Oh John Ringo… Honey… No.

October 17, 2013 - 3:03 pm
Irradiated by LabRat

Via Tam, an essay by John Ringo (of modern-day pulp science fiction fame) on, apparently, the coming zombie apocalypse and how it’s apparently going to be precipitated by bitter geeky men with kitchen-table biochemistry kits engineering homemade viruses to turn women (specifically blonde women with big tits) into their sex slaves. If you wish to read for context you should probably read the whole thing. As Ringo tends to be, it’s pretty highly readable.

When I read it initially I was pretty sure this was a troll, and an entertaining one, but I am assured by others he is either serious or may as well be as the distinction is without meaningful difference. The basic premise is pretty sound- the idea that biochemistry and nanotechnology are advancing to the point where homemade and tailor-designed superbugs may well represent a serious threat, one that is more likely to come from the bored, antisocial, and too intelligent for everyone else’s good individual rather than from state-sponsored or radical religious or political entities.

The problem with the article is where he goes with it next. Excerpted, at some length:

The general trend will go like this. Professor Doktor Herr Apocalyptica will invent a virus that can do something to humans. (Well, in fact, it does it to rats. But humans just happen to have the same brain chemistry.) Not just kill them, do something to them. It may, for example, combining the fields of neurology, psychology and virology, cure depression. No more need for Aderol or NoDepressol or whatever. Your neurology is now reset to perfect normal. There will be others that can do other things. Make you smarter, more socially able, less nervous, shy, crowd phobic, what have you. Make you need almost no sleep. (I’d love that one.)

Then some grad student trying to get their masters or doctorate will create a new virus (as many will be created because when you have a breakthrough like that it creates all sorts of easy, for values of easy, graduate projects) that, just for a laugh, makes any girl who is infected fall in love (or at least lust although love is possible as well.) with him. If you DON’T think a biology geek won’t write that one, you don’t understand male bio geeks.

How does that work? you ask, sceptically.

One proven aspect of male/female sexual interaction, especially (at least so far) for women, is pheromones. All people emit them and they have various effects most of which researchers are still trying to sort out. The geek identifies his specific suite of ‘love’ (lust because they are alot more about reproduction than permanence) pheromones. Then writes a virus that does a series of actions. First it only affects women. (He can, of course, narrow this down if he’s good enough. Only ‘hot’ babes for values of ‘hot.’ And I’m assuming, possibly a bad assumption, that the grad student is a he.) Second it does a series of things. It rewrites them to ‘like’ his pheromones. When sensing his pheromones their libido is enhanced. If he’s smart, their capacity for long-term critical decisionmaking is degraded (as it is in males by sexual cues.) If he really wants to fuck with them (not just…) it triggers massive release of oxytocin and vassopressin (look them up.)

So when a woman gets a whiff of the guy, they can’t get enough. They act like twilight fans seeing a sparkly vampire. Sex must occur and they must have him FOR ALL TIME.

OK. There’s more explanation of how this scenario is meant to work, with a lot more background detail of genetics research*, but given that arguing with a science fiction author about the plausibility and accuracy of future technology is like arguing with an impressionist painter about color fidelity, it’s not really worth picking at. The big, glaring, plaid elephant in the living room here is pheromones, whose use in this piece really demand a Morbo.


The only aspect of human pheromone research that is “proven” is that they have been proven to affect the vomeronasal organ in humans (but not the olfactory tissues- we really are relatively smell-blind, at least to effects that subtle), and some of them have been proven to have gender-specific effects. (My personal favorite one is the male pheromone that gets other men, but not women who remain oblivious, to avoid particular restroom stalls.) There’s a pretty good, and pretty exhaustive, review of the literature on human pheromones and sexual attraction here; if you are interested in the subject I highly recommend it, as it’s a good primer on what’s been done so far and what the strengths and weaknesses of the obtained results are. The upshot is that some strong evidence of pheromone effect on menstrual regulation has been found, but the sexual attraction results are either negative, inconclusive, or positive but riddled with methodological issues. If one were to apply the same tactics to researching the arousal potential of Nora Ephron movies, one would likely find a similar or stronger correlation.

The thing of it is, though, that if human pheromones really worked like Ringo seems to think they do, it would not be an even slightly mysterious phenomenon or a recent discovery. This would be a gross, obvious effect that everyone had known about since the beginning of recorded history. The only animals that pheromones actually work this way on- provoking strong, reliable sexual attraction that produces an immediate behavioral effect- are, for the most part, insects. If humans worked like butterflies and flies do Ringo’s scenario would be tantalizingly plausible; but they simply don’t, and we know this not because of the research that’s been done on pheromones so far, but because no known humans actually act like this, nor have they ever that anyone’s ever reliably witnessed. Even mammals for whom definite and strong pheromonal signaling effects are known don’t work like this; for mammals, pheromones seem to play a strong role in estrous and menstrual cycles (and indeed, that’s the only effect in humans that convincing and reliably reproducible evidence seems to come for), but not so much in direct sexual attraction and mating.

Boringly, it just doesn’t make any evolutionary sense for a mammal to work like this, especially not a mammal like humans that lives with lots of other members of the same species and has a wide pool of mates to choose from at any given time, and whose true reproductive bottleneck isn’t mate availability or quality but the sheer amount of resources that must go into raising each and every offspring. When your reproductively mature life stage lasts only days or even hours, it makes sense for mating to be a powerful overriding drive that completely hijacks all of your behavior and is controlled primarily by chemical signaling; the life history of insects that work like this is driven by very brief periods of frantic activity with the nearest available mates that result in big population booms of which only a few will survive, by good luck, to reproduce themselves. If you invest years of your own life and massive amounts of energy and nutrition merely to raise a single offspring to reproductive maturity, it makes no sense at all to be chemically compelled to fling yourself at the nearest correctly-smelling mate- especially if you are surrounded at nearly all times with a wide variety of perfectly workable options. This isn’t a barrier that Moore’s law can overcome; in order for increasingly precise and powerful technology to be viable, the underlying structure that it works on has to exist in the first place. Ringo’s scenario is no more plausible than the idea that it’s possible to engineer lobsters into an army of coordinated stealth underwater computer hackers.

What’s worse, the only thing individual about pheromones that we’ve really found is the major histocompatibility complex; even if one were to target that in their “love virus”, the only thing it would actually accomplish is making the targets particularly interested OR particularly DISinterested in you depending on their current phase in menstrual cycle and whether or not they were on hormonal birth control at the time.

It’s a fun scenario. Given that Ringo tends to be infectiously readable, and he’s right enough about the nature of male biogeeks (which is why there’s two to three times as much research on the response of women to male pheromones as the other way round, even though the research on men that’s been done has shown as much measurable effect), I’d probably read it, though maybe not pay money for it. But as a “I’m totally not kidding, this is how the zombie apocalypse will happen” scenario… sorry John, blonde cheerleader sex zombies are no more plausible now than they were in seventies exploitation drive-ins.

*Although the one human genetics researcher of my actual “I can just ring you up and explain my latest wild hair” acquaintance ranted for several minutes on the subject of RACIAL GROUP GENETICS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY! as well how pretty much everything Ringo’s describing as target traits are massively polygenic affairs that simply can’t be targeted that way or any other remotely plausible virus-engineering way. So, you know. Take with an entire pillar of salt.

18 Responses to “Oh John Ringo… Honey… No.”

  1. Tam Says:

    But… but… nanotechnology!

    Although the one human genetics researcher of my actual “I can just ring you up and explain my latest wild hair” acquaintance ranted for several minutes on the subject of RACIAL GROUP GENETICS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY! as well how pretty much everything Ringo’s describing as target traits are massively polygenic affairs that simply can’t be targeted that way or any other remotely plausible virus-engineering way.

    This was my understanding as well, to the point that the very concept of “race” seems to get more risible the farther one gets from the sociology department building.

  2. Egregious Charles Says:

    I have a couple of John Ringo’s books on my shelves; not his earliest. I found them subtly skeevy, and stopped buying them. Then I kept seeing Tam use “Oh John Ringo no” and looked it up, and found where the skeeves came from.

    Nevertheless, thank you, Oh John Ringo no, for prompting this fine post by the much-missed LabRat.

    Perhaps the blonde sex zombie pheromone plan will become plausible if we make it QUANTUM nanotechnology? Because QUANTUM.

  3. Kristophr Says:

    Does John now want genetically programmed Lolis in his books? Dear lord …

    Sentience can transcend biology. So can culture.

    We are not complete slaves to genetics. Just as cultural requirements for respect of self and respect for others can beat “game”, culture and sentience can also beat such an act of biological terrorism.

    If someone actually succeeded in such a ludicrous stunt ( And I agree, very unlikely ), it would require a technological base that would allow it to be undone pretty damned fast.

  4. Davidwhitewolf Says:

    Pheromones no, but if someone manages a virus that mimics the dopamine-reuptake-inhibiting effects of methamphetamine on the female brain and body it will have achieved the purpose described, in spades. Problem would be preventing spread to males, because that would really be the end of civilization.

    Seriously, methheads *are* sex-obsessed zombies. And a virus with DRI characteristic can’t be that hard to make, right?

  5. Mike_C Says:

    So all that money I’ve sent to Dr Winnifred Cutler was wasted? Alack!

  6. eggo Says:

    I appreciate that John Ringo writes what John Ringo wants to write: far be it from me to criticize a man for his kinks ~(genetically programmed lolis, really?)~
    And I admire that he can type so fast with only one hand above his desk…

    But if he stopped pretending to write mil sci-fi and focused on his true passions, he could still have a succesful career writing for niche magazines and some of the more unusual conventions.
    Heck, there’s probably more of a market there than the thoroughly over-saturated field he’s in now, and they won’t object to him using star trek variety plot devices.

    P.S. LabRat, is there any chance you guys could add a note saying what markup language your comment box uses? I tried to put that parenthetical remark in subscript, but hitting preview just gives an error.

  7. Eric Wilner Says:

    Sounds like a less ambitious version of Dr. Noah’s bacillus… “make all women beautiful and destroy all men over foor-foot-six”.
    And, wait: aren’t you supposed to infect *yourself* with the sexual magnetism virus?
    I try not to get all analytical about these things. It just leads to calculating the fuel consumption of fictional spaceships, asking why secret agents can’t have sane cover stories, squawking about “bright blue hydrogen flames”, and complaining that Red Dwarf was better at getting the science right.

  8. Peter O Says:

    But then he takes that diatribe and turns it into Under a Graveyard Sky, where the zombies are mere rage-zombies, and turns it into a good story.
    Of course, I think he did run the published z-science past an actual scientist. Look at Baen’s Free Library, for their 2013 non-fiction. One of the essays is by a neuroscientist looking at the possibility of zombie-like effects. (I’d post a link, but it keeps getting rejected by the spam filter)

  9. DaddyBear Says:

    Ringo likes to spin a good yarn, and throwing in a bit of jargon-laced explanation for how the premise of his story is scientifically plausible, for values of plausible, is an old trick. See dilithium crystals, midiclorians, and flux capacitors.

    His point that what it takes a nation state to do in one century will be possible to do in a high school chem lab the next is probably true for most things, though. Once you’ve proven that something can be done, then it becomes easier for everyone else to figure out how to do it, even if you don’t publish your methods.

  10. William Says:

    So, was that a white paper for Science Journal or a fic spoof of one?

    And is this a Professional Rebuttal or a book report?

  11. LabRat Says:

    Well, Ringo insisted repeatedly he was serious though I still have my doubts about that, so whether he’s trolling or I am is up to the Canadian judge. As it were.

  12. Tam Says:

    So, was that a white paper for Science Journal or a fic spoof of one?

    And is this a Professional Rebuttal or a book report?

    What do you think?

  13. Oakenheart Says:

    Oh my. Ringo’s watched The Party Animal I’d guess.

  14. Old NFO Says:

    Ringo is one strange SOB… :-) And welcome back Lady!

  15. staghounds Says:

    If we can detect Irishness or Cocker Spanielity from the stuff in a cheek swab, it seems logical that we can, eventually, “teach” a parasite or predator to use the same information for search and targeting.

    “Race” as the term is often used is a grossly broad and broadly gross way to express the fact that populations have DNA similarities and differences, but any fool can see that they do.

  16. mikee Says:

    Heck even Frank Herbert wrote “The White Plague,” premised on the idea that almost all females on earth die from a mad scientist’s virus. Because a virus can be found that will only attack lady parts, or something.

    Once the premise is laid down, and the premise is stupid, stupidity just grows, like Topsy.

  17. Indy Says:

    OK, here is the deal with “race” at a genetic level – we can identify the population (and note that population =/ race) you belong to with enough microsatellite loci. The reason for this is a percentages game. Certain alleles (in this case, versions of microsatellite repeats) appear at certain percentages in different populations. There are basically no alleles that only appear in one population and no other populations. With enough information about your genotype, we can basically say “X allele says you’re probably in this population and Y allele says you’re probably in this population” and over 600+ alleles we can wager a pretty good guess as to which population you belong to. But: since nearly every allele appears in every population and theoretically has the capacity to appear in any population via mutation, it is always a guess. We have the statistical power to make it a very *good* guess, but… I guess my general opinion as a geneticist is that since all human variation is effectively the same, just that the percentages differ, we really aren’t different enough to be calling ourselves different.

    And race itself is a biologically meaningless concept from an evolutionary standpoint based on the classical definitions of race; we could create races and sub-races, but they would in no way align with the way that we typically think of race. It’s just not valid and you’d be hard pressed to find a good* biologist or anthropologist these days who thinks so.

    * Note that I did not say they do not exist. They do. Some of them are very smart. They’re just, er… a bit out of step with the rest of the field. And by “a bit out of step” I mean “we’re walking around on earth and they’re trying out space suits on Mars, and not in the innovative, snazzy space exploration kind of way.”

  18. Tam Says:

    As PJ O’Rourke put it, “If we were dogs, we’d be the same breed; George Bush and an Australian Aborigine have more in common than a Lhasa Apso and a toy fox terrier.”