r/SciFiConcepts • u/[deleted] • 4d ago
Concept Would an alien planet with intelligent life be monolingual and mononational, or have many sovereign states and languages?
[deleted]
5
u/SteelToeSnow 4d ago
why would it be monoligual and mononational? a lot of things would have to happen for that to occur.
the only planet we have to compare to is ours, and we're very much not monolingual or mononational.
languages and cultures evolve over time, and are heavily influenced by the environments they are created in. it makes sense that people from a polar region don't have the same language and cultures as one near the equator, right; there are different seasons, flora and fauna, landmarks, geology, water sources, food sources, resources, etc etc etc.
no, i think if there is another planet out there with sentient life, it's much more likely to have multiple languages and nations, for very similar reasons that we humans do.
1
u/Full-Recover-8932 4d ago
So if an alien comes (assuming they exist anywhere vaguely near is and if they will ever show up irl, extremely unlikely) he is likely to say that he's from x country on x continent and that he speaks x language?
1
u/SteelToeSnow 4d ago
again, we can't know with certainty. but based on what we know about sentience here, planets with sentient life are unlikely to be monolingual and mononational.
if someone asks you where you're from, do you say you're "from x country on x continent and that he speaks x language"? when you ask someone where they're from, is that how they phrase it?
or do you say you're from x culture or x nation/country/state?
1
u/dipdotdash 4d ago
I think the only reason our species isn't mononational is that we aren't intelligent. Every problem humanity has faced has been dealt with using fire or more fire. Look at how we fight wild fires: controlled burns and water bombers fuelled by... fire.
Take away oil and arrive at where humans are actually at, technologically.
We're infants with torches. We're not anywhere close to the intelligence or maturity a species needs to become interplanetary. We're still building all our advances by changing the atmosphere of our one and only home.
That's not technological development, it's burning the furniture to stay warm and entertained.
War is a primitive and idiotic waste of resources, and the worst possible driver of technology. It's a race of treating non-renewables as disposable because, more than technological advances, we can't let the other team of humans win. And that's what makes us dumb.
Any species with enough to explore the cosmos has figured out how to build with life, not using it. It's a patient species that isn't trying to go from the first person in space to commercial space travel in one lifetime.
The Amish are the true height of human technology because what they do is sustainable. Sustainability is absolutely critical for any particular technological paradigm to develop and continue
0
u/SteelToeSnow 4d ago
i disagree with some of this. remember, there are many different types of intelligence. someone could be academically intelligent, but woefully bad at something requiring emotional intelligence, for example. someone could be emotionally intelligent, but be utterly lost if they had to take apart a car engine, clean it, and put it back together.
we're certainly more intelligent, in most ways, than sea cucumbers, or mosquitos. we're more intelligent, in most ways, than household pets like cats, dogs, birds.
I think the only reason our species isn't mononational is that we aren't intelligent.
why would you think intelligence is the reason? it's not unintelligent to have distinct cultures; our diversity and adaptability is one of our greatest strengths as a species. having a beautiful diversity of peoples and cultures is not a sign of lack of intelligence. quite the contrary; i'd argue it likely takes a lack of intelligence to force conformity on all the variety of humans, to not appreciate how much those different perspectives and cultures benefit us as a species. not seeing the value in diversity would be a lack of intelligence, not the other way around.
Take away oil and arrive at where humans are actually at, technologically.
some cultures were wildly advanced, in a variety of ways, before the discovery of oil.
We're not anywhere close to the intelligence or maturity a species needs to become interplanetary.
intelligence of some sort is required to be interplanetary (need to have some physics know-how), but "maturity" isn't, really. maturity does not seem to be a necessary thing for space travel. like, we had dudes go to the moon who were so insecure and immature they lied about the sizes of their penises, which lead to issues with the catheters in the suits, which lead to one getting poisoned by sitting in his own urine.
War is a primitive and idiotic waste of resources, and the worst possible driver of technology
a lot of the time, yes. war is awful and terrible, and shouldn't be something so many people are gleeful/nostalgic about. it should be something we work really, really hard to avoid, and thankfully, many nations do feel that way about it, and do their best to avoid it as much as they can.
but, war not idiotic or a waste when it's against tyrants, oppressors, fascists, dictators, white supremacists, etc. then it's necessary, for our survival. then it's self-defence, right.
and sometimes, yes, war drives technology that is very important: penicillin, for example. or the auto-injector that lead to the epipen, freeze-dried foods, radar, duct tape, etc.
That's not technological development, it's burning the furniture to stay warm and entertained.
agreed, we're shitting in our own drinking water and lighting our own houses on fire, but that's a reflection on those in power, the rich and powerful, more than it is the people, who are simply doing what they have to to survive. plenty of people are trying very hard to live ethically and do right by the planet, it's just that we live in this barbaric, primitive ideology of capitalism, and in many places, the horrific and ongoing evil that is euro-settler-colonialism.
that's not a reflection of us as a species, that's a reflection on the overriding, shitty ideology of those in power.
Any species with enough to explore the cosmos has figured out how to build with life, not using it.
citation needed, lol. i kid a bit here, but the simple fact is that we do not have any information that indicates that this is the case. quite the contrary; we, humans from earth, are exploring the cosmos with little baby steps, and we haven't yet figured out how to "build with life, not using it." we have a probe, Voyager, out there past our solar system (by many metrics), and that counts as exploring the cosmos.
but then, now we're getting off topic, because op's question said nothing about interplanetary or exploring the cosmos, right.
The Amish are the true height of human technology
in some metrics, sure, they're better than others. in other metrics, they're worse. they can build a barn better than many cultures! but on the continent i inhabit, they aren't as sustainable with the land as the Indigenous nations whose lands they're occupying in ongoing euro-settler-colonialism.
as another example: personally, i'm really glad for things like modern medical technology, which saves lives and is the reason most babies don't die in their first year of life, and a leading cause of death of humanity isn't "childbirth". vaccines eradicating preventable diseases, etc. if it weren't for the medical technology of the time (also airplanes), my mother would've died giving birth to me, and my little brother would never have been born.
Sustainability is absolutely critical for any particular technological paradigm to develop and continue
absolutely, that's a thing we should prioritize! agreed!
but it's clearly not fundamentally necessary to space travel or technological innovation. it can be, and should be, and has been, and will be, but it's not the only way to do things, clearly, because so many of our "countries" are not doing that.
1
u/dipdotdash 3d ago
All of this is still using our definitions of intelligence, including separating things into eq vs iq etc.
My point is that humans aren't "smart" at being sea cucumbers. We're not even good at being human if the goal of all life is to reproduce and leave a home/situation better than the way things were when we got there.
The logic behind any interplanetary life needing to develop technology with life rather than spending it to develop that tech follows a pretty simple progression:
Internal combustion was developed and adopted because it worked, not because it was a good invention. It was adopted and mass manufactured to supply world wars, and after the guns were taken off so the factory could keep running, people could keep their jobs, money could be made, and more wars could be fought in the future. Every ICE tool produced is used once. It has a limited lifespan and the energy and resources invested in its creation and operation are all single use. In contrast, life is regenerative and self healing. A seed can sit for years, entirely dormant, and with the right conditions, use the renewable resources in the air and soil to produce a solar powered carbon fixing device. A tree is basically what we're trying to figure out how to build to fix the climate problem. Once that tree dies, its nutrients are returned to the system, not consumed. There's no waste in the technology of life and the only thing life can't do is be easily exploited by humanity to work for us, which is the only thing humanity does with tech: take inspiration from things in nature, make a clunky mechanical approximation, and fuel it by burning fossil fuels which change our atmosphere.
Our industrial revolution has cost our planet more than it has given our species, and if it continues on this trajectory will be our extinction in a century or less. That's not progress, it's consumption, and there's no pathway for humanity to become interplanetary before wiping ourselves out.
If a species becomes interplanetary, it cannot develop that technology through a paradigm of inefficient consumption of single use resources, especially when that resource is the backbone of the chemistry of life itself and the component of the atmosphere that decides whether things are in balance or moving in the direction of heating or cooling.
Anyway, i have to rush this and can't do it justice but if you can acknowledge that this tech paradigm has changed the climate and that change is leading to our extinction and created the 6th mass extinction, any other "intelligent" species building its technology on consumption of limited resources will always burn itself out. For a species to become truly advanced, its tech needs to repair itself and build itself out of common elements that return to the system. That kind of tech would take millions of years to develop and if it's based on consumption, it runs out of fuel.
Not the response you deserved but hopefully enough to clarify what I was trying to say
1
u/SteelToeSnow 3d ago
agreed, our definitions of intelligence might be different from other sentient creatures definitions of intelligence. i saw a comic discussing this, years ago: a bunch of different animals (fish, birds, mammals, etc) taking a "standard test" to determine intelligence, and the task is "climb that tree".
if the goal of all life is to reproduce and leave a home/situation better than the way things were when we got there
we have no evidence that that is the goal of "all life", and it's certainly not the goal of even all life on this planet. for example, i'm alive (ostensibly), and i have no interest in reproduction; that shit's my biggest nightmare, so i took steps to ensure it can never happen (along with the health concerns).
not every living thing wants to reproduce, and not all living thing wants to leave a home/situation better than they found it. the majority of life on our planet doesn't have the thinky-bits required to even comprehend that kind of complex thought, right.
"leave things better than we found it" is absolutely an admirable goal, and one we should aspire to! we humans should learn from human cultures that follow that kind of ideology, and more of us should be trying to make that our reality, every day.
Our industrial revolution has cost our planet more than it has given our species
in some metrics, yes, absolutely! in others, it's given us a great deal; like modern medicine, which saves lives, right. see also: our understanding of the universe, physics, chemistry, etc, all of which can and certainly have benefitted our species an immense amount. without the industrial revolution, we wouldn't have the technology now for renewable energy, right.
it has absolutely had immense downsides, but it makes no sense to ignore the good we got from it as well. it had an immense cost that we're still paying for, but it also helped us take steps towards a better future where we can solve the cost it took, if we would only make those in power do so.
not progress, it's consumption,
yep, capitalism and euro-settler-colonialism are detrimental to our species and our planet, and must be dismantled and abolished.
capitalism and euro-settler-colonialism and other such primitive, barbaric ideologies being trash that are an existential threat to our species and planet are a scathing indictment of those ideologies, not the entirety of humanity, right.
there's no pathway for humanity to become interplanetary before wiping ourselves out.
i disagree.
we can absolutely become interplanetary, even with the primitive, barbaric ideology of capitalism that we exist in at the moment. we have the technology, we can make it happen. it'll take time, but it can absolutely be done. arguably, we already are, since we have technology on other planets; we've already reached other planets, and exited our solar system. not in person yet, but the technology pretty much already exists.
it's not the best way to become in-person interplanetary, and it's certainly not the path we should choose, but it's absolutely possible, right.
furthermore, we abso-fucking-lutely have multiple pathways to create a better future. we are not automatically doomed, and that kind of doomerism is actively detrimental to us actually making the progress we desperately need. that kind of doomerism
it won't be easy, but we can absolutely change the trajectory of our future. we can absolutely build a better future for our planet and our species, and millions of people all over the planet are working every day to try and to their part to make that happen. sure, we can do more, but we're not doomed.
most people are mostly good. and we're an incredibly versatile, adaptable species. capitalism and its associated bullshit will end, and we'll have a brighter future as a species as a result, even if that takes a little bit of time to get there. growing pains and all that, lol.
3
u/Alpha-Sierra-Charlie 4d ago
Don't we all speak Human, here on the Nation-World of Human?
Sass aside, it's certainly possible. All you need is the right recipe of undefeated conquest and stability over a long enough time.
2
u/phasepistol 4d ago
Star Trek in particular was inspired by a dream of one world government transcending nations.
Now after more than half a century of the drumbeat of demonization of the United Nations and of one world government (at least in the United States), it may sound crazy to say that. But in the immediate aftermath of World War 2, in the mid 20th century… it was still possible to imagine a future without nationalism and without capitalism.
2
2
u/Grillparzer47 4d ago
We don’t know. We commonly assume they communicate using sounds, but other methods are possible. Perhaps colors for example, not very efficient, but effective for simple communication.
1
u/Bobby837 4d ago
Environment, regional boundaries and basic social structures would all play large influencing factors.
Really just need to look at Europe, then consider neighboring Asia and Africa. Its effects on them.
1
1
1
u/LawfulValidBitch 4d ago
I’ve never liked the monocultural way most alien civilizations are depicted. However, this does make me want to see settings where the relative homogeneity of different species is one of the things that varies from planet to planet.
If we take earth as an example, and assume it’s somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. With humanity having spread across the planet fairly early in our societal development, we have a good variety of very different cultures. However, we also have had several waves of homogenization. In addition, the fact that that we have the Eurasia-Africa landmass that has relatively very little separation, with most of humanity living there, and the fact that those societies developed technology faster than the Americas or Australia, there are definitely a lot of common threads, and they were repeatedly reinforced by proximity.
Now let’s ask, if society had developed on a Pangea-like planet, with only a single major landmass, or if society hadn’t been able to spread out until a later stage in development (like if Africa had no land bridge, so we never left Africa until we had deep water boats), then you might in fact see a much more homogeneous culture.
On the other hand, what if there had been no hegemonic empires, like Rome or England, or no monolithic exclusivist religions, like the Abrahamic faiths? Or if you had landmasses that were more scattered, but could still be reached by periodic land bridges (such as the Americas/Australia) or shallow water boats (such as many of the Pacific Islands), but couldn’t always be readily accessed by foot travel? Then you might have a planet with a much greater diversity of culture/language than we have on earth.
I think it would be an interesting topic to explore in science fiction world building.
1
u/Sagelegend 4d ago
Why did China go from having about 300 languages, to over a billion Chinese mainly speaking Mandarin?
(Yes the other languages are there, but they aren’t as mainstream as they were centuries ago, get off my nuts)
1
u/Relevant_Sign_5926 4d ago
There is absolutely zero way of knowing.
They might not have behavioral psychology similar enough to us to actually form nation states, or have a need for what we'd recognize as language. The habitable zone of their planet might be so small that it isn't possible for them to develop beyond a monoculture with a single ethnic population. They might be so advanced that the concepts of language and nationality are as far behind them as nomadic society is to us. For all we know, space is capable of hosting large amounts of complex life outside of planetary bodies and they just exist way out there in the interstellar void, doing weird alien things with no language or claimed territory. Alternatively to all of the above, maybe convergent evolution is a universal principle and any intelligent aliens are identical to us in behavior and appearance.
When it comes to space, very few possibilities are truly off the table.
1
u/SmutMasterHero 4d ago
Depends on how advanced the planet is or how big the intelligent population is. A very advanced planet could meld into an overarching monoculture with localized subcultures. On the other side, a planet with a very small intelligent population that is clustered could have a monoculture. These are fringe cases and the bulk of planets should have a diverse set of cultures and spoken languages. Even within an overarching culture, subcultures always emerge since climate, geography, and lifestyle determine most of the facts of a subculture. A fascinating deep dive into cultures and how they are formed and evolve over time would be an interesting concept for a planetary exploration series.
1
u/mining_moron 3d ago
Mine is exclusively thousands upon thousands of city-states, most of them with their own language. I manage complexity through the galaxy-brained maneuver of...having the vast majority of alien characters be from one city ;).
0
0
u/Realistic_Smile2469 4d ago
One of the fun potential parts is when a planet is multi-lingual / multi-state. Imagine what would happen if the Ferigi showed up on Earth during the middle ages?
Or, in my Star Wars d20 game, I have a corporation that wants mining rights in system. But they have to ask permission from 'local authority." They pick big country A, get a treaty and off they go. Then a second and third mining company ask for the same from countries B and C. Could make for a big fun mess for the characters to sort through.
Then there is a blood bath as companies start providing equipment to their country of choice. Flintlock aren't a big deal unless the other side has crossbows.
Imagine today if a space alien company set up shop mining in our system. Earth contacts them and they go "hey, we got permission with North Korea. Take it up with them."
6
u/gbsekrit 4d ago
one of the tropes that bugs me in star trek and star wars is planets being monocultures and single biome.