Suppose a planet managed to develop an intelligent life form

Biomass/water/wind/solar/nuclear for electricity.

Biomass for cars or electric cars or compressed air or syngas.

File: Milk_Hill_Wiltshire_20010812.jpg (43KB, 558x439px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 558x439px

Plant-based intelligences develop non-material, mental technologies and communicate using thought transfer.

>>8335225
Most likely extensive use of hydroelectricity, no industrial revolution until they can make rudimentary electric motors.

>>8335225
Honestly it could take so many paths. Unless it has similar circumstances to us, we can't really put ourselves alongside them. They might just exist in a primitive technological state till they become extinct or for such a long time that the necessary resources accumulate. Or over that time they might evolve - both naturally and selectively - to overcome any need for technology as we might see it. I could go on to list more but really, there are too many potential paths to definitively say. Especially as we only have ourselves as an example of this.

File: IMG_2500.jpg (305KB, 866x590px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 866x590px

>>8335225
Whale oil

>>8335225
>develop an intelligent life form before sufficient coal or petroleum accumulated.

Well contrary to what people might tell you, the history of evolution is a history of systems becoming more complex and efficient over the time and not just adaptation, so before getting inteligent life you need a more complex nervous system and for that you need time in which the biomass acumulates under the earth and forms coal and petroleum.

I guess that if you reformulate the question into;
>in a planet where the crust is constantly flowing much faster and making much harder for coal and petroleum to acumulate, what would be the course of technological progress if an inteligent civilization would be here?

so, for answering that, we will have to supose we're talking about very human-like civilizations, with a lot of historical similarties, otherwise, we would be running into a shitload of ramifications(unless the universe is deterministic and there is only one way to inteligent life and civilization but I digress...)

If we, wouldn't have had petroleum and coal back in the days, then it would mean that the progress of science and technology would have been severly hindered, like if we didn't discovered the gunpowder and feudalism would still be the main form of goverment to this day.

Just think about what coal implied, its easily mineable, it contains a decent amount of power, doesn't require an important treatment process before using and is very abundant. That means, that for a civilization that doesn't understand how to get electricity to give power to their systems, means that the is no industrial revolution, without industrial revolution there is not a resurgence of private power, there is not a social need for scientists and engineers(making these careers the new social standard of richness and achievement) and of course, there are no steam machines on which start perfecting and, in turn, using them to create the idea of industrial mass production..

>>8335317

And I was writing until the page updated...
that: >>8335302 was the next point.

Electricty was known since the greek times, the problem is that it wasn't really understood for the lack of proper chemical and physics knowledge(and a true scientific method that only could be found after the ilustration period).

That would mean that before people realiced how to use it would have pass a lot of time, and then, they would probably use hidroelectric power as their main source of energy with some biomass where there are no rivers(but limited, there is so much that you can use biomass for) and not really that much unless you understand what is radioactivity(in that case expect an atompunk civilization, without carbon or petroleum radioactive materials is a much bigger step than in our civilization).

But, even whith electricity the problem is still big, with carbon and oil we had advancement in engineering and in creating new mechanisms thata ffected all society. But also in chemistry, where capitalism needed constant inovation in new textiles and industrial process for fertilizers that started being produced in tonnes(like aluminium that was more expensive than gold until someone figured out how to improve it), and advances in metalurgy.

Just imagine how would medieval people would try to design a hidroelectric plant, they might stick to a river wheel and be done with it, so the progress, as we know it, would be not only achieved later but in a much slower manner.

So you would get small industrial areas around rivers where all the scientific progress would be made, that is not enought to trigger a societal change as we know it so people would be still under feudal rule, maybe if they get to nuclear technology(and it would be much longer and harder than today) then you might get into a modern society but much more depedent on nuclear energy.

>>8335329

And when you get into this point, read this.

http://alternatehistoryweeklyupdate.blogspot.com.es/2016/06/how-to-write-realistic-atompunk-timeline.html

>>8335225
Dinosaurs were intelligent and produced no technology.

well you would still have hydrocarbons

the same but slower using wind, biomass and hydro power

>>8335317
>so before getting inteligent life you need a more complex nervous system and for that you need time in which the biomass acumulates under the earth and forms coal and petroleum.
That isn't necessarily true. For millions of years there existed extremely complex nervous systems, it's just that intelligence wasn't naturally selected for until recently. For the first few billion years, life was only single celled. The reason it took so long to evolve into more complex life was complete chance. There could conceivably be a world where a process speeds up evolution, especially in the age of multicellular life in a world with completely different set of extinction events.

>Just imagine how would medieval people would try to design a hidroelectric plant, they might stick to a river wheel and be done with it, so the progress, as we know it, would be not only achieved later but in a much slower manner.
You are not looking at the big picture. Sure, it may take longer to develop technology for civs with no source of materials with high energy density, but that's still peanuts compared to the hundreds of millions of years it took for the coal to form here on earth. If intelligent life was allowed to develop for millions of years, even without coal and oil it would be more advanced than we are.

Maybe instead of using electricity they could use light from their sun to communicate and power their endeavors. Maybe instead of inventing computers that run on electricity they could use genetic engineering to create "animals" that are as computationally powerful as our computers today. It would still be using electricity, but in conjunction with neurological chemicals. We have no reason to believe an alien species is as ethical as we are, especially without coal and oil to refine them. They'd be savages taking advantage of anything they can to survive, which means they'd be willing to harshly select for useful traits in themselves and in their environment.