Implementing Underwater Civilizations

That still means discovering and using it outside the ocean/sea.

NickTheNick wrote:

That still means discovering and using it outside the ocean/sea.

at the start, yes...just wanted to point that land isnt really needed, it can be made above the water using buoyant structures.

if this is implemented once you get to that stage, then underwater civilizations are plausible to do. and i dont see the need to keep discussing it, i gave my crazy suggestion before (extreme neoteny and eugenics in order to create biological tools and buildings, very sci fi for being in this game), but this one is the most plausible for this.

again i point to the new people here, you wouldnt be able to create a complete underwater civilization at the start, you would have to develop fire and smelting out of the water and then develop the technology to make the same but in pressurized environments. once you get there, you can create your underwater civilization. you can achieve this becoming an amphibian species and reaching land, or just keep enough time to stay out of the water and create buoyant structures. so you can make fire and smelt metals there. but forget about doing things completelly in the water, its no use.

NickTheNick wrote:

That still means discovering and using it outside the ocean/sea.

Is that really a problem? As long as your creatures had arms and something along the lines of thumbs, you could use a raft or, better yet, a ledge to make fire on by drying out driftwood and using your arms to start the fire without having to raise your body above the surface, though maybe peeking with an eye or two or three to check progress could be acceptable. Simple tools to extend reach would also be quite helpful. Using this same tactic, you could mine stone off of cliff faces by getting the necessary speed to chip away stone by the waterside, and then make it into tools on a ledge. The use of ledges solves the stone-working and fire issue, but metallurgy may be a bit tricky... banging and shaping swords and pickaxes while swimming would be quite a feat. Probably possible, but extremely challenging. There is one more issue that I'd like to address with this: waves. If we're relying on coastal ledges to dry driftwood, then waves could ruin our day by wetting it again. either you could wait for calm weather and pray, or you could attempt to use a little something so many have shot down for another purpose: underwater caves. However, so many have suggested an underwater cave with a large air pocket to make one, maybe 2 tools. nope! Use one which connects to the surface and has ledges to use. My prime candidate: a collapsed underwater cave which is now a flooded cave connecting to a flooded sinkhole. you would be disconnected from the ocean waves and have connection to the surface, thus allowing fires to start and tools to be made.

However, I think the simpler way is an expansion of an idea that was already touched upon (but extremely vague) combined with several other recurring ideas: uplifting or helping evolve a land-based sentient being to do the flame work for you. I think this is considered uplifting, but it is technically you uplifting yourself, which is commonly done with tools... which makes the creature you uplifted to make you stuff to continue a tool. Yes, I am suggesting slavery of another species.

So, in my opinion, making a water based space-faring civilization without ever using land is impossible due to the lack of fire, but you can do it with a fully water-based creature relying on your species and your species' influence only (plus a tiny bit of geographical or evolutionary luck) by using the land without ever having to actually step onto it.

I have read through the entire thread, so I do believe I have provided new information to be shot down on this page. I hope this has at least helped to get past the fire issue in developing an aquatic civilization.

I never said it's a problem, I'm saying that this thread does not deny fire or metallurgy outside the oceans. 

The problem with your suggestion is that they would have to evolve and adapt to be able to hang on to a raft while doing actions for extended periods of time. What's more, if you are able to bring out the front of your body above water, why not just take that extra step and take the rest of your body out too, for periods of time spent metalworking. It would be a heck of a lot easier than all these complex tactics to hang on, work with tools, not let waves hit it, bring dry fuel, not get tired, etc.  

A quick google search on underwater caves yielded the following result:

Spoiler:

And underwater caves connected to the open air above the ocean would immediately be filled with water, because the only reason some underwater caves have air pockets is because there is nowhere for the air to go, and so the water shrinks the air pocket until the density of the air is equal to that of the water around it. If there was an opening the air would just escape to the surface and water would fill in. So that is not a solution to metalworking. 

You cannot uplift a species if you are still in the Awakening Stage. You need Space Stage technology for that. Therefore you couldn't uplift another species to give metal to you. However, it's perfectly fine to trade for metal or demand it from other tribes. Again, this is not what is being disputed, what is being disputed is whether a civilization can discover fire and metalworking ENTIRELY underwater with NO help from other species.

NickTheNick wrote:

what is being disputed is whether a civilization can discover fire and metalworking ENTIRELY underwater with NO help from other species.

they cant, end of the discussion....

:sunny: 
So there I was, wandering the forum, thinking of a solution to the no-fire-underwater thing, when it came to me: who needs fire when you're strong enough to bend metal?
:sunny: 
Nothing a little thinking outside the box won't do, as demonstrated in the impossible quiz.

Well, how are you going to generate enough force to bend the metal, and remain viable for aquatic habitation?

EDIT: Besides, this method would only allow for crude shapes, say goodbye to metal swords or complex machinery.

i like the idea of not using fire or metal, but then we fall in the same problem at the start. "how to create a completelly underwater civilization that can reach space without any outside of the water help".

note that a complete underwater civilization is possible, the only issue is getting to space.

in order to get your Belgium out of the planet you would need a propulsion system equivalent to a rocket, but without fire nor metal you wont be able to reach the technology to create rockets of any kind.

how to do something without machines?, i come again to the response "biotech", the problem is that creating biological tools and other stuff would require thousands of years of extreme neoteny and eugenics. that's the problem of the other alternative, it would take much more time to reach there.

the only idea i have about getting to space with that method is creating a bioship that can shoot itself from the planet using water (a rocket that uses water is possible BTW). but in order to do so it would need a support out of the water, so land is required for launch, a floating creature would be able to reach the upper layers of the atmosphere but wouldnt have a way to get scape velocity there.

edit: i found that there are underwater rockets IRL (they're torpedoes but anyways). the biotech race would have to create a creature that could propel itself with enough speed to get above the surface of the water and then shoot again itself in order to do it. the problem is the amount of water or gas needed for that.

NickTheNick wrote:

I never said it's a problem, I'm saying that this thread does not deny fire or metallurgy outside the oceans. 

The problem with your suggestion is that they would have to evolve and adapt to be able to hang on to a raft while doing actions for extended periods of time. What's more, if you are able to bring out the front of your body above water, why not just take that extra step and take the rest of your body out too, for periods of time spent metalworking. It would be a heck of a lot easier than all these complex tactics to hang on, work with tools, not let waves hit it, bring dry fuel, not get tired, etc.  

A quick google search on underwater caves yielded the following result:

Spoiler:

And underwater caves connected to the open air above the ocean would immediately be filled with water, because the only reason some underwater caves have air pockets is because there is nowhere for the air to go, and so the water shrinks the air pocket until the density of the air is equal to that of the water around it. If there was an opening the air would just escape to the surface and water would fill in. So that is not a solution to metalworking. 

You cannot uplift a species if you are still in the Awakening Stage. You need Space Stage technology for that. Therefore you couldn't uplift another species to give metal to you. However, it's perfectly fine to trade for metal or demand it from other tribes. Again, this is not what is being disputed, what is being disputed is whether a civilization can discover fire and metalworking ENTIRELY underwater with NO help from other species.

Just because I feel the need to counter-argue and have the points to do so, I will.

A: You were saying that the creature had to keep its entire upper body above water: this is not true. You only need arms above water and possibly the ability to raise the eyes above water. now, for an animal with 2 joints on each arm this would be extremely hard to pull off, but if you have something like 4 or 6 joints, I expect the task of metallurgy to not be that hard. Plus, you could use simple grabbable tools as the extra joints. I'm more imagining something along the lines of static cranes made out of sticks or a stick-like hard coral and used like arm extenders. With this you wouldn't really have to put your arms above water, but it would be so much trickier and likely not get you the leverage you need.

B: You were saying why wouldn't they evolve to walk on land. Yes, it would be easier, but you're talking about a player evolved species here. The goal is not species survival in this case, but an underwater civilization of unuplifted creatures incapable of walking onto land.

C: You were saying that half underwater half open caves to the surface would flood to be a fully underwater cave connecting to the surface. So? Just swim up until you hit the opening to the surface, because at that point the water will be absorbed into the soil and can't really constantly overflow. If you have the ledge there, then you're golden. Remember that this is a solution to eliminate waves to make fire and metallurgy easier, not to prove them possible for a seaborn creature.

D: I was using uplifting in sense of the word instead of in sense of the game feature. I remember Seregon saying that ships sinking from a land species, what would be considered the industrial age, would be uplifting if your underwater species used them for metal and stuff. I'm talking more about making simple and crude tools from stone and possibly coral and showing them to a land species, and teaching them to make it. At that point all you have to do is remain in contact with them and have them give you gifts of tools, almost like intelligent pets, until they develop fire. In this case you technically uplifted a species so they can uplift you, and not the space stage type of uplifting.

E: I get that this is not what is being disputed, and it wouldn't pertain relevance if it wasn't for the feature that causes creatures that can't walk on land to not get past the stone age. A way for a full underwater civilization to exist without fire or with fire underwater and use metallurgy has not been come up with yet, and I have my doubts anybody will come up with it. However, if you use fire on the accessible surface without removing your creature from the water than a civilization of those creatures getting past the stone age is entirely possible.

What you have been doing seems to be completely rejecting underwater civilizations by proving the ideas entirely wrong. I see you failed at mine (though it was a good try), then said it didn't pertain relevance. Beforehand the strategy was half aquatic creatures or uplifting by a much more technologically advanced race, and now I think I have a concept that allows a fully aquatic civilization to exist through its own methods. Offer full proof that I am wrong and I will accept defeat, and I do want people to try.

the idea of the remote developing has merit, i imagine a creature using some sort of periscopio, at the same time using some sort of mechanical arms in order to manipulate things outside of the water.

but you forget the point that the process is done overwater, not inside the water which is the major discussion here. making fire and metal outside of the acuatic environment would be possible.

but you cannot do that inside water. using a cave or pressurized environment wouldnt count. as your specie would have to use a non acuatic environment in order to achieve it.

noname, there is no need to become argumentative. This topic is to discuss if it is possible to have a civilization develop fire and metalworking underwater.

Quote :

What you have been doing seems to be completely rejecting underwater civilizations by proving the ideas entirely wrong.

Well, yes, that's kind of the point. Unless we can think of a way for fire and metalworking to be developed underwater, it won't be in-game. Also, there's two filters that any suggestion must make it through before becoming a solution. One, they need to pass the scientific/conceptual test. They need to be realistically possible. So far no ideas have passed this test. The second filter is the game limitations test, whether the idea is possible to do in game based off of the limitations of the game, because there could be a solution, but it could not be possible within the bounds of the engine. It's not that we don't want underwater civs, it's that a solution has yet to pass these two tests. There's no need to implicate us of actively trying to destroy the possibility for underwater civs (from what it sounds like to me).

A,B: Okay, that really doesn't matter. My point is that if you are going to go through the trouble of sticking your arms and senses outside the water to hang on to a ledge or raft, taking the extra step to have your whole body come out would make it easier, because either way you're doing it above the water, and that's not the point of this thread.

C: Then that is no longer underwater, you are doing the work above the ocean. That's the answer to the "So?".

D: "Uplifting" in terms of teaching another tribe how to make stone tools, so that later they trade with you was never denied. I even said:

Quote :

However, it's perfectly fine to trade for metal or demand it from other tribes.

Which is, again, not a case of developing it underwater.

Quote :

I get that this is not what is being disputed, and it wouldn't pertain relevance if it wasn't for the feature that causes creatures that can't walk on land to not get past the stone age. A way for a full underwater civilization to exist without fire or with fire underwater and use metallurgy has not been come up with yet, and I have my doubts anybody will come up with it. However, if you use fire on the accessible surface without removing your creature from the water than a civilization of those creatures getting past the stone age is entirely possible.

E: Yeah, I know. Fire and metalworking are possible above water, and we do not deny that. Trading for metal is possible, and we do not deny that. That's why I said that this is not what is being disputed, because everything you offered is accepted to be possible.

Quote :

What you have been doing seems to be completely rejecting underwater civilizations by proving the ideas entirely wrong. I see you failed at mine (though it was a good try), then said it didn't pertain relevance. Beforehand the strategy was half aquatic creatures or uplifting by a much more technologically advanced race, and now I think I have a concept that allows a fully aquatic civilization to exist through its own methods. Offer full proof that I am wrong and I will accept defeat, and I do want people to try.

Failed at yours? What you suggested was never denied. I never attempted to disprove your theory, I am trying to tell you that it is not a solution because it involves above water work and trading with other tribes. That's why I am saying it's not relevant. Lifting limbs and other parts of your body (head, eyestalks, whatever it is that is needed to work) to work fires and metal means not fully aquatic.

NickTheNick wrote:

noname, there is no need to become argumentative. This topic is to discuss if it is possible to have a civilization develop fire and metalworking underwater.

Quote :

What you have been doing seems to be completely rejecting underwater civilizations by proving the ideas entirely wrong.

Well, yes, that's kind of the point. Unless we can think of a way for fire and metalworking to be developed underwater, it won't be in-game. Also, there's two filters that any suggestion must make it through before becoming a solution. One, they need to pass the scientific/conceptual test. They need to be realistically possible. So far no ideas have passed this test. The second filter is the game limitations test, whether the idea is possible to do in game based off of the limitations of the game, because there could be a solution, but it could not be possible within the bounds of the engine. It's not that we don't want underwater civs, it's that a solution has yet to pass these two tests. There's no need to implicate us of actively trying to destroy the possibility for underwater civs (from what it sounds like to me).

A,B: Okay, that really doesn't matter. My point is that if you are going to go through the trouble of sticking your arms and senses outside the water to hang on to a ledge or raft, taking the extra step to have your whole body come out would make it easier, because either way you're doing it above the water, and that's not the point of this thread.

C: Then that is no longer underwater, you are doing the work above the ocean. That's the answer to the "So?".

D: "Uplifting" in terms of teaching another tribe how to make stone tools, so that later they trade with you was never denied. I even said:

Quote :

However, it's perfectly fine to trade for metal or demand it from other tribes.

Which is, again, not a case of developing it underwater.

Quote :

I get that this is not what is being disputed, and it wouldn't pertain relevance if it wasn't for the feature that causes creatures that can't walk on land to not get past the stone age. A way for a full underwater civilization to exist without fire or with fire underwater and use metallurgy has not been come up with yet, and I have my doubts anybody will come up with it. However, if you use fire on the accessible surface without removing your creature from the water than a civilization of those creatures getting past the stone age is entirely possible.

E: Yeah, I know. Fire and metalworking are possible above water, and we do not deny that. Trading for metal is possible, and we do not deny that. That's why I said that this is not what is being disputed, because everything you offered is accepted to be possible.

Quote :

What you have been doing seems to be completely rejecting underwater civilizations by proving the ideas entirely wrong. I see you failed at mine (though it was a good try), then said it didn't pertain relevance. Beforehand the strategy was half aquatic creatures or uplifting by a much more technologically advanced race, and now I think I have a concept that allows a fully aquatic civilization to exist through its own methods. Offer full proof that I am wrong and I will accept defeat, and I do want people to try.

Failed at yours? What you suggested was never denied. I never attempted to disprove your theory, I am trying to tell you that it is not a solution because it involves above water work and trading with other tribes. That's why I am saying it's not relevant. Lifting limbs and other parts of your body (head, eyestalks, whatever it is that is needed to work) to work fires and metal means not fully aquatic.

By your definition of aquatic, a dolphin smacking its fin onto a ledge of a pool would make the creature not fully aquatic. Its more the tech tree limitation which I am trying to rid of. Sorry if my last part came out a little mean, probably shouldn't have posted it.

But yeah, unsurfacing aquatic civilizations are impossible because the hottest things in the Ocean, volcanic vents, can't melt any useful metals.

No, because what you described is organisms able to hold themselves on to a raft or ledge and use their hands to start and tend fires, and later to smelt and shape metal, while also bringing presumably their head out to see what they are doing. I can't even think of any fully aquatic organisms on Earth that could do that. That's quite different from a dolphin flapping its fin.

Don't worry about sounding mean, it happens to all of us sometimes.

NickTheNick wrote:

No, because what you described is organisms able to hold themselves on to a raft or ledge and use their hands to start and tend fires, and later to smelt and shape metal, while also bringing presumably their head out to see what they are doing. I can't even think of any fully aquatic organisms on Earth that could do that. That's quite different from a dolphin flapping its fin.

Don't worry about sounding mean, it happens to all of us sometimes.

You'd only need to bring out the eyes occasionally, not the head. The reason why we can't think of anything like it on Earth is because sea creatures on Earth don't have arms, the main difference. The line between aquatic and semi-aquatic is thin I think, though I would draw the line at traversing both, which is not happening here. They use both, but can only traverse the ocean

Before I ban you, I'd like you to know exactly why you're being banned.

noname wrote:

A: If you're putting a lot of your body outside of the water for extended periods of time, that's called being amphibious and thus, you're not an entirely aquatic species, therefore this thread does not apply.

C: You were saying that half underwater half open caves to the surface would flood to be a fully underwater cave connecting to the surface. So? Just swim up until you hit the opening to the surface, because at that point the water will be absorbed into the soil and can't really constantly overflow. What on earth is meant by this? Constant water absorption into the soil? Absolute drivel. Having an underwater cave open to the surface is fine, but there's no difference between that and any other air/water interface.

D: Uplifting is fine. We don't care if you get technology from land populations, you can build a (somewhat advanced) civilization from that, especially if you begin communications with said terrestrial civ.

E: if you use fire on the accessible surface without removing your creature from the water than a civilization of those creatures getting past the stone age is entirely possible.
The key phrase here is "without removing your creature from the water". Which means there's fire somewhere on the surface and you're not touching it. If you're on the surface with it, tending it, that's being amphibious.

The idea of using a raft that you hang onto to smelt metal is, let's be honest, pretty ridiculous. You'd have to keep a very hot fire going, surrounded by water, on a platform that is being pulled down into the water, a platform that is probably going to be made out of flammable materials. It's just not worth allowing.

I think that a Water Civ would probably be made out of Coral (They mine coral and metals) also the raft idea is good if used with stone platfroms taht have supports in the water (The civ would HAVe to be Stone age and the player would most likely not think of it so... but it is functional)

A Water Being could go into caves because underwater caves usualy have a water opening so the creature could stick a half of it's body out of the water and then go down again when it needs oxygen from the water...(Like we dive into the ocean holding our breath).

I have a new question...A water civ would probably BE able to go to space and would be able to manouver more radically than a oxygen breathing creature because water takes the force and the object stays in it's functional form...
Here's a video that backs up my theory found it just now :P:...Sorry couldn't find it...
But water saves things in it from getting squshed by massive G forces and Centrifugal Forces because it takes the energy to itselfe so air breathing creatures would be less effective in space than aquatic beings (Think of a space ship that has the potential to go 9000km/h and then top in it's tracks...then turn in 12000km/h and then turn again with 5000km/h those are MASSIVE G forces but the water absorves most of the force (or all of it) and the being stays intact...there IS a video by Michio Kaku... look for it...)

Think about this...

NikolaAnicic007 wrote:

I think that a Water Civ would probably be made out of Coral (They mine coral and metals) also the raft idea is good if used with stone platfroms taht have supports in the water (The civ would HAVe to be Stone age and the player would most likely not think of it so... but it is functional)

A Water Being could go into caves because underwater caves usualy have a water opening so the creature could stick a half of it's body out of the water and then go down again when it needs oxygen from the water...(Like we dive into the ocean holding our breath).

I have a new question...A water civ would probably BE able to go to space and would be able to manouver more radically than a oxygen breathing creature because water takes the force and the object stays in it's functional form...
Here's a video that backs up my theory found it just now :P:...Sorry couldn't find it...
But water saves things in it from getting squshed by massive G forces and Centrifugal Forces because it takes the energy to itselfe so air breathing creatures would be less effective in space than aquatic beings (Think of a space ship that has the potential to go 9000km/h and then top in it's tracks...then turn in 12000km/h and then turn again with 5000km/h those are MASSIVE G forces but the water absorves most of the force (or all of it) and the being stays intact...there IS a video by Michio Kaku... look for it...)

Think about this...

Just stop posting in this thread
IT'S TIME TO STOP POSTING

@NikolaAnicic007

The purpose of discussion on this thread is to find a way to go past the stone age COMPLETELY underwater, not using technology to get fire and metallurgy ABOVE water, which is already in the plan.

@Jimexmore

That was not helpful, and quite frankly rather rude.

Wait, I have a few loose ends in my head to clear up.

If a waterborne species exposed to air for extended periods of time (but not necessarily standing on a solid surface while doing so), then does that mean that Portuguese Men O' Wars are amphibious? (Their flotation bladder, part of their body, is out of the water, so their body is partially out of the water, which is what you guys seem to deem "amphibious".)

Also, if only the player's individual creature, and not the rest of the species, interacts with the land outside of the water (reaching out with tentacles or other graspers, disregarding whether or not they are attached to the shore's sand, which causes the creature to be deemed amphibious, even though it lives underwater and only sticks its limbs/wormacles out to interact with the surface), then is the entire species deemed "amphibious" due to the actions of a particular individual?

Before you flag me for "irrelevant commentating", I'm addressing something that many people in this thread were talking about and replying to, and that is whether an aquatic creature interacting with the surface is amphibious (even though it doesn't live on dry, solid ground at all). And I don't recall the issue of what defines an amphibious creature being agreed on by everybody, so this isn't as faultable as the whole "hydrothermal vents" thing. I guess the only thing I can be banned for is going against the establishment (which is what Sven banned people for, and this is in parenthesis).

Immortal_Dragon wrote:

@NikolaAnicic007

The purpose of discussion on this thread is to find a way to go past the stone age COMPLETELY underwater, not using technology to get fire and metallurgy ABOVE water, which is already in the plan.

@Jimexmore

That was not helpful, and quite frankly rather rude.

But i don't want to see another user get banned because the leader wants "Herp derp realistic"
and won't be open to anything remotely Fantastical at all so mer-organism are out planets with more than one dominant life form is out. But am pretty sure this is gonna be one of the first mods made for this game,
well this and "Zombies" or a unlimted units

P.s. i can feel another ban coming on..it is a good pain.

@MitochondriaBox

The problem here isn't really that of an aquatic creature being able to interact with the surface being deemed amphibious by the game. The problem is making fire in the aquatic environment, as in the fire itself is underwater without any sort of advanced technology such as a pressurized bubble to keep it from going out.

As far as I'm concerned, the game can calculate being amphibious as being in water or on land for an extended period of time, which is close if not identical to the dictionary definition. A dev really needs to help settle the matter of amphibiousness, but the thread is about advancing a fully aquatic species as a civilization past the stone age or underwater equivalent.

And no, I do NOT think your commentating is irrelevant.

@Jimexmore

While it is admirable that you don't want to see someone else get banned. The possibility of a fully underwater civilization of organisms is not what is being disputed, like I posted above, the thread here is for the purpose of discussing things such as advancing the civ forward in an environment where one of the most crucial discoveries, fire, is not going to exist in a conventional way.

And my response, I'm sorry, was just expressing my thoughts.

Multiple dominant life forms can happen on a single planet, threads talk about it, I can't remember which ones.

Immortal_Dragon wrote:

@MitochondriaBox

The problem here isn't really that of an aquatic creature being able to interact with the surface being deemed amphibious by the game. The problem is making fire in the aquatic environment, as in the fire itself is underwater without any sort of advanced technology such as a pressurized bubble to keep it from going out.

As far as I'm concerned, the game can calculate being amphibious as being in water or on land for an extended period of time, which is close if not identical to the dictionary definition. A dev really needs to help settle the matter of amphibiousness, but the thread is about advancing a fully aquatic species as a civilization past the stone age or underwater equivalent.

And no, I do NOT think your commentating is irrelevant.

@Jimexmore

While it is admirable that you don't want to see someone else get banned. The possibility of a fully underwater civilization of organisms is not what is being disputed, like I posted above, the thread here is for the purpose of discussing things such as advancing the civ forward in an environment where one of the most crucial discoveries, fire, is not going to exist in a conventional way.

And my response, I'm sorry, was just expressing my thoughts.

Multiple dominant life forms can happen on a single planet, threads talk about it, I can't remember which ones.

Are you implying we need fire
not just living off you neighbors living on land
not kissing up to land animals then jewing them out of fish and "stuff"
Also will planets be able to have more than one high/sentient species?

None of the things you've just posted have been turned down, and I think Nick and ~scio actually confirmed those in their posts when others questioned about them.

And yes, fire is important in creating things like metal tools and weapons, which is important for technological development in the conventional sense. Biotech has been debated but I don't think it is chronologically practical for those who want a quicker way to get into space before their planet's star blows up.

That last bit does not belong on this thread, rather should be asked in the misc. thread.

Immortal_Dragon wrote:

None of the things you've just posted have been turned down, and I think Nick and ~scio actually confirmed those in their posts when others questioned about them.

And yes, fire is important in creating things like metal tools and weapons, which is important for technological development in the conventional sense. Biotech has been debated but I don't think it is chronologically practical for those who want a quicker way to get into space before their planet's star blows up.

That last bit does not belong on this thread, rather should be asked in the misc. thread.

wait before the mods lose their minds,
why can't we just barging maybe the ocean creature have something to offer the land creatures maybe a deal and stuff so we can become a sentient civ just needing a little help. also can you be smart but not have a civ like creture from with no weapons or building but be smart and things

As long as Strategy Mode is unlocked by this point, then this could happen:
So your creatures have discovered basic chemistry just cause they can and are experimenting with a rather cool volcanic vent (in that it is hotter than normal water but not hot enough to kill them) and one of two or more accidentally knocks over an empty rock box they use for keeping stuff in as they leave and forgets about it. Then when they come back one tips it back over and gets killed by the built up heat. So if at least one survives it will think "Hey what if I put stuff in the box and see what heat does to it?" So after experimenting by using seaweed rope to open the box towards a block of ice from a iceberg or glacier to cool the water it will discover melting metal and think "Metal is very hard. If I carve a shape into rock and then put it under the melting metal, I can make metal tools." They won't be able to make steel but I think that might be okay. :D :D :D :D