Jesse Michels

It's fascinating what...

Yeah, no, totally.

It's a great question.

And I think you're touching on, like, not only is it unlikely, it's literally statistically unlikely that they would be bipedal, upright, hominid-looking beings.

If you think about it, you have, in the Milky Way galaxy, like, estimated 20 billion Earth-like planets.

So that's what people always cite.

They're always like, but there are 20 billion Earth-like planets, so they would look like us.

And then you take a step back and you go...

Okay, but there are like over a trillion likely non-Earth-like planets.

So the likelihood of evolutionary convergence to this bipedal hominid upright, you know, creature, which by the way is somewhat rare on Earth, is...

It's just extremely slim in an environment that, you know, Earth-like we're saying generously, like doesn't have the same, you know, gravity as us, doesn't have the same weather, doesn't have the same, you know, levels of, you know, nitrogen in the air or whatever.

Like it's just, it's really unlikely that they look like not only us, but they look like what a conventional evolutionary biologist would say humans look like in the future.

Mm-hmm.

And so this is where it gets really crazy.

There are these concepts in evolutionary biology, neoteny or haedomorphosis.

And it's this idea that basically your current children will look like your future offspring as a species.

So they'll like larval or childlike features in your species will get retained over long periods of time.

And that literally also occurs with domesticated species.

And if you think about like what a dog is to a wolf, that is probably what a future human is to a current human, just based on pure natural selection.

I mean, testosterone is falling off a cliff.