8 Ways to Make Vampires Realistic

[spartan231490]

But... Why? What is the point? I mean, yes, you can hedge some numbers in order to getting a theoretically possible vampire-like creature that doesn't obviously contradict any scientific laws, but in doing so you remove most of the reasons to have vampires in the first place. After all the changes you've made, you no longer have an interesting creature. You just have a buff serial killer cannibal with a pale complexion and some night vision goggles.

What story purpose is served by explaining the biology behind a horror monster? A good chunk of fear comes from the unknown, and around the time you've charted the entire digestive system and scientifically classified the medical illnesses the creature suffers you've turned what was a mysterious terror of the night into a routine obstacle to be overcome.

This. /thread, game over. Go home everybody.

The whole point of vampires is that they aren't real. If we wanted realistic stories, they wouldn't be monster stories(guess what: monsters don't exist).

 

[Caffiene]

I dont mind realistic monster stories... they can still work if the justification is done well. It basically fills in the part that you imagine or ignore in the non-realistic version.

But the problem is that it has to be very well thought out. By calling attention to the plausibility you invite the audience to take a close look at the realism and details of how the creature works. If any of them fail, the whole suspension of disbelief can fall apart.

Unfortunately for me the OP fell short - it throws away blood drinking and switches to meat eating for reasons of supposed plausibility, but then hand waves sun damage, a sixth sense, immortality, regeneration and hibernation all in under "oh, genetics". Doesnt feel like it matches, to me. You could hand wave efficient energy extraction from blood drinking as a genetic thing as easily as you could hand wave immortality, or on the other hand if blood drinking is too much of a stretch then so is most of the other stuff. Throwing away one of the biggest parts of the vampire story but being less pedantic about the rest seems a bit backwards.

 

[Caffiene]

2: Everything listed is biologically possible EXCEPT a human sized creature surviving on blood alone.

No its not. The only known higher order animals with functional immortality are extremely different organisms, as mentioned in the article, such as jellyfish (or longevity in lobsters). Animals with regeneration are extremely different organisms, as mentioned in the article, such as salamanders and newts.

The biological changes required to get from the blood feeding of a bat to blood feeding in humans are no more dramatic than the biological changes for humans to regenerate like a newt or be immortal like a jellyfish. All of them are fundamental differences on a cellular level from the way human biology works. To include these not just in an animal, but in a genus Homo creature that supposedly evolved in only the short period since it diverged from homo sapiens, not just one trait but all of these things together, and to explain it with nothing more complex than "well other creatures can do it, so... genetics" is very much a hand wave explanation.

Theres no reason we couldnt hypothesise something like a second or third stomach that extracts energy much more efficiently from blood than a bat can (in a manner similar to how ruminants have additional stomachs for more efficient use of grazed plant matter). Its certainly closer to existing functionality than having a creature that reverts to an immature polyp colony stage to achieve immortality the way a jellyfish does. Telomere retention would be a better method, but I still dont agree that a fundamental change to cellular replication like that is any less of a change.

And none of that changes the fact that feeding on flesh still doesnt give us the nutrients that humans need to function. Flesh or blood or both, to survive on those alone we'd need to have digestive systems more like a cat (or a vampire bat). Either way its a hand wave of "its just works, because... genetics".

 

[Caffiene]

You are overlooking the only relevant fact; there are known lifeforms of some kind on this planet that has at least one of every single ability discussed, EXCEPT being able to survive on less energy than it's body needs to survive. Just saying "well X can do this" might be a lax justification, a hand wave if you insist on using that term, there are NO creatures on this planet known to science that can do what you're talking about. That is the core difference.

We know of semi-immortal life. We know of regenerative life. We known of many creatures possessing means of sensing the environment that we lack. We know of creatures that hibernate as if dead. We know of creature that drink blood. We know of creatures adverse to the sun. We know of allergies to garlic that can be fatal. But I challenge you to name one, just ONE, animal species on this planet that doesn't have to eat. And that's what this argument boils down to; surviving on less energy than your body needs is the same as surviving without needing to consume at all. Starvation is starvation, doesn't matter it you get five percent of the energy your body needs or none at all.

I have a better challenge for you: Name where anyone has said they would need to survive on less energy than they need to survive.

You seem to be assuming some maximum amount of victims or maximum amount of blood that hasnt been referred to. The math is in fact there in the OP that there is enough energy in blood that at 100% efficiency you could get your daily requirement from a single person potentially without even killing them (2.2 litres having enough energy and being just on the threshold). The only difficulty is that at the efficiencies of the vampire bat they would need a lot of blood. That can be solved in two ways - posit a digestive system with increased efficiency (we see specialised digestive systems for higher efficiency in nature; and keeping in mind that small creatures capable of flight largely have extremely fast metabolisms that require a lot of energy compared to their bodyweight), and/or even simpler just say "ok, so they need to drink a lot of blood".

What the argument boils down to is that there is no biologically plausible way to do something that a vampire doesnt need to do and nobody claimed it could or should do. Im happy to agree with that argument.

-

In any case, the underlying point remains the same: None of these things are particularly plausible, and as soon as one of them is noticeable to the audience, the whole house of cards falls down. In my case the blood thing stood out as the most noticeable, but the whole thing is implausible to the extent that I think most people would find at least one of the elements breaks their suspension of disbelief.

 

[Caffiene]

By dismissing the fact that surviving solely on blood in spite of its size would be biologically inefficient

So what?

That isnt remotely related to anything you were arguing, and neither is anything you quoted. The argument you stated was that they would have less energy than they need to survive. Is it inefficient to get enough energy, or would they be unable to get enough energy? There is a vast difference.

Is it inadequate, as you go on to claim, or is it just inefficient? Youre equivocating. If you cant actually show anyone saying they can do the impossible, stop saying that its impossible and address what I actually said.

Even if I ignore your bait-and-switch, I dont see how "humans drink blood like bats, but have a slower metabolism and so dont need as much energy for their bodyweight" is "a much larger hand wave" than "humans can regenerate like a salamander, but they do it without needing any other amphibian traits".

[edit: Clarified confusing sentence)