Or how about the fact that, after nearly wiping out a different predator (American Wolf), humans had to take its place to prevent deer from overpopulation and exhausting their own food supply.
Bah. Issue with endurance hunting the people really need to take into account. It only works in a small environmental range. Hot and relatively dry. It does NOT work at all in temperate or cooler environments. Neither does t work in hot, humid environments. It will actively kill us in extremely hot environments such as say the Sahara desert. Why? Because it does not rely on PHYSICAL exhaustion. Endurance hunting relies on HEAT exhaustion. It relies on the fact that humans disperse excess heat through sweat glands over the entirety of our bodies, and most animals do not. Such hunting methods do not work anywhere we have to cover our bodies to withstand cold, or anywhere that inhibits the sweat cooling mechanism, which is why it does not work in humid environments as the sweat mechanism relies on the sweat evaporating for the cooling to work. Sweat evaporates too slowly in a humid environment to take advantage of. Even in the right environmental conditions humans historically relied on other less exhausting methods for the majority of our early hunting techniques. You are overblowing a hunting method that was in actuality rarely used. Could humans do it if required? Yes. But it relies on a hot, relatively dry but not too dry environment. And it relies on the organisms we are hunting having a less efficient cooling mechanism in that environment.... Take either of those things away and Endurance hunting becomes useless... It simply DOES NOT WORK.... Case in point, you try Endurance hunting a Grey or Timber wolf in the North of Canada or America... and see how far you get. Or a moose....
Or that there are no herbivores on this planet's land masses that are not also opportunistic omnivores. Much less the sheer number of obligate carnivores.
1st story: As the aliens approach the Sol system, they start picking up old TV broadcasts like Wild Kingdom where they watch Marlin Perkins calmly narrate as his associate Jim is wrestling a giant Burmese Python in the water. Next, they will see National Geographic specials about lions, and finally, they will hear Steve Irwin say this little bugger I just caught is the deadliest snake on earth! It has enough venom to kill 100 men. Now I'm going to tickle it, cuddle it, kiss it, and then release him! 😂
Beautiful. Go Jim. I remember them all. You cued up the memory of the opening music from Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom. Heh. That’s and old ear worm. Da da dada da….
Great stories; Excellent narration! 1st story - Human history and culture may just drive them into a "cat"-atonic state. 2nd story - Just like you never wake up a person sleep walking, never interrupt a person who is "in the Flow"!
@@supremecaffeine2633 No, actually, it is not. It is the healthiest diet out there according to some 'health' guru's, none of which are actually experts in nutrition, all of whom are only interested in the sweet, sweet dollars they get through promoting whatever abortion of a diet they are expounding that week. The healthiest diet for humans in reality is a mixed diet of meat, fruit and vegetables that offers a balanced range of nutrients. Anyone trying to tell you otherwise is either trying to sell you something, or is utterly clueless. There are for example several highly important trace elements and vitamins that we cannot get from meat. Period. Just as there are some we cannot get through eating just vegetables... A meat only diet will see you suffering from malnutrition related conditions. No healthy diet will carry symptoms of malnutrition. Ever.
@@supremecaffeine2633 No, no it is not. There are nutrients we can ONLY get from plants, just as there are those we can only get from meat. Requiring supplements does not make a healthy diet, and if you eat a meat only diet you WILL need dietary supplements. The healthiest diet for humans is a mixed diet of fruits, vegetables and meat.
@alganhar1 Wrong. All necessary nutrients can be found in meat, diary, and eggs. No supplements are needed. Plants and fruits aren't necessary. Yes, a mixed diet is the healthiest, but you'd be lying if you said I implied that wasn't true.
These poor herbivore aliens are in for a horrible shock. That intelligent species in it's first throws of space flight is an omnivore and the planet's apex predator. I wonder how quickly the move to new galaxies will start? And when the flow is interrupted, it's hard to get back into it.
We are not the planets apex predator. Th definition of an apex predator is dependant on natural weaponry only. Not technological. Thee are still animals out there which would, and indeed still do see humans as prey. THEY are the apex predators. Do not make the mistake of thinking we are apex predators simply because we are supposedly the dominant organisms on the planet.. We are not.
Ha, wait until the aliens of story 1 find out that on this planet the herbivors will eat other animals on occasion, see deer eating baby birds as an example. Not only that, some of the plants are even predatory.
Second story should've ended with the worker noting "so the reason I wasn't working, boss, is cause nothing was getting past him on the treadmill" then points to one side full of parts and the other with only assembled pieces
Its seemingly.more common for.all species to be herbivores in these stories, than predators. Brain growth requires large amounts of fats, so an intelligent herbivore would be more like elephants...however they wouldnt have time to develop civilization. Also, tool use is very important, but opposible digits without claws would not develop except in an animal similar to primates.
@@supremecaffeine2633 Is it? Because biodiversity is about the amount of different life forms. The argument was that there needs to be enough prey for predators to survive. So you need enough prey, they can only be there if there is enough biomass for them to feed on. Predators can survive with very little biodiversity, not where there is a shortage of biomass.
@@supremecaffeine2633 They are correct. Biodiversity simply means the diversity of organisms in an ecosystem, how many different species are there. Biomass is the AMOUNT of living stuff in that ecosystem. So biodiversity is how many specific types f living things occupy that ecosystem, Biomass is how much living stuff of ANY sort occupies that ecosystem. Both are important measurements in Ecology (yes, I am an Ecologist, Marine Ecologist specifically, specialising in cold water coastal ecology), but people all to often mix them up or misunderstand them. The fact of the matter is high biodiversity, low biomass ecosystems are not common, but do exist. More usually high biomass and high biodiversity go hand in hand, but not always. You do have the aforementioned high biodiversity, low biomass ecosystems (extreme deep ocean is a good example), and low biodiversity extremely high biomass systems.
@MarijnvdSterre Biodiversity is needed for pretty and predators to develop in the first place. The context of the story makes it clear that planets with high biodiversity have the best chance to develop the predators the aliens were looking for. High biomass in its extreme simply means a planet is dominated by a few organisms. Which is not conductive to developing predators.
@alganhar1 Again. You need high biodiversity to predators to naturally develop. This story is about finding predators, and they've only had majkr success in ecosystems with high biodiversity. If they were only searching for biomass, why search for other predators in the first place? Each of their civilizations would meet that requirement. You understand the difference between biomass and biodiversity, yet you missed why that difference was important to the story.
Another 'deathworld' story. All very fun but people should not take them too seriously. No Ecologists I know, and I know many of them, take the concept seriously. How do I know many? I am an Ecologist, specifically a Marine/Evolutionary Ecologist. I have spent my life studying cold water coastal ecosystems, and how the ecosystem in which an organism lives drives their evolutionary history. Evolution of living organisms and their ecosystems is literally what I study for a living, and have done so for forty years. Why is the Deathworld idea not taken seriously? Its a little thing called competition. All living things compete. period. There are precisely no exceptions. Zero. Even on a supposed garden world, that competition will exist, and its actually that competition that drives a huge proportion of Evolution. Yes, the environment is important, but inter and intra specific competition is a LOT more important in Evolution than most people realise. No sexual competition? No sexual dimorphism beyond the obvious differences between male and female. So no size differences between male and females as seen in say most seals, no large antler racks as seen in male deer, none of the various displays, and so on. And that is just one form of competition. You have competition for food, for space, for resources (not always the same as food), and so on. Humans are not the only living things that compete for resources. We are not even the only ones to have developed weapons to do so. Most natural antibiotics for example have been developed by other organisms for clearing out competition for space and resources.... The idea that there would somehow be no competition on a Garden world is laughable, and could only be conceived of by people with little to no knowledge of the actual natural world. The idea that all species on a world would be herbivorous is equally laughable to any Ecologist, or Biologist for that matter. Predation evolved VERY early in the history of life, well before plants did. Well before photosynthesis did. Another world would be no different from Earth. It would be just as dangerous, just in different ways. The kind of flying predators that could evolve on a low gravity, high air pressure world for example are scary to contemplate... And yes, how lie might evolve on another world is a favourite pub time discussion concept for many, many ecologists.... The difference is we actually have some idea of how the process of Evolution actually works... Most HFY authors on the other hand... Do not....
I think it's more of a case that most HFY authors choose to ignore how evolution actually works because they are writing fiction in the first place and the purpose of fiction is for the enjoyment of the author/reader not scientific accuracy. I can't speak for all of us but I've had discussions with several HFY authors where we'ver discussed the topic of evolution and we all agree that as far as stories are concerned it's simply a plot device that we can use to make the stories more enjoyable to read. We don't try to be accurate to the theory although many of us have researched the matter extensively enough to understand it because that's what authors do. However, it's simply a plot device in our stories and we see no need to stick so strictly to the theory when what we're writing is fictiious works based in a completely different universe often containing different laws of nature. Of course we don't see the need to explain the differences between our made up universe and the real one to our audiences because again it's meant for entertainment not informational like a scientific journal article.
Story number 1, wait till they find out humans ran their prey to death with team work and insane endurance.
Or how about the fact that, after nearly wiping out a different predator (American Wolf), humans had to take its place to prevent deer from overpopulation and exhausting their own food supply.
They will become addicted to mayonaisse and then scandalized that it is made with raw eggs.
Bah. Issue with endurance hunting the people really need to take into account. It only works in a small environmental range. Hot and relatively dry. It does NOT work at all in temperate or cooler environments. Neither does t work in hot, humid environments. It will actively kill us in extremely hot environments such as say the Sahara desert.
Why? Because it does not rely on PHYSICAL exhaustion. Endurance hunting relies on HEAT exhaustion. It relies on the fact that humans disperse excess heat through sweat glands over the entirety of our bodies, and most animals do not.
Such hunting methods do not work anywhere we have to cover our bodies to withstand cold, or anywhere that inhibits the sweat cooling mechanism, which is why it does not work in humid environments as the sweat mechanism relies on the sweat evaporating for the cooling to work. Sweat evaporates too slowly in a humid environment to take advantage of.
Even in the right environmental conditions humans historically relied on other less exhausting methods for the majority of our early hunting techniques.
You are overblowing a hunting method that was in actuality rarely used. Could humans do it if required? Yes. But it relies on a hot, relatively dry but not too dry environment. And it relies on the organisms we are hunting having a less efficient cooling mechanism in that environment....
Take either of those things away and Endurance hunting becomes useless... It simply DOES NOT WORK....
Case in point, you try Endurance hunting a Grey or Timber wolf in the North of Canada or America... and see how far you get. Or a moose....
Or that there are no herbivores on this planet's land masses that are not also opportunistic omnivores. Much less the sheer number of obligate carnivores.
@@alganhar1 That's true of every survival adaptation and strategy. There is no such thing as a universally viable strategy.
1st story: As the aliens approach the Sol system, they start picking up old TV broadcasts like Wild Kingdom where they watch Marlin Perkins calmly narrate as his associate Jim is wrestling a giant Burmese Python in the water. Next, they will see National Geographic specials about lions, and finally, they will hear Steve Irwin say this little bugger I just caught is the deadliest snake on earth! It has enough venom to kill 100 men. Now I'm going to tickle it, cuddle it, kiss it, and then release him! 😂
Beautiful. Go Jim. I remember them all. You cued up the memory of the opening music from Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom. Heh. That’s and old ear worm. Da da dada da….
Oh those poor Aliens in Story 1 😂😂 They are not prepared for Earth..
Just wait until they learn about parasites
Oh, a lush, green world with breathtaking biodiversity. And teeth........
And claws, scales, thorns, poisons, venoms, acids, suction cups, barbs and need I go on?
@@merlinathrawes746 Even the plants hunt. The...fricking...plants.
I'll take Warhammer 40k over the insect world. Much nicer.
Great stories; Excellent narration! 1st story - Human history and culture may just drive them into a "cat"-atonic state. 2nd story - Just like you never wake up a person sleep walking, never interrupt a person who is "in the Flow"!
And don't try to work around a person "in the flow." That is a fast way to be accidentally grabbed..
What? Did I do something? Lost track of time? No, it's clearly lunchtime...
It's always lunchtime somewhere in the world.
It's bloody dinner time here in the UK.
Strictly speaking humans are omnivores but damn don't let us find out a creature tastes good grilled or fried....
Almost everything tastes good grilled or fried. Even vegetables.
True, but humans can technically survive on only meat. It requires specific cuts, but it is one of the healthier diets developed.
@@supremecaffeine2633 No, actually, it is not. It is the healthiest diet out there according to some 'health' guru's, none of which are actually experts in nutrition, all of whom are only interested in the sweet, sweet dollars they get through promoting whatever abortion of a diet they are expounding that week.
The healthiest diet for humans in reality is a mixed diet of meat, fruit and vegetables that offers a balanced range of nutrients.
Anyone trying to tell you otherwise is either trying to sell you something, or is utterly clueless. There are for example several highly important trace elements and vitamins that we cannot get from meat. Period. Just as there are some we cannot get through eating just vegetables...
A meat only diet will see you suffering from malnutrition related conditions. No healthy diet will carry symptoms of malnutrition. Ever.
@@supremecaffeine2633 No, no it is not.
There are nutrients we can ONLY get from plants, just as there are those we can only get from meat. Requiring supplements does not make a healthy diet, and if you eat a meat only diet you WILL need dietary supplements.
The healthiest diet for humans is a mixed diet of fruits, vegetables and meat.
@alganhar1 Wrong. All necessary nutrients can be found in meat, diary, and eggs. No supplements are needed. Plants and fruits aren't necessary.
Yes, a mixed diet is the healthiest, but you'd be lying if you said I implied that wasn't true.
These poor herbivore aliens are in for a horrible shock. That intelligent species in it's first throws of space flight is an omnivore and the planet's apex predator. I wonder how quickly the move to new galaxies will start?
And when the flow is interrupted, it's hard to get back into it.
We are not the planets apex predator. Th definition of an apex predator is dependant on natural weaponry only. Not technological.
Thee are still animals out there which would, and indeed still do see humans as prey.
THEY are the apex predators. Do not make the mistake of thinking we are apex predators simply because we are supposedly the dominant organisms on the planet.. We are not.
Both a pair of cracking tales. Gotta love LG Father Coal
Bravo Sir Encore!
Ha, wait until the aliens of story 1 find out that on this planet the herbivors will eat other animals on occasion, see deer eating baby birds as an example. Not only that, some of the plants are even predatory.
Sounds like a set up for that series "Those Days With The Predators."
I couldn't keep up with it. The non stop specism got eyerolling.
Story 2, wait until those two learn about adrenaline, DMT, shock, and medication strengths😉🤯
Not to mention the hyper-focussing associated with Asperger Syndrome (aka high functioning autism).
I like the new intro visuals. Well done.
For the Algorithm ,For the Author(s), For the Disembodied voice! For the Squirrel 🐿
are the thumbnail pics up anywhere? the cat with the planet behind it is beautiful..
Now this is a good set up for first contract!
Second story should've ended with the worker noting "so the reason I wasn't working, boss, is cause nothing was getting past him on the treadmill" then points to one side full of parts and the other with only assembled pieces
Ah the great ADHD brain where we forget time exists and bend it around ourselves without realizing it...
For the algo fpr the nest
Its seemingly.more common for.all species to be herbivores in these stories, than predators. Brain growth requires large amounts of fats, so an intelligent herbivore would be more like elephants...however they wouldnt have time to develop civilization. Also, tool use is very important, but opposible digits without claws would not develop except in an animal similar to primates.
🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
200K
2nd, 15 December 2024
Aren't you lucky.
Yes well.. ALWAYS eat the dead.. .. don't want the living dead happening
It's death throes. Not throws. =0)
Lots of other incorrect words, too. Dew knot trussed yore spiel chequer two fined awl eras.
Probably should be biomass and not biodiversity
Biodiversity is the correct term.
@@supremecaffeine2633 Is it? Because biodiversity is about the amount of different life forms. The argument was that there needs to be enough prey for predators to survive. So you need enough prey, they can only be there if there is enough biomass for them to feed on.
Predators can survive with very little biodiversity, not where there is a shortage of biomass.
@@supremecaffeine2633 They are correct. Biodiversity simply means the diversity of organisms in an ecosystem, how many different species are there. Biomass is the AMOUNT of living stuff in that ecosystem. So biodiversity is how many specific types f living things occupy that ecosystem, Biomass is how much living stuff of ANY sort occupies that ecosystem.
Both are important measurements in Ecology (yes, I am an Ecologist, Marine Ecologist specifically, specialising in cold water coastal ecology), but people all to often mix them up or misunderstand them.
The fact of the matter is high biodiversity, low biomass ecosystems are not common, but do exist. More usually high biomass and high biodiversity go hand in hand, but not always. You do have the aforementioned high biodiversity, low biomass ecosystems (extreme deep ocean is a good example), and low biodiversity extremely high biomass systems.
@MarijnvdSterre Biodiversity is needed for pretty and predators to develop in the first place. The context of the story makes it clear that planets with high biodiversity have the best chance to develop the predators the aliens were looking for.
High biomass in its extreme simply means a planet is dominated by a few organisms. Which is not conductive to developing predators.
@alganhar1 Again. You need high biodiversity to predators to naturally develop. This story is about finding predators, and they've only had majkr success in ecosystems with high biodiversity.
If they were only searching for biomass, why search for other predators in the first place? Each of their civilizations would meet that requirement.
You understand the difference between biomass and biodiversity, yet you missed why that difference was important to the story.
Another 'deathworld' story.
All very fun but people should not take them too seriously. No Ecologists I know, and I know many of them, take the concept seriously. How do I know many? I am an Ecologist, specifically a Marine/Evolutionary Ecologist. I have spent my life studying cold water coastal ecosystems, and how the ecosystem in which an organism lives drives their evolutionary history. Evolution of living organisms and their ecosystems is literally what I study for a living, and have done so for forty years.
Why is the Deathworld idea not taken seriously? Its a little thing called competition. All living things compete. period. There are precisely no exceptions. Zero. Even on a supposed garden world, that competition will exist, and its actually that competition that drives a huge proportion of Evolution. Yes, the environment is important, but inter and intra specific competition is a LOT more important in Evolution than most people realise.
No sexual competition? No sexual dimorphism beyond the obvious differences between male and female. So no size differences between male and females as seen in say most seals, no large antler racks as seen in male deer, none of the various displays, and so on. And that is just one form of competition. You have competition for food, for space, for resources (not always the same as food), and so on. Humans are not the only living things that compete for resources. We are not even the only ones to have developed weapons to do so. Most natural antibiotics for example have been developed by other organisms for clearing out competition for space and resources....
The idea that there would somehow be no competition on a Garden world is laughable, and could only be conceived of by people with little to no knowledge of the actual natural world. The idea that all species on a world would be herbivorous is equally laughable to any Ecologist, or Biologist for that matter. Predation evolved VERY early in the history of life, well before plants did. Well before photosynthesis did.
Another world would be no different from Earth. It would be just as dangerous, just in different ways. The kind of flying predators that could evolve on a low gravity, high air pressure world for example are scary to contemplate...
And yes, how lie might evolve on another world is a favourite pub time discussion concept for many, many ecologists.... The difference is we actually have some idea of how the process of Evolution actually works...
Most HFY authors on the other hand... Do not....
I think it's more of a case that most HFY authors choose to ignore how evolution actually works because they are writing fiction in the first place and the purpose of fiction is for the enjoyment of the author/reader not scientific accuracy. I can't speak for all of us but I've had discussions with several HFY authors where we'ver discussed the topic of evolution and we all agree that as far as stories are concerned it's simply a plot device that we can use to make the stories more enjoyable to read. We don't try to be accurate to the theory although many of us have researched the matter extensively enough to understand it because that's what authors do. However, it's simply a plot device in our stories and we see no need to stick so strictly to the theory when what we're writing is fictiious works based in a completely different universe often containing different laws of nature. Of course we don't see the need to explain the differences between our made up universe and the real one to our audiences because again it's meant for entertainment not informational like a scientific journal article.