The Technology Development Goldilocks Zone...

[Spacescifi]

Correct me if wrong, but based upon Earth, it seems that there is a narrow range of worlds that could both harbor life AND the ability for it to develop a high level of technology and industry.

Examples below are worlds that would be challenging to develop technology or industry upon even if life was adapted for the environment.

1. An earth world with 3 atmospheric pressures. Wind storms would wreck everything. Seems to me to avoid that everything would need to be heavier for life to be more normal, and if you do that on a 1g world everyone will walk slower.

2. Worlds with high oxygen would probably effect science and technology development. Never mind the constant fires... unless a lot of plants and creatures were adapted for fire resistance. That could work. Also you would think cancer and disease rates would be higher due to oxidation, and yet I honestly think if life was adapted for it they may be just fine. Endurance would be higher and a lot of life forms could grow to giant size on this world who would struggle or die on earth.

 

Your thoughts?

Edited March 7 by Spacescifi

[StrandedonEarth]

Metal-poor worlds. Assuming intelligent life could even develop, advanced tech requiring metalworks would be rather difficult…

[darthgently]

There is the world in the novel Hail Mary that has a permanently clouded sky,  dense atmosphere, and higher gravity such that the sentients there could barely reach space and it took them a very long time to even know space was there as it was always cloudy.  It has been awhile, I probably have half of that wrong, but even the parts I may have misremembered fit the topic, so...

Hail Mary is a very good book, btw.  I must read it again and commit more to memory other than it being darn good

[Shpaget]

The system where the planet Krikkit is is surrounded by a dust cloud, blocking the view of the Universe. Eventually, the locals figured out spaceflight, found the rest of the Universe and decided that it would have to go.

 

In any case, making general assumptions based on sample size of 1 is not sensible.

Edited March 7 by Shpaget

[Spacescifi]

7 minutes ago, Shpaget said:

The system where the planet Krikkit is is surrounded by a dust cloud, blocking the view of the Universe. Eventually, the locals figured out spaceflight, found the rest of the Universe and decided that it would have to go.

 

In any case, making general assumptions based on sample size of 1 is not sensible.

 

You have a point but it relies on the unknown. Also known as answers to questions we never knew to even ask

So the only thing we can logically do is make assumptions off what we do know.

That is how science is done to a large extent, barring the theoretical stuff that cannot be proven

[Piscator]

A higher atmospheric pressure would not necessarily lead to heavier winds, since wind speeds would likely be lower. Atmospheric circulation is mainly powered by the sun, so if you have to move a larger amount of atmosphere with the same amount of energy, it would move more sluggishly.  On Venus, for example, wind speeds constantly decrease with rising atmospheric density.

[magnemoe]

5 minutes ago, Piscator said:

A higher atmospheric pressure would not necessarily lead to heavier winds, since wind speeds would likely be lower. Atmospheric circulation is mainly powered by the sun, so if you have to move a larger amount of atmosphere with the same amount of energy, it would move more sluggishly.  On Venus, for example, wind speeds constantly decrease with rising atmospheric density.

Good point, now an dense atmosphere also make flight easier, it might be possible to combine intelligence with flight but this would also require 6 limbs I think for advanced tool use. 

[PakledHostage]

13 hours ago, Piscator said:

On Venus, for example, wind speeds constantly decrease with rising atmospheric density.

But Venus also rotates slower than it orbits the Sun, so coriolis effect is minimal there. Even so, it has winds in its upper atmosphere that are fast enough to circle the globe about every 24 hours. 

[farmerben]

Possibly a large moon and tidal oceans are critical for the development of early life on Earth.  Assuming the aquatic origins of life, the exact gravity and atmospheric pressure could probably vary.

If the gravity were a little different on Earth space travel would be way easier or way harder, ie single stage to orbit rockets would work or no rockets would work at all.

[StrandedonEarth]

2 hours ago, farmerben said:

Possibly a large moon and tidal oceans are critical for the development of early life on Earth.  Assuming the aquatic origins of life, the exact gravity and atmospheric pressure could probably vary.

Early theories also postulated that the large moon was necessary to strip away excess atmosphere, preventing a Venus-style runaway greenhouse effect. But I think that theory was disproven, or at least has not gained much traction. 

[magnemoe]

2 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Early theories also postulated that the large moon was necessary to strip away excess atmosphere, preventing a Venus-style runaway greenhouse effect. But I think that theory was disproven, or at least has not gained much traction. 

Still an large moon probably stabilize tilt. I say an closer moon will strip more air even if smaller. Gas reaching the moon orbit is unlikely to return to to earth anyway. Put Ceres at GEO and it would probably have an larger effect.