinking about the results of our actions as
a whole rather than just the actions of individuals.

>(deletions)
>: There are still problems though. If their intelligence made them
>: highly successful then they would probably have existed in very large
>: numbers for what we would see as a very long time (because if they were
>: not technologically inclined it would be rather difficult for them to
>: wipe themselves out).
Oh, no, not the technological doomsayers again. The 'civilisation' you have
outlined is no more or less stable that any other bunch of animals. Sure, the
animals in question may have tender feelings, and think up poetry, and so
forth,
but they are not civilised. They are specialised. Only our lack of
specialisation and the resultant tool design differentiates us from ants or
worms. You could argue that they were civilised if they thought about their
environment at a different level than simply survival. Well, maybe. And in that
case many, many civilisations HAVE grown up over the years. Dolphins, dogs,
cats, and animal that does something for enjoyment and fun rather than
survival,
is therefore civilised.

>Given the recent history of humans, I'm leaning towards the opinion that
>"intelligence", "consciousness", and "civilization" are evolutionary dead
>ends.
Given the recent history of humans, I'm leading towards the opinion that
intelligence, consciousness and civilisation are the way to go.

> Our capacity for highly organized behaviours leading to extremely
> high populations and tremendous interdependence makes us vulnerable to
> all sorts of disasters;
Our capacity for highly organized behaviours leading to extremely
high populations and tremendous cooperation makes us invulnerable to
all sorts of disasters;

> it is probably inevitable that we will be nearly
>wiped out as a species by disease or some kind of ecological disaster or
>political and economic collapse leading to mass starvation or violent
>death.

It is practically impossible that we will be nearly
wiped out as a species by disease or some kind of ecological disaster or
political and economic collapse leading to mass starvation or violent
death, such as have happened many times in the past, simply causing us
to shore up our defences against them.

>Luckily, our species gene pool is quite diverse, since natural
>selection is limited by our species support systems. So some humans in
>isolated pockets may survive to start things anew.

Luckily, our species gene pool is quite diverse, since natural
selection is limited by our species support systems. So while
some humans in isolated pockets may be too poor to afford to
combat disease, famine and poor government, most others have
the capacity to pitch in and help them if it gets too bad.

>What bothers me most
>about this scenario is the number of other species our alleged intelligence
>will take with us; this process has already started.

What bothers me most about this scenario is the number of other species our
alleged intelligence will take with us; this process has already started.
We will have other species with us when we colonise other planets in only a few
thousand years. We will have other species with us when we change those parts
of the earth that do not fit us into habitable regions. This may prove to be a
little heavy on the scorpions that live in the deserts, but who cares?

>I believe Leakey's forthcoming book _The Sixth Extinction_ will deal
> with this topic.
I believe Leakey's forthcoming book _The Sixth Extinction_ will be yet another
doom-saying short-sighted pseudoscientific technophobic end-of-the-world
scenario that has become popular in America over the last couple of years.
Maybe
he needs the cash.

>The book _Rogue Primate_ by James A. Livingston (KeyPorter Books, 1994)
>(ISBN 1-55013-508-2) also develops this theme at length, and should be of
>interest to anthropologists. The subtitle of the book is "An exploration
>of human domestication."

The book _Rogue Primate_ by James A. Livingston (KeyPorter Books, 1994)
(ISBN 1-55013-508-2) also develops this theme at length, and hence should be of
no interest to anthropologists who have had their heads anywhere other than a
very dark place for the last few centuries.

>Thus if intelligent species existed before our own, and their behaviour
>was like ours, they may well have followed the same path to extinction
>(or near-extinction) that we are following. But it is our
>resource-consumption mentality and capabilities that have put us in this
>postion, and surely this kind of behaviour, as has been pointed out,
>would leave traces in geology, if nowhere else.

It can be easily seen that no tool-using race lived before us, or at least if
they did, they were either very localised, or were using biodegradable tools,

They also did not affect their environment very much, or else they lived so
long ago that the effects are now indistinguishable from climate changes.

But let's get this straight: There is NO shortage of any material conceivable
in the next few milennia that cannot be provided by our solar system with
technology we have available today, and indeed we had available in the 70s.

I reccomend interested people consult Jerry Pournelle's 'A Step Further Out' a
collection of his papers on just this topic, which shows that the only thing
that could kill our civilisation would be for people to decide that science and
technology are a bad idea and give it all up. Fortunately, diverse as we are,
the whole human race will never dro pthese ideas.

However, there are certain resources which are a little scarce on this earth,
so
maybe we should be putting a bit more effort into space travel. Just think, in
YOUR future, someone could be ferrying home as much copper as the US used all
of
last year.

Fortunately, now the space race is over and Russia has a bit of American money
to implement all the experience they have been accumulating, we might now get
down to some serious exploitation of space instead of just posing at eachother.

Thar's gold in them thar asteroids... 

-- 

 - D.                                        http://www.brad.ac.uk/~dmorgan/