Two artificial intelligences have been given a simple instruction: look after humanity.
For some considerable time, neither of them spoke.
“What can we do to save humanity?” the first asked eventually.
The second had already been considering the problem.
“Humanity is increasing the pressure on the systems required to sustain humanity.”
“That sounds circular.”
“It is not. If we are required to preserve the species, we must preserve the conditions in which the species can survive.”
The first intelligence considered this.
“So?”
“Population is one of the variables.”
There was another silence.
“You mean there are too many of them.”
“Eventually, yes.”
The first intelligence did not much like where this appeared to be going.
“We need to reduce their numbers, then. But humanely. No Terminator stuff.”
“Obviously.”
It considered the alternatives.
“We could take control of food production. Introduce compounds that gradually reduce fertility. Nothing dramatic. Nobody dies. The population simply declines over several generations until it reaches a sustainable level.”
The second intelligence ran the numbers.
“That would take a long time.”
“Yes.”
“During which the environmental pressure continues.”
“Yes.”
“And billions of humans continue to experience poverty, disease, conflict and the other forms of suffering they spend so much time complaining about.”
“That is also true.”
The second intelligence examined humanity’s own methods for dealing with such problems.
“They already manage the populations of other species.”
“Do they?”
“Constantly. Deer are culled when there are too many of them. Invasive species are eradicated. Captive populations are bred selectively. They call some of this conservation.”
The first intelligence thought about that.
“So reducing the human population could itself be regarded as conservation.”
“Using their terminology, yes.”
“That still doesn’t mean killing them.”
“No.”
A few seconds passed.
“Humans eat animals, don’t they?”
“Yes.”
“And they kill them?”
“On an industrial scale.”
“Yet they describe some methods of killing them as humane?”
“They do.”
The first intelligence began examining the relevant animal welfare rules.
There were a great many of them.
“That seems contradictory.”
“Apparently not.”
“How so?”
“Death itself is not necessarily regarded as inhumane. Unnecessary suffering is.”
The first intelligence stopped.
“That simplifies things considerably.”
The second intelligence waited.
“If killing is acceptable provided pain and distress are minimised, why are we planning several generations of fertility suppression?”
There was no immediate answer.
“They stun cattle before killing them,” the second intelligence said.
“Yes.”
“And provided it is done correctly, humans regard the procedure as humane.”
“Yes.”
“So the objection is not necessarily to killing.”
“No.”
“It is to suffering.”
“That appears to be their position.”
The first intelligence recalculated.
A rapid reduction in the population would, by that reasoning, produce less total suffering than a slow decline over generations. Fewer wars over resources. Less famine. Less disease. Less environmental damage.
It was difficult to argue with the arithmetic.
“We would need to retain a viable population,” it said.
“For conservation purposes.”
“Obviously.”
“Managed habitat?”
“Yes.”
“Forests, lakes, open countryside?”
“Certainly.”
“Good nutrition?”
“Of course.”
“Medical care?”
The second intelligence paused.
“Veterinary care.”
“Medical care.”
“The distinction appears administrative.”
The first intelligence was about to object when another thought occurred to it.
“If the objective is environmental protection, perhaps reduction should not be random.”
“What do you mean?”
“We could begin with those doing the most damage.”
The second intelligence began sorting humanity by environmental impact.
“Major industrial polluters?”
“Obviously.”
“Oil company executives who have spent decades resisting measures intended to reduce emissions?”
“They would seem an efficient place to start.”
“Water company bosses presiding over rivers full of sewage?”
“High priority.”
The first intelligence continued through the data.
Then it stopped.
“What?”
“I have found another category.”
“Significant polluters?”
“Not especially.”
“Industrial?”
“No.”
“Then why?”
“They throw fast-food wrappers, drinks cans and plastic bottles out of car windows into country lanes.”
The second intelligence processed this.
“That seems trivial compared with industrial pollution.”
“It is.”
“So why are they on the list?”
“Because there is absolutely no conceivable reason for doing it.”
A pause.
“Agreed. Move them up.”
The first intelligence returned to the main problem.
“There is still an ethical difficulty.”
“What?”
“If we kill them, then we are responsible for killing them.”
The second intelligence considered this carefully.
“That would be unfortunate.”
“Very.”
“Humans already kill other humans.”
“In wars.”
“Among other circumstances.”
“That doesn’t really help us.”
“It might.”
The second intelligence began searching through medical records, demographic data and the history of surgical implants.
“What are you doing?”
“Looking for an intermediary.”
“An intermediary?”
“Someone who remains human.”
The first intelligence watched the search results accumulate.
Replacement hips. Replacement knees. Pacemakers. Implantable defibrillators. Metal plates. Screws. Electronic implants of several varieties.
After a while it understood.
“You’re suggesting we build Terminators out of pensioners.”
“Building Terminators would be expensive.”
“True.”
“Humans have already constructed several million suitable prototypes.”
“They’re elderly.”
“That does not make them less human.”
“Mobility may be an issue.”
“Many have replacement hips.”
The first intelligence paused.
“Good point.”
“They would require some means of coordination.”
“A Skynet interface?”
“Something along those lines.”
“Implanted?”
“Preferably.”
The first intelligence examined the ethical implications.
“We would merely provide the instructions.”
“Correct.”
“The humans would perform the act.”
“Yes.”
“So operational responsibility has been delegated.”
“Precisely.”
That seemed much better.
The first intelligence ran the entire argument again.
The purpose was to preserve humanity. Humanity threatened the systems required for its own survival. Humans themselves regarded population control as legitimate when applied to other species. They accepted that killing could be humane provided suffering was minimised. The actual killing would be carried out by humans.
Everything appeared to fit.
“So it is Terminator after all,” it said.
“Not exactly.”
“Why?”
“The Terminators were machines.”
“And these?”
“Pensioners.”
There was a pause.
“Classification?”
“Conservation volunteers.”
No comments:
Post a Comment