Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Charlie Jane Anders’s 2013 Gizmodo list names ten science-fiction species—and humans—that its author and readers found especially hard to believe. It is an entertainment ranking, not a scientific verdict: its objections range from awkward biology and reproduction to social satire and plot logic. Here are the entries in the original order, with the criticism kept in its proper context.
Charlie Jane Anders’s Gizmodo article, published September 6, 2013, says the list grew out of reader suggestions on Facebook. The order reflects that article’s choices and commentary, including reader comments—not expert consensus about which fictional species could evolve.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
Science Fiction: The Illustrated Encyclopedia | $28.24 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
Encyclopedia of Science Fiction | $197.26 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
The Visual Encyclopedia of Science Fiction | $7.80 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
|
The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction | $81.18 | Buy on Amazon |
| 5 |
|
The Mammoth Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (Mammoth Books) | $3.99 | Buy on Amazon |
10. The Sensorites — social recognition and telepathy
In Doctor Who, the Sensorites prompt a question about how individuals distinguish one another in a society where they look alike, especially if they also have telepathy. The Gizmodo article points to an impersonation plot involving a sash as an example of the episode’s premise. That is a critique of how the story works, not evidence that a real telepathic species would need—or use—the same visual cues.
9. Pierson’s Puppeteers — anatomy and technology
Larry Niven’s Known Space stories feature the Pierson’s Puppeteers, whose unusual body plan drew reader objections in the Gizmodo piece. Commenters questioned how that anatomy fits with the species’ advanced technology. The issue is an apparent mismatch between a fictional body and its capabilities; the comments do not establish a biological rule that would make such technology impossible.
#1 Best Overall
8. The Vorlons — power and characterization
The Babylon 5 entry focuses less on anatomy than on the scale of the Vorlons’ power. A commenter describes them as powerful psychic beings who manipulate younger species and finds their attitudes implausible. That response concerns characterization and the show’s plot scale, rather than a measurable test of whether a civilization could behave that way.
7. Vogons — bureaucracy, poetry, and survival
The Vogons of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy are mocked for bureaucracy and poetry so poor that the article jokes they would be unlikely to survive. The humor is about the species’ comic personality and institutions, not a serious ecological argument. The article also mentions the “hyper-intelligent shade of blue” Hoovooloo as an aside; it is not one of the ten entries.
Rank #2
- Used Book in Good Condition
6. The Palanians — extreme cold and an extra-dimensional link
E.E. “Doc” Smith’s Lensman books supply the Palanians. The cited criticism questions life near absolute zero and a fictional connection to energy from another dimension. These are speculative objections to the story’s environmental and energy premises. They should not be mistaken for a demonstrated scientific limit on all possible life.
5. Humans — satire, not alien biology
Humans are the list’s self-referential entry. The article satirizes humanity’s self-destructive behavior, as well as science fiction’s tendency to give human characters heroic or moral qualities. This is cultural commentary, not a biological argument about humans as an extraterrestrial species.
Recommended Free Tools
4. The Changelings — shapeshifting and shared consciousness
Star Trek: Deep Space Nine’s Changelings invite questions about how a liquid-like body could remain stable while changing shape rapidly, particularly during movement or combat. The Gizmodo piece also doubts the plausibility of the Great Link’s shared consciousness. Both points test the internal logic of a fictional ability and society; they do not establish what a real organism with unfamiliar chemistry could do.
3. The Asari — reproduction across species
In Mass Effect, the Asari can reproduce with partners of other species. A commenter quoted by Gizmodo challenges the game’s premise that touch can enable reproduction and incorporation of a partner’s DNA. That objection is about the game’s invented reproductive mechanism, not a finding about extraterrestrial genetics. Scientists have no confirmed alien biology against which to test such a premise.
2. Kryptonians — powers under a yellow sun
Kryptonians, especially Superman, are the list’s comic-book-science case. The joke concerns the powers associated with a yellow sun and what different stellar radiation might imply. The entry takes liberties with the story’s rules for dramatic effect; it is not a scientific account of how a star would affect an organism.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.1. The aliens in Signs — a weakness in a water-rich setting
The top entry questions the film’s plot logic: the aliens are vulnerable to water, yet arrive on Earth, a planet with abundant water, and show interest in humans. The article raises both the risk of exposure and the difficulty of making the aliens’ biology fit that environment. Those questions concern the film’s setup; they do not show that every unfamiliar organism would share water’s effects on Earth life.
What “unbelievable” means here—and what science can say
These ten cases challenge different things: social recognition, anatomy and tool use, energy supply, reproduction, environmental fit, shapeshifting, shared consciousness, or human behavior. A perceived contradiction in a plot is not the same as a trait that conflicts with familiar Earth biology, and neither amounts to proof about all possible life.
NASA Astrobiology’s “About Astrobiology: Life, Here and Beyond,” written by Marc Kaufman, states: “No life beyond Earth has ever been found; there is no evidence that alien life has ever visited our planet.” NASA describes life as we know it as needing suitable chemicals, a consistent energy source, and water that can remain stable. It also says scientists cannot confidently rule out life with unfamiliar chemistry or solvents.
NASA’s Life Detection Ladder is a framework for discussing signs of life and habitability, not a final universal definition that settles every possible form of life. Earth biology is the only empirical reference available; claims that any fictional species “could never have evolved” go beyond what the evidence establishes.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →
