The Galaxy's Weakest Species Found Sanctuary on Earth | HFY | A Short Sci-Fi Story
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ก.ย. 2024
- SuBsCrIbE
/ @scifilegends
•••••••••••••••••
• Original story, written and owned by me!
NOTICE: This content is purely for educational purposes.
Copyright Notice: In accordance with Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, this material is used under the 'fair use' provision for activities such as criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a legally sanctioned practice that might otherwise be considered copyright infringement. Non-commercial, educational, or personal use leans in favor of fair use.
Man, I was hoping they were gonna look like the cute little dude in the picture. 😮💨
It landed in Australia ??!!!! Poor thing is SCREWED !!!
Hahahaha, I think everyone agrees with you, especially with the discription of the Aliens.
I was hoping the Aliens looked like the picture though.
i'm more angry that the image was not the alien in the story. betrayed once again by click bait. the alien that is in the story ... well lets say the text doesn't spell its name the same... it changes from sentence to sentence, i mean is anybody proof reading this at all?
Awwww. And it was so cute in the picture, kind of a cross between a kitten and a Guinea pig. In the story the aliens are slender, have translucent skin, and large eyes. Guinea pig would have been better. I would like to be visited by intelligent alien Guinea pigs.
Eloy, elois, eloise, elawi, eloi, elo e, alawai, elowe, eloey, elawe, eloe, elowi, elowe, allowi, loe, wtf???
Space kitties!
Earth is already a battle ground and we made it that way by fighting ourselves so an alien will not make it a battle ground
okay....you are differentiating yourself from the other myriad channels with similar story lines. I knew it was worth hanging around. I wasn't a fan of the cooking episode, but again, it was like a Manga or Manhwa, so I liked the how it was nothing like I have heard yet.
Even a 100% efficient solar panel is still not enough to provide reliable and sufficient power for the world.
The sunlight varies through the day, and is really a low energy density source of power, even with maximum sunlight and 100% efficient panels.
European nations would need more land than is available, to collect enough sunlight to power them, considering the amount of sunlight available throughout the year and day, and also nighttime is an obvious issue, meaning you need to collect extra power during the day to use at night, and also for when it's too cloudy during the day, and just when it's winter and sunlight is lower in energy density...
Solar power is totally unrealistic for national energy needs, even with 100% efficient conversion, just because of the low energy density. Current propaganda is to the contrary, trying to make us believe wind and solar power can meet the needs of a nation, despite it being physically impossible. (The US would need at least 1/4 of its land mass covered in solar panels to provide enough energy. Imagine the biosphere destruction that would cause, especially if we're trying to 'save the planet' from an imaginary bogeyman.)
Current solar panel technology cannot be recycled, and lasts for about 10 years before becoming too inefficient to be worth using. (The same as wind turbines being non-recyclable, lasting about 10 years, and having the same physical constraints of low energy density and unpredictability.)
As an amusing (and uncomfortable for green propagandists) aside: Fossil fuels are just deceased plants and animals that have used solar energy for days, months, years, and decades... and it has become condensed and concentrated. Technically, from a transitive perspective, fossil fuels are biofuels. They are formed from energy collected from sunlight, and converted by photosynthesis, into energy for plants that themselves became coal, and animals eating plants (and animals eating animals) that became oil.
How is using oil (a fuel made from plants and subsequently animals), that different from growing corn (a plant), to produce ethanol, which is then added to petrol (made from oil) for cars?
Also, we are growing all this corn, but it could have been a potential food for the 'starving nations' we allegedly care so deeply for... ah the hypocrisy, logical fallacies, disinformation, and poor science of the 'green' agenda.
If you really care about reducing the 'evil' bogeyman of carbon dioxide emitted due to energy production... despite carbon dioxide it being at near-critical lows of ~450-500ppm with plants being unable to grow at all below ~150-200ppm, with optimal plant growth at ~800-1,200ppm (with carbon dioxide being pumped into greenhouses and grow tubes for enhanced production of food and decorative plants), and over millenia of ice core samples, we can see how it used to be at ~5,000ppm, and life flourishing at that point, but reducing slowly but surely over time, because so much is now locked away in fossil fuels and other natural absorption into minerals. Really, we should be looking to increase CO2 levels to improve plant growth (which we have seen with the even slight increase in CO2 over the past 150 years leading to a mass greening of the Earth), and to make sure it doesn't keep decreasing to the point that plants will have difficulty growing naturally. Imagine how much it would benefit nations that have chronic problems with corruption and tribal warfare, like basically all of Africa, but being able to so easily grow an abundance of food even with primitive farming equipment and knowledge, because CO2 levels are so much higher and producing way larger yields that grow faster...
Anyway, if you really desperately want to reduce CO2 output from power generation, nuclear fission is the *only* viable alternative to fossil fuels that provides constant and reliable baseload power, with nuclear power stations being able to operate for ~70 years, and longer if properly designed and maintained. Nuclear fission is actually very safe if done properly, and we have the knowledge and design ability to produce nuclear fission power stations that are incredibly safe, even if all humans left the site, with manual and automatic mechanisms to prevent any major problems. The only nuclear incidents we have had in the world, are from poorly constructed and managed sites, and even then, there have been few to no deaths on the whole. (Compared to coal power stations, known to cause way more deaths, from cheap and mass produced coal power station designs, that release unfiltered chemical and particulate (soot) emissions, and the subsequent respiratory problems.)
Also, we really do know how to safely manage nuclear fission waste. Currently, it sits in pools of water in the power station sites, and is safe in this condition indefinitely. However, we also know how to contain and store this waste indefinitely, in underground vaults and encased in special sarcophagi made from multiple different layers of specially selected materials, to an extremely paranoid high level of protection.
Maybe one day, we will have reliable, and high power conversion, nuclear fusion power technology, and this would supersede nuclear fission power generation, if it could live up to the high energy output that natural nuclear fusion can achieve. It would also be safer and cleaner than nuclear fission, and we would use seawater to collect the H3 needed for fusion, and it would last at least for ~1,000 years of needs, but then we would need to source it elsewhere, like from our gas giant planets.
How many different ways can you spell one word???
Endless, it seems.
Sydney is in the out back?
Isn't that just where the woman is working from, monitoring remote observatories? It's not like you actually need to be there, if there are maintenance and security on site, and the system is remotely accessible over the internet, like so many other things.
It gets old that the drawing didn't match the actual story and the emphasis on "balanced environment". While I think it's important is a boring theme.
The picture looks pretty bad, and the worst is it has nothing to do with the story. I don't even understand...
👎Prefer human narrators, but your AI did a surprisingly good job. Story started off well, but don't deal with clickbait. Would be better to have no artwork than to entice people to your story , and they find out the artwork has nothing to do with the creatures in the story. Sorry but giving you a thumbs down and won't be listening to your future stories.
12:30 Again and again: dreams of the woke crowd! It's getting very boring!
Yeah, we declare our planet as a sanctuary! So, those big, mean, scary Alien must respect us and leave the refugee alone or we will send you a strongly word letter to your diplomats or maybe even your Mom. This has to be AI generated utopian tripe.
@@CarlShaw-qj4ms Honestly, The middle part was just a bit check box of certain narratives. The governments would have been quickly reverse engineering tech and making weapons. The fact the writer ignored that in the middle of the story. And the whole entire 'peaceful' war is very unrealistic. The writer also makes the Eloy's tech extremely powerful which makes you wonder why they were forced out. After all, humanity defeated them without losses, and disabled a few enemy ships forcing them to leave. Either the Eloy didn't put up a defense for their own planet, or were defeated. If the later, then why were humans able to win later?
There are all these problems because the writer pushed narratives over story.
@@rizon72 Yeah, couldn't agree with you more. We managed to produce that powerful tech, train our people to use it and deploy it around the world; in the time it took for the baddies to get from when we detected them, to earth! Then there's the issue of banding together with all the other peaceful Aliens, who couldn't help the Eloy. Did we all sit around a campfire and sing, "The Lion Sleeps Tonight" to keep back the hordes of mean Aliens. I don't mind a story wanting a peaceful future, but make it make sense.
Plus, the delusional fantasy that solar power is a viable energy source for anything but remote installations.
Sunlight is a low energy density power source, even with 100% efficient conversion technology, we would still need ridiculous amounts of land and energy storage, even more land than the physical size of most nations has. The planet would basically just have to be solar panels and nothing else, and then maybe that could meet our current energy demands (ignoring increasing energy demands as impoverished nations move away from burning animal dung and charcoal, and just increased demands as time goes by for developed nations, too).
Lol you could at least try telling a good story
Just how many of these critters could fit into a spacecraft the size of a charter bus? As it is, the poor things would be spending every moment sitting on some sort of committee, the way things are described.