A Visitor to the Future - 81 - Animal Ascendancy
Silence smiled at my shock, adjusting one edge of his fabric garment with one hand.
"There are those of the viewpoint," he said, "That humanity - and by extension, CIs, have escaped one of the cruellest fates of nature - a lack of autonomy. A small but vocal group of individuals, those who share that view state that it is our duty to provide the creatures of Earth with the same autonomy - or at the very least, those animals above a certain level of intelligence. To free them from the repeated cycles of birth and death at the whim of nature, with no control over themselves."
"But what about the ecosystem?" I asked, flabbergasted, "I might not be a biologist, but I understand that each animal has a niche. What if they decide not to fill them?"
"Oh, they'd definitely decide not to!" said Tungsten, "Just as you don't see many humans out there still hunter-gathering!"
"Then what?" I said, "Ecosystem collapse?"
"Not so," said Silence, "The advocates for animal ascendancy claim that we could have the Consortium fill the missing ecological niches."
My mouth hung open, speechless. This was beyond me.
"It's true," said Tungsten, "You've seen what the Consortium is capable of to some degree. Replacing certain animals with non-living drones is not only doable, it has been done before. The Consortium helped a great deal with rebuilding the devastation to Earth's biosphere - and in some cases it was necessary to introduce substitutes until a viable population of a certain animal could be reintroduced. The most famous example would probably be the hummingbird project. About 120 species of hummingbird went extinct from 2200 to 2400. The restoration project brought them back from archived DNA. But in order to calibrate the environment for re-introduction, hummingbird-like drones led the way - simulated their habits and abilities, to ensure that the project would succeed."
"It'd be the end of some of the natural world," I said.
"Which is precisely why it's such a controversial subject," said Tungsten, "There's more popular support for the Dyson Swarm project than that in the issue list - and that's saying something, it isn't popular at all!"
"This particular issue is one of the most difficult to arbitrate in the Consortium," said Silence, "No significant progress has been made with those who pursue it for some time, because any Bio-dev work on animals beyond what is necessary to keep them fit and healthy remains illegal within the Consortium. Nor do I suspect that will change at any point in the near future. The vast majority of Consortium citizens care a great deal about maintaining the ecosystem of Earth. A serious ascendancy project as described would receive very little support."
I decided to ask, "How do you both feel about the idea? Any opinions?"
"I have none," said Silence, "And even if I had an opinion on the subject, please understand that I would not provide you with it. Expressing an opinion on the matter publicly would make future arbitrations on the subject more difficult. I cannot compromise my integrity."
Silence took his duties as an Arbiter as seriously as ever, his commitment to his profession of great importance to him. But equally I felt a little sad that he might not feel free to make his own opinions known. That feeling only lasted a brief moment, however, as I recalled that it was entirely his choice whether or not to do so.
"That being the case," I said to Silence, "Do you have an opinion on anything you feel comfortable sharing?"
"Yes," the CI said simply, "Your new house is quite lovely."
I couldn't help but laugh at the statement. "And you, Tungsten? Any opinions on the animal issue?" I asked.
"I don't feel particularly strongly about the subject," answered Tungsten, "I think I'm of the opinion that we should try and preserve the ecosystem as it has evolved - but equally we shouldn't keep it in stasis either. I've only been here a few months, but I'm beginning to understand that Earth is a living, breathing, thing, as prone to change as any of us. I think trying to maintain the status quo forever isn't right. There's a balance somewhere. I'm not sure where it is, though!"
It was interesting. In my time we'd had to deal with the conflict between nature and mankind. Mankind wanted nature's resources, but exploiting them in an unsustainable way was detrimental to the environment. We talked a lot about custodianship of the Earth in my time - taking care of the nature around us. That meant not destroying forests to make more farmland, or taking the unsustainable route where a better long-term option was available.
The issues of today were different, it seemed. Mankind didn't truly need the Earth any more. If I'd remembered one thing from my encounter with Waiola during the visit to the Earth Reclamation Project, it had been the sentence "...we can create as many habitats as we like to live in." The people of the Consortium were free of their need to maintain the Earth - they lived there because they wanted to. Everyone could pack up and leave tomorrow if they wished. The questions they were now wrestling with were of a different nature. Now it was a case of should we be responsible for deciding what happens to the Earth? Or, in the case of the minority animal ascendancy advocates, is there now a group who should be able to make decisions for themselves?
I wasn't sure how to feel about any of it.