Trek got it right? Humanoid aliens possible, Cambridge professor says
- Thread starter Mach5
- Start date
Re: Trek got it right? Humanoid aliens possible, Cambridge professor s
Meh. Some scientists have been spouting these "aliens will look like us because of convergent evolution" ideas for decades, but they're just egocentrism. Every time humans have assumed that we were the center of all things, or even typical of the universe as a whole, we've been proven wrong. Up until a couple of decades ago, scientists took it for granted that most solar systems would be arranged the same way as ours; now we know that our system's arrangement is extremely unusual. By now we should know better than to assume we can safely extrapolate from our own example.
This assertion in particular is egocentric because it ignores all the other evolutionary paths life on Earth has already taken. Look at theropod dinosaurs, say. A bipedal organism with free hands doesn't have to be upright like us, but can be horizontal-bodied with a cantilevering tail. And hands aren't the only tool-using appendages. Look at elephants with their trunks, or octopus and squids with their amazingly sensitive tentacles. Those are both examples of highly intelligent animals as well, probably even conscious ones in the elephants' case at least. It's an outdated myth that humans are the only intelligent life on this planet. There are also dolphins, of course, though their tool use is extremely limited due to their anatomy and environment.
The problem with this hackneyed "convergent evolution" line as a basis for humanoid aliens is that convergent evolution tends to apply to specific attributes of an animal, not entire animals. And those attributes tend not to be identical even when they are convergent. The eye has convergently evolved multiple different times in Earth's history, but with differences each time, and in the context of otherwise wildly different organisms. The wing has convergently evolved in several different categories of life -- insects, pterosaurs, birds, bats -- but with a different structure in every case. So even convergent evolution is no guarantee that aliens will look like human actors in latex, or be distortions of the human form like the cliched Gray Aliens used to illustrate that article. Sure, it's possible that some intelligent, tool-using aliens would have a form roughly equivalent to ours in certain ways, and in a galaxy as big as ours it's possible that a few might happen to resemble us strongly. But it would be most unwise to assume that most tool-using sophonts out there would resemble us.
Meh. Some scientists have been spouting these "aliens will look like us because of convergent evolution" ideas for decades, but they're just egocentrism. Every time humans have assumed that we were the center of all things, or even typical of the universe as a whole, we've been proven wrong. Up until a couple of decades ago, scientists took it for granted that most solar systems would be arranged the same way as ours; now we know that our system's arrangement is extremely unusual. By now we should know better than to assume we can safely extrapolate from our own example.
This assertion in particular is egocentric because it ignores all the other evolutionary paths life on Earth has already taken. Look at theropod dinosaurs, say. A bipedal organism with free hands doesn't have to be upright like us, but can be horizontal-bodied with a cantilevering tail. And hands aren't the only tool-using appendages. Look at elephants with their trunks, or octopus and squids with their amazingly sensitive tentacles. Those are both examples of highly intelligent animals as well, probably even conscious ones in the elephants' case at least. It's an outdated myth that humans are the only intelligent life on this planet. There are also dolphins, of course, though their tool use is extremely limited due to their anatomy and environment.
The problem with this hackneyed "convergent evolution" line as a basis for humanoid aliens is that convergent evolution tends to apply to specific attributes of an animal, not entire animals. And those attributes tend not to be identical even when they are convergent. The eye has convergently evolved multiple different times in Earth's history, but with differences each time, and in the context of otherwise wildly different organisms. The wing has convergently evolved in several different categories of life -- insects, pterosaurs, birds, bats -- but with a different structure in every case. So even convergent evolution is no guarantee that aliens will look like human actors in latex, or be distortions of the human form like the cliched Gray Aliens used to illustrate that article. Sure, it's possible that some intelligent, tool-using aliens would have a form roughly equivalent to ours in certain ways, and in a galaxy as big as ours it's possible that a few might happen to resemble us strongly. But it would be most unwise to assume that most tool-using sophonts out there would resemble us.
Re: Trek got it right? Humanoid aliens possible, Cambridge professor s
Humanoid aliens are definitely possible. We have an example of them living on Earth, and since we are apparently existing, we are also possible. What more proof do you need?
Why on the other hand some people are bent on proving that other kinds of aliens are not possible and everything needs to converge to humans and "have the same arrangement" – that I don't know. There would be certainly unexpected similarities with other intelligent lifeforms, but those similarities, as well as the differences, would be difficult to predict, er, guess. Other than limbs, brain-like thingies, sight and hearing, everything else is very much an empty canvas.
Humanoid aliens are definitely possible. We have an example of them living on Earth, and since we are apparently existing, we are also possible. What more proof do you need?
Why on the other hand some people are bent on proving that other kinds of aliens are not possible and everything needs to converge to humans and "have the same arrangement" – that I don't know. There would be certainly unexpected similarities with other intelligent lifeforms, but those similarities, as well as the differences, would be difficult to predict, er, guess. Other than limbs, brain-like thingies, sight and hearing, everything else is very much an empty canvas.
Re: Trek got it right? Humanoid aliens possible, Cambridge professor s
Largely human egocentrism, or a failure of imagination. In a lot of cases, like this one, it's probably largely about selling books by convincing readers that there's something special about them, that humans aren't just one of many possibilities but are the "right" way for intelligent life to be. You can't go wrong by telling your audience what they want to hear. There are more people who want the comfort of a universe that reflects themselves than there are people fascinated by the truly alien and inhuman.
You can't rule anything out. Just because one solution works, that doesn't mean it's the only one that can work. Cephalopods have a lot of their "brains" distributed throughout their bodies, so that their limbs have a degree of independent "thought" and responses. Which has the advantage of letting them respond faster, since signals don't need to go all the way to the brain and back again. And they've been as successful in their own niche as we've been in ours. There are surely advantages to both centralized and decentralized nervous systems, and different species would end up with different specializations. And evolution on another planet could've produced possibilities that never arose on Earth. After all, it took hundreds of millions of years before the first species with feathers evolved, or the first species that gave live birth and had warm blood. Go back to a point in Earth's distant past and you'd find that some evolutionary innovations hadn't happened yet -- so it's likely that even today, there are innovations that have never arisen on Earth. But they may have arisen somewhere else. Alien evolution may have produced solutions that we can't even imagine because there's no Earthly analog. Just as with exoplanets -- we never imagined hot Jupiters or superterrestrial planets because we had no precedent. We don't know what we don't know, so whatever assumptions we make are going to be based on incomplete information.
Largely human egocentrism, or a failure of imagination. In a lot of cases, like this one, it's probably largely about selling books by convincing readers that there's something special about them, that humans aren't just one of many possibilities but are the "right" way for intelligent life to be. You can't go wrong by telling your audience what they want to hear. There are more people who want the comfort of a universe that reflects themselves than there are people fascinated by the truly alien and inhuman.
You can't rule anything out. Just because one solution works, that doesn't mean it's the only one that can work. Cephalopods have a lot of their "brains" distributed throughout their bodies, so that their limbs have a degree of independent "thought" and responses. Which has the advantage of letting them respond faster, since signals don't need to go all the way to the brain and back again. And they've been as successful in their own niche as we've been in ours. There are surely advantages to both centralized and decentralized nervous systems, and different species would end up with different specializations. And evolution on another planet could've produced possibilities that never arose on Earth. After all, it took hundreds of millions of years before the first species with feathers evolved, or the first species that gave live birth and had warm blood. Go back to a point in Earth's distant past and you'd find that some evolutionary innovations hadn't happened yet -- so it's likely that even today, there are innovations that have never arisen on Earth. But they may have arisen somewhere else. Alien evolution may have produced solutions that we can't even imagine because there's no Earthly analog. Just as with exoplanets -- we never imagined hot Jupiters or superterrestrial planets because we had no precedent. We don't know what we don't know, so whatever assumptions we make are going to be based on incomplete information.
Re: Trek got it right? Humanoid aliens possible, Cambridge professor s
I'm not so sure of that. Different gravity levels might produce bipeds of different heights or builds, but unless you're talking a 3- or 4-gee superterrestrial planet, I don't see gravity being a dealbreaker to a "humanoid" shape. Being descended from brachiating primates seems like a more crucial factor behind our shape.
I'm not so sure of that. Different gravity levels might produce bipeds of different heights or builds, but unless you're talking a 3- or 4-gee superterrestrial planet, I don't see gravity being a dealbreaker to a "humanoid" shape. Being descended from brachiating primates seems like a more crucial factor behind our shape.
Re: Trek got it right? Humanoid aliens possible, Cambridge professor s
And the award for "Best attempt at explanation with the least amount of actual data to back it up" goes to...
And the award for "Best attempt at explanation with the least amount of actual data to back it up" goes to...
Re: Trek got it right? Humanoid aliens possible, Cambridge professor s
In a billion years of evolution, animals have always been pretty similar. There is a head that contains most sensory organs, and then there is a body with a certain number of limbs (the majority, and the large ones, seem to have 4, humanoids as well, they just prefer standing on 2 of them). That kind of gives reason to assume that 4 limbs is the most practical version that survives natural selection.
It's also a given that ALL species that use electricity need to be living on land. And that you need limbs to stand on while you use tools with other limbs. Also: opposable thumbs for the win.
In a billion years of evolution, animals have always been pretty similar. There is a head that contains most sensory organs, and then there is a body with a certain number of limbs (the majority, and the large ones, seem to have 4, humanoids as well, they just prefer standing on 2 of them). That kind of gives reason to assume that 4 limbs is the most practical version that survives natural selection.
It's also a given that ALL species that use electricity need to be living on land. And that you need limbs to stand on while you use tools with other limbs. Also: opposable thumbs for the win.
Last edited:
Re: Trek got it right? Humanoid aliens possible, Cambridge professor s
I think it's reasonable to think that the traits that have survival value on one planet will be similar to the traits that have survival value on another planet.
But this assumes all the environmental factors are the same. Not just gravity. Visual spectrum, intensity of light, temperature, severe weather events, food sources, environmental composition, atmospheric composition, food availability.
And it's kind of silly to think that aliens will be sexually compatible with us in any way, or that either of us would find the other even mildly attractive.
I think it's reasonable to think that the traits that have survival value on one planet will be similar to the traits that have survival value on another planet.
But this assumes all the environmental factors are the same. Not just gravity. Visual spectrum, intensity of light, temperature, severe weather events, food sources, environmental composition, atmospheric composition, food availability.
And it's kind of silly to think that aliens will be sexually compatible with us in any way, or that either of us would find the other even mildly attractive.
Last edited:
Re: Trek got it right? Humanoid aliens possible, Cambridge professor s
This doesn't tell you anything whatsoever about "natural selection" at all. It doesn't even tell you anything about the conditions that drove those evolutionary changes. It only tells you about the evolutionary paths that EARTH'S life forms took, and it doesn't even reveal WHY.
This is a massive reasoning error: assuming that that an outcome that is itself the aggregate of billions of small factors over time is the result of some fundamental natural law rather than the sum of those factors.
This other means that non-humanoid land animals are in more or less the same boat as non-sentient humanoids. Any one of them could evolve along a path that would lead to the development of advanced social reasoning and toolmaking and then take the long painful slog to organized society, civilization and technology. If all that is required for that is large brain capacity and opposable thumbs, then that would include reptiles, crustaceans, cephalopods, athropods, marsupials, rodents, even arachnids. And that just for EARTH based forms evolved from a very small number of common ancestors. An alien ecosystem with a completely different set of evolutionary paths would produce completely different TYPES of animals; the end solutions may be the same, but the SHAPES of those solutions can and probably will end up being entirely different.
No. It gives reason to assume that most of the land animals that currently exist evolved from a four-limbed common ancestor. This tells you quite a bit about the progression of life on Earth, particularly that most of the animals that DON'T conform to a four-limbed configuration probably branched off from a different ancestor. To be blunt, there are far too many animals on Earth that
This doesn't tell you anything whatsoever about "natural selection" at all. It doesn't even tell you anything about the conditions that drove those evolutionary changes. It only tells you about the evolutionary paths that EARTH'S life forms took, and it doesn't even reveal WHY.
This is a massive reasoning error: assuming that that an outcome that is itself the aggregate of billions of small factors over time is the result of some fundamental natural law rather than the sum of those factors.
Not necessarily.
The thing is, humans are the only land animal that has developed a degree of intelligence to use tools or technology. The assumption that a humanlike configuration is ideal for that intelligence and/or technology leaves out the fact that OTHER land animals with similar configurations never evolved those traits. This means a humanoid form ALONE is not sufficient for this to occur.
This other means that non-humanoid land animals are in more or less the same boat as non-sentient humanoids. Any one of them could evolve along a path that would lead to the development of advanced social reasoning and toolmaking and then take the long painful slog to organized society, civilization and technology. If all that is required for that is large brain capacity and opposable thumbs, then that would include reptiles, crustaceans, cephalopods, athropods, marsupials, rodents, even arachnids. And that just for EARTH based forms evolved from a very small number of common ancestors. An alien ecosystem with a completely different set of evolutionary paths would produce completely different TYPES of animals; the end solutions may be the same, but the SHAPES of those solutions can and probably will end up being entirely different.
Re: Trek got it right? Humanoid aliens possible, Cambridge professor s
I'm not a smart person. I 'm willing to take a wild guess there might be an alien humanoids race out there that have similar traits like we do. They might be stronger, smarter, and wiser than us. Their five senses might be far superior when it's compare to ours. Their skin pigment might be of a different color as well as their blood.
I'm not a smart person. I 'm willing to take a wild guess there might be an alien humanoids race out there that have similar traits like we do. They might be stronger, smarter, and wiser than us. Their five senses might be far superior when it's compare to ours. Their skin pigment might be of a different color as well as their blood.
Re: Trek got it right? Humanoid aliens possible, Cambridge professor s
Survival value for whom, though? A planet has more than one species and more than one ecosystem. Some species on Earth are staggeringly alien by our lights, like the cephalopods. There are quite a lot of adaptations that have survival value. Evolution is not about narrowing in on a single possibility, it's about branching out in numerous directions.
In other words, you've watched Star Trek.
Survival value for whom, though? A planet has more than one species and more than one ecosystem. Some species on Earth are staggeringly alien by our lights, like the cephalopods. There are quite a lot of adaptations that have survival value. Evolution is not about narrowing in on a single possibility, it's about branching out in numerous directions.
Dolphins don't mind having sex with humans, or pretty much anything else. And some humans are sexually attracted to animals.
In other words, you've watched Star Trek.
Re: Trek got it right? Humanoid aliens possible, Cambridge professor s
They also might be weaker, dumber and more volatile than us, depending on the size of their planet. A humanoid species that evolved on Mars would be wheelchair-bound in Earth gravity; a species native to a planet the size of Ganymede or Europa wouldn't even SURVIVE at 1G.
Conversely, a species that evolved on a superearth at gravities of 1.5 to 2Gs would probably be much stronger than humans on average, but also being much smaller in stature.
They also might be weaker, dumber and more volatile than us, depending on the size of their planet. A humanoid species that evolved on Mars would be wheelchair-bound in Earth gravity; a species native to a planet the size of Ganymede or Europa wouldn't even SURVIVE at 1G.
Conversely, a species that evolved on a superearth at gravities of 1.5 to 2Gs would probably be much stronger than humans on average, but also being much smaller in stature.
Dolphins are the assholes of the sea.
Re: Trek got it right? Humanoid aliens possible, Cambridge professor s
The electrc eel will not be able to build or operate circuits under water.
I also doubt the possibility to manufacture suits under water that would allow fish to explore the land.
And the most basic tools are axe and hammer. They are the foundation to create more sophisticated tools. You won't see an octopus using those properly, ever.
The electrc eel will not be able to build or operate circuits under water.
I also doubt the possibility to manufacture suits under water that would allow fish to explore the land.
And the most basic tools are axe and hammer. They are the foundation to create more sophisticated tools. You won't see an octopus using those properly, ever.
Re: Trek got it right? Humanoid aliens possible, Cambridge professor s
Actually, my impression is it would be a lot harder for aquatic life forms to figure out how to make electric circuits on land than on water. Water is an environment they understand and are comfortable manipulating; atmosphere is foreign to them, and they would probably have a lot of trouble conceiving of how to even build an electric circuit that doesn't require the presence of seawater.
Interestingly, other kinds of tools would be more useful to aquatic animals than they would to humans. Air-breathing aquatics would very soon discover that they can prolong their underwater endurance and even extend their diving range by trapping pockets of air under domes. They would also find different types of weapons easier to construct; where humans used strings and pieces of wood to construct bows and arrows, aquatics would find use for spring-loaded cavitation devices, creating and then collapsing air bubbles fast enough to stun predators. Moreover, higher sound conductivity of water would lead them to discover forms of sonar (assuming this isn't a natural ability for them) centuries sooner than humans developed radar; this could and probably would lead to advances in mathematics and abstract reasoning that would promote even more advanced forms of toolmaking.
An octopus would have little use for a hammer or an axe, especially under water; an Octopus will never need to chop down a tree, never need to split a piece of wood, and will never use wood to build a shelter for itself. But a shovel and a spear would be the most useful things in the world to a creature that is otherwise too soft and boneless to dig through hardened obstructions or fight off bony predators trying to eat it.
And the fact that an octopus would be in a position to encounter electricity in a much less lethal and more easily accessible fashion than humans means they would discover defensive uses of electricity relatively quickly. Assuming they don't somehow learn how to domesticate electric eels or electric rays as hunting beasts, they would have access to their corpses often enough to eventually figure out HOW they generate electricity. Then they can either use those organs themselves, stimulating them artificially, or find a way to duplicate it technologically.
Once you know how to trigger an electrical discharge underwater, you know how to create an electric circuit. Once you have an electric circuit -- actually, well before then, but just for the sake of argument here -- then you have the rudiments of a digital computer.
Neither could human beings until 60 years ago. "I don't know how to do this at the moment" is not an evolutionary constraint that I'm aware of.
Actually, my impression is it would be a lot harder for aquatic life forms to figure out how to make electric circuits on land than on water. Water is an environment they understand and are comfortable manipulating; atmosphere is foreign to them, and they would probably have a lot of trouble conceiving of how to even build an electric circuit that doesn't require the presence of seawater.
I doubt it would be EASY. But then, so are spaceships and submarines, two things which it took humans over a hundred thousand years to event after they mastered toolmaking.
For land animals, yes. The most basic tools for an aquatic life form would probably be the shovel and the knife. The shovel, for digging holes in the sea bed and constructing shelters and fortifications, and the knife, for killing predators or food animals that the toolmaker otherwise wouldn't be able to take down.
Interestingly, other kinds of tools would be more useful to aquatic animals than they would to humans. Air-breathing aquatics would very soon discover that they can prolong their underwater endurance and even extend their diving range by trapping pockets of air under domes. They would also find different types of weapons easier to construct; where humans used strings and pieces of wood to construct bows and arrows, aquatics would find use for spring-loaded cavitation devices, creating and then collapsing air bubbles fast enough to stun predators. Moreover, higher sound conductivity of water would lead them to discover forms of sonar (assuming this isn't a natural ability for them) centuries sooner than humans developed radar; this could and probably would lead to advances in mathematics and abstract reasoning that would promote even more advanced forms of toolmaking.
An octopus would have little use for a hammer or an axe, especially under water; an Octopus will never need to chop down a tree, never need to split a piece of wood, and will never use wood to build a shelter for itself. But a shovel and a spear would be the most useful things in the world to a creature that is otherwise too soft and boneless to dig through hardened obstructions or fight off bony predators trying to eat it.
And the fact that an octopus would be in a position to encounter electricity in a much less lethal and more easily accessible fashion than humans means they would discover defensive uses of electricity relatively quickly. Assuming they don't somehow learn how to domesticate electric eels or electric rays as hunting beasts, they would have access to their corpses often enough to eventually figure out HOW they generate electricity. Then they can either use those organs themselves, stimulating them artificially, or find a way to duplicate it technologically.
Once you know how to trigger an electrical discharge underwater, you know how to create an electric circuit. Once you have an electric circuit -- actually, well before then, but just for the sake of argument here -- then you have the rudiments of a digital computer.
Re: Trek got it right? Humanoid aliens possible, Cambridge professor s
You might be presupposing that a creature that doesn't live on land must necessarily live in water.
Seas on other planets are made of all sorts of other media, like liquid hydrocarbons and condensed gases (at least, molecules that are gaseous in our experience at Earth-typical temperature and pressure). Electrical conductivity is going to be vastly different than it would be in ion-rich water. I'm thinking in particular of non-polar solvents, which would have a rough time dissolving ionic compounds for electrical conduction.
Imagine a critter living in a fluid that has the density of a liquid (hello, freedom of movement along 3 axes!) but the electrical insulation of a non-ionized gas. The possibilities are endless.
You might be presupposing that a creature that doesn't live on land must necessarily live in water.
Seas on other planets are made of all sorts of other media, like liquid hydrocarbons and condensed gases (at least, molecules that are gaseous in our experience at Earth-typical temperature and pressure). Electrical conductivity is going to be vastly different than it would be in ion-rich water. I'm thinking in particular of non-polar solvents, which would have a rough time dissolving ionic compounds for electrical conduction.
Imagine a critter living in a fluid that has the density of a liquid (hello, freedom of movement along 3 axes!) but the electrical insulation of a non-ionized gas. The possibilities are endless.
Re: Trek got it right? Humanoid aliens possible, Cambridge professor s
The main problem that I have with conspiracy theories having to do with known extraterrestrial species is that they all seem to be humanoid.
Okay, I could take the Greys as a single coincidence, and according to the story, the Reptilians/Alpha Draconians claim they were dropped into our space/universe by some unknown higher power, so they could count as beings from another reality.
But then there are the Pleaidians, who are described as looking like Nordics, the Sirians and Lyrans, who are claimed to have created us (obviously in their image), and the list goes on. But it seems that alien races that are vastly different from us are rare.
I think that the Greys might be real, even the Reptilians, but it becomes harder to believe when there are 10, 20, 30 races, that all seem to have humanoid form, with mostly the same features.
So either there is a situation similar to the Ancients, where DNA was seeded on inhabitable planets in the distant past so that life, and especially intelligent life, would evolve to have a head, two arms, two legs, and a body (if such a thing is possible), or these reports are probably complete bullshit.
I don't know, if/when the government/military should ever feel fit to divulge what they know to the public, maybe we'll all be in for a shock.
There was this one species that was reported by a pair of shocked abductees, which was humanoid, but still quite different, which was the Pascagoula abduction. They were described as "about five feet tall, had bullet-shaped heads without necks, slits for mouths, and where their noses or ears would be, they had thin, conical objects sticking out, like carrots from a snowman's head. They had no eyes, grey, wrinkled skin, round feet, and claw-like hands."
I think I would expect humanoid species to look much more different like the species reported here, since they did evolve on a different planet, and maybe even have developed sensory organs that seem way different from ours.
It's ironic that extraterrestrial contact reports might be our best glimpse of what is out there, besides concept artist working to conceptualize what life might look like on another planet, but it does seem unbelievable that most contactees claim that aliens for the most part look like us!
The main problem that I have with conspiracy theories having to do with known extraterrestrial species is that they all seem to be humanoid.
Okay, I could take the Greys as a single coincidence, and according to the story, the Reptilians/Alpha Draconians claim they were dropped into our space/universe by some unknown higher power, so they could count as beings from another reality.
But then there are the Pleaidians, who are described as looking like Nordics, the Sirians and Lyrans, who are claimed to have created us (obviously in their image), and the list goes on. But it seems that alien races that are vastly different from us are rare.
I think that the Greys might be real, even the Reptilians, but it becomes harder to believe when there are 10, 20, 30 races, that all seem to have humanoid form, with mostly the same features.
So either there is a situation similar to the Ancients, where DNA was seeded on inhabitable planets in the distant past so that life, and especially intelligent life, would evolve to have a head, two arms, two legs, and a body (if such a thing is possible), or these reports are probably complete bullshit.
I don't know, if/when the government/military should ever feel fit to divulge what they know to the public, maybe we'll all be in for a shock.
There was this one species that was reported by a pair of shocked abductees, which was humanoid, but still quite different, which was the Pascagoula abduction. They were described as "about five feet tall, had bullet-shaped heads without necks, slits for mouths, and where their noses or ears would be, they had thin, conical objects sticking out, like carrots from a snowman's head. They had no eyes, grey, wrinkled skin, round feet, and claw-like hands."
I think I would expect humanoid species to look much more different like the species reported here, since they did evolve on a different planet, and maybe even have developed sensory organs that seem way different from ours.
It's ironic that extraterrestrial contact reports might be our best glimpse of what is out there, besides concept artist working to conceptualize what life might look like on another planet, but it does seem unbelievable that most contactees claim that aliens for the most part look like us!
Re: Trek got it right? Humanoid aliens possible, Cambridge professor s
The consistent thing about UFO claims is the stunning lack of imagination in them. Looking over the history, the descriptions of the UFO aliens always conform to the dominant media images of aliens in the era in question. In the late '40s and early '50s, they were described as little green men; in the B-movie age of the later '50s, they were big scary monsters; and in the '60s, when TV aliens were usually just actors in fancy dress, UFO aliens came to be described as idealized humanoids. The "Gray" image actually debuted in a '60s book as a conjectural image of what humans might evolve into in a million years -- although looking back now, that conjecture was clearly based on cultural biases and assumptions about evolution and what traits qualified as superior, e.g. favoring the brain over the body, losing animal-like attributes like hair and teeth and sex organs, and being extremely light-skinned. It was a couple of years after the "future human" image was published and publicized that it began showing up in UFO reports -- I think the famous Barney and Betty Hill "abduction" was the first major one.
But by this point, UFO lore itself was becoming part of popular culture, and so the Gray image was popularized in Close Encounters and other films, and eventually things like Communion and The X-Files, creating a feedback loop that kept it prominent in UFO reports and mass media alike.
If you ask me, the clearest proof (aside from the fact that we actually know the source) that the "Gray alien" image is merely a distortion of the human form rather than a genuine alien is that it includes a pointed chin. Anatomically modern humans are the only hominids or primates on Earth that have pointed chins. Not even our closest hominin relatives had them. They're our trademark. The coincidence of an alien happening to have our basic body shape is great enough, but having the single most uniquely human physiognomic feature of all? That's kind of a dead giveaway.
Umm, nope. We've currently got telescopes out there that are detecting exoplanets by the hundreds, and a variety of other scientific projects dedicated to searching for signs of alien life. If the government actually did know some great secret about alien life that it felt compelled to keep for some bizarre reason, would they really be okay with funding all these projects to learn as much about alien life as possible?
The consistent thing about UFO claims is the stunning lack of imagination in them. Looking over the history, the descriptions of the UFO aliens always conform to the dominant media images of aliens in the era in question. In the late '40s and early '50s, they were described as little green men; in the B-movie age of the later '50s, they were big scary monsters; and in the '60s, when TV aliens were usually just actors in fancy dress, UFO aliens came to be described as idealized humanoids. The "Gray" image actually debuted in a '60s book as a conjectural image of what humans might evolve into in a million years -- although looking back now, that conjecture was clearly based on cultural biases and assumptions about evolution and what traits qualified as superior, e.g. favoring the brain over the body, losing animal-like attributes like hair and teeth and sex organs, and being extremely light-skinned. It was a couple of years after the "future human" image was published and publicized that it began showing up in UFO reports -- I think the famous Barney and Betty Hill "abduction" was the first major one.
But by this point, UFO lore itself was becoming part of popular culture, and so the Gray image was popularized in Close Encounters and other films, and eventually things like Communion and The X-Files, creating a feedback loop that kept it prominent in UFO reports and mass media alike.
If you ask me, the clearest proof (aside from the fact that we actually know the source) that the "Gray alien" image is merely a distortion of the human form rather than a genuine alien is that it includes a pointed chin. Anatomically modern humans are the only hominids or primates on Earth that have pointed chins. Not even our closest hominin relatives had them. They're our trademark. The coincidence of an alien happening to have our basic body shape is great enough, but having the single most uniquely human physiognomic feature of all? That's kind of a dead giveaway.
Umm, nope. We've currently got telescopes out there that are detecting exoplanets by the hundreds, and a variety of other scientific projects dedicated to searching for signs of alien life. If the government actually did know some great secret about alien life that it felt compelled to keep for some bizarre reason, would they really be okay with funding all these projects to learn as much about alien life as possible?
Re: Trek got it right? Humanoid aliens possible, Cambridge professor s
Aliens in science fiction have often represented the good, bad & ugly of humanity, being the something of dreams and nightmares.
Life out in the universe will be what it is and we/humanity will just make it mean whatever we chose.
We should appreciate life on Earth first.
Aliens in science fiction have often represented the good, bad & ugly of humanity, being the something of dreams and nightmares.
Life out in the universe will be what it is and we/humanity will just make it mean whatever we chose.
We should appreciate life on Earth first.
