Designing Intelligent Aliens: The Essential Guide

Deviation Actions

Zerraspace's avatar

Literature Text

This guide is meant as an aide for the prospective science fiction writer, game designer or world-builder wishing to incorporate extraterrestrial elements, in order to improve quality and rationality of the created works. It is not so much a “How To”, which would broach multiple sciences and require a profound understanding of each of these, but a “Before You Go On”, things to consider, wrinkles that need ironing out rather than a methodology. Issues that I bring up here do not necessarily make a choice impossible – you must simply figure out a way around them.

Herein I will be dealing with sapient species, intelligent beings, if you will, since this is where artists’ and writers’ imaginations most often fall short. Here I must distinguish between sentience and sapience – sentient species are aware of their surroundings (which is to say, just about anything more complex than a jellyfish qualifies, even ants), whereas sapient species are capable of reason (humans are the only known organisms that are indisputably sapient). I will do my best to assume a purely physical, rather than cultural or ideological standpoint: alien culture and psychology I may yet examine in the future.

Before Pursuing a Hominid Design:

Popular media may have convinced you that the only possible means to sapience is assuming a hominid form, or that it is at least the most likely form for intelligent life. Star Trek’s Klingons are a good example of this: canonically they developed from arthropods and so should resemble something vaguely like lobsters, yet they’re practically indistinguishable from humans (never mind how their lobster ancestor transformed like this). There is a reason for the prevalence of hominid aliens, but it’s not this: rather, artists do it spare themselves the effort of having to develop infrastructure capable of serving inhuman physiology – using our couches, toilets, armor and weapons would be quite awkward for Mass Effect’s elephantine Elcor, but not for the upright Turians – and even amongst those who might be willing to brace this, many think it more likely that readers will empathize with their creations if they appear recognizably human – this is particularly obvious of District 9’s Prawns and Avatar’s N’avi, both of which were heavily humanized relative to their original designs for this express purpose. Once enough of these came about, newer works simply followed the trend (likely based on such misconceptions).  This latter argument has weight to it, but it’s far from absolute – anybody who owns and loves a pet can attest to that (and I daresay some people feel for their pets more than fellow human beings). If this is your reason for sticking to hominid aliens, you should not fear viewer rejection simply because your alien does not fit the established mold: if anything, because the mold is so horrifically prevalent as to become cliché, any attempt to break it becomes novel and unique. You’re more likely to grab attention and attract a reader base by daring to think outside the box, and I’m here to challenge you to do it.

As for those who are more scientifically oriented, I can assure you that intelligence needn’t be hominid. One look at Earthly fauna confirms it: while many of the smartest species are indeed vaguely human-like primates (which makes sense, in that we evolved from such creatures), there are many that look nothing like us, neither in size nor in shape – elephants, dolphins, parrots, higher canines, corvids (crows, ravens and magpies) and finally cephalopods (squids and octopuses). I doubt that I need to justify the intelligence of the first three, but of the others, I’ll say this. City dogs have learned to use subway trains unattended and have even been observed dividing roles among the pack – one would send out either the smallest and cutest dog to beg bystanders for scraps, or the largest and meanest to scare those passing by into dropping whatever food they might be carrying. Corvids have been observed using sticks as tools and can even put human technology to their advantage: crows will drop nuts too hard to crack onto busy roads for cars to run over them, and some will even make sure that to do this at the pedestrian crossing, where they can come down during a red light to eat said nuts without fear of being run over. Amongst cephalopods, squid can distinguish between visitors and apply lessons taught by their trainers: once taught how to open cubes with differently working locks, they are capable of opening series of these with each inlaid in the other.

That being said, sapience is not the only prerequisite for developing technology, and even if all of these achieved true sapience, some would find this easier to manage than others: primates, elephants and cephalopods. This is because they have complex manipulators – primates have hands, elephants have trunks, and cephalopods have tentacles – where the others must awkwardly use their mouth and feet. The former could more adroitly use and develop tools, building up on them to conquer their environment if they put their mind to it. Again, Earth proves that the human form (or in this case, the human means) is not the only capable one.

Moreover, we’re unlikely to see many hominid aliens in the first place. Consider all extant life on Earth: out of all terrestrial vertebrates (that’s some 32000 species), there are only two groups of erect bipeds, humans and penguins: there are other species that can temporarily maintain an erect bipedal stance, but only the aforementioned groups rely on it as their chief form of locomotion. That’s 17 species out of some 32000 (even more if you look at all extinct ones), and even amongst those 17, only one has an adroit manipulator. You might find this a flawed statistical argument, given that we’ve only one sample space, but there’s also a found logical and biological explanation, namely that the human body plan developed due to specific evolutionary conditions. Our primate ancestors were only driven out of the trees by the rapidly drying climate of the Miocene and Pliocene, as newly evolved C4 grasses took over our formerly wooded habitat. The exact reason we became bipedal rather than quadrupedal remains disputed – some hold that it allowed more energy efficient locomotion, others that standing upright presented a greater surface area for cooling and intimidation, others yet that greater height helped us better see over tall grasses – but whatever it may be, this choice kept hands already made adroit from tree-climbing free for other tasks, and we would use them well. With plants richer than grass fewer and farther between came the impetus for better hunting, and by eating more and more energy rich meat instead of tougher plantstuff, less energy needed to be directed to digestion and more could be sent to our growing brains. Each of these was a specific condition, and taking out any one of them might have prevented human evolution, or at least set us down a very different track: the chances of a similar sequence occurring elsewhere are improbable at best. Even if such a sequence did occur, you still won’t get a hominid sapient – not unless your alien had a primate for an ancestor.

Is this to say that you will not find any other hominids at all? That’s probably untrue – the sheer number of possibly life-bearing planets in the universe allows even this negligible chance to be realized – but our form will always be the exception and never the rule. If you can justify use of such design, preferably in a different manner than just explained, there’s nothing stopping you from implementing it. Just don’t have more than a rare few species be hominid amongst the universe’s sapients. There may be in-universe reasons to explain the contrary – Master of Orion III held that all hominids were engineered by a single precursor species to explain their multitude and similarity, even though they were not nearly as prominent as in other universes, numbering but 3 of the 16 playable races – but for the most part your readers will see this as an attempt to cover lack of creativity, rather than ingenuity.

Critical Points on Designing Your Sapient:

You may have already deduced these points from the former section, but I will reiterate them here. There are two main things you should have in mind when designing a sapient alien:

  1. A non-sapient “animal” ancestor.
  2. An evolutionary impetus for it to develop sapience.

The first of these can be a challenge in its own right, as the non-sapient ancestor must have had some role and adaptation to survive in a particular environment, even if this applies no longer, otherwise it would have never come into existence. This is true of humans as well: even before our brains grew to their modern size, on the plains we specialized as endurance predators, chasing prey till they dropped of exhaustion (and as marathon runners demonstrate, we’re still good at it). You must imagine where the pre-sapient resided, and how it was capable of surviving in said environment before gaining sapience. I will not outline all the possibilities therein – your imagination will surely outstrip any attempts of mine to list them – but I will provide a series of guidelines and considerations for envisioning it.

  • Body Plan: it does not serve much purpose to discuss these – the imaginative reader will certainly not be limited by vertebrate-like physiology, or even Earthly physiology. This is for the better, as Earthly biology is not inspirational in this regard – of some forty animal phyla, only two have had major success on land, which is to say there are only two distinct terrestrial body plans – but the less-experienced would do well to study this, particularly non-vertebrate (and even aquatic animal) anatomy, in order to feed their imagination and help them understand the relation of form and function. A complete understanding of your creation’s anatomy is not always necessary, but it is good for determining implications of its various systems – a trachea using life form would not be able to hold its breath, for instance – and you should at least have an idea of how it goes about eating, breathing and reproducing. That being said, some generalizations of form can be made.

    • Speed requires sleek, aerodynamic forms, with landrunners possessing long and muscular legs to cross larger distances with every stride: huge numbers of legs do not preclude speed, but managing it does require that they be specially arranged so as to avoid running into each other.

    • Larger and heavier organisms will opt for columnar legs with few joints (unless they spend most of their time on their bellies or underwater, in which case they have other means of support), while smaller and lighter ones will opt for splayed legs: this is because the former better support weight while the latter can take horizontal forces and moments as might be imposed by wind.

    • Diggers tend towards compact, cylindrical forms so as to best fit through tunnels, and often minimize or lose their limbs.

    • Aerial forms specifically adapt themselves to minimize weight, the less that needs to be carried, and typically require energy-rich diets to manage the heavy upkeep of active flight.

    • Treeclimbers require a means of maintaining grip, which generally implies suction ability or opposable digits, and those that wish to cross from tree to tree without returning to ground will also need good jumping ability or a body part of extensive length to reach across.

  • Skeleton: unless your creature is very small (in which case weight is negligible) or lives in a fluid medium (in which case buoyancy counteracts weight), this is a requirement for it to maintain its shape under the load of its own weight, and indeed against other forces that might be arrayed against it. There are fundamentally three kinds of skeleton: exoskeletons (as in arthropods), where the support structure is external and flesh is contained within, endoskeletons (as in vertebrates), where the support structure is internal and flesh is wrapped around it, and mesoskeletons (as in echidnoderms – starfish, crinoids, sea urchins and sea cucumbers), where flesh is both wrapped around the support structure and contained within it. For mechanical reasons, an exoskeleton of a certain mass will always bear the greatest bending stress and be most resistant to buckling, but the external armor carries a heavy price: the rigid armor dulls external sensation, and though it is difficult to penetrate by clawing or biting, it is extremely sensitive to impact loading and is easily shattered by powerful blows. These might be imaginatively compensated for – arthropods have sensitive hairs to feel through their carapace – but exoskeletons are hence presumed to be more viable for small organisms than large ones, as the former do not move fast or far enough to manage such damaging impacts. Functionally mesoskeletons act much like endoskeletons, albeit the former is somewhat stronger yet with more awkward organ arrangements: these do not provide such armor, but the layers of flesh atop the supports buffer them against impacts.

  • Diet: chances are your sapient is going to be predatory. Herbivorous sapients are not impossible, as elephants prove, but they’re much less likely to occur than others are for two primary reasons: firstly because plants have far lower energy density than meat and are typically harder to digest, requiring that herbivores spend much more time eating and leaving less time for mental pursuits (elephants eat 18 hours a day), and secondly because such lifestyle does not in and of itself provide the same impetus for intelligence, as it’s not required to secure a meal, whereas carnivores need some ability to outwit and catch their prey. Similar arguments all but preclude the existence of autotrophic sapients, ones that can gather energy without needing to eat at all (most likely by photosynthesis or chemosynthesis): they simply could not gather enough energy by such means to support their activity – a single human being requires as much energy as several thousand tons of grass. Omnivores stand the best chance, even better than carnivores, as they have the same impetus to develop sapience, but also have fewer limitations on food sources, and hence can more easily substitute when any run out.

The technological sapient is under even greater limitations. It must of necessity be social: without regular interactions between individuals, there is no way to transmit information between them, or indeed from generation to generation, and hence no way to accumulate information. You could postulate a species in which the individual inherits information from its parent or acquires it from others biologically, perhaps via genetically encoded memory, but even this would soon be overwhelmed by the increasing efforts required to advance its technology. Only through delegation of effort and resources can continuous achievement be realized: arguably such delegation is the society, or at least its basis. This is not to say that all social species will develop technological capability, but the former is a requirement for the latter: similarly, what is to follow can be applied for non-technological sapients, but cannot be ignored for technological variants.

  • Communication: society and transmission both require a means of communication, preferably one which can address large groups – any complex species can manage this via physical contact, but this only works on an individual basis. Barring more exotic means, your public communication must be vision, smell or sound based, and it should go without saying that your sapient must have the required sense be well developed.

    • Auditory means are already familiar to the reader through human speech, and benefit in that they can transmit information quickly across great distances as well as being difficult to obstruct (particularly infrasound, which can go literally kilometers without much attenuation), but this does not mean that the others are not similarly viable, so long as one takes into account their shortcomings.

    • Visual displays suffer in that they only work in daytime and line of sight, which makes them easily obstructed: indeed, they can only grab another’s attention if said other is already looking in the right direction (which may not be as big a problem for sapients with panoramic or Omnidirectional vision).

    • Olfactory displays carry an inherent delay in communicating across all but the shortest distances, seeing as scent takes significant time to cross them, and may not even be able to reach in all directions depending on the wind (that being said, they could also be fanned deliberately so as to move in only one direction): moreover, smells that can make it across distances will persist and build up as the conversation moves along and others add to it, until they become indistinguishable in the increasingly convoluted mix, which may require careful fanning and designated turns to combat accumulation (though these would take long periods to communicate), or short-lived immediate use smells (though these would be useful only over a small range). Many species might also use a more limited form of olfactory communication via pheromones, by which an individual’s emotional or physical state may be communicated to others.

    Don’t ignore the possibility of multiple types of communication – amongst groups, you want to stand out amidst the crowd, but being conspicuous might not always be desirable (say, while hunting), and entirely novel means not discussed here may come up.

  • Senses: herein are imposed the least obvious constraints. The primary sense need not be vision, but a technological sapient will require at least one shape-determining sense to be well developed – that is, touch, vision or echolocation – in order to make possible the precision required for advanced structures and machines. That is not to say that it must be limited to the senses described here, or even the five human senses: species that spend much time underwater may benefit from electroreception, the ability to sense electrical impulses of fellow organisms conducted in the surrounding fluid, and migratory species may benefit from magnetoreception, the ability to sense magnetic fields and hence utilize their planet’s magnetic field as an internal compass (such species might also be able to sense active electronics, which also produce magnetic fields). However, senses that do not see use fade away, and wane almost to the point of uselessness: in particular deepwater, subterranean and cave-dwelling organisms quickly lose their sight, without light to benefit from it.

    There are also some environments where a sense may not be of much use: sound (and by extension, echolocation) requires a medium to transmit it and so is less useful in a rarefied atmosphere (though not useless, as sound can still be carried through soil and other solids), vision requires a source of illumination to be useful which may be absent or blocked in certain mediums (though this can be overcome in some cases by seeing outside the visible spectrum), smell gives a limited range of perception in an atmosphere saturated with it, touch can discern little in the open air or water (although temperature and pressure senses will still be valuable here), and air and soil don’t conduct electricity well enough for meaningful electroreception.

  • Adroit Manipulators: clearly the aspiring technological sapient will require at least one of these, or the precursor to one. Hands, trunks and tentacles have been brought up, and sufficiently prehensile tails, extensive tongues and flexible lips also qualify; certainly the imaginative reader will not be limited by this. What you should consider is the limitation of each. Wholly muscular structures like trunks, tentacles and tongues lack for rigid components and can hence change their length, stretching and constricting as needed, as well as squeeze through all but the tightest spaces, but are limited in the force they can exert: Earthly muscles can only contract, so structures with this basis can only pull, lacking the ability to exert any significant compressive force and excluding sapients reliant on them from a large number of tasks (particularly hammering, which will have a tremendous implications for their mining, building and construction), while those based on a potentially expanding muscle like the Eponan pentapod would only be able to push, lacking the ability to exert any significant tensile force and similarly excluding sapients from an entirely different set of tasks (particularly pulling ropes, which will also impact their construction). Adding rigid bone-like structures as found in hands and tails gets around the force limitations, as muscles can use these parts as levers both to push and pull, but the structure now has fixed geometry, and some loss in flexibility and range in movement is inevitable.

For those more dedicated worldbuilders, particularly top-down ones, developing the animal pre-sapient may reflect on the ecology of the world as a whole. Firstly, in creating this creature, you are setting down possible characteristics of an order, class, and even a whole phylum. By stripping away its characteristics to a fundamental few and branching out from there, you may design the other organisms on the planet.

The impetus is in some ways more complicated. Some scientists insist that sapience requires an evolutionary bottleneck, a constraint that only sapience can escape, and this thinking should be incorporated to some extent in your work: is sapience the only means of meeting the challenges imposed upon the creature? Big brains are costly, and if an easier option presents itself, it will be selected for preferentially. That being said, what we know of the evolution of pre-sapients on Earth suggests it’s not always this complex – cephalopods are thought to have developed their intelligence as a response to losing their shell, and with it their chief defense against predation, and it also serves as a means of hunting more diverse prey, each of which requires unique strategy to take down.

Example Design:

All these taken together might seem overwhelming, so I’ve provided an example of my own to ease you into the process and demonstrate the contrary.

Crucial to understanding the sapient is understanding its homeworld, the Super-Earth Meios (pictured here [link]), a terrestrial planet with much higher gravity than the Earth and a surface dominated by ocean, with only the occasional island for relief. One reason for the near landlessness is the soupy atmosphere, which quickly erodes any formations out of existence: volcanic action can outstrip atmospheric destruction for a time, but as soon as the hotspot goes silent, the air will see its works undone.

Nevertheless, there are occasions where a number of volcanoes form in near proximity and can hence form a considerably larger landmass that can stand a little longer. It was the formation of such a “subcontinent” that allowed the evolution of chiefly terrestrial life, where before the ecology had been primarily aerial and aquatic, and it is from this picture that our pre-sapient emerged.

It was a ballont, member of a clade of organisms that benefitted from the super-dense atmosphere to achieve lighter-than-air flight, and adaptations that formerly suited it for the air were put to good use on land: where their heavier-than-air steelwing competitors had to contend with moving their gravity-enhanced bulk, the ballonts were already able to counteract their weight via buoyancy, the same mechanism that had enabled their flight, and hence could make do without heavyset legs. In particular, it was an ironbelly ballont (as displayed here [link] ), specialized for chasing steelwings down with powerfully beating tails, using its long tentacles to reach through their exoskeleton for energy-rich flesh underneath, and well-armored on its undersides to keep safe from aquatic threats at low altitude – each of these characteristics would be adapted for its new life on land. So long as it stuck close to the ground, there was no longer any threat coming from underneath it, and so the primary danger came from the sky, causing it to flip orientation so that its shell pointed upwards and its balloons earthwards. Extensions of this would form on the wing-fins and tail, completing its protection, but not solely for this purpose: rather by being semi-rigid as opposed to wholly muscular, these limbs could now push against the ground, allowing them to act as braces against the wind and propel the ballont forward that it may chase down prey with impunity. To this end they took on a sprawling configuration, as they had no need to concern themselves with weight, only inertia (a constant unaffected by gravity). That being said, their ‘feet’ and bottom would remain fleshy, both to feel the earth underneath them as well as to allow better grip and traction.

The success of this body plan lasted only as long as the subcontinent, and when the volcanoes providing for it puttered out one by one, it was only a matter of time before it began to recede. The terrestrial ecosystem was devastated: with their subsistence rapidly disappearing organisms had to return to the water or air or vanish with the landmass. The pre-sapient could not readily do this: while it had maintained the means of flight in its balloons, in adapting its wing-fins and tail for springing it had given up most of its muscles in favor of fewer but stronger units, and without those it could not regain the flexibility and thrust it needed in the air. As the large organisms it once fed off went away with the subcontinent it had to satisfy itself by diversifying its prey, eating everything it could get, and it is in learning how to hunt such numerous prey items without its former speed or grace that it gained sapience. The final design can be found here: [link].

Society had already been present in certain ironbellies before they set foot on the subcontinent, when small groups would chase down and corner packs of smaller fliers, but the basis of it lay in the mother-infant connection. Because buoyancy requires significant volume, all ballonts give live birth to one or two well-developed young, that they may be born as large and as well-equipped to fly as possible. However, the ironbelly young is born without a shell, that it may better fit inside the mother, and so it is particularly imperative that she defend it: whenever possible she’ll latch her tentacles to those of her young, making sure it’s always within arms’ (tentacles’) reach, and it is from this tentacle-to-tentacle bond that their tactile personal communication is based, while vocal communication is reserved for gaining attention and addressing groups.

Other Important Misconceptions:

Chances are your sapient does not exist on its own, but as part of a greater science fiction universe, and now you must now consider its place therein – what it thinks of and how it deals with other such races, and what said others think of it and how they deal with it in turn. Ideally this would require understanding the history, culture and psychology of all involved parties, but even ignoring these in favor of solely physical sciences I can caution against certain pitfalls inspired by popular media:

  • The Single-Biome Planet: barring extraordinary circumstances, few life-bearing planets will fall under this description, and you should not expect your sapient’s homeworld to be one. This is mainly due to two phenomena – the first is variation of temperature with latitude, with areas further away from the equator receiving less sunlight and hence less warmth, and variation of precipitation, brought about by varying temperature, wind direction and topography (with mountains creating rain shadows on their leeward sides) – and is further complicated by the twin effect of atmospheric and oceanic circulation, where fluid currents help to deliver heat across the planet’s surface. You are probably already aware of these, but I’m asking you to apply these lessons: unless your world lacks for ocean or atmosphere, in which case there is nothing to enact the changes of temperature, or these are so prevalent that circulation renders surface conditions all but uniform, your world will have multiple climates.

  • Interspecies Romance: I am not talking about platonic relationships – surely we should be able to enjoy the company of a personable sapient – but sexual ones. They will not be prevalent: for the greater part of our population, nonhominid aliens should elicit no sexual response, any more than do animals, plants or inanimate objects to the general observer, but the existence of paraphillia proves that the human form is not necessary for sexual attraction, and presumably, similar pathologies amongst other sapients will allow some to be attracted to those not of their kind. Not all species will be capable of receptivity – asexual species and some that fertilize externally would have no use for it, and many might only be aroused in designated mating seasons and at no other times – but even amongst those that can, consummating the relationship will be no simple matter. Sexual organs should not be compatible and sexual practice of each species could vary so much between the two as to exclude mutual enjoyment, with some examples possibly posing a danger to one of the partners – many Earthly species have a tendency to devour the male after copulation, and even amongst the comparatively mild mammals and reptiles, quite a few species have spiked penises (including our fellow apes), with the semen of some forming a plug to prevent unequipped males from copulating with claimed females. These might be imaginatively compensated for, but for the most part such relationships will only end in futility.

  • Interspecies Hybrids: it should go without saying that such species will never be capable of bearing progeny with any other, and none of them, not one, will be able to bear children by us. While a number of interspecies hybrids do exist on Earth, these are only between closely related species, typically within the same genus or family, and many are infertile. Alien sapients would have developed independently, likely with their own unique incompatible biochemistry, and a divergent evolutionary history will ensure that even if the former did match, their genes would not: what chances do they have? Unless the species in question share a common ancestor and are separated by only a short evolutionary period, cross-compatibility simply isn’t possible.

  • Interspecies Diet:  that is the ability of one race to eat another’s foodstuffs, or indeed any organic matter not from their own world – again, this is unlikely due to divergent biochemistries. It’s not nearly as simple an issue as Mass Effect’s levi versus dextro distinction makes it cut out to be: life forms from different worlds may well be based on the same classes of compounds, yet still find other variants of these expressed by the other to be toxic or indigestible – indeed, all life on Earth is based on proteins, carbohydrates, lipids and nucleic acids, like us, but only a fraction of it is edible. Aliens will find this fraction even smaller, if it exists at all, not even having the benefit of having evolved to eat some of it, though there may be quite a few normally incompatible ‘foods’ that could be processed to yield nutrition. Suffice to say, with few exceptions sapients will not be sharing foodstuff: each will have to produce and bring along its own specific sustenance.

  • Interspecies Intelligibility: chances are remote that each species will be able to simulate all the nuances required in the others’ communication, and there’s a good chance that such nuances may even be beyond one’s perception. This is certainly subjectively true of Earthly languages, with cultures capable of distinguishing phonemes that are synonymous to others, but it’s also objectively true, as we’ve seen in our dealings with the planet’s pre-sapients. On the latter end of the spectrum, elephants and dolphins regularly vocalize with one another, but we only hear the occasional grunt or squeak, in the former case because sound frequency is too low, in the latter case because sound frequency is too high for our ears to pick up. On the former end, apes are certainly capable of perceiving human speech, and with proper training can even comprehend it, but none have yet to vocalize any human words – they simply lack the faculties for it. This may be imaginatively compensated for – a Russian elephant managed to mime human words by manipulating its lip with its trunk – but for the most part it seems sapients will not be picking up each others’ tongues, and where they do, it will be butchered beyond belief. More likely than not, the two will have to agree to a shared language, or rely on translators.
The pointers provided here should put you on the right track to developing a plausible sapient, worthy of even the hardest science fiction setting. Developing competence beyond this will require that you conduct your own independent studies – continue your education on your own, as it were – and seek out your own principles. I cannot tell you how to go about that, but I can tell you some good places to start:

  • The Furaha Project: There are few better places for the aspiring exobiologist than Gert van Dijk’s Furaha [link]. Not only has he deeply explored the ecosystem of his planet, but he also regularly divulges real-world biological information and its relation to the field in the Furaha Blog [link]: I strongly encourage the determined practitioner to read as many entries as possible.
  • Xenology: Robert A. Freitas’ book [link] is somewhat outdated, but provides almost exhaustive information for all steps of the sapient developmental process, from the formation of its solar system up to the technology and culture taken up through the ages. Surely some of these chapters can provide inspiration.

For other things I’ve referenced:

  • The Epona Project: once the best developed and most ambitious of all exobiology projects, with a team of over 35 worldbuilders joining their efforts, Epona [link] sought to construct an endemic sapient in a mere 10 million years despite the hostile environment. A design, though completed, was never unveiled to the public, and sadly the website has not been updated in years. The pentapods and their extensile muscle are brought up here [link].
  • Real-Life Hybrid Animals: a list of examples can be found on the Wikipedia page [link].
© 2013 - 2024 Zerraspace
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
KarjamP's avatar
Let me just point out that "Sapience" does not mean that a being's capable of seeing reason. If that's the case, then those you've mentioned as examples of intelligent animals, like city dogs and crows, are all sapient, seeing as though one would need to have the ability to see reason to do the sort of things you've mentioned.

What "Sapience" really is, is the capability to take in details, the amount of details one can mentally see at a time. Us humans are the only known beings able to think thoughts of entire complex worlds. Most other creatures can't do that.

"Sentient" does not mean that one's aware of their surroundings; if that's the case, the YouTube algorithms would be sentient. It refers to the ability for an entity to think for themselves; in the words of Wikipedia, "Sentience is the capability to feel, perceive or experience subjectively."


You're comparing aliens to what we know about real world biology. No one had said aliens had to follow our own rules, nor, for that matter, that we happen to know everything. Not even science claims that.

Besides, systems, like simulated biology, are meant to be guidelines; they only exist to serve as guidelines to create a creature. They do not replace the process, itself. In the end, your creature's still going to exist, be it you've followed guidelines or not.

It doesn't matter how you'd get there; the end result is always the same.