Top
Best
New

Posted by andsoitis 8 hours ago

The Silurian Hypothesis (2020)(www.theparisreview.org)
47 points | 83 commentspage 2
gradus_ad 6 hours ago|
I have a toy hypothesis that once civilization level intelligent life emerges it never disappears barring the planet it inhabits being vaporized by some unfortunately directed GRB or some similar catastrophe.

Our knowledge is becoming holographic such that to prevent the reemergence of civilization one would have to wipe out all of us at once.

snapplebobapple 6 hours ago|
depends how you define civilization level life.if you mean we cant be bumped back to hunter gatherers without wiping out almost all of us, you are probably correct. If you mean we will always have computers and the ability to split the atom, i dont agree. Knowledge and industry is way more fragile and we have loat working knowledge of simpler processes in favor of more advanced ones so it wont be that easy rebuilding through the lower rungs of the tech tree.
steve1977 7 hours ago||
The timelines don't really add up for me.

So there could have been this hypothetical civilization 55 million years ago already. And they've only just disappeared (if they did) 10'000 or so years ago? Without a trace?

Also, no, a conspiracy cannot be the answer to a question we've not yet asked. The word has a clear meaning, it requires people to conspire to hide something from you.

randomImmigrant 6 hours ago|
No. The idea is they could have lived and thrived for a few thousand years a few million years ago, then gone extinct.
steve1977 6 hours ago||
That's not what the articles says though:

"Ancient mystical texts hint at earlier creation, the life that preceded the Garden, prequels to Genesis. These incarnations are not reported in the Bible because they are none of your goddamn business, but the evidence is everywhere. Some students of conspiracy believe there was a time when lizard people shared the earth with modern men, the older race dying as the younger emerged from the forest. The last of the lizards were worshipped as gods; these were the deities of ancient India and Greece. The technology—weapons and machines—created miracles. You can see the lizard kings in carvings from Mesopotamia, the oldest historical records, where humans bow before reptile men. You find them again in the Torah, where they appear as Nephilim..."

randomImmigrant 6 hours ago||
That’s not the Silurian hypothesis the astrophysicists put out. That’s the author extending it to fit those myths.
xg15 6 hours ago|||
Yeah, the author is contradicting himself here: On the one hand, that civilization must have ended several million years ago, so erosion and plate tectonics had time to erase all traces - but on the other hand, humans were still having lively exchanges with those guys and viewing them as a normal part of their world in 10.000 BC...
steve1977 5 hours ago|||
Yeah sorry if I haven't made myself clearer, I was referring to the article.
amazingamazing 6 hours ago||
if all dolphins were wiped out could we know that they were ever here from physical evidence?
kergonath 6 hours ago||
We’ve already got fossils of dolphins. Not exactly the species we know today but close enough. We have enough fossils to trace their evolution since their ancestors walked on land. So yes, we definitely would have evidence that dolphins were here.
nkrisc 6 hours ago||
We’ll never know of the existence of most species that ever existed. Fossilization is rare.
amazingamazing 6 hours ago||
right, so how can one easily say this hypothesis is false? "advanced civilization" seems to be strangely characterized. would something a few steps above beavers be advanced enough?
vjvjvjvjghv 1 hour ago|||
How can anyone say the hypothesis is true? There is absolutely no evidence for it. It’s just a thought experiment.
krapp 36 minutes ago|||
When people speculate about "advanced" ancient civilizations they usually mean said civilizations had technology at least as advanced as our own if not more so like nuclear weapons, antigravity, modern manufacturing and engineering, etc. A hypothesis that millions of years ago humans or some progenitor could build rough shelters out of sticks isn't particularly interesting.
zabzonk 6 hours ago||
Dr Who and the Silurians had this covered: https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Silurian
atombender 5 hours ago|
That is explicitly referenced in the article.
jmclnx 7 hours ago||
>The oldest place on the earth’s surface—a stretch of Israel’s Negev Desert

I do not understand this statement, I thought an area in Quebec was around 3 - 4 billion years old. I looked, seems Australia may have the oldest area:

https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20220126-is-the-pilbara-t...

But I say the article could be true, but the only issue I have is the large dinos. I would think they could be an impediment to any organized settlements.

One other thing, didn't most of our fossil fuels come from the Carboniferous era ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous

delichon 6 hours ago|
The claim isn't about the age of rock, but that the surface has churned almost everywhere. Israel does contain the oldest measured continuous surface at about 1.8M yo, but nobody claims to have looked everywhere.
DFHippie 6 hours ago||
How churned is "churned"? Does this mean particular pebbles have have been found to have lain in their current arrangement for 1.8 million years, or just that not much has happened? I expect any arid region far from the poles or mountains and lacking dune fields will have similar patches of inert land. Much of Australia would fit this bill.
throw310822 7 hours ago||
So we have microbial fossils from 3.5 billion years ago, fossilised 300 million year old skin, bones from almost 200 my ago, even actually soft tissue inside a fossilised bone from 70 my ago. Ah, footprints too, the most unsubstantial matter of all: pure shape. That's in addition to all the million other fossils that are so common we hardly care: shells, small bones, etc.

And someone is saying there could have been an entire advanced civilization 400 million years ago, large and powerful enough to cause climate change, and that no traces of it would possibly be left? Like, billions of individuals, cities, factories, metals, concrete, mines, wells, roads and bridges and tunnels, stone sculptures!, plastic, waste dumps, farms, agricultural land, billions and billions of artifacts of all materials, most of them entirely artificial. All gone because "nothing resists 400 my" and, "oh btw, check this dinosaur footprint and this fossilised piece of skin, how cool"?

gorgoiler 7 hours ago||
The counter argument: dinosaurs were around for a staggering amount of time, no pun intended. 165 million years is reasonably long enough to ensure they left behind some nests, bones, and a feather or two. Modern humans have been around for more like 0.02 million years.

The counter-counter argument is that while we’ve been here for a comparative blink of an eye, we’ve left behind 4 orders of magnitude more stuff than just nests, bones, and a feather or two.

nwah1 7 hours ago|||
Yea, but if humans went extinct tomorrow, very little human artifacts would remain after millions of years. Indeed, most would be gone well before that. How much stuff from the 18th century still remains, in percentage terms?
bensyverson 6 hours ago|||
Unless it was burned, melted, decomposed or crushed to dust, it's all out there or in a landfill somewhere.

I do find it difficult to believe that we would not leave enough fossil and mineral evidence for future paleontologists to find. I get that the surface will churn, but layers of rock routinely become exposed, revealing the geological history of the area. No tea cup shards, no impressions of rusted cars in the mud, no concentration of metal in strangely rectilinear formations that suggests skyscrapers?

neaden 6 hours ago||||
There would still be many signs. Dug up mines, metal alloys that don't exist in nature along with refined metals in quantities they don't exist, animal and plant species we bred along with all the ones we made extinct.
nkrisc 6 hours ago|||
Very few things would in fact remain, you’re correct. But we’ve also created radioactive elements with half lives of many millions of years.

While there would probably very little direct evidence of humans after millions of years, there would probably be at least some anomalous evidence someone could find.

throw310822 7 hours ago|||
Indeed. Did a rapid check on T-rex, just as an example. Was around for max 3.6 million years. Max population at any one time must have been around 20k individuals. We have about 150 skeletons.

So current human population is 400 thousand times the maximum T-rex population at any one time. A few decades are enough to produce more human individuals than the entire T-rexes history. We also have the ability to go (and die) pretty much anywhere, so there will be human skeletons in every crevice, depth and environment on Earth. We also produce an absolutely staggering amount of artifacts of all kinds, from plastic straws to giant tunnels and artificial caves. There are zero chances an advanced civilisation on Earth won't be aware of us in 400 million years.

T-A 6 hours ago||
>We also produce an absolutely staggering amount of artifacts of all kinds, from plastic straws to giant tunnels and artificial caves.

Plastic will be gone in ~1000 years,

https://www.activesustainability.com/environment/waste-plane...

tunnels and artificial caves in a few million years at most as they are compressed by the weight of the rocks above them ("tunnel squeezing").

throw310822 6 hours ago||
How long to dissolve carved stone sculptures (in sizes ranging from 1cm to 100m?)

And how long does it take to dissolve skin? Footprints? Because we have those from hundreds of millions of years ago.

T-A 33 minutes ago||
> How long to dissolve carved stone sculptures (in sizes ranging from 1cm to 100m?)

A quick search on "rock weathering depth per century" suggests a "typical range" of 0.05 mm to 6 mm, depending on rock type and environmental factors. At 0.05 mm, a stone object with radius 0.5 cm would crumble in 10000 years. With radius 50 m, it would take 100 million years.

I would expect them to be unrecognizable long before that though.

> And how long does it take to dissolve skin? Footprints? Because we have those from hundreds of millions of years ago.

What do those findings tell you about the cognitive abilities and social organization of the creatures who left them behind?

randomImmigrant 6 hours ago|||
Actually correct. We have very very few fossils compared to the millions of species that have evolved and gone extinct over 4 billion years.

The fossils we do have are of highly successful species in that geography. It’s a matter of chance, leaving behind a fossil, after all.

And unlike biological matter that can fossilize, industrial structures etc do not. All our manufactured stuff has very short life once it reaches the crust and starts getting compacted.

The more time you add, the better the odds we’d find this evidence lost.

And if this wasn’t a global, but more localized pre-human civilization, the evidence would be thinner still.

Which is why this isn’t a scientific hypothesis really. It’s more showing you the limits of scientific inquiry into the deep history of Earth.

throw310822 6 hours ago||
> It’s more showing you the limits of scientific inquiry into the deep history of Earth.

I think this is it: the point of this argument is to inspire some awe in the listener, making them realise how vast Earth's time is compared to our horizons.

But in practice, the argument is wrong. A dead animal's skin is expected to lasts weeks to months- and yet we have fossilised specimens. A footprint typically lasts hours, and yet we have ones that are hundreds of millions of years old. Even if the expected lifespan of our artifacts is nothing in comparison with these timespans, a small percentage of artifacts will either be preserved or leave recognisable traces- exactly as it happened for soft tissues and footprints. It's extremely naive to think that none of this will leave traces.

fnord77 6 hours ago||
> And someone is saying there could have been an entire advanced civilization 400 million years ago, large and powerful enough to cause climate change, and that no traces of it would possibly be left?

If humanity vanished today, in 1 million years almost all of our artifacts would be gone or burned under miles of subduction.

In 10 million years there would literally be nothing left.

kergonath 6 hours ago|||
> If humanity vanished today, in 1 million years almost all of our artifacts would be gone or burned under miles of subduction.

That is completely incorrect. We have sedimentary rocks from 100 M years ago on the Earth’s surface right now, that never underwent any kind of subduction.

throw1234567891 6 hours ago||||
Bollocks. We find fossils millions of years old right on the surface.
DFHippie 6 hours ago|||
> under miles of subduction

Subduction only occurs at plate boundaries and is not nearly this fast. Continental plates float on top like foam and do not get subducted. It's the oceanic plate that is created at mid-ocean ridges and gets subducted at the margins.

netbioserror 2 hours ago||
To recognize the possibility, one has to grapple with incredible scale and deep time: In roughly 300 million years (1/10th of the time life has been around), the Appalachians split off from the Atlas; the Atlantic Ocean first started splitting open; uplifts underneath North America pushing the West up from the seabed and caused the rivers to carve millions of acres of sandstone landscape down, leaving towering plateaus, cliffs, and eventually river chasms. Over the 3 billion years before that, what was carried away like so much sediment? What was subsumed by subduction boundaries?

On a much more recent timescale, one of the dominant theories of the emergence of civilization places the ancestors of the Sumerians in a stupendously fertile valley at the bottom of what is now the Persian Gulf, eventually flooded during the retreat of the glacial maximum and covered in Tigris & Euphrates sediment. It could be the very origin of regional flood and primordial garden myths. But it's all buried.

api 7 hours ago||
This is a good thought experiment to show how time is as vast as space.

400 million years ago is as distant as the stars. The Earth was a different planet then, in a sense.

It’s also yet another Fermi paradox answer. Even if our civilization lasts for millions of years, that’s a blip. We are searching both space and time and both are incomprehensibly vast.

hdgvhicv 6 hours ago||
How can a galaxy spanning civilisation fail. If life can spread to other worlds, unless you get FTL, how could you end all life in a galaxy

As such it seems impossible for life to have reached interstellar travel anywhere in the Milky Way before at most a few million years ago, otherwise we would see it.

Which is weird because life surely can’t be that rare in the entirety of space time.

Of course the galaxy could be teaming with non interstellar life, but once you reach mankind’s level of sentience and technology it dormant seem a massive jump to interstellar, and once that happens there’s no way to put the genie back in the bottle.

mike_hock 51 minutes ago|||
1.) It's definitely a giant leap from current technology to interstellar colonization.

2.) Other civilizations even in the nearest solar system would basically be impossible to detect. Even in our own solar system, there could be millions of undetected spacecraft right now. They're simply too small to see. To be detectable, they'd either have to be massive and massively disruptive, like Dyson spheres, which are and most likely will forever remain pure fiction, or they'd have to happen to use radio for communication.

3.) There are good reasons for them not to be using radio for communication. They might have discovered a different physical phenomenon that allows them to communicate in ways we can't detect. Or they might not be as reckless as humans and don't want to broadcast their presence and activity to completely unknown and potentially hostile other species.

DFHippie 4 hours ago|||
Though there is likely life throughout the galaxy, it's probably difficult for one sentient spacefaring race to find another habitable planet they'd be comfortable on, i.e., one with a similar atmosphere and mass. If it's a long way from your planet to another you'd care to set foot on, you're left with lots of space stations. But who wants to live in that precarity?
Razengan 6 hours ago||
> time is as vast as space.

This is what I always say to "Why haven't we found any aliens yet??"

Hell, we wouldn't even have known about the existence dinosaurs, lifeforms on THIS VERY PLANET, if we hadn't chanced upon their remains.

api 2 hours ago||
I’d also say that we do not know for certain that no dinosaurs, such as raptors perhaps, were intelligent enough for language and culture.

At that age we can be pretty sure they did not have industry but they could have been like tribal hunter gatherers. If they did not build a lot and at large scale we’d have basically zero chance of finding anything. Stone, wood, animal skins, pottery, arrow heads, tools, etc., all that would be long gone. Metal would too but it might leave diagnostic traces, as would synthetic chemistry (plastics) or large scale fuel use.

Birds, the modern still living closest relatives of dinosaurs, are often strikingly intelligent especially relative to their brain mass. Dinosaurs had small brains relative to body size but while there is a correlation there with intelligence it’s not perfect. There’s exceptions, animals with small relative brain sizes that seem very smart, like elephants.

jake_and_fatman 3 hours ago||
I'm butt hurt that I'm five paragraphs in and still have no idea what the hypothesis is.
aghilmort 6 hours ago|
Time Machine movie reboot did this in opposite direction into future decently well

dude wind hundreds of thousands of years into future, sands of time, etc. modulo two warring biological descendants of humans not full diff species tho

More comments...