![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
How to survive when you're a demigod.
Feb. 26th, 2013 07:45 pmOne of the interesting questions in True Blood is how vampires should relate to humans. In a spontaneous 1:1 confrontation vampires are hilariously overpowered relative to humans. They have super strength, super speed, are invulnerable to conventional weapons, and can hypnotize you into doing anything and forgetting all of it.
On the other hand, vampires are horribly vulnerable to organized attacks. Sunlight kills them. Even in a sealed room, they have to sleep during daylight or suffer massive health damage. We already know of one blood infection that's harmless to humans but devastating to vampires. Silver both burns and poisons them. Long distance travel is extremely difficult and leaves them vulnerable. Humans with information and time to plan are a considerable threat. And while we can kill them, they can't kill all of us, because they'll starve*.
Secrecy was a good option but it was rapidly becoming untenable, at least in the first world. So they're trying for officially existing, but assuring humans they're harmless, which involves convincing a bunch of psychopathic demigods to be kind in public. It doesn't look like this is going to be tenable either, despite enormous investments of time and energy.
They still can't kill us, but they're vulnerable to us, which means they have to start planning and organizing. Anything to leave humans alive but harmless will require a lot of work. They could give vampire a herd they had to glamour every day and kill extra-herd humans. THey could create a feudal/slave plantation system without the glamouring. But it's all capital investment, and people with large place-bound capital investments are easy to control (see: China and rice farmers). Vampires are not, as a rule, good at long range planning.
SO it seems like despite all their advantages, vampires might lose this fight. I find that fascinating.
*I loved the asymmetric dilemma in Loopers as well
On the other hand, vampires are horribly vulnerable to organized attacks. Sunlight kills them. Even in a sealed room, they have to sleep during daylight or suffer massive health damage. We already know of one blood infection that's harmless to humans but devastating to vampires. Silver both burns and poisons them. Long distance travel is extremely difficult and leaves them vulnerable. Humans with information and time to plan are a considerable threat. And while we can kill them, they can't kill all of us, because they'll starve*.
Secrecy was a good option but it was rapidly becoming untenable, at least in the first world. So they're trying for officially existing, but assuring humans they're harmless, which involves convincing a bunch of psychopathic demigods to be kind in public. It doesn't look like this is going to be tenable either, despite enormous investments of time and energy.
They still can't kill us, but they're vulnerable to us, which means they have to start planning and organizing. Anything to leave humans alive but harmless will require a lot of work. They could give vampire a herd they had to glamour every day and kill extra-herd humans. THey could create a feudal/slave plantation system without the glamouring. But it's all capital investment, and people with large place-bound capital investments are easy to control (see: China and rice farmers). Vampires are not, as a rule, good at long range planning.
SO it seems like despite all their advantages, vampires might lose this fight. I find that fascinating.
*I loved the asymmetric dilemma in Loopers as well
