So Human?

[Elfdart]

I don't read much sci-fi, so I'm really only familiar with sci-fi movies and TV shows. One thing always stands out, and that's the way there are so many aliens who look human with only superficial differences (blue skin, orange teeth, etc). Do any writers offer an explanation for why these creatures who are so human-like are scattered all over the galaxy (or universe, for that matter) AND can reproduce with Earth humans?

[neoolong]

In Star Trek, an ancient group of aliens seeded the worlds of many of the humanoid aliens which would give them all similar appearances and I guess the ability to breed with one another. (See ST:NG The Chase)

Makes perfect sense.

[Kon_El]

In my experience books seem to be better about this that t.v. and movies due to there being no budgetary issues with havening believable lizard people and whatnot.

[speaker-to-trolls]

I believe there's a theory, narrow minded though it may seem at first, that the humanoid form is simply the most sensible shape for an intelligent being. The interbreeding problem is one I've thus far only seen in Star Trek.

[Bounty]

I believe there's a theory, narrow minded though it may seem at first, that the humanoid form is simply the most sensible shape for an intelligent being. The interbreeding problem is one I've thus far only seen in Star Trek.

Star Trek doesn't have unconditional interbreeding. In most cases - even among "similar" species - it requires extensive genetic modifications to get a viable embryo, and even then it's not certain the offspring will survive (see: ENT Demons).

While that's still a far way from plausible, it's not a free mix-and-match.

The interbreeding problem is one I've thus far only seen in Star Trek.

*cough*

[Netko]

I believe B5 originally planned to include a much larger variety of aliens with different customs - and they did in the pilot. JMS claims that the response was pretty much universally negative hence them going the more traditional route once the series was approved for the most part (there was that insectoid gang leader...).

Pretty much the only TV series that I know of that had prominent non-humanoid aliens is Farscape.

[Alan Bolte]

The interbreeding problem is one I've thus far only seen in Star Trek.

*cough*

What? She's supposed to be half 'near-human,' which in Star Wars is equivalent to 'post-human' in other Sci-Fi. Now if you can find me a half Jawa I might agree you have a point. Even so, my respect for much of the EU is rather limited, so I would be unsurprised if you could find such an example, even if I can't think of any.

[Nyrath]

I don't read much sci-fi, so I'm really only familiar with sci-fi movies and TV shows. One thing always stands out, and that's the way there are so many aliens who look human with only superficial differences (blue skin, orange teeth, etc). Do any writers offer an explanation for why these creatures who are so human-like are scattered all over the galaxy (or universe, for that matter) AND can reproduce with Earth humans?

This is the dreaded "Central Casting Syndrome." It is due to the fact that there are very few aliens from Tau Ceti in the actor's guild.

In reality, aliens will resemble human beings about as closely as human beings resemble, say, a jellyfish. And with the same chance of interbreeding.

Go to
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3aa.html
and scroll down to the section that begins with:

But even if you handwave that away and declare that there are lots of different species of aliens, there is plenty of room for imagination. Especially in the alien's anatomy. Just here on Terra, we can find jellyfish, tarantulas, viruses, and giraffes. Face it, if these fellow Earth-creatures don't resemble us, a totally alien race from another planet ain't gonna look like Mr. Spock. Personally if I open an SF novel only to discover yet another cat-like alien I may need a nausea bag.

There might be creeping jellies, giant crystals, intelligent plants, mobile fungoids, energy creatures, fusion plasma beings dancing in solar coronas, liquid or gaseous life, swarming hive intelligences, superintelligent shades of the colour blue, and natural "electronic" life forms in pools of liquid helium. They might not be made of meat. They might not even be composed of matter as we know it, like the Cheela from Dr. Robert Forward's Dragon's Egg who are made of neutronium and white dwarf star matter.

[Peptuck]

Mass Effect kind of handwaves its humanoid aliens with the idea that the basic humanoid shape is the most common physical structure that inspires evolution to develop sentience, assuming an Earthlike environment. Bioware did work in basic biology in the descriptions of the biochemestry and body structures of the various aliens, and there are aliens that don't have familiar humanoid shapes (like the Hanar and the Elcor) who come from radically different environments. Even the ones that do look very similar to humans (Asari, probably Quarians, and to a lesser extent, Turians and Salarians) have fundamentally different plumbing under the skin than humans.

[Zixinus]

Even Farscape has occasionally have non-humanoid aliens, except for Rigel and Pilot who were both puppets. In TV series, the main problem is budget. Having non-humanoid aliens, either puppets or digital, is expensive unless you are willing to go cheap.

Besides it rarely has a point. Audience can form little connection to creatures that resemble Chtulhu.

The other explanation I have heard from Andromeda is that all humanoid aliens were actually once humans but genetically modified to better fit their environment, which usually makes sense.

[Peptuck]

One problem I have with really "out there" kind of aliens is the idea that a species can develop sapience without having the capacity to use (or need to use) tools. I mean, we've got plenty of really wierd looking creatures running (or floating, or flying) around on Earth, and some species have been around for hundreds upon hundreds of millions of years, yet remain virtually the same in evolutionary terms.

Even the really smart animals on Earth, like the dolphins or parrots, I can't really see developing much further in terms of intelligence, due to their inability to manipulate tools.

While its entirely possible to encounter seriously alien aliens, one really has to wonder how these species reached sapience if they can't (or don't need to) use tools.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

One problem I have with really "out there" kind of aliens is the idea that a species can develop sapience without having the capacity to use (or need to use) tools. I mean, we've got plenty of really wierd looking creatures running (or floating, or flying) around on Earth, and some species have been around for hundreds upon hundreds of millions of years, yet remain virtually the same in evolutionary terms.

Even the really smart animals on Earth, like the dolphins or parrots, I can't really see developing much further in terms of intelligence, due to their inability to manipulate tools.

While its entirely possible to encounter seriously alien aliens, one really has to wonder how these species reached sapience if they can't (or don't need to) use tools.

Parrots, at the very least, have the potential to be adept tool users, though. They can already finely manipulate things with beaks, tongues and talons, it's not too much of a stretch to imagine evolution giving these appendages a bit more dexterity, and parrots gaining the intelligence to develop tools based around their own forms. I think one of the more intellectually stimulating parts of creating aliens is determining what they're tools would look like, 'evolved' as they were with the need to fit around fundamentally inhuman appendages.

[Gullible Jones]

Umm, how about octopuses and cuttlefish? They have manipulatory appendages aplenty, and their eyesight is good enough to make up for the lack of proprioception.

[Zixinus]

While its entirely possible to encounter seriously alien aliens, one really has to wonder how these species reached sapience if they can't (or don't need to) use tools.

It is rare perhaps that the correct evolutionary traits for sapience rarely occurs? We developed from monkeys who needed highly manipulative (no pun intended) appendages to climb and use trees, as well as use primitive tools such as rocks and sticks. Our closest ancestors possess these yet their hands are far less dexterous then ours. Going further, you have monkeys that barely have much more dexterous hands then my hamster, who only uses his "hands" to stuff food into his mouth and not uses tools at all.

OH, short and alternative argument: intelligence alone is not enough if there is no way to express and use it. Then intelligence becomes mostly redundant and not necessarily a desirable evolutionary trait.

[Lord Revan]

It's probably most easily explained by combination of budget and need to evoke emotions in the audience which causes most characters to be close to humans (at least in visual media).

how it's explained in-universe is another matter though.

[RedImperator]

A point to remember in the evolution of intelligence is that it's not necessarily tool usage that drove the intelligence positive feedback loop in hominid evolution. For most of human and prehuman history, technology was very static. Increasingly complex societies might have done it instead. If the path to sapience is through social intelligence, then that would rule out solitary species altogether.

[Darth Wong]

Scientific advancement is a long-term cumulative project by its very nature, so it seems completely impossible without social co-operative tendencies. It seems to me that in order to have scientific progress, you need:

1) Social co-operation instincts.
2) A highly developed written language.
3) Sufficient material prosperity to allow the creation of an elite class, members of which can devote their time and efforts to studies which have no immediate civil or military application.
4) A culture which is at least somewhat tolerant of dissenting opinions.

[Imperial Overlord]

A point to remember in the evolution of intelligence is that it's not necessarily tool usage that drove the intelligence positive feedback loop in hominid evolution. For most of human and prehuman history, technology was very static. Increasingly complex societies might have done it instead. If the path to sapience is through social intelligence, then that would rule out solitary species altogether.

In our hominid ancestors, the big jump in brain size occurred around the point when they started using stone tools. When talking about evolution and intelligence, it's important to remember that a big brain is a resource hog that doesn't give the individual much in the way of benefits for a long period of time. That means to get big brains:

1) The benefits of increased brain size half to result in considerable benefits to the organism or it will be benefited against.

2) A social structure that will support young members of the species for a considerable length of time until they are able to contribute to the group.

In short, as far as archeologists can tell sticks <<sticks and stones.

[Darth Wong]

A point to remember in the evolution of intelligence is that it's not necessarily tool usage that drove the intelligence positive feedback loop in hominid evolution. For most of human and prehuman history, technology was very static. Increasingly complex societies might have done it instead. If the path to sapience is through social intelligence, then that would rule out solitary species altogether.

It's been said that one of our most important evolutionary developments was a voicebox that could make more complicated sounds, thus facilitating the development of more complex spoken languages.

Technically, you could have a very complex language that is communicated entirely with clicks (Morse code for example), but it seems to me that a high level of intelligence and social development is required first, in order to develop such a complex language with such limited tools in the first place. A voicebox which can make a wide variety of different sounds would make it much easier to develop complex spoken languages.

[FireNexus]

So a solitary hunter species may develop a high degree of intelligence, but will just never get around to developing any sort of useful scientific thinking? I'm really suprised that idea has never occured to me before. Score +1 for social animals, I guess. (There I go demonstrating the point. Sometimes I kill me.)

[Imperial Overlord]

So a solitary hunter species may develop a high degree of intelligence, but will just never get around to developing any sort of useful scientific thinking? I'm really suprised that idea has never occured to me before. Score +1 for social animals, I guess. (There I go demonstrating the point. Sometimes I kill me.)

Being solitary makes intelligence much less useful.

1) There goes social interaction, which is how creatures pass on skills and information. This is especially important for tool use and development, but simple hunting and self defence information is also passed along this way by social species ranging from wolves to whales. Smarter social animals have superior communication mechanism with human languages obviously being the top of the heap locally. However, even house cats (to choose an animal that isn't nearly as smart and less social) have a number of mechanism for communicating with each other and passing information along.

2) No social network to support resource hungry big brained offspring.

[RedImperator]

A point to remember in the evolution of intelligence is that it's not necessarily tool usage that drove the intelligence positive feedback loop in hominid evolution. For most of human and prehuman history, technology was very static. Increasingly complex societies might have done it instead. If the path to sapience is through social intelligence, then that would rule out solitary species altogether.

In our hominid ancestors, the big jump in brain size occurred around the point when they started using stone tools. When talking about evolution and intelligence, it's important to remember that a big brain is a resource hog that doesn't give the individual much in the way of benefits for a long period of time. That means to get big brains:

1) The benefits of increased brain size half to result in considerable benefits to the organism or it will be benefited against.

2) A social structure that will support young members of the species for a considerable length of time until they are able to contribute to the group.

In short, as far as archeologists can tell sticks <<sticks and stones.

Correlation doesn't imply causation; the advances in toolmaking could have just as easily been a side-effect of increased social intelligence, which has a direct reproductive benefit (as any lonely nerd could tell you).

H. sapiens is a perfect example of how improved technology doesn't necessarily indicate increased intelligence. There's no reason to believe that a Stone Age infant, taken to the future and raised by adoptive parents, couldn't pilot a jet airplane with a brain evolved for stone tools.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Correlation doesn't imply causation; the advances in toolmaking could have just as easily been a side-effect of increased social intelligence, which has a direct reproductive benefit (as any lonely nerd could tell you).

H. sapiens is a perfect example of how improved technology doesn't necessarily indicate increased intelligence. There's no reason to believe that a Stone Age infant, taken to the future and raised by adoptive parents, couldn't pilot a jet airplane with a brain evolved for stone tools.

Jared Diamond has made the fascinating argument that a Stone Age infant may be more capable of piloting a jet plane than modern humans- in that time plenty of people would still be selected for great intelligence for survival, whereas in increasingly urban Eurasian civilization natural selection would favour disease resistance above all else.

[Imperial Overlord]

Correlation doesn't imply causation; the advances in toolmaking could have just as easily been a side-effect of increased social intelligence, which has a direct reproductive benefit (as any lonely nerd could tell you).

It is true that correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation and that increased intelligence would affect both tool making and social intelligence. I find stone tool use more convincing as the most important contributor because:

1) The evidence for improved tool making is very good, that for improved social organization from the beginning of this period isn't. This isn't decisive because evidence for stone tools is superior, simply because they survive directly and social organizations have to implied from other evidence.

2) Stone tools are really an immense improvement on just using wood and bone and a larger brain needs more resources to just break even, let alone be selected for.

[Junghalli]

It is rare perhaps that the correct evolutionary traits for sapience rarely occurs?

Quite possible. There have been large land animals on Earth since the Carboniferous and as far as we can tell only one sapient species evolved in all that time (well, maybe a couple if you count the hominid offshoots like Neanderthals), and it would make a very good explanation for the Fermi Paradox.