Concerning intelligent alien life, assuming predator/prey relationships

We're not evolved from apex predators. Lots of things would try to eat our ancestors.

>>8612017
Well, basically apex predators. There was nothing that hunted homo sapiens that were not also hunted by homo sapiens.

>>8612024
Not much actively hunted humans because we're very wirey skinny things compared to other prey our side. We don't provide enough calories to be worth the effort.
Things just didn't bother actively hunting humans because it just isn't worth it.


Secondly, attributing things like predator/prey to alien life is pretty silly. I'm sure the line between plant/animal/fungi will be fairly blurry and nearly meaningless if we're talking alien life.

>>8612024
But homo sapiens evolved from scavengers, not predators. Look at any of the primates, and you'll realize that intelligence evolved, not to hunt food, but to increase the number of ways and methods you can use to find and extract it, and to pass on that methodology through mimicry.

Thus, agriculture.

>>8612040
The animal/plant dynamic might not be there, but surely predator prey dynamics transcend that

>>8612061
Assuming FTL isn't a thing, and they are space faring, and they aren't naturally biologically immortal, whatever they evolved from is going to be so disconnected from what they turned themselves into that the source material is going to be all but entirely irrelevant.

They'll be however aggressive they need to be to ensure their survival.

File: Monoamine Oxidase A (The Warrior Gene!).jpg (38KB, 642x431px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 642x431px

>>8612007
>considering we're already evolved from apex predators?
This is far from true, but let's just go with the core, less faulty, premise: "Man is aggressive - isn't there a chance that aliens won't be?"

Problem with that is that man's aggressiveness has been key to his technological advancement. Now, we're probably pushing the envelope in regards to how aggressive a technological species can be, and not destroy itself before it reaches the stars, but, any species that pushed that envelope a little further, without breaking it, would, presumably, technologically evolve even faster.

Then there's all the what-ifs involved where multiple technological species manage to evolve on the same planet due to geographic isolation, and then begin to trade with and/or war upon each other (say, for instance, what could have happened here if crab people or mermaids were real). Species in this situation, assuming they survive, would have an incredible advantage over us in terms of speed of development. For all of recorded history, our only real competition has been ourselves.

A less aggressive species might have a better chance of surviving long enough to reach the stars, but it'd take them a lot longer, thus, presumably, either there wouldn't be many of them, or they may have yet to do so.

So, if anything, we're likely to encounter something sourced in a genetic history more aggressive than our own, rather than less. But like >>8612066 says, how much of that aggressiveness remains, and whether they'd extend it to mere insects such as ourselves, is questionable.

However, as they'll likely require biological immortality and a long term outlook to be space faring, if they envision us as a threat, however distant and however many millions years hence, aggressive or not, they'd probably remotely wipe us out.

>>8612092
On the other hand, if we do reach the stars, and either no one, or few others, in our galaxy has done so first, and we contact aliens, rather than visa versa, odds are good any we do encounter, and could define as "intelligent", will both be less advanced and less aggressive than us.

Woe be to those guys.