If Earth had more than one Intelligent Species

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46076176/ns/technology_and_science-science/

Interesting article on msn, in which sociologists speculate on what would happen if Earth were like Azeroth, with multiple intelligent species. The short answer: we fight, all the time.

But I'm not satisfied with that answer. I think that while wars might crop up, there would still be pressure to interact in a more positive way. So long as we aren't so different that communication is impossible, I can see integrated societies forming from mutualism. Perhaps the other species are better at something than humans, but humans have their own set of useful skills, and we form a sort of caste system where each species plays an important role in society.

What do you think? If Earth had two or more intelligent species, what happens?

One of the two species would have gone extinct in the equivalent of the Stone Age.

Remember, for a short time this was in fact true on Earth. Neanderthals are not a direct ancestor of humanity; modern humans and Neanderthals coexisted, and modern humans wiped Neanderthals out.

At least, if I remember my bio class correctly.

"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."

I think it would depend on how much they had to share resources.

The article IMO misses a rather crucible point: That we humans are an intelligent species and so would be the other race. One hence can't just apply normal evolutionary mechanics to the question. We humans, and presumably also the Others, form civilizations, cultures. Neither side would be monolithic, yet at the same time both sides would have the intellectual capacities to get into communication with each other (at least if the Others are human-like). So I think what would happen is that simply some human civilizations would rise, and some Other civilizations, and their interaction would be pretty much the same as between human civilizations (again, assuming human-like Others), just with a bit more complications. Including, yes, diaspora groups - and with the right political (!, as said this would not solely be an evolutionary question!) turns maybe also mixed empires.

Theories if we carry Neanderthal blood in us or not seem to change every decade or so, heh. Though in either case it probably wasn't eradication of the Neanderthals by the humans. Not actively. At least in Europe, the humans probably simply were better adapted to the post-Ice Age world, and the Neanderthals died out because we were eating away all their food and because the big meat animals like the Mammoths were gone. In the Middle East things probably were a bit different, though.

edited 21st Jan '12 3:45:11 PM by Octo

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

Well, according to fossil records, the reason that Earth doesn't have multiple intelligent races is because Homo Sapiens killed all the other similar species. Which leads me to the conclusion that as other intelligent life did appear, and we killed it, that we'd kill it.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

There's a fair amount of evidence that ravens and crows are intelligent in the same way humans are. A recent video demonstrated that they have tools they use not for utility, but for fun.

If that turns out to be the case, the answer sadly becomes "the physically stronger one does whatever the hell it wants with the physically weaker one, not even noticing that it's intelligent."

edited 21st Jan '12 3:45:59 PM by INUH

Infinite Tree: an experimental story

There's little evidence that Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens directly competed. We know that their hunting methods were very different, so they weren't fighting over food, and to date no evidence of neanderthal vs. homo sapiens warfare has been found (no arrow wounds or the like on either fossils from the time when both species coexisted). It's more likely that the Neanderthal went extinct due to climate change messing with their ambush hunting methods. Forests were retreating in Europe at the time of Neanderthal die-off, and without the cover it was hard for neanderthal to hunt (they hunted more like cats - stalk + ambush - than modern humans, who use persistent hunting tactics).

Modern humans also invented fishing around this time, a resource that neanderthal never managed to exploit. That advantage alone probably helped humans to survive the climate changes that neanderthals didn't.

edited 21st Jan '12 3:47:39 PM by MyGodItsFullofStars

Neanderthals were much, much more carnivorous than humans - which fit perfectly to Ice Age Europe, where there was comparatively little vegetation but huge walking meat banks like mammoths and wooly rhinoceroses. When those went away as the ice retreated, the Neanderthals just couldn't get enough meat anymore.

At least that's the theory I've heard.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

That's the problem, we're assuming human-like others. Like, we have ape-people (us) and cat-people, then they'd be pretty damn similar and probably fighting over resources all the time, and probably leading to lots of killing each other or taking over resources to the detriment of the other, probably until one goes extinct.

If, however, instead we have two intelligent species that aren't interacting that much or competing for resources, like ape-people and cuttlefish-people, as long as we can find a way to communicate we could probably manage without killing each other too much.

The neandertals probably starved to death: They required almost double the calories of a human to keep goin'. A level of scarcity that'd barely affect a sapiens tribe would be an all-out famine for the Neanderthals.

Two sapient humanoid populations was too much to bear for hunting resources... Then boom! No neanderthals anymore. There probably wasn't a massive, coordinated campaign of all-out genocide (quite unlikely before the advent of big civilizations)

edited 21st Jan '12 3:48:01 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

If we're talking about some kind of fish-people, then everything would change.

Human naval development would be a bitch, and we might see a lot less coastal cities, presuming these fish-people are also amphibious like we are...

"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."

^That's if they look like humans and can talk to humans. Otherwise...well, we likely wouldn't give a shit, because they're just fish that we have no reason to believe are intelligent.

Infinite Tree: an experimental story

Assuming that these fish-people are amphibious is a big if. I mean even most sea-mammals can't really get on dry land. There would be no reason for them to have legs or to be able to breathe air. Naval development might not even be noticed if they live at deep enough depths. They probably wouldn't care until we started dumping stuff in the oceans.

edited 21st Jan '12 3:57:56 PM by ohsointocats

Well, I'm going to presume that "intelligent" comes packaged with "physically able to construct things that are recognizable as architecture/vehicles/weapons, and able to communicate in a way that is recognizable as some variation on/equivalent to speech."

If they're just "some new animal that isn't distinguishable but particularly intelligent," it's not really going to make a huge impact...

"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."

Again, this is assuming both sides as monolithic, which in case of humanity has never, ever been true. So I don't think we would see a contact "humanity-Others". Rather, we would see contacts between individual human civilizations and individual Other civilizations. And if the Others are human-like enough, this would shift it from evolutionary mechanics into plain politics.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

^^Well, see, the reason I brought it up is because of the observations on ravens and crows I mentioned above.

The next biggest candidate for other intelligent life on earth after them, I'd think, would be octopi.

Infinite Tree: an experimental story

Well, considering the fact that dolphins haven't exactly shut down naval development, you have to include the capacity for tool use in the equation, which requires body structures that are normally not that useful for aquatic organisms. I can see maybe a cephalopod or a sea otter developing technology, but definitely not your average fish.

Then there's the additional trouble of how you get to the point that you are crafting metals and the like. Either the species would be reliant on underwater volcanoes (in which case, they aren't that likely to interact with humans, as they would be deep-sea creatures) or they instead opt for organic technology - like breeding various sea creatures to grow shells in the shape of tools, or something.

In either case, I think by the time humans are building ships, our easy access to metallurgy would level the playing field - or even make us useful enough as trading partners to the aquatics that we learn to get along. Then again, we might never reach that point, because fear of the aquatics would perhaps breed in us a healthy fear of open water.

Its an interesting scenario, though - I can see naval technology taking more importance, especially if trade with the aquatics proves beneficial for both parties involved. Also, us just dumping our cities waste into the ocean would not be cool with the aquatics, so perhaps environmentalism would have earlier roots.

edited 21st Jan '12 4:02:00 PM by MyGodItsFullofStars

I'm meaning that it could be like "hey there are some of those massive fish swimming overhead" "oh John that's the seventh time this week. I wonder where they're coming from?" They wouldn't have a lot of reason to care if it's not affecting them.

This might be missing the point, but I really think it depends on what they look like. I mean if they look like people except for, say, having 4 eyes and 3 legs, then I think our interaction would be substantially different with them then if they were sentient house-cats or something.

Depending on how different they were from Home Sapiens it might be anywhere from more or less how we treat other humans to constant conflict.

edited 21st Jan '12 5:22:52 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?

Humans nearly went extinct in what evolutionary biology describes as the bottle neck.

As a result, it is beleived by some that all modern humans are the descendants of just one couple who lived in the ice age, and whos descendants managed to outlast the others.

If humanity was ever at a population level of, lets say 7000 remaining, then I would bet that Neanthertals just went extinct do to climatic shift, the same could have happened to humans.

As for crows... I think their problem is not having oposable tumbs.

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck#Humans

edited 21st Jan '12 5:24:29 PM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.

Interesting finds suggest humans and Neanderthals interbred.

All are articles related to humans breeding with Neanderthals

Article here

Another

Another

and one more

---

With that in mind if we were biologically compatible with this other species we would likely have interbred with them.

edited 21st Jan '12 5:27:13 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?

It would depend; if the species was as physically able to take advantage of their intelligence as we are, we would probably either interbreed (if genetically similar to the point where interbreeding was possible), coexist for a time (if we were mutually intelligible, and there was no predation going on between species) , or one would wipe the other out.

If not, then they would simply fit into whatever niche they had fit into, and it would be business as usual for us.

That's true. There's a law in evolution where if two species occupy the same niche, eventually through competition the other one will be driven extinct. But we need not occupy the same niche as our theoretical species. And if we do not occupy the same niche, there would be no direct form of competition amongst us. It's possible we would coexist just fine, and not just ignoring one another, but actively trading and sharing resources.

However, things get messy once species discover agriculture. For instance, our species is adapted to grasslands. It's where we evolved, its where our biggest strength (our bipedalism) is best utilized, and we have spent the better part of civilization spreading that ecosystem around the globe (farmlands are, essentially, ecoforming forests and other habitats into the grasslands we evolved in). A forest species, on the other hand, would try to plant trees, and a desert species might knowingly practice desertification. What happens if one species is busy planting trees for food, and the other is busy clearing the forest for farmland? This would explain the Empire's beef with Wookies, at any rate.

@INUH: I would not be surprised if many other species are as intelligent as we are.

Because we haven't succeeded the way we have because an individual human is intelligent (although an individual human certainly is reasonably intelligent); we've succeeded because individual humans can communicate with each other on a level that no other species can. So instead of figuring out the same things every generation, we keep building on past knowledge, which allows for a magic little thing called "technology".

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1