mental_floss magazine
SUBSCRIBE >
GIFT SUBSCRIPTIONS >
DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTIONS >
subscriber services >
Costas Efthimiou, a researcher at the University of Central Florida, has the very cool job of debunking pseudoscientific myths. His latest calculations showed the mathematical impossibility of vampires, in case you were concerned that they might be real (and apparently there are a frightening number of people who do believe in them).
According to a LiveScience article:
Efthimiou’s debunking logic: On Jan 1, 1600, the human population was 536,870,911. If the first vampire came into existence that day and bit one person a month, there would have been two vampires by Feb. 1, 1600. A month later there would have been four, and so on. In just two-and-a-half years the original human population would all have become vampires with nobody left to feed on.
He gets paid for logic like that.
The flaw in his logic, of course, is that when a vampire bites a person, that person does not automatically become a vampire.
This does, however, prove that werewolves cannot exist.
posted by VenHelsing on 10-27-2006 at 8:45 am
That math would only be accurate if the vampire took only enough blood to change the other person into a vampire. If he sucked the life blood out of the person, they would then be dead and therefore not a vampire. You also have to figure in the people who killed the vampires. And I don’t get paid for my logic :)
posted by Kim on 10-27-2006 at 11:42 am
Aye, anyone who reads or watches Queen of the Damned certainly knows that vampires have the option of creating new vampires or simply drinking their blood. I think it has something to do with things in a vampire’s blood, and unless the victim drinks the vampire’s blood, there won’t be enough to turn them into a vampire. Curse you Hollywood for your blatent disregard for common vampire knowledge!
posted by Scott on 10-28-2006 at 1:48 pm
Why does this prove that werewolves don’t exist? No one ever said that they HAD to bite a person when they change, did they?
posted by Pointy-Hatted Geek on 8-27-2007 at 11:40 am
The previous comments are entirely true and Efthimiou’s research and conclusions are shoddy. What kind of name is Efthimiou? It sounds vampiric - I suspect he’s trying to throw us off his trail…
Vampires do not automatically create other vampires, and werewolves dont have to sustain themselves on people. A 10 year old with a comic book can produce a more convincing argument.
posted by Chris on 8-27-2007 at 12:23 pm
Just so I get this straight - the math and logic is being countered by citing Ann Rice and Comic Books as sources of information for the genesis and species traits of vampires … again, just checking.
posted by Ed on 8-27-2007 at 3:10 pm
OK Ed, what exactly would you consider an “acurate” source for info on vampires and werewolves?
posted by Lisa on 8-27-2007 at 4:13 pm
Given we are dealing with myths, “accurate” information is not exactly possible. My point was not that the “wrong” source was being cited. However, my point was that the analysis that was being criticized consisted of applying a simple, yet straightforward, mathematical model to the most commonly accepted (not to mention prevalent) mode of the subject myth (that a “new” vampire is created by an “old” one biting a victim), and the counter argument appeared to consist of semantics drawn from Ann Rice and Comic Books. Indeed, even given the semantics, the mathematical model still works because eventually there would be more vampires than humans - it would just be over a longer timeline.
My tongue in cheek criticism was, simply, that it appeared the application of a mathematical formula and resulting prediction (driven by a logical model based upon the core operating components of the myth) was being “debunked” through the selective application of science fiction.
Again … just trying to get it straight.
posted by Ed on 8-28-2007 at 10:22 am
Ed,
I hate to break it to you, but the most prevalent and (almost) oldest vampire myth is that of Dracula, written over a century ago. This fictional character, like most fictional vampires, can pick and choose whom to change and whom to kill outright.
Let’s not go pretending that your original post was some kind of intricately plotted and well-developed commentary on the subject matter. You were just trying to make fun of people for talking about Anne Rice and comic books.
As for the actual “mathematical,” debunking that professor Efthimiou (who is clearly a vampire) goes about, it is indeed a failure, because it disregards some of the mythology but not other parts. You said so yourself: “Given we are dealing with myths, “accurate” information is not exactly possible;” so it’s ludicrous to think that “debunking” one obscure, fantastic element of vampire mythology means that “vamipires” themselves are impossible.
Of course, anyone with half a brain already knows that vampires have been “mathematically” (and scientifically) debunked, based on the much more simple fact that human blood does not contain enough nutritional elements to sustain a man-sized living creature, nor does the human digestive system have the capabilities of processing and refining large (or even relatively small) amounts of human blood.
Is that clear enough for you? Did it help you focus that I didn’t reference vampire counter-mythology, even though it is well within reason, as the original ‘professor’ has based his definition of “vampire” off of mythology himself?
I should hope so.
Again… just trying to get it straight.
posted by EdBasher on 8-28-2007 at 12:34 pm
“Has anyone here actually read a book about vampires?”
“You mean, like a Time-Life book?”
“I take it the answer is no.”
posted by Ken on 8-28-2007 at 1:41 pm
Ha ha! Using comic books and fantasy novels for ‘accuracy.’ Clearly, the definitive work is “The Real Ghostbusters” cartoon, in which a battle between a bunch of werewolves and vampires immediately leads to a hybrid every time one bites the other.
posted by Jason on 8-28-2007 at 2:53 pm
“logical” arguments about mythical creatures, at least I have ganja to blame for the wacked out crap that I say. Peace
posted by james on 8-28-2007 at 8:34 pm
The idea of fighting myths with logic is absured if only because myths are invulnerable to logic. We might as well try to disprove the flying spaghetti monster with Algebra.
posted by CJ on 8-28-2007 at 10:58 pm
if a=FSM
and b=bloodsucking vampires
and x=The population of the larger Chicago area
and: a*(x-b)^n where n is the speed of an African swallow in flight
then: the result is the movie Underworld.
Plus, I’d take an author over Hollywood any day, since authors on average tend to research the myths they’re writing about, whereas Hollywood production teams seem to all stand around throwing darts at a dartboard with random pages from Webster’s Dictionary.
posted by TGecko on 8-28-2007 at 11:33 pm
UCF is the coolest university in the country! Go Knights!
posted by Dave on 8-29-2007 at 8:08 am
Besides, all we’d have to do is call Spike (ex Buffy for the unlearned) in and all those Vamps could learn how to reclaim their souls and become humans again… then I could take him home and ravish him.
posted by Andrea on 8-29-2007 at 11:11 am
I think that the beginning of that paragraph should have read “Efthimiou’s debunking math:” because what follows is clearly not a logical argument that would debunk belief in vampires. It is simply a mathematical multiplication showing that we would all have been vampires by now. Were he to actually go on to try to prove logically that they do not exist, he would have to touch on some real biological and philosophical questions. How would they have developed evolutionarily? Many questions from this part alone would be very difficult to answer alone. In addition it is highly improbable that any living or living undead creature would only have to feed once a month. It would be absolutely absurd to have this once monthly feeding as a premise for any scientific/logical debunking. Also, the assumption is made that they only feed on humans and not utilize blood banks or animals of any kind.
It is just this sort of “debunking” on such flawed premises that makes one wonder what sort of muddled thinking really goes on in the scientific community. Is it merely a case of losing the forest for the trees? Or is this the symptom of a much larger problem?
posted by Jen on 8-30-2007 at 11:14 am
At least James has a reason for his part in this discussion. You may want to share it with the rest of these “logical” folks.
Have a happy.
posted by Laurie on 8-30-2007 at 12:33 pm
I like that question about the psychology behind vampires. When you think about it, a vampire is simply the idea of the evil within all of us- a vampire is sort of the person they were before, but not quite. Anyone can become a vampire. I think in our society, we’ve built up the concept of the ‘flawed hero’- one who must commit evil to conquer it. This has led to a fascination with evil within our society (but not, as some might argue, an evil society itself). We see more and more movies about vampires and werewolves becoming central characters because the concept is so fascinating to us- to let oneself go entirely, to shed the moral constraints of society. I think that’s also whats led to an increase in the percent of violent crimes- attacks, school shootings, etc. So if a vampire is simply the evil side of oneself, what does that say about this study?
posted by Chris on 8-30-2007 at 9:28 pm
What I love about mental_floss readers is that we never know where you guys are going to take a discussion when we post something. Well done, flossers!
posted by Will on 8-30-2007 at 10:19 pm
its a disease called Porphyria
posted by webee on 8-31-2007 at 2:23 am
I am of the firm opinion that if vampires can change form (bats, fangs, etc), then their digestive requirements change as well. For those Buffy/Angel watchers, Angel drinks pig blood and therefore does not create any new vampires (anymore). What if others did the same? Just another thorn in Efthimiou’s logic.
posted by John on 8-31-2007 at 5:06 am
I remember seeing this in a kids magazine when I was like 7 (30 years ago). I think this guy should be investigated for plagarism as he did not include that magazine in his notes.
posted by EdS on 8-31-2007 at 11:31 am
Lets not forget that “nutrition” is not required for the “Undead”.
posted by Dale on 8-31-2007 at 1:45 pm
I think all this proves one thing….we all need to get a life. Not just the “undead” but those of us who took the time to read this and/or write!
posted by kristi on 9-1-2007 at 9:59 am
All of you people have way too much time on your hands.
posted by Joan on 9-2-2007 at 6:09 pm
If “nutrition” is not required for the undead, why go around giving massive hickeys?
posted by John on 9-3-2007 at 1:15 am
Did this Mr E take into account the rate of human-type reproduction? Perhaps we need some vampires to trim the hedges a bit once in a while.
posted by suckor on 9-3-2007 at 1:13 pm
While I agree with many of the comments here, it must be said that this argument does, in fact, have merit, as it disproves the existence of zombies.
Also, I agree with Chris’ opinion that Dr. Efthimiou’s name is, quite frankly, suspicious.
posted by nirniva on 6-19-2008 at 2:56 pm
This logic also assumes that the vampire has the urge to 1)”Turn” people into vampires and 2)Ravenously feed on humans.
They would need to feed, but, obviously the major flaw in this equation is the assumed knowledge that a vampire would “turn” a certain amount of people into vampires at a given rate and time frame.
-Conjecure
posted by Conjecure on 6-22-2008 at 7:58 pm
No, he’s right, but for the wrong reasons. There may not necessarily be 2 vampires, then four, then so on, but I’ve never read a Vampire novel where drinking blood didn’t at least kill the victim.
So everyone would be vampires, or dead really.
posted by Dan Helsing on 6-24-2008 at 9:20 am
well if you think about it, even if the drinking of the blood didn’t kill the person, or turn them into vampires, you’d have a lot of people walking around with bite marks on their necks.
So adding onto Dan Helsing’s work in the area, everyone would be vampires, dead, or would have more bite marks on their necks than a teenager leaving the movie theatre on a Friday night.
I don’t get payed for my logic either.
posted by DW227 on 7-12-2008 at 12:48 am
My feeling is that if there were vampires, most of them would be harmless, for the most part. They would most likely be metally retarded or in comas, due to brain damage brought on through combat, alcohol, whatever. If brain cells don’t reproduce easily when someone’s alive, they surely won’t when one’s (un)dead.
posted by TorgosPizza on 12-1-2008 at 9:39 pm