> But alligators rarely show compassion for humans, barracudas are not known for saving drowning babies and plants frequently show no compassion to anything.
On the other hand, even predatory mammals are documented on occasion to render aid to humans (i.e. dolphins rescuing humans from drowning, or intervening in shark attacks), and in domestic settings can be convinced to raise young from other species (domestic cats/dogs will raise most baby animals if introduced correctly). It's not as cut and dried as a hard species boundary on compassion.
Not to mention that traveling interstellar distances requires the work of multiple lifeforms working in conjunction. Which requires some form of compassion, slavery, or a really really intelligent and long living creature that is able to survey the land, smelt the materials, machine every screw, and build an interstellar spaceship. Even if it knew how to do such a thing, the time alone would be astronomical, so it really reduces the odds.
Compassion seems just a natural evolutionary direction as it is far more energy efficient for creatures to form coalitions.
> Compassion seems just a natural evolutionary direction as it is far more energy efficient for creatures to form coalitions.
Coalitions within the species (family unit, clan, pack, etc), sure. Coalitions with external parties? That's rare outside of concurrent intertwined evolution (symbiotic relationships, parasitic relationships, etc).
You seemed to have carved out a way that everything falls under there
Everything evolves together. We're all on the same planet and working in the same ecosystem. Cross species collaborations isn't too uncommon and we even see it happen in some regions but not others.
The point is if you collaborate with your own you're very likely to collaborate with others. The smarter the animal the more common this is
We have a sample size of one, when it comes to self-aware sentient species, so I'm not sure we can draw any reasonable conclusions about likelihood of empathy between two such species
> We have a sample size of one, when it comes to self-aware sentient species, so I'm not sure we can draw any reasonable conclusions about likelihood of empathy between two such species
I'm not; I'm only pointing out that the conclusions I see ITT expressing the notion that a more intelligent species would necessarily be more compassionate is more unlikely than the converse, because from our one and only sample of life, we don't see it often.
IOW, I am replying "We don't know that" to the assertion "They will be compassionate.".
On the other hand, even predatory mammals are documented on occasion to render aid to humans (i.e. dolphins rescuing humans from drowning, or intervening in shark attacks), and in domestic settings can be convinced to raise young from other species (domestic cats/dogs will raise most baby animals if introduced correctly). It's not as cut and dried as a hard species boundary on compassion.