A question for the earth sciences and life sciences gurus. Life on Eath's surface has been almost wiped out several times, such as when we first got oxygen in a gaseous form floofing the atmosphere. Possibly comet bombardments and such as well. I believe fossil records and soil samples indicte we have seen massive extcinctions many times, on the surface. However, it seems to me that deep within the Earth's crust, the environment has probably remained rather constant for the past few billion years. The plates have moved and changed, but over massive timescales. Is it possible that over such a long time, some lifeform may have developed to an advanced, technoly-using species deep in the Earth's crust? If it simply stayed down deep to live off the warmth down there, and looked our world the same way we looked at the inner crust (as in, we've never really investiagted it), could something be down there? PS: Yes, I am considering an idea for a science fiction story. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Technically possible, though difficult to prove. Life would have to be so different we likely couldnt recognize it as life. Why just in the crust? Some form of life based on molten metals could concievably flourish in the mantle. Even harder to prove.
Well, here's a funny thing. There is a variety of life which lives in molten rock and such. A bitch to study of course. I can't remember the name, something like "archaea".
Adam Have you been reading articles from well known Internet Kooks again?. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Thed Yes, I've seen that stuff before. But what prompted the idea was a recent thread regarding some whacky invention, in which I had occasion to mention that we know almost nothing of life within Earth's crust. The fact is there is much more volume down there for life than there is up here. All the chemicals are present, as is stimulation by heat, but in a far more stable environment over long periods than we see up here.
It has nothing in common with the hollow Earth idea except the word "Earth". So to the material and questions I posted, anyone?
Been there, read that... Wasn't this a: Star Trek story? Jules Verne story? Sir Arthur Conan Doyle story?
Re: Been there, read that... No, it wasn't. You are referring to stories involving hollow Earth stuff, the Vril, et cetera. Now if you had actually read what I have so far written in this thread, you would know that is not what I mean.
Re: Re: Been there, read that... My point was that everything you had suggested has been used in science fiction stories for many years. The most recent example is Dinotopia on television (a hidden island is roughly the same idea as an interior civilization). However, taking your idea seriously for a moment, if there was another race/species inhabiting the Earth (even if in the interior) that was also technologically competent, why has there been no tell-tale evidence of such a thing? The reason for the development of technology (whatever it is) is to help satisfy the need of the race to expand into other areas. Initially, this would be simple tools to enable the race to acquire food and resources. Later, it would be to enable the expansion into new areas of science which would then feed back into the need to acquire food and resources. Therefore, eventually, as the race became more technologically competent, the race would begin to move out to new areas (in this case, first the surface and then space). So, IF such another race exists on Earth, where is the evidence of this expansion?
BatM Once again, I am not talking about any big hollowed areas within the Earth at all. I'm talking labyrinthine cavern complexes, or maybe something oozing through the cracks such as in the movie Phantoms, or anything. I find the idea of a large hollow area very unlikely considering the pressure. Consider: at this very moment one of "them" down below could ask with equal validity "If there is another advanced race on this planet, way down (using the core direction as up for them) in the low-pressure cold areas, why has there been no tell-tale evidence of such a thing?" We have sent no such evidence of our own existence down there. Why would you expect such a hypothetical species to send evidence up here? The development of our tech comes from our lack of natural weaponry and armour, from survival, from many things. Our tech and intelligence, I believe, is our natural weaponry. You're assuming they: 1) developed genetic engineering; 2) used it to allow adaption to much lower pressures and gravity, rather than adaption to greater pressure and heat and expansion toward the life-giving sore of the planet. Might it not be logical for such a species to wish to expand in toward the source of their heat and life, rather than toward the cold and possibly dead low-pressure region? Consider the opposite perspective again. Someone in that hypothetical civilisation is arguing that any advanced species from the low-presure regions (I refer to it thus as they would have no cause to know about the surface of Earth and space beyond) would obviously expand toward the planet core, toward heat and life. Since they have seen no sign of such expansion, they can safely assume advanced life from the lower pressure regions does not exist.
It is possible that a hidden civilization could live inside the earth (perhaps in underground caverns). Yet it would be highly unlikely for the following reasons: 1. Although the environment, per se, doesn't change all that much, the geostructure does and the aforementioned caves would be crushed periodically, killing any life forms larger than a worm. 2. Evolution requires change, and since the environment doesn't change all that much, evolution would be hard pressed to not mess with success. these are probable reasons why I don't think its very likely. Has any one ever read Robin Cook's Abduction?
Frencheneesz Evolution is also driven by competition. But regarding changes to environment, down there we could expect earthquakes, massive changes at the edges of the tectonic plates, movement of convection hotspots from the core, and probably other things. No, haven't read it, sorry.
Re: BatM You forget about the need to expand. Once this race has the technological know-how to survive well in this environment, it then has the ability to grow it's population. That leads to expanding resource needs -- like space. Unless you are assuming some TOTALLY different form of life that can survive in molten rock, then they must be living in the crust (which we live on). There has been a lot of incursions into that area by us from tunnels to deep core drilling to the removal of resources (like oil) to sub-surface nuclear explosions (not to mention the shock waves from above ground ones)! Yes, the reason for our tech is survival! And once our tech enables us to survive well, it enables us to expand into new areas. That, in turn, gives us new survival problems which starts the whole thing over again. You forget the use of surrogates (ie. probes, robots, satellites, etc.). Then how advanced could they be? As we ourselves have found, it is far easier to send surrogates into lower pressure areas (like space) then it is to send them into higher pressure areas.
BatM I just covered expansion. 1) There is a lot more room withing the crust thatn there is on its surface. 2) As I said, they might see the logical course for expansion as toward the heat of the planet's core. There is life in molten rock. Our drilling doens't go very deep at all. The crust is likely hundreds of kilometres thick in places, toward the centre of plates. As I said, they may see the logical course for expansion as toward the planet's core. In which case that is where they would send their probes and such. They may be totally different technology, ceramic shells and biological control systems, or anything. It may be easier, but there must be purpose. We don't send probes into the heart of our planet because we don't see it as our direction for expansion. If you were them, and you could not live at all in lower pressures and colder temperatures, but the planet core direction offered obvious room for expansion, would you bother creating probes for lower pressure and colder regions? We don't send our inward. We only send them where we wish to go.
Re: BatM Really? What? (and I ask that honestly) Unintelligent creatures would expand toward their food. Intelligent creatures would slowly expand in both directions out of curiousity. You're contradicting yourself. First, we would send probes into the interior of the planet IF we knew how. Second, you've admitted that we probe space and, yet, that is a hostile environment for us. If we could go into space, couldn't they come up thru volcanoes (and the like) via a molten rock river? In fact, might they not have come up that way previously? Or, better yet, wouldn't artifacts of their existence have come up that way for us to find?
BatM I mentioned it earlier. I believe it is called archaea, it is something my brother told me about. He's into microbiology and genetics and all. We expand into space, no food. We have not expanded inward. That kind of puts us somewhere in the middle, doesn't it? This is incorrect assumption. We already have the ability to drill several kilometres, yet we don't really investigate down there. About all we do is test core samples for oil, then start pumping. Perhaps, like us (in the way we only drill for money, not for exploration) they would only probe outward if it was going to provide some great benefit. If they still have the majority of the planet's interior to explore and use, why would they be interested in exploring outward? After all, we are not interested in exploring inward. Well, you're assuming they live at the edges of continental plates, where volcanic rivers will carry things up. I would think living away from the edges would be better, more stable. PS: Keep in mind this is just an idea for a story, and I do appreciate the questions so I can find any possible holes in the theory.
Re: BatM I think we do more than that with the samples. Just remember that oil is a fossil fuel. Therefore, understanding the depths to which fossils decend and the processes that act upon them help in finding oil (and natural gas and...). But we are interested in exploring inward. Volcanologists, for instance, are trying to design probes that can survive the great heat of molten lava so that they can plot the interior paths that the lava takes on its way to the surface. Aren't you assuming that molten lava is not a problem for them? Therefore, why would you assume they'd avoid it?
BatM Yes, that's true. Perhaps such a subterranean species would also drill and test outward, but has not yet reached this far. Part of my idea for the story is that it involves the time when they do finally reach this far, and contact is made. Yes, true. It's not the heat of the molten material itself, but the instability of such regions, the turbulence and such.
