1) Intelligence and creativity, to invent required technology an have the desire to do so in the first place.
2) The ability to spread across a good deal of the planet (adaptability/enviromental adaption), to get to the wide range of resources they would need.
3) Strength enough to interact with the environment and defend from local fauna, equipment etc. But not too much muscle as to take away brain power from 1.
4) Reasonably peaceful, so as to not annihilate each other, but not so peaceful that they get eaten by the local fauna.
5) Reasonable productivity, so they can get into space in the first place.
Not necessarily any of those.
1.Aliens could evolve in asteroid fields, where their natural way of travel would be a kind of long jump between planetoids. Granted these aliens wouldn't be interested in planets, like Earth, but isn't different exactly what we're going for here?
2. Obvious for steroid dwellers (it's all one big rock), but even on large planetary bodies, it's possible to have reasonably homogenous conditions, at least on the same latitude. Conversely, we're not using ~70% of our planet either (We do, a bit, but not like we do the fertile 10%).
3.1 It's hard to justify intelligence for these creatures, but there could be a world of almost still organisms (think plants).
3.2 Or you could have strong intra-sepcies differentiation, with strong individuals doing all the defending/contruuction, while the resource intensive brainy types do all the planing (think ants, but with the additional thinker-ant class).
4. Would you call lions warlike? It's possible to be the apex predator, while not grasping the concept of killing another member of your own species (Why would you ever try to decrease your own gene-spread? Preposterous!)
5 is meaningless- tool use is already covered under 1 and the ability to work under 3.
1) Its unlikely sufficiently complex aliens could evolve on an asteroid. Also,the points were a somewhat off topic response to the idea that we can determine humans position in the universe by comparing us with other animals.
2) It is possible, but still, a sentient space faring species would probably have this trait. There is still no reasont o assume humans are particularly good at it.
3.1) No intelligence? Not really relevant then.
3.2) Possible, diddn't think of that.
4). A species too violent could very well cause its own extinction. A species described by 3.2 would
probably have to err on the more peaceful side of things to avoid having their thinkers eaten.
5) Not at all, its possible they can invent tools and have the strength to use it, but not efficiently enough to get into space. Again, there is no reason to assume humans kick ass here.
None of those points are "requirements", but rather "probabilities", to demonstrate that being (for example) "adaptable" in comparison to animals is hardly a good reason to assume we are adaptable compared to space faring aliens. Its not supposed to
prove that its impossible.
Humans should be different and not the default, but there should be a good explanation as to why and I don't think "because thats how animals are" is one of them.