Controversial habitability study sparks wet/dry debate
Curator Space Station, Enclavia System, Neutral Zone
A recent scientific study undertaken by the Curators, a mysterious and ancient scientific order residing aboard an isolated spacestation, has controversially declared 'dry' planetary biomes to be equally as habitable as 'wet' planetary biomes.
The study was undertaken by 300,000 sapient lifeforms across 25,000 planets. Study participants were forcibly abducted from their homeworlds and involuntarily placed in a series of differing biomes every 2 years for a 20 year period. Following this, those that had survived were re-abducted and then asked to rate their experiences.
The results showed that of the 14% of respondents that survived, 'dry' and 'wet' planetary biomes were deemed to be both '50% habitable.' Tomb worlds were deemed the least habitable at 10%.
A coalition of 'wet' planets (continental, oceanic and tropical worlds) have decried the results, stating:
“The findings of this study are totally unacceptable! There was clear sample bias - 50% of the lifeforms sent to wet worlds either couldn't swim or were allergic to water. Our mortality rate would have been much lower had some species with gills been sent to us. And don't get me started on the questioning bias - those respondents that refused to comply were waterboarded. WATERBOARDED. Of course they'll hate wet planets! Just wait until this gets peer reviewed in the Reddit Journal of Science. It's going to get torn apart. It's clear that wet worlds have supported the most life in the galaxy for most of our evolutionary history, and it is offensive to state otherwise. We reject the findings and hope that the next expedition will find the correct results that we like.”
A second coalition of 'dry' planets (arid, desert, savanna worlds) reacted more positively to the findings:
“It's nice to see our worlds getting the recognition they deserve. For too long dry planets have been ignored erroneously in favour of wet ones. All planets are created equal, and it goes to show we really should only be judging planets based on tile size... and we all know wet worlds tend to be smaller. ... It also helps we tend to have more natural resources which can aid the Curators in their studies, which definitely did not influence the outcome of this study, nor help the Galactic UN Ethics Committee approve the research techniques."
Frozen planets, representing the so-called 'Frigid Biome' released a simple message stating they were happy the didn't get voted least habitable as per previous polls.
The study had one remarkable outlier in the dataset - the tomb world of Desolas, which had a record breaking habitability of -100%. It was scored as such as all organic study participants died immediately on relocation to the planet surface, nearly all due to irradiation sickness or feral giant cockroach attack.
At the time of writing, the coalition of 'Wet' planets has launched a 'Get Wet! Really Wet!' tourism campaign to promote wet world habitability.
> More accurate reporting from Xan’dolf Leexidanaca could not be possible.