Forum Moderators: open
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.If mortality rates were taken into consideration, the population would disappear much faster. Even an unrealistically high reproduction rate couldn't counteract othis effect."In the long run, humans cannot survive under these conditions, even if our population were doubling each month," Efthimiou said. "And doubling is clearly way beyond the human capacity of reproduction."
Credit [livescience.com]
The above information makes it clear that vampires are simply a figment of your overworked webmaster imagination. Take some time off - eat a Snickers bar.
Happy Halloween
Mmmmmm.... think I'll go and get some fresh blood from the fridge..
and vampires totally exist, your calculations are flawed - not all victims turn into vamps, and of those that do turn, a large number seem to get dusted, so the population doesn't grow that quickly!
put it this way without vamps we would never have seen smg, which would have been a great loss for many of us.
I think your math is flawed - for example, maybe they don't need to bite one person a day, maybe only once a month.
your calculations are flawed
I think your math is flawed
It's not my math. Ask the Professor about that. I'm just passing along the good news.
maybe they don't need to bite one person a day
I think he, the Professor, gave them only one bite a month in his calculations.
Whatever.. I'm not going to worry about a single vampire, they don't exist. But I will be ever mindful of goblins, trolls, witches and ghosts. So long my trusty garlic necklace! I always wanted to eat you anyway.
i think the calculations in your quoted reference are flawed :)
you're right though all those other things prob exist, but so do vamps
I've been with two myself.
But there is another facet to this equation, grandpa. The 2 offspring from my vampirical experience (and their offspring) are now giving me the energy back! So far no vampire offspring in sight, just the opposite, to balance the scales.
Long live the little people........
In some circles the word "vampire" is used seriously in the context rocknbil suggests - people who "suck" energy, life, joy, from others. They're commonly called "psychic vampires" to differentiate them from the fictional movie stereotypes. They do exist. I have known a few. They may not call themselves vampires, but I sure would.
And there is also a bizarre subculture of poseur vampires, goths who sleep in coffins and dress in all the victorian cape-and-cane regalia; it seems to flourish when being "goth" is deemed trendy -- so true attention-loving adolescent drama majors need to go a leap further with an affectation of vampirism. Many years ago I had an aquaintance who participated in an elaborate real-life role-playing game whose participants enacted vampire behaviour in their daily lives; most were unemployed, slept all day and went out every night clubbing, quite a lot of them had semi-permanent fang dental implants, and some did partake of ritual blood consuption. Among the group were willing non-vampire "donors" who provided their blood for these rituals, usually by cutting.
Real vampires are nothing to be afraid of ... if you are ever confronted by a real vampire, you can ward them off doing one of two things: 1) put them at risk of tearing their expensive velvet cape 2) embarass them by pretending to recognize them from your church, and ask about their parents
Psychic vampires are usually harmless, as long as you don't accidentally marry/date one
What more could anyone want.
That leaves me in a dilemma. It's obvious that httpwebwitch would know the score. But then there's the Professors math.
Two dissenting authorities = one confused grandpa. I think I'll stay out of harms way this Halloween, staying in after dark and refusing to answer the door.
A month later there would have been four, and so on.
The professor's math is only proof that vampires don't reproduce according to the rules of Hollywood, notwithstanding the ongoing success of macho vampire killers and accidental exposure to sunlight keeping their population at bay.
And we don't really know when the first vampire appeared, but the oldest record is from China around 3000 BC (despite numerous claims of Transylvania as the origin, they are REAL latecomers to the vampire party).
So assuming that the first vampire appeared in China 5000 years ago, it could not have really spread out that fast at first. I doubt that they had a 100% survival rate. And perhaps they adapted to pig or ox blood. Which of course then leads to speculation about Ox-Vampires...
All in all, I believe Buffy before I believe some know-nothing professor.
[edited by: Wlauzon at 5:28 am (utc) on Nov. 1, 2006]
