I actually assumed that marine cryptids are almost as implausible as terrestrial ones, but ChatGPT disagrees and thinks that at least in principle they are more likely.
Explain why marine cryptids are more plausible than terrestrial ones.
Marine cryptids are more plausible than terrestrial ones not because the ocean is magical, but because physics, ecology, and sampling bias work very differently in water than on land. When scientists say this, they’re making a sober inference about where ignorance can realistically persist.
Here’s the reasoning, step by step.
1. The ocean is genuinely under-sampled
This is the single biggest factor.
-
~71% of Earth’s surface is ocean
-
>80% of the ocean is unexplored at fine resolution
-
Most of the deep sea has:
-
Never been directly observed
-
Never been biologically sampled
-
Never been filmed continuously
-
By contrast:
-
Virtually all terrestrial biomes have been repeatedly surveyed
-
Large land animals are constantly encountered
Ignorance is plausible where observation is sparse.
2. Water hides bodies better than land
On land:
-
Bodies persist as bones and teeth
-
Scavengers scatter remains slowly
-
Skeletons are often found decades later
In the ocean:
-
Bodies sink
-
Pressure, scavengers, and microbes destroy remains rapidly
-
Bones dissolve faster in deep, cold, acidic water
-
Carcasses are consumed within days to weeks
This means:
A large marine animal can die without leaving recoverable remains.
That alone changes the evidential calculus.
3. Marine food webs can support large, sparse animals
The ocean supports:
-
Enormous biomass at lower trophic levels
-
Wide-ranging predators with very low population densities
-
Long-distance migratory behavior
Examples:
-
Blue whales: global range, rarely seen
-
Giant squid: known almost entirely from fragments until recently
-
Beaked whales: multiple species discovered in the last few decades
On land:
-
Large mammals require:
-
Dense, localized populations
-
Stable territories
-
Predictable feeding zones
-
Which are easy to detect.
4. Size scales differently in water
Water fundamentally changes biomechanics:
-
Buoyancy supports mass
-
No need for load-bearing limbs
-
Gigantism is energetically cheaper
This is why:
-
The largest animals in Earth’s history are marine
-
Many deep-sea species are much larger than their shallow-water relatives
A “giant unknown thing” is biomechanically plausible in water, not on land.
5. Detection technology is limited and selective
Marine detection relies on:
-
Sonar (low resolution for biology)
-
Trawls (sparse, destructive, biased)
-
Remote cameras (tiny windows of time)
Most ocean animals:
-
Are never caught
-
Are never photographed
-
Are known from indirect traces
Terrestrial detection:
-
Trail cams
-
Roads
-
Satellites
-
Human density
-
Hunters
If a large land animal exists, we will get a clear photo or body.
6. History favors marine surprises
Real examples once considered “cryptids”:
-
Giant squid (Architeuthis): known from myths → beaks → carcasses → video
-
Megamouth shark (1976): large, slow, near surface
-
Living coelacanth (1938)
-
Beaked whales: new species discovered via bones/DNA
These follow a consistent pattern:
physical evidence first, live observation later.
Marine cryptids sometimes meet this standard. Terrestrial ones don’t.
7. What kinds of marine cryptids are actually plausible
More plausible
-
Deep-sea invertebrates
-
Rare sharks or rays
-
Elusive cetaceans
-
Large gelatinous organisms
-
Deep pelagic animals with wide ranges
Much less plausible
-
Humanoid sea beings
-
Intelligent, tool-using marine species hiding from humanity
-
Enormous surface-dwelling animals near coasts
Plausibility ≠ license for fantasy.
8. Why “lake monsters” mostly fail
Even water has limits.
Lakes:
-
Are small
-
Have limited biomass
-
Are heavily monitored
This is why:
-
Loch Ness monster fails ecological tests
-
Lake cryptids are generally implausible
The open ocean is the real ignorance zone.
Bottom line
Marine cryptids are more plausible because the ocean erases evidence, limits observation, supports sparse large animals, and has a proven history of surprises.
Terrestrial ecosystems do not.
This doesn’t mean famous cryptids are real — it means where uncertainty legitimately remains.
If you want, I can:
-
Rank famous cryptids by ecological plausibility
-
Explain why humanoid cryptids are almost certainly mythic
-
Compare cryptids to legitimate “unknown unknowns” in biology
-
Tie this into philosophy of scientific ignorance (what kinds of unknowns are allowed)
Just say the direction.
No comments:
Post a Comment