Vampires - the dos and don'ts

Background

In a society that seems to be obsessed by vampires and stories about vampires, it becomes increasingly important to separate the myth from the... well - to make clear to the reader what they should and shouldn't trust in vampire lore.

Their strengths

Yes, vampires have a few key things over humanity, and these need to be spelt out to save the reader from relying upon apocryphal stories and anecdote when facing their own death (or worse) at the teeth of a vampire. Listed below are all of those vampiric advantages you may have heard of, as well as details about whether they can be reliably believed.

1. Superhuman strength. You've heard it said that vampires possess superhuman strength. Stephen King, one of modern documenters of vampiric habit, made clear in his tale of 'Salem's Lot[1] that vampires are incredibly strong. This has been supported by other writers on the subject, including Anne Rice on the occasion that she interviewed a vampire[2].  Do not attempt to resist a vampire by strength alone, you will fail.
2. Cunning and intelligence.  In many ways the intelligence of vampires has been overstated.  While King made clear that his vampire had learned cunning from a long lifetime of survival, Rice detailed the not-so-lucky:  the vampires that were barely human and had lost much of their intelligence.  Bram Stoker’s tale[3], while clearly relying on second- and third-hand accounts, leans towards a high degree of intelligence in his subject but this may be heightened by the environment in which Stoker wrote – 19^th century Ireland tended towards crediting a wide range of supernatural phenomena and bestowing upon them extraordinary powers.
3. Difficulty of destruction.  I choose the word destruction rather than death, as vampires are already considered to be undead and thus on the “other side” of death.  All reasonable accounts indicate that vampires are extremely difficult to kill.  They can be discommoded, certainly.  A vampire whose limbs have been removed can be considered largely ‘armless.  But that vampire will remain in a kind of life until totally robbed of its essence, as documented below.
4. Night vision.  Again, this is a belief that is more due to allegory than fact.  Vampires do not have superhuman night vision.  However, they do spend their time (not their “lives”, as they are undead) in the dark and so their eyes tend to develop some acuity at night.  But a vampire who has been turned from a human with poor eyesight will not magically overcome that defect.
5. Abnormal patience.  To be honest, I’m not sure why this belief has come into existence.  Clearly some people think that with an extraordinarily long life vampires will develop patience to match.  Documentary evidence makes clear that this is not the case.  Were vampires patient, they would simply wait in hiding for human curiosity to wane.  The events that so often bring down their destruction could be avoided entirely.  Fortunately for humanity, the impatience of vampires often proves ruinous.
6. A mesmeric personality.  Unfortunately for humanity, it is exceedingly difficult to say no to a vampire.  Those few who have done so and survived generally tell of being captivated by the vampire’s eyes, but somehow being distracted and noticing less alluring aspects of the creature of the night.  Vampires are indeed hypnotically persuasive (again, Stephen King makes this clear), but if your mind is distracted from them in any way you are likely to be able to identify problems with the scene.  These include seeing how large the polite gentleman/lady’s teeth are, questioning why you should feel so happy about letting a stranger into your house at 2am, or realising that you are late for an appointment.  Such distractions are (fortunately) the bane of a vampire’s existence.  It should also be noted that the vampiric personality is only fully effective in a one-to-one situation.  Vampires attempting to charm someone with a friend appear to find the task of focussing on both exceedingly difficult, and generally fail.

Weaknesses of a vampire

As in their strengths, vampires have varying degrees of weakness.  Again, I seek to make clear that not all of the weaknesses listed here are real weaknesses – as I list perceived weaknesses I will make clear which can be relied upon.

1.      A lust for the virtuous maiden.  Somehow there has arisen a belief that every vampire lusts for virgins, and any other blood is second rate.  I think this has come from a connoisseurs’ club, which I understand was in operation early last century.  My sources advise that vampires in this club pursued the least plausible of sources to gain their meal.  This led them to seek virgins of both the male and female persuasion, as the most difficult to procure.  There does not seem to be any evidence that the blood procured from virgins is of better quality, and I understand that the club lost members steadily in the 1970s with the rise of the “nerd” as the primary source of virgin blood.

2.      An asexual (un)life.  No sex please, we’re vampires is in fact true.  The trouble for vampires is several-fold.  Firstly, in surrendering their lives they also surrendered hormonal drives.  A vampire lusts for nothing but his or her meal.  Secondly, you’re never going to get a rise out of a vampire.  His implement of affection just doesn’t get the blood supply upon which it would rely in such a moment.  However, vampires do use sexual attraction to lure targets.  The vampire does possess a mesmeric personality,

3.      Weak flesh.  This is something that Quentin Tarantino documented in his tale of the Mexican clique, From Dusk till Dawn[4].  In that movie, vampires were fortuitously easy to dismember, as they seemed only half-baked.  Unfortunately, I think only Tarantino can tell us where he heard of this, as there appears to be no other source that documents this vampiric abnormality.

4.      Religion and religious symbols.  As the Church has sought to paint vampires as creatures of the devil, so it has also claimed the ability to protect against them.  Unfortunately, those who rely on religious symbols for their salvation tend to lose in any struggle with a vampire.  I am aware that the literature disagrees with this assessment, but the word on the street is that vampires have no special disgust for religion and its icons.

5.      Garlic.  Many consider garlic to be a strong protection against vampires, but again the literature is against this belief.  I understand it arose in the centuries BCE (before common era), when garlic was seen as a cure-all.  This belief may also have been encouraged by “garlic breath”, on the assumption that vampires, as well-dressed and mannered individuals, would not like to have the bad breath resulting from dining on someone who had ingested or was wearing garlic.  While garlic does have some beneficial effects on one’s health, repelling vampires is not one of them.

6.      Sunlight.  This is a vampire’s biggest bugbear – they do burn very easily and very fast.  I understand that vampires regularly make attempts to foil the effects of sunlight on them, but sunscreens (even with high SPF factors) have so far failed to assist.  Sunlight is the only reason vampire numbers are not of plague proportions.

To destroy a vampire

Remember, you are not killing a vampire.  It is already undead, all you can do to it is make sure it can no longer cause harm.

Many methods have been suggested for killing vampires, but the most common theme is the most correct.  The vampire’s heart must be destroyed.  Other than that, additional details are optional.  A stake through the heart is fine.  So is a sword, assuming it is not just a rapier.  It is important to note that a hole in the heart does not constitute total destruction.  So rapiers, and bullets, are out of the question.  If you have the opportunity to open the vampire’s chest and remove its heart, that will suffice.  Unfortunately, most methods for heart destruction tend to be at close range and it is extremely dangerous to be close to an angry vampire.  (Why angry?  Well, wouldn’t you be somewhat peeved if someone proposed to rip your heart out of your chest?)  If you are going to attempt to kill a vampire, bring friends and preferably a chainsaw:  messy but effective both in offence and defence.

The other alternative for vampire destruction is sunlight.  This is the preferred method, as you may be able to expose a vampire to sunlight without exposing yourself to close-quarters combat.  If all else fails, demolish the house in which a vampire resides, then remove the lid from their coffin.  This is possibly the most effective means of vampire disposal.

What if it comes back?

If you have destroyed the heart or exposed the vampire to sunlight (noting that it must be fully exposed for an adequate period – you’ll know it’s enough when you have a pile of ashes) it will not come back.  But it may have friends.  So – be careful.  And good luck.

Oh, and one last thing.  Turning into bats?  Utter nonsense, just a link with the habit that the vampire bat has of sucking blood.

---

[1] ‘Salem’s Lot – Stephen King, 1975

[2] Interview with the vampire – Anne Rice, 1973

[3] Dracula – Bram Stoker, 1897

[4] From Dusk till Dawn – movie based on story by Quentin Tarantino, 1996

The personal genome

Introduction

I should point out at the start that this article is by someone who doesn’t know anywhere near enough about the science of genetics, but who can see future possibilities.


My March 2012 edition of Popular Science[1] tells me that the cost of producing a human genome (individual's genetic record) is plummeting.

The first effort to sequence a single human genome cost $3 billion.  By 2011, the cost was $5,000, and the sequencing took a few weeks.  And in January 2012 a new process was announced that would cost $1,000 and sequence a human genome in two hours.

At this rate, we will soon reach a point where it will be relatively inexpensive to sequence a human genome - say, $100.  What then?

What then?

Once the cost of sequencing an individual's genetic code (or DNA) hits $100, the price barrier for most of us will be all but gone.  There's no reason not to get your sequence.  But there still needs to be some value that it will provide to the individual.

It's important at this point to note that the human genome is pretty big – one individual's record takes up 3.2gb of storage^[2].

So - we have this 3gb of data, what do we do with it?

I propose a future whereby one can book into the genetic testing lab for a review.  They'll do the sequencing, and provide it to you on a USB key – along with a bit of basic software and a report.  They can also, at your request, provide the same information to your doctor – who is likely to find it very handy.

Okay, so we have lots of data

The genome by itself doesn't really tell you much.  It's a bunch of Gs, As, Ts and Cs (Guanine, Adenine, Thymine and Cytosine[3]).  But it can tell us about a person’s genetic conditions and predispositions – if we understand the code.

At the moment science has interpreted bits of the human genome.  We know that certain parts of the human make-up are hereditary, and we know that certain parts of the human genome have an influence on specific conditions.  Work is continuing to match x part of the genome to y condition – and this is where an individual’s genetic sequence becomes useful.

The map

As I’ve already suggested, in the future you’ll pay $100 for a copy of your genetic sequence and a report.  Now it’s time to expand on that.

The report will be an explanation of your sequence, based on current scientific knowledge.  If we know that a particular combination leads to blue eyes, then the report will say “sequence c is responsible for blue eyes in your case”.  Or more importantly, “a study of your genome shows that you possess the following markers.  These have been found to correspond with a 63% increased risk of heart attack in individuals aged between 37 and 44”.

The latter information would tell you something, but would also tell your doctor how they might go about addressing a risk that they did not previously know about.

All this is fine – to a point.  The problem, though, is that we still don’t know anywhere near enough about the human genetic code.  We don’t, for instance, know enough to make that second statement.  So why would anyone bother getting a report that’s going to be out-dated in a month by new medical discoveries?

The subscription

There is a well-used business model already in existence that serves to solve this problem of information becoming obsolete very quickly – computer virus software.

An anti-virus program does its job in part by checking what’s on your computer against a list of known viruses.  Of course, people write new computer viruses all the time, so that list needs to be updated regularly – generally weekly.

In the case of human genetics, science advances by leaps and bounds.  But most of those will only matter to scholars – doctors and other medical professionals.  The rest of us would only need updated information once a month or once a year (with the doctor calling us in if something urgent does show up).

The model

I propose a three part model.

Data (genome)

This is simply an individual’s genetic sequence.  You are you, now and forever.

Translator (what bits of the genome = what medical information)

This is the bit that requires regular updates.  It says “if section 176359 of the genome contains GGTCCA then the individual will have pink eyes”.  Or some such.  It needs regular updates to keep up with current medical knowledge.

There is a second, and optional, part of the translator.  This part will say “if person with genome A breeds with person who has genome B, their offspring will have the following chance of Downs Syndrome”.  Or similar information matching two peoples’ genetic codes and predicting possible outcomes of their breeding.

Software (personal reporter)

Finally, we have the bit that brings it all together.  A software program that can match the genome to the medical information, and bring updated medical information through the interwebs from the company with which you’re subscribed.  Oh, and prompt you to pay your annual fees.

The software will also, at some point in the future, have to decide what you really care about.  When we do know all there is to know about the human genome, it’s just too much for an individual to read.  Who cares that page 3,754 of your genetic report tells you which part of your genome determined that you would have black hair?

Finally, the software will tell your doctor, at the beginning of each visit, what updated information it holds about you.

Conclusion

There we have it – my proposal for the future of personal genetics.  How we will all be able to know more about ourselves, and assist our doctors in treating us.

If you want to licence this model, please feel free to contact me and we can discuss appropriate fees.

If you would like to tell me all the bits of this article that I’ve got wrong, please use the comments section.

---

[1]   Popular Science, March 2012, pages 24 and 26 (Zinio edition)

[2] Wikipedia entry Genome, accessed 13 May 2012, under the heading “Genome Size”

[3]The Free Dictionary entry GATC, accessed 13 May 2012

A new Australian Constitutional Monarchy

Introduction

Australia in the twenty-first century remains ruled, at the top, by the monarch of another country.  The queen of England is our head of state.  She is there to represent Australia to the world, to undertake the ceremonial roles of government on our behalf, to cheer our athletes on as they compete at the Olympics.  Wait, what?

Yes, the queen of England is supposed to be cheering on the athletes of half a dozen different countries as they compete against each other.  She does delegate some of that cheering to subordinate governors general, but she ultimately owns the right to be cheerleader (although I'm not completely certain anyone has described her as that before).

We need to fix this obvious conflict between our head of state's obligations to Australia and to her other countries (including England).


The debate

In the 1990s, the Australian government promised to hold a referendum into Australia's model of government.  Should we remain a constitutional monarch with the British monarch as our head of state, or should we become a republic?

To pass, a referendum in Australia requires a majority vote in total, and a majority of voters in a majority of states (four out of six states).

The model put to the Australian people in 1999 was one whereby the parliament would appoint a president.  While there was overall support for a republic, Australians do not trust their politicians and most certainly don't want to give them any more power than they currently hold.  The vote failed.

The republican debate has since faded in importance (something which is no doubt gratifying to the prime minister who oversaw the referendum, John Howard, who remains a firm monarchist).


A new proposal

It is time to reignite the debate, but with a third way.  I propose that Australia remains a constitutional monarchy, but with its own monarch.

We have seen the flaws that arise when politicians get involved in important debates.  They will seek to centralise and control power.  A political solution, where Australia has either a popularly elected or an appointed president (czar, emperor, big cheese, or other preferred term) will lead to a politician as head of state.  We don't want or need another politician, we want someone to put on Australia's happy face for the world.  We need a glad hander, someone who can smile and say nice things.  Someone who'll occasionally put their foot in their mouth, and so be quintessentially Australian.

Accordingly, I propose a monarchy.  This will not be hereditary, it will be passed down in much the same way as the Dalai Lama-hood is inherited.


The third way

Australia's head of state, for life, will be chosen by lot from a select group of candidates.  The source pool will be living Australians who have captained the Australian test cricket team (men's or women's).

That is, we will have a head of state who represents how Australians like to see themselves.  A sports person who has achieved the pinnacle of success.  Someone who has already represented their country to the world.  Someone who can present a public face for us all.

Of course, there will have to be limits.  We don't want just any old person.  They will not have been convicted of a criminal offence.  They will not have been found guilty of a sporting offence, in particular of bringing the game into disrepute.

This is the kind of person we want representing us.  Doug Walters.  Or Greg Chappell.  Maybe Brian Booth?  Or how about Belinda Clark?  Or Karen Rolton?

These are the people who can represent Australia to the world.  They can cheer our sportspeople.  They can sign international agreements.  They can work with the federal government, and if necessary bring it to heel.

They will serve for life, as does any other monarch, except in the case of gross negligence or criminality.  Upon the current head of state's death, the replacement will be chosen by lot, drawn from all living, retired, Australian test cricket captains.

I present to you the future of Australia, led by our king, or queen, of cricket.