[hugh3]

Yes. It could have been much better.

Now, I think it's interesting to speculate how the Predators might have evolved (unlike the Aliens, whose life cycle appears to be just plain nutty). The two things we do know about them are that they're technologically advanced and have an extreme interest in hunting. They also look like biological predators, with their sharp teeth. So I'm guessing that they're a bit like what would happen if a pure carnivore, rather than an omnivore, had developed brains as big as ours.

I see nothing wrong with the idea that a species could have evolved to enjoy extremely dangerous forms of hunting if that helped with sexual selection. Much like peahens find males who carry around enormous handicapping tails to be attractive, female Predators may be attracted to males who hunt ridiculously dangerous game at great cost to themselves.

I'm not sure about the binocular vision thing: don't Predators have binocular vision? Pictures on wikipedia make it look like they have two eyes.

What I think we can say is that Predators would be crappy predators if it weren't for their technology, but they might have been sufficiently good to get away with it in whatever conditions they evolved in. Crocodiles are pretty crappy predators too, but they seem to get away with their tiny niche quite nicely.

[ddewey]

Another way their evolution could have affected them is if their reproduction strategy was different than ours. If they had extremely large numbers of offspring (instead of the few we humans have), they might not emphasize individual survival as strongly as we do, and might value competition and risk-taking so as to keep only the fittest children.

I don't know how seriously I can take this kind of speculation, though. Unfortunately, we only have one data point to work with when it comes to technologically advanced species.

For more on how different other intelligences could be from us, here's some entertaining sci-fi: http://lesswrong.com/lw/y4/three_worlds_collide_08/ Previous posting: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1387771

[hugh3]

Hmm, there's a question: are there any predators on Earth which use the "large numbers of offspring" strategy? Seems to be more common among prey animals than predators.

This kinda makes sense. For a rabbit or fly, food is plentiful and the biggest threat to your survival is predators, so it makes sense to have loads of offspring in the hope that some will survive. For a lion, predators are nonexistent but the biggest threat to survival is lack of food, so if you have too many children in the same territory you run the risk that they'll all starve.

Exception that "proves" the rule: frogs are incredibly fecund predators, but tadpoles are herbivores.

Hmm, I guess I'm forgetting spiders.

[Rob-Goodier]

I wasn't on board with this analysis - "Zehr assumes that the Predators would have evolved to be less physically impressive and more reliant on their tech. If the Predators have... maintained a constant state of strife, then they've been failing as a species for a long time."

Another explanation could be that the decision to maintain physical strife, whether it was made consciously or not, could be the thing that has rescued their gene pool from wussification by their reliance on tech.

Apart from that, I wonder if this article's analyst would draw the same conclusion about a subculture that values suicide bombing?