Re: Weak Vampires?

: John Schilling <schillin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
: When did that ever become the point?

Upthread of here.

    Message-ID: <Xns9A6482474F771genewardsmithsbcglob@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
    >> Of course, the inherent idiocy of postulating a predator on humans
is
    >> not improved by making them weak.
    > What's idiotic about a predator whose prey are humans? 
    The situation cannot arise as a result of evolution.

Plus there have been several recent threads about "vampires as hard
science",
many of them sparked by "Blindsight" by Peter Watts.

: Vampires *are* scientific idiocy, and I don't think anyone here has
: claimed otherwise. 

Well, again, some folks were objecting to the notion that an obligate
human predator doesn't make evolutionary sense.  So, in that limited
sense, some folks "here" were "claiming otherwise" as in claiming that
they *did* make evolutionary sense.  Possibly this is combined with
"makes evolutionary sense if augmented with magic", but if you've
introduced magic, why argue evolutionary sense?

Also, in previous threads, folks were arguing that the Watts book
was "hard SF" and that the "vampires" therein made scientific sense.
Although rife with references to scientific papers, I don't think
Watts book really makes a good case as "hard SF".


Wayne Throop   throopw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   http://sheol.org/throopw