Chapter 28

————————————————————————————

Padraig Harrison, PhD, Sr. VP R&D, iArc Properties ‡Offered in testimony to the First Session of the New Merican Congress

ABSTRACT

Ever since the discovery of biological processes that delay or prevent cellular senescence and apoptosis (cell death), the identification of the molecular genetic regulators of these processes, and the inevitable development of technologies enabling Reanimation and Neuroleptic Control of the Undead, the significance of these discoveries and inventions in our daily lives has been under daily assault by an unrelenting campaign of misinformation by those who wish to promulgate fear. Because of their efforts, there continues to be strong dissention among social, political, academic and religious groups regarding the extent to which cybernetic device implantation with post-mortem activation and obligatory conscription of subjects into service can benefit our society and the extent to which these things should be mandated for our citizens. While it is true that tragic missteps occurred during the discovery and subsequent implementation of Modern Reanimation, particularly as it pertains to National Defense Strategy Development, there is a persistent crusade by Right-to-Deathers to severely understate current knowledge, overstate its minimal risks, and to undermine neonecrology’s benefits. The spread of these blatant lies has had the combined effect of tempering enthusiasm for future progress and suppressed application development into neo-necrological devices and uses. Nevertheless, despite these issues, there appears to be near-universal agreement among scientists on at least one point: We have only just begun to appreciate the importance and relevance of these technologies on the advancement of human evolution. It is the unanimous position of the management of the newly formed iArc partnership that the New Merican government should continue to investigate these impacts — not solely for medical or strategic defense purposes, but also for their broader societal roles, including those pertaining to medical welfare, prison population control, and even entertainment — and to aggressively sponsor research to identify new applications beyond those currently in use. At the same time, we raise a cautionary flag about the risks of spurious research sponsored by supporters of the Deather terrorists, and petition this new leadership to aggressively suppress unsanctioned activities which countervail advancement. Only in this way may we improve the human condition and achieve our full potential, both as a species and as a nation.

The exact origins of the philosophical concept of Reanimation have never been firmly established in the historical record, and so it is difficult to trace the roots of our unfounded and often irrational fear of the Undead. It is clear that certain “legends” or teachings have preconditioned the human psyche to reject Reanimates into our lives by obfuscating the true facts, exaggerating the risks, and understating their potential benefits. This has had a severely dampening effect on the advancement of post-mortal applications by engendering an atmosphere of fear among our citizenry surrounding the broader use of the Undead in all aspects of our lives. It is the hope — indeed, the mandate — of our new government that certain mythologies be dispelled so that the true potential of these advancements may be fully examined and the business of their applications development proceed forthwith without delay. Arc Properties is looking forward to the upcoming Congressional Panel on Reanimation Technology, the third of its kind in history and the first of our new nation.

In the upcoming issue of the Proceedings of the Academy of Strategic Necrology, historical evidence is presented of a propagandist campaign to falsely portray the Undead in a negative light. By making ourselves aware of this campaign, it is our hope to convince this administration to look eagerly forward, rather than to look with trepidation behind, in its evaluation of neonecrological funding and monitoring. Also presented are compelling — but preliminary — results from small, self-funded, and carefully controlled studies with highly convincing results. Yet while we have learned much in just a few short years, our knowledge is frustratingly limited. We argue for a broader sustained program of research and development to be executed in tightly controlled environments. iArc Property’s Multi-Division Necrotics Program has the intellectual and technological resources necessary to make immediate in-roads into these areas. We stand ready and willing, hand clasped tightly in hand with the National Institutes for the Advancement of Science and Technology, to offer our services for the full benefit of our citizens.

The pre-eminent historian of Reanimation, Pierce Dickson, writes in this journal’s lead-off treatise that there is a creature in Chinese legend known as chiang shih, or zombie vampire. He admits that while chiang shih may seem like an unlikely prototype to the Undead, they played an important role in establishing the contemporary attitudes of the modern Undead in our world: as one of the earliest modern recorded mention of the “rising dead,” we can trace the lineage of our psychosocial attitudes toward Reanimates indirectly to them.

Literally translated, chiang shih describes a corpse that hops and lopes like a monkey, an obvious reference to their supposed manner of locomotion on the knuckles of their rigor-stiffened arms. While this seems at first blush to be a reasonable description, Dickson claims that this sort of imagery was a deliberate, if crude, attempt to portray the Undead as grotesque beings, and was meant to sway public opinion against them. We know that true Reanimates walk erect and upright, much as their living counterparts do prior to death. They are not monkeys!

Further misrepresentations of these early hypothetical Undead include suggestions that they fed, not on mortal flesh, but on qi, or the very essence of life itself. By making such outrageous claims, the originators of these myths wished very simply to assimilate the beings ever deeper into the “monster mythos” as paranormal entities, rather than honestly portray them as just another form of biological being, thus perpetuating a culture of fear.

In reality, we now know that Reanimates are no different than other creatures, such as toads, or, perhaps more appropriately, given their lack of self-awareness and potential for harm if neglected, like a swarm of locusts. Yet the general misperception of the Undead as superhuman, supernatural beings strongly persists to this day, despite ample evidence that Reanimates are subject, with some (unremarkable) exceptions, to the same biochemical and physical laws which we, their living counterparts are subject. We are they, they are us; all that distinguishes us from them is our own capacity to control ourselves. Now, via iArc’s neural implant devices, we can fully control them, too.

Although it remains uncertain whether chiang shih actually truly existed in ancient China (more and more, the evidence suggests otherwise, that their resemblance to modern Reanimates is purely coincidental), historians are in nearly universal consent that, if they did exist in those distant centuries prior to the modern invention of Reanimation, then their “feeding” on qi must be a metaphorical interpretation of the more likely scenario of trans-mortal cannibalism (TMC), the modern term for the dead feeding on the living. Although the exact necrobiology of TMC has not yet been fully elucidated —yet another area in need of study — we do know that Reanimates require a certain minimal level of biophysical replenishment. I reiterate: They must abide by the same physical laws that rule all other things, both living and inanimate. While the requirement for nourishment need not be from human sources exclusively, it is likely that their apparent preference for human flesh derives simply from an ideal combination of essential nutrients, fats and minerals found in human tissue which are needed for trans-mortal viability.

Ferris et al provide compelling evidence for this possibility. They have shown that Reanimates are particularly attuned to the living human organism, perhaps through some unknown electrochemical signal or pheromone (which, Dickson admits, might have been misconstrued as a “living essence” in ancient times). At this point, as far as we know, the presence of metaphysical energy has never been firmly established — certainly not measured under the controlled environment of a laboratory — nor that it might be required, if it exists, for maintenance of necroviability. The very fact that considerable gaps exist in our complete understanding of this connection should prompt Congress to fund further study. It would be irresponsible to allow the intriguing results obtained by Ferris, Dickson, and other esteemed colleagues to remain uninvestigated.

As to how the chiang shih were supposedly reanimated, Dickson has gleaned insight from the writings of Chinese historian and scholar Ji Xiaolan (1724–1805), who recorded some of the earliest “observations” of the Undead. Among the reasons he promulgated for their existence: the practice of supernatural arts, poorly prepared burial grounds, and premature or delayed interment. We now know these explanations to be fallacious and, once more, believe the intent was, at best, misinformed; at worse, it was intentionally spurious. In either case, they were misleading.

In her paper, anthropologist Reba Somerhays argues that the prevailing cultural tenets of the day sensitized the general populace to accept such ridiculous claims. Tradition played a much greater role then than it does now. Adherence to tradition wasn’t just celebrated, it was revered. Family members were expected to honor the departed by “traveling a corpse over a thousand li.” This would have required considerable time and effort, of course, even for members in the upper-middle classes of society. It is thus unsurprising that some people would have been tempted to shortcut such arduous practices, much to the mortification of the social and religious leaders of the day. Stories which discouraged noncompliance would have been spread in order to prevent the erosion of the culture’s traditional pillars.

However, as noted by Somerhays, it is interesting to observe how superstitions arising out of such folklore continue to affect our modern society, even when there is ample evidence to dispel them. Fear of the Undead apparently stems from this cultural memory. We must wash ourselves of these past taints before we will be able to fully embrace Reanimates for what they truly are: tools for improving the human condition.

Can we draw conclusions about the actual existence of the Undead in Xiaolan’s writings? While there is nothing in the historical record to refute the Risen Undead in ancient China, it is important to note that there is no provable evidence of Reanimation prior to the recent development of the zuluification process just five short years ago. There is certainly no evidence of them in more modern times (anecdotal reports of isolated “zombie” attacks, particularly in Florida and Texas in the early part of this century, have all been discounted). In any case, we can have little, if any, reliance on the validity of Xiaolan’s records, since careful observation and documentation practices were unknown in his time. Will future generations similarly question our own records? We have a responsibility to carefully study and document our findings, to investigate without trepidation. It is a responsibility which we owe to our descendants.

Dickson proposes an alternate idea for chiang shih, gleaned from themes underlying Xiaolan’s theses. He suggests Xiaolan was an unwilling instrument of the narrow-minded leaders of the time, used to spread their propagandist message in order to maintain control over citizenry by the exploitation of their fears. As noted by Somerhays, an important Chinese precept at the time was strict adherence to well-established mores and accepted practices. Straying outside of what was known and fully understood into realms shrouded in mystery was a strongly discouraged behavior. Xiaolan’s “observations” are a coded warning to his fellow Chinese: avoid the unknown and unknowable or suffer terrible consequences. In other words, if you dare to break the rules, you might as well — to turn a phrase — kiss your qi goodbye.

If this is true, then it is a warning that rings loudly today: We must remain ever vigilant of those who would sabotage our purest attempts to move ever forward. While promoting scientific study, we must also discourage the pursuit of unreliable “investigations.” Independent researchers are much too susceptible to malicious influence by modern day fanatics. The conduct of research needs to be severely constrained. Ask yourselves: Who, besides iArc, can be trusted with such important work?

While the passage of time and the evolution of modern thinking have significantly eroded the conservative constraints that Xiaolan and his government held so dear, the residue of their practice still persists, a stain on the cultural memory of our species. While these old social constraints have been banished, replaced with celebrations of discovery, advancement and evolution, others view the new world in which we live with dire skepticism. They “remember” those constrictive conditions with a sense of quaint idealism. They argue that we have become a society too self-absorbed, too willing to embrace hubris, too blindly focused on one’s own self-entitlement.

We must quell these disturbing suggestions. We must struggle mightily against them so that we may continue our quest to improve ourselves and our lot in life— however we choose to define such improvement. We must distrust and dismiss archaic conventions and instead seek to force our own unique meaning on the world. We must banish the unknown and bend the uncontrolled to our will. We must rail against our intellectual and technological limitations, all while seeking to shed light into the darkest corners of our knowledge and thus banish ignorance from them. Only in doing so can we erase these stains from our lives.

Somerhays indicates that these are inevitable steps in our development as a species. No one can deny that we are, by nature, an inquisitive order of animal, that in us the drive to conquer the mysterious is strong. While there are many who question whether these are worthwhile steps to take, making baseless claims that our campaigns all too often come with too high a price, that we fail to consider the consequences of our actions, or too eagerly shirk our own responsibilities until it is too late, we cannot allow ourselves to be misguided by naysayers and their superstitions and faulty prognostications. They cannot see past the end of their Nostradamus.

But we can. That is why we ask that the new New Merican government grant our requests for continued and exclusive support. iArc is our new nation’s doorway to a bigger and brighter future.