<story><title>Silurian Hypothesis</title><url>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silurian_hypothesis</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>simonh</author><text>It’s true that only very few individuals would be fossilised and fewer if they found. Nevertheless we do generally find multiple fossils of the same or closely related species. We also find fossils of multiple stages in the evolution of many species. So it seems unlikely to me that we would find zero fossils of a species advanced enough to colonise the entire planet, as we have, nor any of their ancestral species.&lt;p&gt;It also seems likely that technological artefacts would leave fossil-like impressions, or for mineral objects like ceramics simply straight up survive in strata. Such artefacts would massively exceed the number of individuals and trash has a tendency to get widely distributed so it seems extremely unlikely none would be found.&lt;p&gt;One idea is that they might have only lived in a small geographic region such as an island, and if that location happened to subduct and not reach the surface we’d never find them. Well yes, but the major advantage of technology is that it allows you to overcome geographic and climatic barriers, which is why us hairless tropical plains apes have colonised every region on the planet, and did so everywhere except Antarctica but including the arctic with Stone Age technology. An industrial society would also create demand for resources, prompting global expansion.&lt;p&gt;So it’s an interesting thought experiment, but I just don’t see how the hypothesis is really viable. Not impossible perhaps, but extremely low likelihood to the point of implausibility IMHO.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>drewrv</author><text>I do agree that a society capable of nuclear power or space travel can be considered implausible. A similar thought experiment might be, &amp;quot;how technological could a prior species have become before we&amp;#x27;d notice?&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Animals today, from dolphins to chimps, can be found using tools. Is there any reason to believe this didn&amp;#x27;t happen in the age of the dinosaurs? Then you can expand beyond simple sticks and stones to other primitive technologies. Maybe we weren&amp;#x27;t the first to figure out fire, or agriculture, or animal husbandry.&lt;p&gt;Or maybe any brain capable of fire + agriculture + animal husbandry will eventually be so successful that nuclear power and space travel are inevitable.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m not arguing in favor of any of this: it&amp;#x27;s just fun to think about.</text></comment>
<story><title>Silurian Hypothesis</title><url>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silurian_hypothesis</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>simonh</author><text>It’s true that only very few individuals would be fossilised and fewer if they found. Nevertheless we do generally find multiple fossils of the same or closely related species. We also find fossils of multiple stages in the evolution of many species. So it seems unlikely to me that we would find zero fossils of a species advanced enough to colonise the entire planet, as we have, nor any of their ancestral species.&lt;p&gt;It also seems likely that technological artefacts would leave fossil-like impressions, or for mineral objects like ceramics simply straight up survive in strata. Such artefacts would massively exceed the number of individuals and trash has a tendency to get widely distributed so it seems extremely unlikely none would be found.&lt;p&gt;One idea is that they might have only lived in a small geographic region such as an island, and if that location happened to subduct and not reach the surface we’d never find them. Well yes, but the major advantage of technology is that it allows you to overcome geographic and climatic barriers, which is why us hairless tropical plains apes have colonised every region on the planet, and did so everywhere except Antarctica but including the arctic with Stone Age technology. An industrial society would also create demand for resources, prompting global expansion.&lt;p&gt;So it’s an interesting thought experiment, but I just don’t see how the hypothesis is really viable. Not impossible perhaps, but extremely low likelihood to the point of implausibility IMHO.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>JoeDaDude</author><text>In my will, I&amp;#x27;m going to ask that I be buried in soft mud in a river delta, or some similar place likely  to become sedimentary rock in the far future.  But I also want to be buried with some relic that proves I was a member of a technically literate civilization.  I surmise something like a wooden abacus.  The wooden abacus  would fossilize along with my remains.  I hope my fossil, and the fossilized object I carry, will be found in the far future.</text></comment>