Is fire necessary for technology?

[CraigD]

Big magnifying glasses? How do you get to optics with out fire to begin with?

At the risk of being pithy, you need look no further than at how you are looking at the text on this page, to answer this question. Humans, our prehuman ancestors, and countless other animals, have had superb optics since many millennia before even the crudest tool shaping technology appeared. The lenses of our eyes are variable geometry convex lenses made of layers of specialized, interlocking, transparent cells which grow in the same way as the other specialized cells of our bodies.

 

Our eye lenses are very precise and efficient light concentrators. Unfortunately when it comes to light intense enough to smelt or smite, they are capable only of concentrating it on our retinas, which is why it’s dangerous to stare at the sun or other bright light sources.

 

Speculating from this, it’s not difficult to imagine biological lenses – large single lenses, compound arrays of small lenses, or more exotic structures such as Fresnel lenses, that focus light on something other than retinas. I know of no example of a terrestrial animal with such a lens, but wouldn’t be shocked if some exist. Though highly speculative, it’s not hard to imagine intelligent “giant magnifying glass” (a metaphor – the lenses would be specialized biological cells, not an artificial material like heat fused silica) animals possessing built-in engineering abilities similar to those for which we humans had to use fire.

 

Again, I think it’s important when speculating about alien biology to be mindful that it may be really ... alien. Organisms and feature which are not physically or biologically impossible are not necessarily implausible, even if no example of them exist on Earth.

[prometheuspan]

i find this to be a silly question. Of course it wouldn't be the same technology tree as ours.

 

Nature managed to build technology (us) without fire.

 

In the oceans- to start with.

 

So we have one terrestrial example of technology minus fire- life.

 

Certainy there are obstacles, like how to make technology happen with metals, or, how to work out electrical engineering...

 

but mother nature worked out electrical engineering just fine without fire.

 

Eco centrism. The idea we get that life in the universe must be more or less like ours.

 

In fact, most life in the universe probably exists in environments where fire would be out of the question.

 

And most technologies in the universe probably do manage to evolve without the particulars of chemistry we are used to.

[Buffy]

Moderation note: There is nothing in this thread that is outside the definition of modern astrophysics, and it definitely does not belong in Alternate Theories....moved to Astronomy and Cosmology...

 

In the sixties, the world was normal and people took acid to make it weird. Nowadays the world is weird and people take prozac to make it normal,

Buffy

[Moontanman]

Modest, I still have some extreme doubts about naturally occurring oxidizers outside of biology, just like on the earth, both fuel and oxidizers are almost completely of biological origin. Small amounts maybe but enough to base a planet wide technology on is unlikely IMHO.

 

Craig, looking at lenses from your perspective suggests humans should have a tools attached to their bodies instead of making tools. The whole reason behind our success is based on our ability to make tools not grow them on our bodies, other animals have claws and teeth, we have spears and knives. it's totally unreasonable to assume lenses useful to spark technology would be grown as part of a creatures biology and be intelligent and be able to make other tools as well. IMHO

 

I also think that alien biology would follow the same rules as on the earth, no reason to assume that biology on a different planet would be grossly different than biology here. At the molecular level they might be wildly different but an animal that swam in a fluid would still be constrained by the same physical laws as such creatures who live on the earth.

 

Prometheuspan, no this was not a silly question, calling someones questions silly is rude. While i can see how all life can in a sense be called a technology of a sorts the question was about technology as in what we humans call technology. Technology we created, not technology that evolved as all other life has. Fire is the center on which all our technology is based, the only tool humans have naturally evolved is our brain, we used it to create all the rest of our technology, and that technology is based in fire. if you ca think of a way our technology can come about without fire feel free to do so.

 

I think the answer lies in the ability of a creature to tap into stored solar energy, on the earth bio-matter and free oxygen represent stored solar energy, we use our brains to figure out ways to use this stored energy to remake our environment to suit us instead of evolving to fit our environment, we do this with by thinking, not by evolving behaviors (granted that may very well be an evolved behavior), if we didn't have access to hydrocarbons and oxygen in the form of fire we could have culture but our technology would be limited to banging rocks together.

[modest]

Modest, I still have some extreme doubts about naturally occurring oxidizers outside of biology

 

Inside biology, or outside, I'm saying that they burn. It is a mistake to conclude "any technological alien civilization will be on an oxygen world" due to an absence of fire. Fire is not equatable to an oxygen atmosphere. A hydrogen atmosphere is perfectly suited to the phenomenon of fire (in some ways, better than earth).

 

As far as naturally occurring oxidizers, yes, you should not rule out the possibility that they exist on a planet with a reducing atmosphere and that an intelligent species could figure out how to make use of them. Just because fire was easy for cavemen to make doesn't mean they wouldn't have figured out how to do it if it were a little harder—even if it involved digging in caves for saltpeter and processing it somehow.

 

To rule out the possibility means that an intelligent species could spend 500 million years working on the problem and never achieve it. They would solve general relativity before they solve fire. Like i've siad, I don't think you can rule it out.

 

no this was not a silly question

 

I agree. Where to look for alien civilizations is not only interesting, but practical.

 

~modest

[JMJones0424]

...To rule out the possibility means that an intelligent species could spend 500 million years working on the problem and never achieve it. They would solve general relativity before they solve fire.

 

I think the point Moontanman is trying to make is that in order to develop a set of tools capable of solving anything other than basic survival requires a source of relatively cheap energy.

 

Maybe the implication that an alien species could derive general relativity prior to accessing the relatively :bouquet: cheap energy source of fire was made flippantly, but I think this assertion is in itself very poorly supported. Of course, everything in this line of reasoning is suppositional. Ultimately, since we are dealing with a data set including only one variable, ourselves, it is difficult to draw conclusions. But I, like moontanman, find it difficult to believe any species could develop the technology required to do any developed science without first being able to harness a cheap and readily available source of energy.

 

While I doubt anyone would argue that dolphins are not intelligent, I have a hard time believing even given an infinite amount of time that any aquatic species could ever develop extra-planetary space travel due to the simple fact that they do not live in an environment that allows easy energy release without precluding the existence of complex life as we know it. The entire edifice that is our science and technology is built upon the easy and cheap, controlled release of concentrated energy.

[modest]

I think the point Moontanman is trying to make is that in order to develop a set of tools capable of solving anything other than basic survival requires a source of relatively cheap energy.

 

Yes, and my point is that a source of relatively cheap energy could be available to them. I wasn't saying that a species would develop complicated scientific theory before fire. Just the opposite.

 

~modest

[alexander]

I'm still thinking that you guys are thinking completely inside the box; just because we can't fathom technology without fire, we cant fathom the technology that we have developed without fire, but perhaps abundance of different kinds of chemicals, different kinds of life forms, and different environment, say a world on which there are no seasons, and abundant food sources that need no hunting with no natural predators for a race of intelligent beings would decrease the likelihood of them needing fire as a survival tool that we as the species wouldn't have evolved without... that in turn may lead to development of a different kind of technology and tools all together.

[Pyrotex]

... If you can't have fire can you have anything more than stone age technology? ...

No. Next question.

 

:bouquet:

[modest]

... If you can't have fire can you have anything more than stone age technology? ...

No. Next question.

 

 

 

But, if a world is incapable of fire, is it capable of stone age technology? :P

 

Which came first, the fried egg, or the fried chicken? :bouquet:

[freeztar]

Cool thread!

 

Technically, Pyrotex is absolutely correct (of course he would be...he's pyro-centric :bouquet: ).

Even if we imagine a world devoid of any useful chemicals, we could still rely on some form of starlight manipulation, but then the question becomes "Is it cheating if we use starlight, which for all practical purposes is a giant fire-ball? :P

 

But let's forget about such semantics in hopes that the thread continues to be interesting and thought provoking.

 

it's totally unreasonable to assume lenses useful to spark technology would be grown as part of a creatures biology and be intelligent and be able to make other tools as well. IMHO

 

Why?

 

Everything needed to do so is completely conceivable, even on Earth. Just because evolution on Earth led us to where we are today, does not mean that it follows the same path everywhere else. Imagining beings with the biological equivalent of magnifying glasses growing from their bodies is not that far fetched. It only takes some fluke mutations and the ability of the organism to thrive on such mutations (through natural selection) for it to become reality. Would this ever occur? I'm not sure. Probably never on Earth, but I wouldn't rule it out entirely for other planets/ecosystems.

 

After doing some pretty thorough googling, I am convinced that this is an opportunity of bioengineering that is currently not being explored/exploited. But that's fodder for another thread I suppose...

[Moontanman]

I know that natural oxidizers are possible, i am saying they are not plentiful enough to base a world wide technology on. Biology on the Earth has produced both the fuel and oxidizers we use and while there might be some debate on whether or not hydrocarbons are biology reworked by geology or geology reworked by biology there is no doubt biology is necessary for the result.

 

Complex life requires not only requires energy but a way to store that energy, so complex life might indicate a way to store energy and from that fire of a sort. so no fire no technology but more fundamentally no fire no complex life so no stone age tech either! :Glasses:

 

I know evolution has no goals but the making of more DNA, but lack of specialization would seem to be the way we humans are specialized. Specialization in any other direction would have to interfere with a large brain. we gave up quite a bit to have that large brain, no real claws or fangs or even strength. I honestly can't see the whole huge solar lenses being biological and a large brain. Too specialized away from the brain. of course maybe all animal species on this planet are geniuses and a large brain is a dime a dozen.

 

Humans are what we are because we have no natural tools other than our brains. Necessity might be the mother of all invention or just a mother but an animal specialized enough to grow giant lenses on it's body would seem to be a poor evolutionary bet.

 

I think it's more likely that something common to all complex life, IE a source of energy, would contribute to intelligence and on to technology. As was pointed out whales have intelligence but no radio telescopes. Lots of intelligences on our planet, whales, apes, elephants, otters, crows, but of them all the one intelligence that uses fire eclipses the rest by a huge amount. Is this eclipse a result of fire or are we fundamentally different than any other creature? I think we are different in degree not a fundamental difference.

 

Life doesn't start out to develop intelligence, photosynthesis, or even complex life, chemicals don't' even start out to develop life, but as things become possible they seem to tend to happen. Life didn't come about until the stage was set for it, nor did photosynthesis, and complex life didn't come about till the chemical pathways were in place to allow it. The over all pattern of life has been toward complexity, driven by the laws of nature not any desire or favorite direction. On Earth that complexity has resulted in animals with large brains and flexible behaviors, in humans it has resulted in technology.

 

if complex life can develop on a planet that cannot have an oxygen atmosphere i would expect it to have developed a method or methods of storing solar energy for later use. I can also see that storage system resulting in intense energy releasing reactions based on biology, not non biological sources.

 

To me the next logical question is does life always eventually result in complex life and energy storage and thus fire? if Titan has life, complex life, are there aliens crowded around a pile of bio-matter as it emits energy stored by plants as it reacts with titans atmosphere? (on titan the reaction might be cold from our perspective) Should we expect such "campfires" be possible on any planet with complex life? if complex life is one titan, and it has fire or the low temp equivalent but no metal would it still develop technology?

 

So many questions so little time or data :esmoking:

 

BTW

 

say a world on which there are no seasons, and abundant food sources that need no hunting with no natural predators for a race of intelligent beings would decrease the likelihood of them needing fire as a survival tool that we as the species wouldn't have evolved without... that in turn may lead to development of a different kind of technology and tools all together.

 

No need for technology and it would not develop, our technology has come about because of need, on a world with such easy living conditions i see no way intelligence would create technology to begin with.