that absolutely doesn’t matter to what I’m saying, Humans wouldn’t have become as smart as they are now without fire to cook meat, so Fire was Important for humans to become at the top of the food chain.
where are your arguments for Underwater civs having an easier time creating fire? you haven’t really bothered explaining why you think this would be the case, other than your claim that underwater creatures wouldn’t know that fire is bad, and that they would experiment with it because of that, which doesn’t make a lot of sense, since they would still feel the heat from fire and would be hurt by it if they try to get too close, assuming they could get to a situation where they’re able to interact with fire in the first place.
Alrighty its time for me to step in and take a shot
I just need an organised summarization of @BurgeonBlas 's argument.
(i nuked zenzone and will never let him forget it)
Here, @BurgeonBlas I’ll put a detailed counterargument here for you to refute. I will not accept any "but why"s because it’s all based on empirical truth I can source of you want, but I’d prefer you respond respectfully before screaming “I don’t understand because I’m dumb.”
Native metals can theoretically be cold shaped underwater, but iron prolly not due to it’s toughness and rarity in native form. Copper and gold don’t allow space travel or industrialization and as such don’t matter. Source: Native metal - Wikipedia
Sea animals don’t go on land without either metal and industry or actually being amphibious. Source: this whole fricking thread and everyone here will side with me so don’t argue.
You need fire to smelt. source: me and Nigel’s misadventures in thermite smelting and arc forges, I can link messages in 8 hours if you want but I’d still like you to respond.
You need high temperature fire to smelt. Source: look up the melting point of iron or aluminum or something idk
Fire doesn’t burn underwater without rare materials like phosphorus or thermite. Source: Fire - Wikipedia
Thermite and phosphorus aren’t found underwater source: me and Nigel’s misadventures. This is the second most likely one I’d actually say you could overturn due to the phosphorus side of things being a little iffy. Useless if you do cause phosphorus can’t melt metal.
Underwater civilizations are in the stone age. Source: if you lack metal you are in the age. I’d link the definition of stone age here but I hope you aren’t that dumb.
Land civilizations can just grab a flaming branch out of a forest fire if they’re reasonably fast. Only hominids and fire hawks do this. Source: the past few days of this thread.
Given that only hominids and fire hawks do this we can assume it’s highly improbable and difficult to have a brain that sees “glowy hurt thing” and thinks “make OTHER people hurt with it!!” Source: deduction
Both early hominids and modern fire hawks use(d) fire to harm others, be it predators or prey. From this we can take that an early brain would think “glowy hurt thing” to “make OTHER people hurt with it!!” Is pretty accurate. Without having fire experience the creature would just not care. Like, did early hominids use uranium pile reactors to cook food? You might say of course not but they actually had the tech (source The Workings of an Ancient Nuclear Reactor - Scientific American bad example but whatever) Once it evolves an experience around fire it still needs to be smart enough. (Source: even more deduction)
Fire isn’t accessible to underwater civs. Sources: Fire doesn’t burn underwater, and the refutations to my repeated floating forge point.
Without metal you can’t industrialize or go to space. Source: industrial stage necessities engines and mass production, space stage necessities computers and ICBMs strong enough to keep going until gravity gets quirky enough to let them stay.
Without fire, the ability to smelt without fire, the brains and knowledge to use fire, and any examples of it’s usefulness or resources to throw at dumb ideas, an underwater civilization is stuck without metal. Without metal, no industrial or space stage. Civ stage is fine. Look at the Inca, my favorite stone age civs. Source: logic and stuff.
Keep in mind I constructed this to be super hard to refute. Take down the entire “psychology of fire” part and you still don’t have any fire. Take down phosphorus being inaccessible and you can’t do anything with it. You have to explain it all to me. All the explaining, no excuses. Thank you for letting me take your time up.
As I have previously stated: underwater beings have no fear of fire, and so they will only have to contend with the physical obstacles of reaching land that are much easier to solve
The context is that my claims were explaining the fact that fire and smelting are not basal parts of the default sophont. I don’t see how this sours my points
Why does that so invalidate my analogy?
Yes, which is why underwater beings won’t encounter (and hence won’t adapt to fear) fire in the evolution of their minds, cultures, and personalities. Thanks for proving my point
Maybe humans couldn’t, but elephants clearly managed it. So did plenty of other fire-less animals
Fear and pain are not the same thing
Most real species, including intelligent species, do not use fire, and there are non-sapient fire users, which in fact make up the majority of fiery clades
All of this heavily implies that fire use is unrelated to intelligence, and so there is no reason to assume that sapient creatures should have fire, or to base any tech trees around this adaptation
Most of the objections to underwater civilizations involve their lack of fire, and so according to the above observations they do not have anything to do with aquatic life in particular
Because of this, terrestrial and aquatic civilizations are on roughly equal footing in their advancement. Because there must be some way for generic terrestrials to succeed, there must therefore be some method, not involving fire, of achieving progress. And due to the fact that it has no reliance on fire, it will be accessible to aquatic civilizations as well
You have made arguments to this end, but unless you think the game should end in the awakening or that you should be forced to make humanoids to progress, you should think about revising them
I agree that certain adaptations don’t work underwater. I don’t see what this has to do with civilization
Very interesting, do you have a point here?
No they can’t: Either they’d be too scared or they’d already have gotten themselves killed by recklessness
You should have tried using some more evidence in your deduction, then you might know how intelligence and theory of mind is really spread amongst animals
What is this point? I have absolutely no idea what this is supposed to mean
It also isn’t accessible to species too afraid to use it
There have been a lot of animal engines and windmills made of just wood, and if they’re on track for space then they can get onto land
All the same is true of terrestrials. So if you’re going to stand by this point: Should we force humanoids or just end at awakening?
How else do we describe a creature artificially given arbitrary human traits?
Animals aren’t afraid of things that they don’t encounter or know about, because that’s not how fear works. And it’s a lot easier to make a tool that extend our physical capabilities than one that magically cures fear, which is clearly visible in the history of our tools
Read the rest of my reply
Until they get to land, at least
Yep, that’s how all sapient beings think, which is why no-one has ever studied insect stings
So I guess all animals have solid hooves because horses have solid hooves, is that right?
Where is the non sequitur?
They’re all based around fire mastery, which is an adaptation
Humans are not the only species in the universe
If you really don’t believe that fire hawks aren’t the second most intelligent species in the Earth, then try Google
What is the great difference?
What are you talking about, and where did I do it?
If you guys can’t behave, this is mostly for @BurgeonBlas, I’ll either close this thread or silence @BurgeonBlas. To me it is starting to seem very obvious that you on purpose ignore other’s argument and keep spouting your nonsense. To me this is starting to look very much like trolling (also based on the slavery thread).
What are you talking about? What does this have to do with anything?
Pain and fear are different. You can feel for yourself that they are not the same. It’s just a basic fact
My argument was that because neither terrestrials nor aquatics have fire, there must be some other way to get through the early stages. I guess I did assume that the game has to have stages beyond Awakening, but I thought this could be a common assumption
I don’t see your point here
Yes, but with a much more rational mind, and quite possibly in a much safer context. This is going to severely lessen the level of fear
I never claimed that animals don’t eat
Some animals do, and this was in relation to a terrestrial civilization
The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not the person who disputes it. I don’t need any proof to dispute that elephants are less intelligent than us in the same way that you don’t need any proof to dispute that there’s an invisible teapot orbiting the Sun
weren’t you the first person to claim that elephants were as intelligent as humans through the implication of your response to me? also this is completely POINTLESS to the main discussion of Underwater civs, Move On.
i was literally answering you, you asked if fire was the cause of our spread across the globe, which it is because like i said, its the reason for our intelligence.
wheres your proof that it is?
the problem with this animal engine is that its incredibly inefficient, and wont help at all with industrialization.
of course they’re different, but pain can breed fear…
humanoid only means the creature resembles humans in shape and appearance…
No. You claimed that fire was the cause of human intelligence, which is true. I pointed out that this is not the case for all intelligence, as evidenced by the many intelligent species without fire. You continued to assert your, finally stating that you are referring specifically to humans in the latest quote. Hence I am questioning its relevance to the discussion of non-human civilizations
It’s quite obvious that the fear of fire would be selected for on some level for all species that encounter fire. Simply look at how fires act when they aren’t controlled. This reasoning is borne out by the observations of so many wild animals fearing fire
It was efficient enough for a lot of industry in the past. And there’s nothing to stop it from being a lot more efficient with a more efficient sort of life powering it. There’s also the point that an advanced society of any origin could likely reach fire through some means, and thus reach advanced power through that method
That doesn’t always happen though. It’s also assuming that aquatics actually would get hurt by the fire, which would be unlikely given the context they’d be encountering it in
It can also refer to having human-like characteristics, which certainly describes the results of forcing human adaptations for the tech tree
Where are these engines now, where are all of these massive factories in medieval times ran by animal power. You need to feed these animals and as these animal engine become more prominent, you need more farmlands to feed these animals. If these animal engines were truly as efficient as you suggest they are then wouldn’t there have been a wide use of thing before the steam engine was invented
This doesn’t make any sense, and can you give an example in which this isn’t the case. And what is this context you are referring to? The can’t make fire underwater, you know that right?
Who says anything about human traits being forced? All you need in a limb to grab things and use tools. And he also stated that being humanoid doesn’t matter at all which means he’s not preaching for forcing human adaptions on technology. You are just assuming that he does
Fire use can aid intelligence, but it isn’t necessary. There is a reason why intelligence is so uncorrelated with fire use
I don’t see your point here
They’ve been supplanted by better tech
The social environment of medieval times wasn’t conducive to massive factories, regardless of their tech
That is assuming they have similar efficiency to our domestic animals, which is no guarantee: Even here there are highly efficient animals, such as the wildebeest. This also serves a point in favor of aquatic civilizations: If they can get their hands on some sort of large filter-feeder and get them in a good spot, then they’d need to spend a lot less food (or even none at all) feeding their animals
Do you want an example of pain not leading to complete fear? Try thinking back to all the times you got hurt in your life: Are you scared of all of them?
Trying to make a small fire, while taking precautions and wearing a waterproof suit made with wax or something similarly easy to melt
Then what is the point for all the arguments about fire, if the intention is not to force it on sapient species?