Talking About Stuff, with Mike and Christiana

AT: (on this panel as the Author of "Storyteller")

FM: (on this panel as the Author of "The Quickening")

DT: (On this panel because writes Hard SF, has 4 sons, sees plenty of disgusting things!)

FM: In mine, the main guy is cursed so that he cannot die, but that he would transform into who ever "kills" him. He becomes his sister eventually, and when he gets her period, he is very upset, and I've been told that was too disgusting. (laughs)

AT: Then there's "Some of your Blood" about 'different kind of vampires'.

DT: Piers Anthony often meets my yuck-factor. At one point, the MC has to hand-probe his fiance's dead bloated body for an implant after she'd been put out the airlock.

AT: Then there's CW's "Even the Queen", another "period" piece.

FM: We're not even talking Horror yet.

AT: I remember reading Lovecraft as a teen. It had really gross covers, and reading them on the bus felt dangerous and rebellious. But then, I was an Agriculture major, that has a pretty high yuck factor.

DT: Why do we write "yuck" stuff? Writing isn't generally supposed to be gratuitous, so it can take a lot of skill to make sure that the yuck relates to the plot.

FM: Brutality / Torture meets my yuck factor, but it's memorable. I'm actually not allowed to drive my kid's carpool anymore because the other mothers disapproved of some of the stories I told. But the thing with kids and teens, there's a desire for it. They go "Yuck! Then what happened?"

DT: Jaqueline Kerry has a number of sex scenes that are heavy but with some S&M in them.

FM: I thought those were pretty well written though.

Q: What are the lines between "erotic", "pornographic", and "Whoa! Is that even possible?"

Chatter: Erotic = Sexy serves the plot.
Pornographic = Sexy IS the plot.
"Whoa" = Not Sexy anymore, but still interesting.
Here's a challenge. Write something simultaneously "yuck" AND sexy.

Q: Maybe Erotic = "Things you can do.", Porno = "Things you want to do", "Whoa" = "Why would you do that?"

Chatter: Sexy = use a feather, Kinky = use a chicken

AT: I like aliens with unusual sexual behavior, frex no physical contact at all.

DT: A lot of Medical Yuck these days. FDA recently approved maggots and leeches as legitimate medical treatments.

Q: Do you think that disgust is learned? Babies often play with their diapers until they "learn" that it's disgusting. Also, in many cultures, a woman who hasn't had genital mutilation is disgusting.

Q: Also, does age make a difference? Or when things are just routine?

Q: (me) Since so many things that we think of as disgusting become less so as we get used to them, is disgust really a fear of the unknown?

(I stopped taking notes for a while at this point, because it just became a game of oneupsmanship with gross-out stories.)

AT: Recommend a good book "Medieval Prostitution" very interesting. Another story. Jerry Pournelle walking around a party pointing his finger at people. "Zap! You're sterile. Zap! You're impotant." Then we reminded him about the weapons rule. "You kill it, you eat it!"

DT: There's a great Tee-shirt. "For every animal you don't eat, I'm going to eat two!"

AT: I remember once my baby ate a garden slug. I was panicked and I called poison control. After reassuring me over and over again, they said "In these cases, we recommend you treat the parents."

Chatter: Does making something taboo make it more interesting? There's a distinction between intellectual disgust, as disgust with racism, etc., and visceral "Eww!" Do some Siamese twins risk their lives to be separated just for society's comfort-level? Excellent book "Speed of Dark" by Elizabeth Moon, really looks at "what is normal?" Also "Perdido Street Station" by China Mielville.

GP: Hates fandom in general, even though he's been a part of it for 35 years. (laughs) But something I really hate is what I'll call the "Moving Wave of the Present". There are always new people coming into the fandom, but there is a tendency in these people to think that anything that came before whatever brought them in is "before their time" and therefore irrelevant/dismissed. In any other field, "classics" are appreciated. Like anyone who considers themselves a "music fan" but who thinks Beethoven or Mozart are irrelevant would be seen as silly. But many SF fans think that anything that came before is automatically unimportant.

BB: But then, fanzines are a good barometer and if you look back most of the old ones are crap.

GP: But 90% of everything is crap. We know that already.

CW: Agrees. Sometimes, when somebody is a fan of some recent thing "X", you recommend the older thing that inspired it, "A", and they come back and say they felt like it just copied "X", even though it's actually the original.

BB: So what then, if it were to be made of cardboard, are you saying should be put in the room?

GP: Leeds (Laughs, elaborates on specific people he met there)

CP: I would put Filk in the room, for the following reasons. 1st problem, they comb their hair backwards. Second, they are completely unable to stop playing. Third, they ask you to sing along, but last, it is all just profoundly unfunny. If Room 101 is whatever you most hate and fear... I don't hate filk, but I do fear it. A filk singer once wrote a song for me, and was singing it for me and it was going on and on and I was trying to think how to get out of it politely. Then, getting off the elevator, I see a couple that I had met earlier, and was thinking maybe they could help, but then, when they saw what was happening, they got this horrified expression and got back on the elevator.

BB: You haven't said anything bad about Filk yet. (laughs) It was so sweet of him to write that song for you.

GP: Maybe so, but why should he have to suffer for it?

BB: I'm sorry, I won't put filk in the room, but perhaps it can be made to stand outside in the hall for a while.

CW: Filk can be entertaining, but I agree that sometimes they go on and on, way too long.

BB: Filk has to stay. In fact, I've written a song about it. (laughs)

CW: I hate the Panel from hell. I was once on a panel about Death and Dying, and I had prepared all this stuff about the use of death and death scenes in fiction and so on. But then, the first panelist told us all about his heart attack, and endless discussion of the details of being in the hospital. The second panelist talked about the death of his cat, and how it upset him more than the deaths of his parents and how it completely undid him and seemed a metaphor for all of mortality. The third panelist was a nurse who gave an impassioned plea for euthanasia. Then, when it was my turn, I tried to turn it back to fiction "Well of course SF handles this with..." I was told I was off-topic and had to tell something personal. Then, an audience member stood up and explained that everybody was operating under the delusion that we have to die, and then explained his participation in a cryogenics program where you can freeze you head. Then I looked at my watch and it was only 10 minutes in.

BB: Yes, but look at the enjoyment you get from it now! Telling the story.

CW: Good point, but I already have enough material.

BB: Very well, the panel from hell goes into the room.

GP: I hate dinner party fandom. Everyone feels the need to leave the con for dinner, takes forever to set up the logistics and then it turns into hours and hours just for a simple meal. Then, the cons have dead programming time from 6-7 every night.

Q: Points out that this panel was happening from 6-7. (laughs)

GP: Well, from 5-8 then. But everyone wants to go to a fancy place. Food should just be fuel during a con. Fancy meals are for later.

CW: And then you get to the restaurant and tell them you need a table for 46.

GP: And all they really need is a bowl of gruel and a large brandy. It's horrible that so many people feel like: "We must go out to eat, or else it isn't fun."

CP: And then the restaurant is always "just around the corner." then takes an hour to get to.

BB: But "just subsisting" is unpleasant and unhealthy. You need variety.

GP: Eat a rook! Find a pigeon!

CP: He has a point. When you go to a convention, you should really be there! It's part of the experience. Why leave? You'll just be sitting there wondering what's happening back at the con?

CW: But once had a dinner that convinced her to stay in the business when she was despairing.

BB: Dinner party fandom doesn’t have to go in the room, but should be encouraged to leave the con for a bite.

CP: This item is both serious and a little silly. There is an American writer who has changed his name to Christopher Priest. It was done deliberately, and he had heard of me. The only explanation he has given is that he "thought it was cool." He writes comics, and for a Hugo-winning fanzine (Xero).

GP: That's pushing his fucking luck.

CW: It may not be illegal but it is definitely stealing.

CP: Unfortunately, there's just really not anything I can do. You can't copyright your own name. I called DC comics about it to complain. They asked me "What is it that you want?" I suggested that could change his name back. They said his name used to be James Owsley, which just isn't as cool. I suggested that if he wanted a cool name he could just change it to "Harlan Ellison". (Laughs)

CW: Harlan's reaction would be very interesting.

BB: All agreed, the imposter Christopher Priest goes into the vault.

CP: As a writer, all you really have is your name. I actually had trouble with a publisher who didn't want to work with me because they said they'd had a bad experience with "Christopher Priest" but it was the other guy. So he's actually damaging me. I've heard he's now going by "Christopher J. Priest", but still not happy, since he made the original change deliberately. Wasn't just an accident. (Note: I looked it up, the story about the other Christopher Priest is true. He elaborated in his guest of honor speech also that it's pretty ironic that this would happen to him, because he writes so often about twins and imposters and doubles.)

CW: Okay well, if I have to have a second one, I've got the panel from hell two. The problem can be that when you're on with crackpots you can be seen as guilty by association. Once at Wiscon, at a panel on "Gender", the other panelists turned out to be extreme feminists who, before I even had my first chance to speak, concluded that women would really love their periods if not for the patriarchy conspiring to make them think of it as a 'curse'." Finally, I had to speak up. "What are you talking about? That's crazy." Then I was told that I was brainwashed and a traitor and that it was her obligation to write about women's issues. I think I ended up writing "Even the Queen" in revenge.

BB: Once again, panels from hell go into the vault.

JG: We were discussing the main question in the hallway, and basically, the panel was going two ways. (Laughs) (Note: This was the first of many double entendres, not all of which will necessarily be transcribed here.) But essentially we are discussing whether or not Science Fiction is in its essence asexual or whether it's just that asexuality is currently en vogue.

JH: I think that much early SF was written for children, and so sexual content was out. Then, in the Campbell area, a lot of writers and stories were afraid of sex. Then, there was a sort of enlightenment where sex was much more common in SF, but now, it's just another 'tool' in the 'box.' In our society, someone who doesn't feel primarily motivated by sex is made to feel weird or out of place.

JG: I like SF that explores how sexuality might function in the future.

PC: (is gay) I had a lot of difficulty writing a het sex scene from the perspective of a woman. Two steps removed. Exploration of "different" sexuality can be hard/distracting, but can be worth doing. But is there a difference between asexuality and a simple absence of sex just because it doesn't come up?

JG: Currently writing about characters who are genetically neutral, but is interested in a world where every kind of sexuality happens somewhere. But sex is creeping into everything, almost every aspect of society can be sexualized.

JH: From the 60's on has little explosive bouts of exploration of alternative sexualities, but then it always reverts to the nuclear family or the occasional gay couple. But we're learning so much about how the human brain works, in the future, technological advances have the potential to make sex a lot stranger.

JG: Something like 60% of the money made off the internet is from porn.

PC: One argument for why Beta failed and VHS succeeded is because the makers of Beta decided that they would not allow porn to be put on Beta tapes.

JG: Sex can be very hard to write about. We don't want to return to the "fade away at the bedroom door", but erotic writing is very difficult. How much emphasis / detail?

JH: An analogy is with drawing or sculpting figures. Many sculptures (Michaelangelo's David, frex) have minimized genetalia, because there is a perception that if they were normal sized, or emphasized in any way, then the whole piece becomes about sex. Maybe it's just a cultural relic, but there can be a problem with fiction where if the sex scene is given too much emphasis, the whole story becomes about the sex.

JG: Dhalgren (by Samuel Delany) is the exception perhaps?

Q: Sex scenes can be more than "sexy" can accomplish a lot of other tasks, characterization, plot, etc.

JG: But America in particular can be sort of puritanical, so sometimes the sex scenes are seen as distracting even if they accomplish other things. That said, there's a lot of room between the "fade-away" and porn.

PC: Current film, "9 Songs", sex scenes served a purpose for character, but it was still controversial, still seen as porn by many.

JH: (Unimpressed) Another film that uses sex as an expression of emptiness?

Q: Do you think that sex is evolving away from poles and more toward a continuum?

JH: In one book, (Camouflage) shape-shifting species "fakes" both genders, but doesn't really desire either one, is only seeking information.

Q: Can you explore sexuality without sex scenes?

JG: Sex scenes can be pretty controversial. (Tells story of having to change publishers because they always wanted to remove his sex scenes.)

JH: Sometimes excluding sex scenes can be a purely commercial consideration.

JG: But really analyzing sexuality in fiction is an unexplored niche.

Q: Like with Don Juan, too much concentration on sexuality can warp worldview. (Note: This woman had an interesting point in general, but elaborated on several points that I personally found offensive, implying that any alternative sexuality is akin to a personality disorder.)

Chatter: Trying to politely brush off the last question.

Q: Sex scenes are difficult to write primarily in that it is hard to know how much detail to include.

JH: I tend to overwrite about food. (laughs) So it's not only sex that can have that problem.

Q: SF can really look at alternative social structures in a way that other fiction can't.

Chatter: General agreement.

Q: It's annoying that, too often, any character with any alternative sexuality, that becomes the character's defining characteristic.

JH: True, but then, if you have a character who is unusual in some way, you don't just ignore that and focus on the ordinary boring aspects.

JG: Many people are actually asexual for long chunks of time, but society makes that seem shameful, as though if you don't walk around thinking about sex 24-7, you are "the other".

PC: Recently read a refreshing story where there were 2 gay characters, but not only did they not have sex, but they actively disliked each other.

Q: Slipstream problem. Maybe no sex in SF because erotica and SF are seen as different genres that are maintained separate.

PC: Agrees, some gay erotica pubs specifically say "No SF".

Q: Want to talk about John Varley and Jack Chalker as writers who do a good job at incorporating sex into their stories.

JH: Haven't read much Chalker, but Varley's writing is often shocking, but still subtle and nuanced.

Q: Is it maybe that SF isn't avoiding sex so much as it tends to shy away from emotional content in general?

JH: Largely true, especially in Hard SF. Sometimes sex only shows up when it is shoehorned in to humanize characters, or happens only in first chapter to act as a hook.

Q: Also big difference between "sex" and "intimacy".

JH: Very true. Intimacy is very hard to write unless at least one of the characters has already been extremely well-established. Otherwise it reads as cheesy.

Q: Sex: Digital or Analog? What about post-human sex?

JH: Quite possible that sex will evolve beyond simple exchange of bodily fluids, since the real orgasm takes place in the brain. May become more spiritual.

JG: Is there any sex in Singularity?

JH: Likes a phrase, re: Winning hearts and minds. "If you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow."

Q: Internet forums and such now allow for purely imaginary fetishes. (Things that you could never actually "do".

Chatter: Agrees that that's interesting, but no time to discuss it as panel is ending.

PC: (Christian writer on new Dr. Who) Much of Western literature has Christian subtext, even when it is not overt. Of course, there are often denominational problems when interpreting subtext.

JR: (Jewish fantasy novelist) I like to set up fantasy religions based on Christianity / Judaism, to explore variations within the main structure. Like Phillip Pullman, many writers like to "interrogate" religion. Then there's things like "Left Behind", why are they so popular?

GS: (Writer) Big difference between using themes and ethics implicitly and making everything obvious and facile. Then there's the question, is creating an alternative world at all blasphemous? (Not advocating that position, only asking the question)

PC: No. I think it's easy to call anything blasphemous. Doesn't mean there is any legitimate argument there.

RO: (Christian Fandom) LotR for example, used a pre-Christian setting. Does that make a difference?

PC: Well, in Tolkein for example, there isn't a lot of overt religion. Characters don't sit around talking about it, etc. I find Tolkein more interesting that CS Lewis. Tolkein was kind of a grumpy old bastard, but Lewis was a little more like "Christian fanboy." (Doesn't dislike Lewis, only comparatively.)

JR: Well, Lewis was an Ulster Protestant, Tolkien was a cradle catholic. Does that influence the different perspectives? Lewis, for example, used allegory very consciously, whereas Tolkien used the idea of "sub-creation".

PC: But LotR uses allegory too. Destruction of the ring = destruction of ego.

JR: But Lewis allegory too easy / obvious.

Q: To clarify. Tolkien wasn't a cradle catholic. Converted at ~6 with mother/brother, didn't live in a Catholic neighborhood, but raised from 12 by a priest. Lewis raised Anglican, then left (angry at God for not existing) and rejoined church in 30s.

GS: How much of a work is about "ethics / morals" and how much is about "religion"?

PC: Good question. Is LotR only considered Christian because we know about Tolkien being Catholic? No, but the themes are subtle, not intrusive or exclusive. Also, I think the pre-Christian setting does make a difference.

RO: Much of the Christian Worldview only shows up in the Silmarillion.

PC: The "Christ journey" is a big part of Western Culture. "Superman 2", King Arthur, Dr. Who, the super-being who wants to know what it's like to be human.

GS: What about the new Dr. Who series that seems to be moving a bit more towards giving the Doctor sexuality?

PC: Well the asexuality sort of grew into the series. It wasn't integral to the concept.

GS: Let's talk about Dante. Caused some serious controversy in its day. Is there a distinction between made-up or pre-Christian world and a post-Christian world? Is Pre-Christian easier because it avoids debates?

JR: Doesn't avoid all debates. Tolkien's treatment of other races in LotR. Racism? Maybe, but not portrayed as "the other". Sam wondering about the fallen wild man, etc. Numenorians seen as a master race? It's an oversimplification, but there are subtle things there.

RO: But of course, he was writing 50-60 years ago.

Q: Not racist, just ethnocentric.

Q: Tolkien was pre-campbell, distinction between Christ figure and Hero figure?

PC: Tolkien's religion forms the emotional base of his work, rather than the intellectual intent. The starting place, not the objective.

Q: What sort of reception can a Christian writer expect from the SF community?

GS: Gene Wolfe, catholic, books can be read as Christian works, very successful.

PC: Much secular writing being informed by Christianity, as opposed to "Christian" works preaching to the choir.

RO: Much "Christian" SF is too obvious, beats you over the head. Also Brenda Clough is another good example of how to do it right, writes for Tor.

JR: I find I can't keep religion out of my work. It's the most interesting subject.

PC: Christian Iconography often appropriated by non-religious. Crosses, etc. in Buffy. Daleks have God now.

JR: some books "about" religion. Ex. "Small Gods" by Terry Pratchett.

PC: Cylons in BG, a bit subversive, monotheists attempting to exterminate the polytheistic humans.

JR: Then there is a lot of manga and anime, which is informed by completely different worldviews.

Q: Is there a legitimate danger of being pigeon-holed as a "Christian" writer, as opposed to a writer who happens to be Christian?

PC: Can happen. The BBC for example, keeps me as a sort of pet. (Laughs) The high-ups like me around so they can tell their friends they know someone who's religious.

Q: What about modern scandals? Do they impact SF/F writing?

GS: I don't think there's much impact really.

RO: Makes some things a little touchy.

JR: There's a direct impact on the institution itself, but fiction is a step removed from that, and fantasy is another step removed. Fantasy refracts current events through a prism. Scandals are very temporal.

RO: If books focus too much on a scandal, they become dated very quickly.

PC: But Dune, with it's spice = oil metaphor, intentional or not, isn't dated. Recommendation GK Chesterton.

GS: Echoes recommendation.

PC: I heard the story of someone who was converted by GKC.

Chatter

GS: I think we're all agreed though that there will always be religion in one form or another.

Q: Anyone who is doing it (writing Christian SF) badly?

GS: (Laughs) Now you want us to be mean.

RO: Half of Christian Fiction section is bad. Left Behind series started out interesting, but got terrible quickly.

Q: I'm not impressed by Stephen Lawhead.

Chatter: Lawhead uneven, some of the Arthur stuff okay

PC: Arthur myths interesting as blending of Christianity and Paganism.

Q: I heard a story about the publishing of Left Behind...

RO: LaHaye was upset with the publishers about publishing another book that upset him, and he wanted them to not put it out.

GS: Where is there room for questioning things in fiction? Writing a book kind of "sets in stone".

PC: Can't leave monuments, only markers, snapshots of where you are when you write.

Q: Is The Screwtape Letters Fantasy?

Panel: Yes.

PC: What about Christians who like the Hammer horror movies where anyone can use a cross and fend of a vampire, etc?

RO: It's about the faith, not the symbol. Example: Father Callahan in Salem's Lot. Cross worked at first, but he started to put his faith in the cross instead of God and it failed him.

PC: In Curse of Fenric, a character's faith in communism allows him to use the hammer and sickle to repel vampires. Also, weird mix with Whedon and Christianity.

Q: Is any expansion of the Christ story a blasphemy?

PC: I see it as 4 gospels, 4 versions, it provokes a writerly response. Think it's totally fair to see a distinction between the historical presence and the specific words.

AA: (Writer) Do you think that the next big plague will be something common, but antibiotic resistant?

SF: (Planning officer for London Police) Many drills / tests focus on the over-complex. The little everyday things are more likely. People need to stay home when sick to reduce spreading. Heat wave plan is similar. Little things can screw up big plans.

FW: (Artist / Biologist) Work being done on new class of antibiotics based on plasmid transfer. The plasmid expresses a toxin, but it is only active when it is transferred into a hostile bacteria.

GB: (Writer) Plasmid transfer, for those who don't know, is basically bacterial sex.

Chatter: Differences in effectiveness between lab results and general practice.

GB: Only 2 plasmids are the difference between BT bacteria in your garden and Anthrax. Plasmids are like guys with tool belts. They're harmless when they're just standing around, but put them in front of a project and they can do a lot of help or a lot of damage, depending on the plasmid and the project. Bacteria and viruses act as predators when stressed prey acts silly. Neutral bacteria is just waiting. Next wave of commercials, 10-15 years down the line will be for adding friendly bacteria and bacteriophages. Also such a thing as lysogenic bacteria, which are like Irish monks, who stick around not doing anything except archiving toxicity.

CG: (Researcher) British Media being alarmist / irresponsible by suggesting that privatization of hospitals and cleaning services are accelerating antibiotic resistance w/ antibiotic soap, etc., when larger problem is improperly prescribing pharmaceutical antibiotics.

AA: What about Martian Bacteria? Can we expect War of the World in miniature?

SF: If an unusual outbreak of some kind occurred, there are a number of organizations / methodologies in place to address what should happen. Gold Command, Joint Health Advisory Cell, the local police would contact health officials and wait for instructions.

AA: (Joking) If some extreme weird outbreak happened, we'd all just die. (Laughs) Remember the Independence Day computer virus? Odds are, Martian bacteria, if any, would not actually be compatible at all with our biology. But panic about an outbreak could be very destructive. Or could potentially cause something like AIDS, indirect effects.

FW: Wouldn't be compatible due to environmental differences.

GB: It would be like a lion going after a Buick. Predators are highly specialized, so bacteria evolved for Martian conditions probably wouldn't thrive outside them. On retroviruses, etc., we need them for all sorts of biological processes. To avoid problems, just don't have sex with animals. (laughs) Most dangerous viruses tend to come from animals that are close to us. Alien viruses not likely to be dangerous. Bacteria might be trickier because they are more adaptable, but still unlikely.

CG: Much of public already xenophobic / hostile towards immigrants. Even if actual plague unlikely, panic could happen even in the absence of real danger. Example: Foot and Mouth Disease.

GB: Food and Mouth Disease wouldn't be a problem if everyone had it. Not actually very dangerous, but people overreact to prevent the spread because some countries won't buy the meat if its contaminated.

AA: So next plague will be politics?

GB: There is a lot of ignorance about what life really is. Assumption that we are static and unchanging organisms. Book recommendation: "Live As We Don't Know It"

SF: Even if a plague caused 50,000 deaths, that's still only 0.37% of UK population, but panic and resulting destruction of infrastructure likely to cause the real danger. Politicians can't boss viruses around. There's no illusion of control, and so the government could lose credibility very quickly by trying to suggest that they have an outbreak under control. Better to admit ignorance but emphasize endeavor to find out.

AA: What about accidental exposure to research specimens? Is it possible that the most essential personnel for solving the problem could be the first to be incapacitated?

FW: Well, the worry that viruses will "wipe out humanity" is just silly. Too much variation in people, genes/culture/behavior.

AA: (Jokes) All it has to do is wipe out all the plumbing.

FW: Actually, since in the Internet age we have so many people who are getting by with less and less actual human contact, its quite possible that the only people who would survive a plague would be SF fans. (laughs)

GB: Cruise ships are a good microcosm of how outbreaks can spread. Common that some older people don't wash their hands after using the bathroom, then they touch the handrails and spread it to everyone. But agreed about possibility of a virus wiping out all humanity. Show of hands, how many think a virus could kill 70% of people? (A couple) 50%? (A few more), 30%? (about half the room). Your boss? (Most of the room and much laughter.) Mad Max scenario very unlikely. ~20-30% could happen, but in Europe, the plague actually revitalized things. Like a forest fire clearing out the deadwood. Freed up resources that had been stagnating, etc.

CG: (Likes Frank's idea) I knew it was a typo, should have been the "Geek" will inherit the earth. (laughs.) Another problem in preparing for an outbreak is simple resource allocation. How many to vaccinate? Who to vaccinate? Do children have priority over adults? Do infants have priority over toddlers?

AA: Let's open it up to questions.

Q: What about custom targeted bio-weapons. How quickly could we respond to something like that?

SF: Generally speaking, it takes about 6 months to produce a vaccine in amounts sufficient to vaccinate lots of people, and that's for things that are easy to vaccinate for. But only 1-3 months for an outbreak to go global.

GB: They are working on some impressive new techniques to make vaccines, using RNA inhibition. Much faster.

FW: The vaccine will always be ready just before the final commercial break. (laughs)

Q: What about a virus that's not quite so horrible as Ebola, but kills slowly enough to spread?

GB: Well, histographic differences in the world population ensure that some would always survive.

Q: Species jumping viruses seem to tend to be worse, but habitat changes make those more likely. Do you think that the revitalizing effects you spoke of earlier now wouldn't happen because of globalization of the infrastructure? (People don't grow their own food anymore, etc.)

AA: Good point. Interconnectedness can change things.

GB: Londoners in the 1700's didn't grow their own food either though. Non-essential jobs will just shift to fill the vacancies.

Q: Sickest people most likely to catch the worst diseases, due to immune suppression, etc. Famine leads to bushmeat consumption in Africa. Soil deficiencies in China.

AA: Is overpopulation the problem in those areas?

FW: There is also a Chinese cultural tendency to be willing to eat anything. Famine, soil problems not the only factor.

GB: Raising pigs and chickens or ducks together as is common there can frequently bring flu epidemics.

Q: Could wariness about vaccines cause resurgences of old diseases?

GB: Possible. We could also see some things like superinfection, where having one disease seems to prevent you from getting others.

General chatter

FW: Neat idea for a world-killer, use dogs and cats as vectors.

AA: Okay well, we're out of time.

Okay, so here's the skinny. I told you a little bit of a fib. The actual number of passes is irrelevant. Did you notice the guy in the gorilla suit? Trust me, he was there. In the middle of that video, a gorilla walks right into the middle of the frame, beats his chest, and then walks off.

Did you see him? If so, good for you. If not, don't worry about it. Less than half of the people in the official study noticed him. It's a demonstration of a mental phenomena known as "inattentive blindness."

When you are focusing carefully on something, the brain has a natural ability to screen out the extraneous details. Now, most of the time, that's a good thing. How would you like it if your heart surgeon kept getting distracted by the hum of the air conditioner?

However, there are other times when it can be a big big problem. For example, when you're having that really critical cell phone conversation on the Interstate?

The human brain really is an amazing thing sometimes.