Could Earth Have Once Harbored a Pre-Human Industrial Civilization?

The subject is interesting, but the linked SciAm article addresses the best means we could use to detect an advanced civilization.
And finding artifacts isn't one of them.

Hans said a "world-wide industrial civilization." I agree with Hans that we would detect it - using the means laid out in the article.
I don't see how a miniscule population advances into an advanced civilization. As things improve (availability of food and safe water, protection from the "others," etc.) you get more population. That's inescapable for any species.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Yes, I think that's fair. But we would have to make the effort to look. I don't think we can rely on accidentally digging something up.

Given what we know, it remains quite possible that such a civilization did exist. Not -- you understand -- that I think it should be a big priority to find out.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Harte

Yes, I think that's fair. But we would have to make the effort to look. I don't think we can rely on accidentally digging something up.

Given what we know, it remains quite possible that such a civilization did exist. Not -- you understand -- that I think it should be a big priority to find out.

The great question in Archaeology and Palentology - where does one look? Usually (to get a grant or other funding) you need an indication that something might be there. Speculative digs tend to be ''low yield'.

In this scenario geologists and those looking at older layers of rock would be the people to note something. If you are dealing with a non-human civilization one has no clue what they might do. Humans almost always set up within a half kilometer of water, for their own use and the prey on the animals that also used it. They also tended to stay near places with fire wood, and stone for tool making.

So where to look? Probably look at places we find high quality fossils in sedimentary rock, these area have the greatest potential of having some clue.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Harte

Yes, I think that's fair. But we would have to make the effort to look. I don't think we can rely on accidentally digging something up.

Given what we know, it remains quite possible that such a civilization did exist. Not -- you understand -- that I think it should be a big priority to find out.

Yes, you go back far enough and the point is moot anyway.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Harte

Yes, I think that's fair. But we would have to make the effort to look. I don't think we can rely on accidentally digging something up.

Given what we know, it remains quite possible that such a civilization did exist. Not -- you understand -- that I think it should be a big priority to find out.

Yes, you go back far enough and the point is moot anyway.

Harte

The problem is to get anyone to fund such an expensive search. Usually the funder will have a hope for a successful find. Based on what we do know and thinking that a brain has to be at least x size you are looking at just a few hundred million years ago, 400 million years ago we had fish and amphibians. Unless of course you throw in alien colonists!

originally posted by: Hanslune

Harte

The problem is to get anyone to fund such an expensive search. Usually the funder will have a hope for a successful find. Based on what we do know and thinking that a brain has to be at least x size you are looking at just a few hundred million years ago, 400 million years ago we had fish and amphibians. Unless of course you throw in alien colonists!

As I noted before Paleontologists and Geologist are looking at such layers and would note oddities, especially stone tools, or other technology, habitations, middens, etc. They do test sediments and sedimentary rocks for what is in them but whether they are looking for specialized pollutants is probably unlikely.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
. We need massive amount of the energy intake pumped into the brain and most likely Opposable Thumbs to build.

The dinosaur age has that.

www.smithsonianmag.com...#:~:text=Paleontologists%20discovered%20the%2 0160%2Dmillion,to%20be%20an%20opposable%20thumb.

I think we also would need a rather massive population. We humans take our almost 8 billion for granted, and outside of us humans and the animals we eat we see populations much lower by up to 100x lower for larger species, and that does not help in establishing advance civilizations.

Also, where did they go, if they didn't kill themselves off?

Why does everyone keep saying they have to have a huge population?

In the year 1700 AD, humanity already has the printing press. I would contest that from the moment the printing press came about, everything else you see in our world was inevitable. Education could become widespread. Literacy could become universal. The rest is just people using ideas from each other.

In 1700 AD, the population was still less than 1 billion.

www.statista.com...

originally posted by: Harte

Hans said a "world-wide industrial civilization." I agree with Hans that we would detect it - using the means laid out in the article.
I don't see how a miniscule population advances into an advanced civilization. As things improve (availability of food and safe water, protection from the "others," etc.) you get more population. That's inescapable for any species.

Harte

The first world's population is in decline.

That is to say.......... the part of the world that possesses the most technology, is NOT growing its population.

There is no plausibility to this claim of cause and effect. You keeping on saying it over and over doesn't make it true.

originally posted by: Hanslune


In this scenario geologists and those looking at older layers of rock would be the people to note something. If you are dealing with a non-human civilization one has no clue what they might do. Humans almost always set up within a half kilometer of water, for their own use and the prey on the animals that also used it. They also tended to stay near places with fire wood, and stone for tool making.

One of humanity's unique traits, which differs from most other animals (but has no apparent role in our intelligence) is sweat glands.

Humanity's ability actively hunt during the day owes to it.

So it might be different for another advanced species. They might be cold blooded, or hunt at night.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

One of humanity's unique traits, which differs from most other animals (but has no apparent role in our intelligence) is sweat glands.

Humanity's ability actively hunt during the day owes to it.

So it might be different for another advanced species. They might be cold blooded, or hunt at night.

Yep and currently we have no evidence for them either. It might be out there, it might not.

a reply to: tamusan

Look into "the Land of the custodians and anunnaki Land stories.
Look into "the Ancestral Republic"
Look into "the Giants of the great Tartary"
All ancient and and very advanced.

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

One of humanity's unique traits, which differs from most other animals (but has no apparent role in our intelligence) is sweat glands.

Humanity's ability actively hunt during the day owes to it.

So it might be different for another advanced species. They might be cold blooded, or hunt at night.

Yep and currently we have no evidence for them either. It might be out there, it might not.

You are correct, you have no evidence. But, refusal to pick that evidence up and consider it is not an excuse for a true scientist who wants the truth. Refusal to look at the evidence does not make the evidence go away. It just makes you, ignorant.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye


You are correct, you have no evidence. But, refusal to pick that evidence up and consider it is not an excuse for a true scientist who wants the truth. Refusal to look at the evidence does not make the evidence go away. It just makes you, ignorant.

Hmmm that doesn't make sense you accuse me of having no evidence then refusing to pick up said evidence? Okay care to explain what that means?

Is it possible there are such civilizations? Yes, but then most things are possible. Is it probable that there were earlier civilizations? Based on the current lack of any evidence to support such a contention the probably is very low. Is it plausible to believe in existence of earlier un-evidenced civilizations? - yes but that is because it is not possible to prove they cannot exist therefore the possibility remains.

To restate we have no evidence of earlier civilizations prior to the human ones or even earlier HSS or HSN etc. If you THINK we do could you be so kind as to post here; say the best three pieces of hard evidence (no opinion), that supports your contention? Thanks

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Xtrozero
. We need massive amount of the energy intake pumped into the brain and most likely Opposable Thumbs to build.

The dinosaur age has that.

www.smithsonianmag.com...#:~:text=Paleontologists%20discovered%20the%2 0160%2Dmillion,to%20be%20an%20opposable%20thumb.

I think we also would need a rather massive population. We humans take our almost 8 billion for granted, and outside of us humans and the animals we eat we see populations much lower by up to 100x lower for larger species, and that does not help in establishing advance civilizations.

Also, where did they go, if they didn't kill themselves off?

Why does everyone keep saying they have to have a huge population?

In the year 1700 AD, humanity already has the printing press. I would contest that from the moment the printing press came about, everything else you see in our world was inevitable. Education could become widespread. Literacy could become universal. The rest is just people using ideas from each other.

In 1700 AD, the population was still less than 1 billion.

www.statista.com...

originally posted by: Harte

Hans said a "world-wide industrial civilization." I agree with Hans that we would detect it - using the means laid out in the article.
I don't see how a miniscule population advances into an advanced civilization. As things improve (availability of food and safe water, protection from the "others," etc.) you get more population. That's inescapable for any species.

Harte

The first world's population is in decline.

That is to say.......... the part of the world that possesses the most technology, is NOT growing its population.

There is no plausibility to this claim of cause and effect. You keeping on saying it over and over doesn't make it true.

originally posted by: Hanslune


In this scenario geologists and those looking at older layers of rock would be the people to note something. If you are dealing with a non-human civilization one has no clue what they might do. Humans almost always set up within a half kilometer of water, for their own use and the prey on the animals that also used it. They also tended to stay near places with fire wood, and stone for tool making.

One of humanity's unique traits, which differs from most other animals (but has no apparent role in our intelligence) is sweat glands.

Humanity's ability actively hunt during the day owes to it.

So it might be different for another advanced species. They might be cold blooded, or hunt at night.

i remember a friend of mine's teacher in some subject i forget, said it was our ability to hold our

# and not just leave a trail for predators.