/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2282634]

Lately there have been a few scifi hate threads, and one common theme in all of the threads has been a complete disdain for humanoid aliens.

I agree that aliens like in star trek are unimaginative and stupid, as the "rubber forehead" concept is evolutionarily useless and inconsistent. However, I have wondered why people think humanoid aliens are so freaking impossible?

It seems that most people dislike the facial designs, and how they are so similar to that of humans. But if you think about it, virtually all mammals have the same facial structure; a forehead above two eyes, which are above a centrally-placed, forward-extending nose, which is above a mouth full of teeth in a U-shape, closed off with a similarly jointed jaw. Two ears are on the sides of the head, and so on and so forth.

Now, I'm aware that life on other worlds obviously isn't going to be nearly as related to terrestrial life as various terrestrial species are to each other, but seeing as this facial structure holds somewhat true even with many reptiles, fish, amphibians and birds, one could argue that there just might be an evolutionary advantage to having this described facial structure.

If you look among virtually all mammals and other land-dwelling creatures besides insects and whatnot, the skeletal structure is remarkably similar; A skull at the forefront of the body, with a spine running down to a pelvis, occasionally continuing into a tail. Creatures have roughly similar joint-set ups in their arms and legs (by this I mean that the number and position of joints is similar, but the lengths of the bones and muscles between joints varies significantly).

For these reasons, I figure that life on other planets might be similar to ours, not for any anthropomorphistic ideal or desire, but because perhaps there exists an efficiency or evolutionary advantage in a body type roughly similar to what we see so frequently here on Earth.

Thoughts?

[Anonymous No.2282654]

>>2282634
> virtually all mammals have the same facial structure
All mammals are closely related.

I think what you meant to say was
>all chordates have the same facial structure
which is a much more profound statement.

Also
>virtually
what?

[Anonymous No.2282663]

Scifi has had a lot of non humanoid alien. They just can't become part of the fucking story. No one wants a completely human cast, and no one wants freaky no head 20 arm aliens to be the main character.

[Anonymous No.2282665]

>>2282663
Stargate seem to find a way around it.

[Anonymous No.2282674]

>>2282654
>All mammals are closely related.
True, but the facial design im talking about seems to be common among many, many reptiles, birds, amphibians and fish. Well, with the obvious exception of things like jellyfish and plants and insects.

>I think what you meant to say was
>all chordates have the same facial structure
which is a much more profound statement.
i agree!

Also with "virtually", in hindsight it was a poor choice of words :P

[Anonymous No.2282675]

>>2282665
No every alien can be symbiotic with humans. A better example would be the Xindi from Enterprize.

[Anonymous No.2282683]

>>2282663
I'm not talking about why sci-fi doesnt have a large amount of weird, wacky creatures waddling around, i'm talking about the apparent disdain for humanoid aliens being presented as a realistic possibility, when I don't see anything besides simple improbability keeping them from existing.

[Anonymous No.2282691]

>>2282675
do we have a problem?

[Anonymous No.2282702]

>>2282683
Generally we have little idea what life out there could be like, and we no proof if it's anything other than bacteria. I think they're more annoyed with people jumping the gun.

[Anonymous No.2282708]

>>2282634
Read about evolution and realize why the thought about something similar to us live in a world completely different from our own.

[Anonymous No.2282718]

>>2282634
>as the "rubber forehead" concept is evolutionarily useless and inconsistent.

Actually they explained that shit in one episode. All similarities were placed in the genetic code, by aliens. Or somthing like that. Either way they clear it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chase_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation)

[Anonymous No.2282727]

>>2282674
>True, but the facial design im talking about seems to be common among many, many reptiles, birds, amphibians and fish. Well, with the obvious exception of things like jellyfish and plants and insects.

That's because they are, guess what, related to us too. Pretty far away from us humans of course, but still related.

[Anonymous No.2282728]

Chances are if we ever find alien life it's going to have even less resemblance to us then we do to a slime mold.

[Anonymous No.2282736]

>>2282708
>live in a world completely different from our own.

well thats the thing. what if the world ISN'T so completely different from our own. What if life really can't evolve that far beyond bacteria and micro organisms unless developing on a planet with a temperate and stable climate, geologic activity, etc.

Its not outlandish to say that another earth like planet could definitely be out there, and if there is, whose to say it really would be much different from our own planet, besides what the maps look like.

[Anonymous No.2282740]

>>2282718
yes i know they explained it, and don't get me wrong, im a fan of star trek, but it doesn't change the fact that i think the "rubber forehead" is unimaginative and boring.

[Anonymous No.2282757]

>>2282708
as far as we know, life can't exist on planets radically different from our own, so its just as valid to say that if sentient life evolves, its planet would likely be somewhat similar to ours in terms of temperature and climate and gravity and stuff. No patronizing over who knows more about evolution than who else required.

[Anonymous No.2282763]

I get more annoyed that everybody speaks the same language.

[Anonymous No.2282768]

>>2282708
read that sentence out loud. its a grammatical and syntactical catastrophe!

[Anonymous No.2282771]

>>2282757
but as far as WE know, life even exists in deep space

[Anonymous No.2282780]

Chordates are only one phylum out of about 30.

[Anonymous No.2282788]

>>2282763
while this is true, language is the by far, the most difficult aspect of alien life to incorporate into sci-fi books or movies. Its much easier to just have your actors speak english than to have them learn an entire language that you had to create from scratch. Because of this, I tend to give the english issue in sci-fi a free pass, illogical as it is.

[Anonymous No.2282797]

>>2282771
true, but because A and B and C can *potentially* all be correct, doesn't mean that A invalidates B, B invalidates C, C invalidates A, etc.

[Anonymous No.2282803]

>>2282740
Yes, I agree with you.

There are a few species in start trek that aren't humoid though. Although they really don't get too much screen time.

[Anonymous No.2282816]

>>2282803
yea the aquatics and insectoids of the Xindi in Enterprise, and the reptilians in the Original Series for example.

I suppose they didn't get much screen time was because those two Xindi species spoke in grunts and "bbbbbbbbbbb" and "zzzz" noises, among other gutteral clicks and hums, and because they looked awkward because the CGI was rather sloppy. The reptilians in TOS were hilarious because the costumes were terrible.

[Anonymous No.2282825]

>>2282780
and thats just one kingdom

[Anonymous No.2282829]

The first intelligent life we will meet will be a bronze age species that looks like this. We'll commit genocide out of sheer disgust and horror.

[Anonymous No.2282835]

>>2282816
Those species were humanoid.

[Anonymous No.2282847]

>>2282780
>>2282825
You guys have a point, but keep in mind that a huge majority of the animal phylums are just various types of worms, and that the other kingdoms consist of microorganisms and plants. We're primarily discussing life forms that could potentially be sentient.

[Anonymous No.2282848]

The thing is not getting life itself, it's getting complex and intelligent technology creating life.
I highly doubt that will happen on an unstable world like Venus or Mars.
Stability and abundant resources for life to replicate easily and without much catastrophe. I'm guessing oxygen breathing will be a very common thing for most life because of it's ease of combustion for energy.
Four legs if larger then a dog or pig will probably be common also due to constraints of gravity and energy on the life form.
Intelligent life forms need a way to manipulate their environment, that means something like hands to use/make tools, you can't get around that. Tentacles work too, like squid/octopus.
They need a way to eat so mouth and teeth will most likely be everywhere.
Eyes also, I doubt they have exotic eyes, those things evolved a dozen times here on earth and it's always a light sensitive patch. The laws for making an image on a screen are also set, so you can't get around them having pupils and lenses in their eyes.
Just a few things off the top of my head.

[Anonymous No.2282860]

>>2282835
which ones weren't humanoid then? barring the big worms in space, sentient plants, self-aware computers, or antagonizing sapient "energy clouds"

[Anonymous No.2282865]

>>2282829
and nothing of value was lost

[Anonymous No.2282880]

>>2282829
I certainly hope not.

As for that picture, as terrifying as such a beast would be, I would find it impractical for such a thing to exist, as they look like they would be relatively delicate and energy inefficient.

[Anonymous No.2282887]

We've already discovered over 500 exoplanets this year alone (correct me if I'm wrong) so surely it will be US who discover another race before they discover us.

Fuck yeah, humanity.

[Anonymous No.2282894]

>>2282829

>yfw all-insect planet, with intelligent insectoid creatures

[Anonymous No.2282896]

>>2282847
Phylum Mollusca nigger.

Dem Cephlapods.

Also to be a dick:

>phylums

[Anonymous No.2282908]

>>2282894
>all-insect planet

Crustacean here, insects are fags that cannot into water.

[Anonymous No.2282911]

>>2282887
well i hope so, because that would certainly be an advantage as far as diplomacy or something goes.

but whats to say that we havn't already been discovered by alien life, and theyre simply watching us with highly advanced optics, invisibility, infiltration and experimentation, or have little more than a brief mention of a planet in the orion arm inhabited by pink bags of mostly water on a little data module in one of their massive, planet-spanning computer cores?

[Anonymous No.2282915]

>>2282896
haha i said "a huge majority", not "all the rest besides ours".

as for "phylums", well, you got me there.

[Anonymous No.2282922]

>>2282908
Well maybe freshwater, but who gives a shit?

[Anonymous No.2282925]

>>2282908
for makin me laugh

[Anonymous No.2282928]

>>2282887
Unless they've already discovered us and just haven't made contact yet.

[Anonymous No.2282964]

bump

[Anonymous No.2282996]

Chordates are not the most successful animal phylum.

Arthropods are.

[Anonymous No.2283002]

>Wondering why /v/ is having such an intelligent conversation
>Realise i'm in /sci/

Fucking Gamestop

[Anonymous No.2283005]

>>2282996
were not talking about which phylum is the most successful, were talking about the likelihood of alien life to be somewhat humanoid in either face or body structure.

[Anonymous No.2283011]

>>2283002
it was the picture of the salarian, wasn't it

[Anonymous No.2283014]

well, lets look at what these life forms would logically have, even if nothing like our own. This assumes it is multicellular.
1) Mater/energy input. This means food. Which means mouth, or a variation on that.
2) Mater output. An ass.
3) motion. This can be arms, legs or simply the ability to move your flowers a little.
4) cellular. PROBABLY Carbon, but maybe something else. Silica may work.
IF animal, then
sensory input. Some kind of input. light (em rad.), vibrations, temperature, something.
better motion. This means more than moving leaves and sap. This means GETTING THE FUCK AROUND.

[Anonymous No.2283020]

>>2283005
Arthropods have a more successful structure.

[Anonymous No.2283028]

>>2283011
Yes, yes it was.

There was me thinking /v/ had a few rogue zoologists.

[Anonymous No.2283036]

>>2283014
>mater

[Anonymous No.2283042]

>>2283020
good for them, but again, not the discussion.

[Anonymous No.2283058]

>>2283042
The point i'm making is thats its a more likely structure for alien life than the chordate structure.

[Anonymous No.2283076]

>>2283058
Probably. But that still isn't the conversation.

OP asked why humanoid aliens would supposedly be unlikely, not which body structure was more likely for alien life to take.

[Anonymous No.2283080]

>>2282634

Having that same facial structure have an evolutionary advantage to a species that evolved on earth. But on any other planet you'd be dealing with a completely different set of circumstances.

What you're saying is like saying "Being tall is an advantage to playing basketball. Therefore it makes logical sense that being tall is an advantage to all sports." So what about equestrianism? Totally different sport, totally different set of circumstances, and it requires a completely different set of physical features to be successful in it.

Same thing with evolution on different planets.

[Anonymous No.2283092]

>>2283058

For wildlife yes, but for intelligent life with enough neurons in their brains to make technology and culture, I doubt it. Unless they develop on a small planet with lower gravity letting them grow larger. Or if they are made of much stronger materials for their exoskeletons to allow them to grow large.

[Anonymous No.2283096]

>>2283080
see these posts:
>>2282736
>>2282757

[Xlore !!oIaXoksOFZm No.2283103]

The reason why there is sci-fi hate for humanoid looking aliens isn't because it isn't logical or possible. It's because with sci-fi the only reason humanoid aliens are so abundant is because they still resemble humans, and people watching or imagining them can relate or care about that character.

Since your picture is a salarian from mass effect, i'll use the hanar as an example.

If a hanar was one of your squad-mates/ an important character in the story, would you care about the hanar as much..as say a turian?

Humans are more likely to care about something that looks similar or acts more like them then something completely different.

So basically what i am saying is, the only reason most aliens are humanoid is for that reason, and not really any other besides it being easier to imagine it.

If you actually think scientifically the chances of another humanoid looking alien are very slim, its not impossible but its slim, and the amount of humanoid aliens that pop up in sci-fi is beyond plausible.

I personally don't mind as its sci-fi, but when you think in scientific terms the likelihood of an alien that is advanced being humanoid is very slim, but not impossible.

Or it could be wrong and all advanced species have to be humanoid.
We can't ever know until we find aliens.

[Anonymous No.2283110]

We will never find intelligent species in our own Galaxy, because if we had, they would have already colonized Earth by now and we'd be well aware of their presence (or we wouldn't be here at all).

[Anonymous No.2283125]

>>2283080

Assuming the world is TOTALLY different from our own is probably the main problem people are facing. I doubt there are worlds out there which are totally different from anything found in our solar system.
Based on the evidence in our solar backyard we can safely say that while some life is extremely resilient (extremophiles), complex socially structured animals and eventually complex socially structured animals whom develop technology and culture need a stable planet. And from the evidence we already have they need a planet like ours, which means the chances of them developing a chordate body form (and eventually humanoid) are not remote.

[Anonymous No.2283128]

>>2283103

Actually I think the reason science fiction depicts aliens as humanoid so often is that it's generally very difficult for a humanoid actor to portray a non-humanoid character.

Keep in mind that computer CG is a relatively new creation.

[Anonymous No.2283129]

>>2283080
while life on another planet would obviously be different, it cant be TOO different. I mean, there are some laws that life must abide by, like the need for sensory input and a way to gain and use nutrients and expel waste.

I agree that life will be different, but it really cant be TOO different. People say that large/sentient life on other planets will be just so radically different, and I'm arguing that life may not be as different as we think, that there are more limitations on life than we think; as in, there isn't that wide of a variety of temperatures and gravity strengths that sentient life can develop under. When I say sentient life, I'm of course talking about creatures large enough to develop a brain system that can think and process information on a powerful level, and has the necessary physical attributes to attain nutrients to supply said brain.

Even on another planet, life will follow the patterns of evolution, and were not going to see some wild and crazy misshapen monstrosity of life with asymmetric tentacles and claws and eyes and all that shit.

[Xlore !!oIaXoksOFZm No.2283145]

>>2283128
i also mentioned imagining though. There were books way before movies or tv, and still most aliens were humanoid.

even with CG aliens are still humanoid looking.

[Anonymous No.2283213]

bump

[Anonymous No.2283241]

>>2283110
no.jpg

[Anonymous No.2283251]

>>2283129

This all implies that sentient life will come about in roughly the same way we did.

Sure there's a rather specific environment where we, as carbon-based lifeforms with amino acid based genetic material, can evolve from.

Whose to say other sentient life would be anything like that? Maybe other life would exist primarily as gaseous forms, or crystal lattices upon which neural information is transmitted, or entire planets, or, frankly, anything. With such a vast universe I have a hard time believe there exists one sole path through which sentience can be achieved.

As far as I'm concerned, if there is other sentient life out there, the odds of it existing as -anything- other than humanoid form are just as great.

[StormTroll !GnYU8vo7lA No.2283266]

>>2283241
Nice argument there you fucking stupid TWAT. How about you gag on my cock?

[SingularityIsNear No.2283276]

You're now aware that intelligent alien life forms are machines making all above posts useless.

[Anonymous No.2283304]

>>2283251
im not saying that everything turns out roughly similar to us, but im saying that evolution requires life to be pretty efficient and hardy, so weird ass shit like this >>2282829 probably isn't all that common.
Life can really evolve down many pathways and begin from many different scenarios, but im arguing that they can't be all too dissimilar. Im arguing against people who say that life exists in a vacuum, or that big snow yeti-like aliens or something exist on the coldest of cold planets.
There are laws that biological molecules must adhere to, simply because thats how molecules work. For example, there is an argument for life that developed and thrives in high radiation areas, and I find this very unlikely; gamma radiation dissolves critical components of organic cells and breaks down organic molecules, and because of this, life simply could not develop.
The same goes for life in vacuum, where many people seem to think it can start. Id argue that there are so little resources in the vacuum of space, that growing would be impossible. In addition, issues with body pressure in a vacuum would compound the difficulty of life existing in this area.

Frankly, what I argue against is people claiming that life could develop in incredibly harsh situations. While extremophiles do live in incredibly harsh environments, I would argue that they did not, as a species, always exist in these harsh environments, and that they instead evolved from milder environments to the extreme one in which they now live. I also argue that there are places where life simply cannot live, like in a vacuum or areas soaked in high radiation or ionization.

[Anonymous No.2283327]

>>2283266
alright, if you feel like being rude about it:
let's break down your stupid fucking pathetic excuse for an argument one little stupid fucking brick at a time, you goddamn gay piece of shit:

>We will never find intelligent species in our own Galaxy
quite a big leap of faith you fucking dubass. The galaxy contains hundreds of billions of stars, and each star has the potential to hold planets.

>because if we had, they would have already colonized Earth by now
What if they werent a spacefaring race? Or perhaps they are, but havn't visited Earth yet? Has this occurred to you yet, you fucking scum? Just because you visit one or two other star systems besides your own doesn't mean you automatically know everything about every star system in your galaxy. Get a fucking clue you raging idiot.

>and we'd be well aware of their presence
Unless they used such painfully obvious techniques as STEALTH or SECRECY or LONG RANGE OBSERVATION. fuck you are a stupid motherfucker.

>(or we wouldn't be here at all).
Unless they were peaceful, or just neutral. Im going to assume this didn't occur to you either because your pathetic simian mind can't really wrap its weak little grasp around even somewhat complex subjects.

tl;dr You are a goddamn stupid motherfucking faggot who can't form a coherent thought to save your worthless life.

[Anonymous No.2283413]

bump