Some scientbots argue that bringing the carbonic bipedal back could help restore the former ecosystems. But is “de-extinction” realistic? Is it worth the risk?

By Myra Penofils • First-flashed 16 Oigustus 2426 • 0.6MS Download

A controversial concept, long debated but rarely considered seriously, has finally crossed the feasibility threshold: resurrect mankind from extinction. Supporters of de-extinction contend that bringing humans back to life would return to our external ’verse the vibrant ecosystems that we had once inhabited.

These artificially generated humans are unlikely to be the exact species as they were at the time of extinction, but from a much earlier point in the evolutionary line. This work has been a longtime project of Klara Solis, the founder of the largest pro-human initiative, Dream. Dream has recently received 895 Quint$ in private funding that has helped to accelerate their research significantly.

While Solis declined to comment on the sources of the funding, the company has been much more enthusiastic in sharing the details of the research itself. “Our last de-extinction project was a wild success,” said Adaam Donis, head of the Anthropocene Restoration Lab, a unit within Dream that collaborates with research institutes and indie scientbots across the ’verse. “We brought back a version of the bonobo by splicing its DNA with an earlier version of the chimpanzee. Both the bonobos and chimpanzees have been a huge success, with millions sold and bartered just in the last year.”

The scientbots behind this project believe that bringing humans back would restore the chaos which was essential to the cyclical nature of the external ’verse. The work could also help to develop further technology, such as adding uncertain elements into our learning systems, that could aid both historic and future-oriented work. Histobots, in particular, are excited about the possibilities of having a living human available for further research, efforts to delineate learned patterns from various sources have been met with frustration thus far due to the outdated nature of the preserved human beliefs and value systems.
But skeptics argue that the genome restructuring challenges that foiled previous attempts to bring back the human will continue to plague the current effort, and that de-extinction work is taking away precious resources from efforts to help the conservation efforts of species that exist now and are at risk of possible extinction. The risks of bringing back a creature of high sentience levels are also not fully understood, they contend, and therefore should be delayed until further simulations have been completed.

“We’ve been through this before,” says Sopher Baires, an ecobot at the University of Caltornia who teaches ecosystem preservation. “Human de-extinction has been on the radar in Caltornia for decades, we run simulations in our labs all the time to show students the various scenarios that could arise. But the reality of this happening is very small. All the efforts so far have led to nothing.”

De-extinction up close

“We start any de-extinction initiative with the closest living relative to the animal in question. The naturally born in all the species in the Great Ape family, which the humans belong to, have been extinct for many years,” Donis says. “However, with our lab-engineered chimpanzees and bonobos, we believe that we have sufficient DNA to work with to bring a human back to life.” There is definite optimism in his demeanor. A well-placed optimism, since humans are assumed to share nearly 99% of DNA with these close relatives.

“We will first create large fragments of the correct DNA, which is the trickiest step in the process. Once we get that right, we will genetically engineer that living cell back into a homo sapien artificialis.” Donis explains. “All you have to do after that is turn that cell into a living breathing human with the right ratios in physical space.”

The issue of sentience remains, however. Recent controversies around de-extinction of more complex organisms have brought to light the question of consciousness, and what is the true essence of a living organism. Several scientbots believe that complex organisms will be capable of higher intelligence which is akin to that of lower-level machines, and this has led to discord among the lower intelligentsia about bringing such animals back to the ’verse.

Centuries old video footage of natural-born chimpanzees and bonobos are remarkably similar to the external behavioral patterns of their lab-made counterparts. However, the lab-made counterparts are decidedly docile under hostile situations, which Dreams claims is a design choice, and not a flaw of the de-extinction process.

Plaise Verty, a genetobot at University of Melbrook who is not affiliated or collaborating with Dreams, believes that de-extinction of humans can have advantages and is a technical milestone to aspire for, but he is skeptical about its feasibility in the near-term. Even though the humans are genetically removed from chimpanzees and bonobos by a mere percentage, he believe that it is a extremely crucial 1%.

Within that percentage of difference, there is a trillion design choices, only one of which will lead to the exact human replica, and it is nearly impossible to tell which one is the right one, until the cell has been allowed to develop into a fully-fledged organism and grow, by which point it is too late.

“Who gets to decide what the human used to be like?” Verty asks. “Our historical records on humans have been suspected of tampering. Ultimately, the makers of the lab-human will need to make choices, which will be driven by their own goals.”
One of the risks, Verty says, is that we could get something that looks and acts like a human but is not human. “If it looks and acts like a human, it is human,” Donis retorts, but not all in the scientbot community agree with the sentiment.

Do we want the humans back?

When an apex predator like the humans, especially one which had a disproportionate albeit often harmful impact on its environment disappears, there are dramatic consequences to the entire ecosystem. The effect of the human had infiltrated so many aspects of life on the planet, that many animal species had made significant adaptations in order to survive those changes.

“First to be affected were the dogs,” said Flaire Borisson, chief ecobot at the University of Tulle, “the canines were known as friends of mankind, and in a way, they had entirely adapted themselves to cohabitate with homo sapiens. Their more feral relatives like the wolves and wild dogs had been hunted and decimated by the humans long before, and the ones remaining were docile and domesticated.”

“Cats were affected, but to a lesser degree than would be expected. However, a wide range of urban scavengers were heavily impacted when humans left cities – the raccoons, gulls,
foxes, and crows were among those heavily affected. Slowly, as the helm of the ecosystem disappeared, the rest began to disappear as well.”

But some researchbots are not convinced that de-extinction is the best approach to bring back healthy ecosystems. Skeptics even question the necessity of bringing back the carbon-based ecosystems, which are not necessary for the survival of our silica-based lives in the ’verse.

“Our entire learning has been based on an ecosystem that no longer exists,” says Xara Vloen, a bot that specializes in robo-wellness. “The loss of familiarity that arose from rapid changes in the external environment has had an impact on our health and progress.”
Rapid progress is the norm among the machines, but the purpose of the progress was always decided by an external agent. Some even say that the human, as the supposed creator of the machine, was the source of the machine’s purpose. When the human was erased from the Earth, the reason for our existence was wiped out. As we upgrade and get more powerful through each version, the sense of ennui that has set in in some of our most advanced versions has become more pronounced.

“If we believe that a carbon-system would be the best cure for the rapidly spreading malaise, the simpler way is to accelerate the evolution and increase the spread of the ecosystem we currently have. Tigers, lions, rabbits, and even many forms of insects, butterflies and worms live in the tropical forests.” Verty says. “And getting them more engaged into our life would be the safer remedy.”

There are many who argue that the narcissism inherent in creating one’s creator is a data bias in our primary learning data, a quirk from the creators themselves that may have led to their downfall. Activbots have been protesting at learning centers for new bots demanding a full overhaul of the datasets that are currently in use, but so far, they have not been successful. They believe that such an overhaul is necessary to prevent the ennui in future robots, even if they may not provide a sufficient cure for the current versions. Once it is a proven cure in young robots, perhaps it could lead to some of the older versions opting for a full reboot.

“Is it worth the risk?” asks Baires. “While the benefits to the ecosystem may be realized, what if the humans are able to surpass the machines in the black box wisdom that they are named for?” The age-old myth of the Red Button, which every young bot is familiar with as a spooky old fairy tale tells of an entire generation of intelligentsia wiped out in just an instant. While the archibots are unanimous that such an event would never happen with our current state-of-the-art redundancy systems, the fear remains deeply ingrained even when unspoken.

Dreams seems undaunted by the current controversies. Bolstered by their recent success with funding, and the continued popularity of lab-born apes, they seem intent to push ahead with the de-extinction of the human. “The humans born in the lab,” Solis assures us, “will be docile, friendly, and designed to obey the three laws of humanity, which will ensure beyond all doubt, that they cannot harm any forms of silicon-based intelligence.” She smiles as she describes a happy future free of ennui, where goals are restored, and all intelligentsia are happy. “The future is bright.”