Tuesday, December 21, 2021

"Donatien's Children" - new SF novel by Adam Carlton

Link to PDF

I have now completed the text for this, my first science-fiction novel (I published a book of short stories in 2019: Freyja’s Deathbed Conversations: and other stories).

"Donatien's Children" is now available on Amazon as a Kindle eBook - the paperback version will be there in a day or two, but you may read the novel for free by following the link below the image above (PDF). Let me know if you find any typos or errors which need attention via comments below.

Here's a summary of the book: first the blurb and then a longer guide. It will answer your first question: Donatien?

---

Donatien's Children

Introduction

The StarDrop Corporation emerged from nowhere offering new technologies for fusion power, spaceflight and synthetic life. Petra Schelling, teen chess prodigy, was recruited by an intelligence agency to spy on StarDrop - before vanishing. James Melrose, her controller, is told that losing an agent is regrettable but it happens. But why has Petra now become a high-profile StarDrop agent of influence?

StarDrop’s Artificial People are suddenly everywhere in entertainment, the media, politics and top jobs. Friendly, attractive and smart, they are indispensable in tough assignments such as the mission investigating an anomaly on the larger Martian moon, where an artefact suggests StarDrop might be of extraterrestrial origin.

Élise and Mireille Fossey: two sisters, one a journalist, the other a researcher. For Élise, StarDrop will lead her into more than lethal peril; for Mireille, the corporation may be humanity's finest opportunity... or maybe a deadly, existential threat.

---

Themes

Prologue:        I’m Not Awake - 2022

Part 1: La Maîtresse des Échecs - 2023

Part 2: Petra - 2028 (winter to autumn)

Intermission: Mother Christmas (2029)

Part 3: La Double Inconstance (2030 winter to 2031 summer)

Part 4: La Philosophie dans le Salon (2032 spring-summer)

---

Part 1 considers what remains of a competitive activity when the machines have comprehensively surpassed human-level performance; and the nature of an equilibrium when you can always win through cheating. I had cycling - road racing - and Lance Armstrong in mind when I wrote this part.

Part 2 leverages my own experiences working in an industrial research lab, although nothing remotely as exciting ever occurred. Petra is very loosely modelled after my divisional director; other characters are also variants of colleagues.

Part 3 follows the theme of La Double Inconstance, a romantic comedy by French playwright Pierre de Marivaux first performed in 1723. A young woman, Sylvia, is kidnapped from her lover, Arlequin, by the Prince who intends to marry her. Through a complex series of engagements the Prince and his smart female servant Flaminia conspire to break the Sylvia-Arlequin relationship, resulting in a switch of partners.*

Part 4 follows (very loosely!) a theme from La Philosophie dans le Boudoir, published in 1795 by Donatien Alphonse François, Marquis de Sade. Set in a bedroom, the two lead characters argue that the only moral system that reinforces the recent (1789) French revolution is libertinism. Dolmancé is the most dominant (and evil) of the characters in the dialogues. Eugénie (a fifteen year old) has been sent by her father to be corrupted by him and his associates into libertine ways. The fifth section, a lengthy political monologue, comprises de Sade’s manifesto.*

That short book - French and English versions freely available in PDF format on the Internet - is almost unreadably graphic in places in its gleeful accounts of the most depraved sexual practices. Considered pornographic for centuries, it is now considered an extreme polemic on sexual politics. 

---

* Some of the text here edited from the corresponding Wikipedia articles.


Saturday, December 04, 2021

Prof Jo Phoenix and the Open University

Following the report in The Times today about Professor Jo Phoenix's forced resignation from the OU, I have sent the letter below to the Vice Chancellor, Tim Blackman by email.

---

Dear Vice Chancellor,

As an OU graduate, I have financially supported the university for many years, being particularly grateful for its teaching expertise in STEM subjects.

But after reading about the hounding of Jo Phoenix in today's Times I have decided to terminate my DD to you.

This is not the kind of university culture I can identify with.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Nigel Seel.

---

I am genuinely disgusted. The OU pioneered high-quality university-level teaching for a generation of predominantly working-class people who were ignored by hidebound traditional universities. The quality of their science, mathematics and computer science courses was uniformly high - really impressive.

This latest capitulation to the anti-science lobby within the university itself just crosses a line for me. We've lost another university.

Sad.

Wednesday, November 24, 2021

Sudowrite: an AI writer's assistant document

 

Sudowrite: an AI writing assistant

Here are the opening paragraphs of my forthcoming Christmas story, Mother Christmas, to be posted here mid-December. How would a state-of-the-art, GPT-3 powered AI writing assistant carry the narrative on?

This is how I start:

---

Mother Christmas

Long periods of boredom punctuated by moments of sheer… what? 

Abuse? Intrusiveness? More tedium?

It’s been another quiet afternoon. Times are certainly hard in retail this joyous season. The Great Stagnation, they’re calling it.

But hark! First the echoing clacks of shoes on marble, then these three emerge around the corner to my left, tired refugees from the mall’s lengthy main aisle. Mummy, Daddy and Teenage Boy. Their clothes are dowdy and unfashionable: meet the drabs.

---

I paste this into Sudowrite (free trial) and ask it to continue. It offers me three choices: here is what I’d reckon to be its best effort.

---

“The boy is doing his best to look cool, but he’s having trouble hiding the fact that he’s bored out of his mind. He’s got that glazed expression that says ‘My life is so lame.’

And it is.

He might play football for his school, he might have a couple of mates, he might have a girlfriend… but he has no idea what it means to be alive. His world has been boxed in by rules and regulations. He’s not allowed to explore new frontiers, to take risks.

It’s just a matter of time before he rebels. Then he’ll be right back here on the couch next to yours truly, joining the other drabs, the whole miserable army of them.

The family drabs are followed by the sole remaining customer of the day. She’s wearing a jacket of some kind on top of a formal-looking dress - a rare mix for this town, let alone this time of year. She’s a special one. Not part of the drab folk. You can tell.

She approaches the counter with a spring in her step, the only customer who’s not traipsing through this place like a cross between a junkie and someone who’s just been diagnosed with terminal cancer.

She’s quite pretty, actually, if you like the wide-mouthed, round-eyed type.”

---

I think that’s pretty creditable actually, though it's not the way I was taking the story. It’s all been synthesised by the program, none of it copied wholesale from the net. The style is quite zingy, the descriptions fresh.

The program has a bunch of tools. It will elaborate descriptions. So if I select: ‘mall’s lengthy main aisle’, Sudowrite offers ten possibilities; here are the first three:

---

1. The aisles of the mall are long and meandering, stretching as far as the eye can see. They have a wide vista that gives a bird’s eye view of the mall. The windows that line the aisles are covered in frost. They’re as hard as ice.

2. The air around the mall has a distinct yet not unpleasant odor. In the midst of all this Christmas cheer, you notice a faint yet pungent smell. You can taste the freshness of holiday spices and marzipan and anise and oatmeal and honey and clove and cinnamon and nutmeg and ginger and all the other things that make you think of Christmas.

3. The main aisle of the mall is worn down by age and use. It’s polished by the feet of shoppers, but the tread marks are long gone.

---

Other tools include offering you twists in your story, developing characters and even writing poems. I haven’t tried all these functions.

So what do I think? 

If you treat it as a souped-up Thesaurus it’s easy to see the value (although at $20 per month the subscription is expensive). At the paragraph level it’s producing good material which is easy to treat as a first draft. You get endless new texts with a press of the ‘Wormhole’ button.

What it cannot do is coherence. The things the author cares about: the consistent evolution of character, plot dynamics and the use of everything to achieve the desired effect; all this vanishes when control is transferred to Sudowrite or similar GPT-3 based tools.

An obvious application is what you might call 'coerced writing': those essays you have to hand in, those stereotypical pieces needed for boss or brochure. Where you don’t care about the specifics of the text, where you feel no personal involvement… well, this tool sure adds value. But teachers beware!

Note

Let me add a more technical thought. I’m not an expert in ‘autoregressive language models’. I know something about deep-learning systems. My own mental model of Sudowrite and its brethren is that by training on massive Internet text corpora, it has synthesised high-level concepts spanning paragraphs of text. It’s this multi-sentence conceptual competence which accounts for its meaningful paragraphs. 

We see something similar in game-playing programs such as AlphaZero which beat human champions at Go and Chess with élan. The concepts are not isolated pearls; they cohere into strategies.

We’re not yet at Orwell’s vision of novel-writing machines churning out prole-fiction as in 1984; but nor do we seem that far from it.

Finally, here’s a Sudowrite poem: my title, my first two lines as seed.

---

A Girl Like You

You must, he said, have many carefree offers

Are you an actress or a catwalk model?


No, I'm not, she said. “I am the girl of your dreams.

I know all this because I am your interlocutor.

You are the boy of mine, and I’m the girl like you.


I am the girl of your dreams, she said.

My eyes are blue or green or gray,

My hair is brown, red, blonde, or black.

I am tall or short.


I am rich or poor, smart, athletic, funny, or serious.

I may be your childhood sweetheart or the girl next door.


I may be your high school or college girlfriend.

I can be your lover, friend, muse, soulmate.

I am the girl of your dreams, and you are the boy of mine."

---

I’ve read a lot worse.

Monday, October 11, 2021

"Beautiful World, Where Are You" - Sally Rooney

 



Warning: mild spoilers ahead. If you’re intending to read the novel you might want to skip this review.


---


Amelia Ayrelan Iuvino writes a good review of Sally Rooney’s new novel, "Beautiful World, Where Are You", in Jacobin magazine*. 


The setting: 'Eileen and Simon are childhood neighbors whose ongoing flirtation and friendship has recently crossed the threshold of platonic deniability. They can’t imagine a life without the other in it, but their fear of losing what they do have together threatens to prevent their connection from moving further. 


'Felix and Alice, a warehouse worker and a successful novelist who has recently moved to his small town, meet on Tinder and embark on a mutual infatuation that mystifies everyone around them due to the gulf in their class backgrounds and interests (Alice is rich and famous, while Felix has a backbreaking, mind-numbing job; Felix never reads Alice’s books).'


Initially the reader struggles with Alice and Felix's relationship. Felix is crude and uneducated, a druggy and a thrill-seeker. He's the kind of person you'd cross the street to avoid. How plausible is it that middle-class Alice would take up with such?


Suspend your disbelief. Felix is fundamentally better than we are led to believe - and Alice worse.


Amelia summarises the Alice-Eileen relationship.


'Alice and Eileen have been best friends since college, and they maintain an email correspondence encompassing intellectual and philosophical debates as well as their romantic involvements.


“In the midst of everything, the state of the world being what it is, humanity on the cusp of extinction, here I am writing another email about sex and friendship. What else is there to live for?” Alice writes to Eileen.'


While Alice is a rich and successful novelist (an empty celebrity existence in her own estimation), Eileen is a poorly-paid assistant editor on a Dublin literary magazine which only survives on state subsidies. She feels her own life is empty and pointless, going nowhere, while the world is heading for disaster.


“I agree it seems vulgar, decadent, even epistemically violent, to invest energy in the trivialities of sex and friendship when human civilization is facing collapse,” says Eileen. “But at the same time, that is what I do every day.”


Amelia notes that while 'Eileen argues about Marxism with acquaintances at a party, defending a definition of the working class that includes anyone forced to sell their labor to survive. … the closest any one of them seems to come to actual political involvement is Simon, who works as some sort of low-ranking legislative aide in an unnamed left-wing party.'


Eileen, Alice and Simon continually obsess about refugees, climate change and plastic, fear the imminent demise of civilization - and bemoan their utter irrelevance to any of these issues. What really energises them is the endless ebb and flow of their mutual relationships and their jagged emotions.


In another kind of book, Felix might have been the proletarian socialist hero, transmuting the others’ existential angst into a political agenda for change. But here he's both acultural and apolitical. Instead he's the voice of a common sense which no longer considers it remotely possible to think or act big.


The final resolution, although emotionally satisfying, appeals to a kind of nostalgic traditionalism. The comforts of hearth and home, or the sturdy framework of great religion - in the Irish context a kind of Jesus-centric reimagining of the Catholic church. Simon is there already while Alice seems halfway to following. There is a collective retreat into private spaces.


Sally Rooney may have little to say in this novel about any resolution to the crisis of the Marxist left, now marginalised by the shallow crassness of modern Critical Theory, but her invocation of such contemporary dilemmas, particularly her character development, is superlative.


The novel is a page-turner: you care what happens to Eileen and Alice, Simon and Felix. And you may appreciate Rooney's deft scene descriptions and compelling depictions of interpersonal dramas. 


Recommended.

Wednesday, September 29, 2021

The Tao and the Truth

A physicist contemplates ethics and death

1.

They lay companionably side by side in the oversized bed, sunk into hollows shaped by long occupancy.

They held hands in the dark. It was not yet midnight. Drawn blinds obscured the yellow-orange street-light. They were both on their backs, staring up at the blackness, the ceiling vanished in the gloom.

“One day it will be just one of us lying here alone,” he said, “with a vacancy where you or I used to lie.”

She made a little sound of exasperation: “I never think about that.”

“I doubt it will be many years now.”

“Probably the other will die after a few weeks,” she said, “It often happens that way.”

“Yes, through grief, stress and loneliness: the collapse of the immune system. It's not a pleasant way to go.”

“Oh.”

2.

The rain came in this afternoon, as predicted. Looking out the kitchen window he sees the trees as through a misty veil, as if a painter stroked a watery brush down a backdrop.

Nothing he is seeing is mysterious to him. Given boundary conditions here and the laws of physics, he thinks, this is just how matter behaves. Really, there are no surprises. Perhaps that was Keats’ complaint.

3.

For years he has been trying to understand the Tao Te Ching, Lao Tzu's prescription for right-living. Harmony through conscious alignment with the Way.

The Way - that tantalising reification of something obscure yet important.

He thinks of the stories we tell ourselves, tell our self - that devious phantasm of our cortex. Narratives of possible futures mediating Id and Superego.  Temptations vie with duties, competing to lure the Ego.

He rejects free will of course. Physics, in refuting it, makes the issue problematic, not axiomatic.

He’s pleased about that.

4.

To be sophisticated as regards a well-lived life (and Lao Tzu is surely up there, with his minimal metaphysical baggage) surely we're buttressing the better angels of our nature in that endless dispute?

Think of it as a gift from our present to our future life.

5.

He lies in the darkness; she's asleep. He hears the soft harmony of her breathing.

There is no time-past and time-future. Everything just exists. Architected, though, with that titanic entropy-gradient - the one that orients the future from the past. That thirteen-billion-year car-crash dividing prediction from memory. (But is the past really so fixed? He knows that physics isn’t so sure).

He thinks: our subconscious, our collective unconsciousness, wants us to thrive in this universe. Don't ask for some big, deep reason: there isn't one. It comes with the design. Our DNA coded us a big brain: it didn't know how to do the mission. We're not insects.

Lao Tzu's message is the most prosocial, the least magical and the surest blueprint for some harmonious, galactic future our true selves desire. But Philosophical Taoism can't get real purchase in a class society, it needs egalitarianism.

Two and a half thousand years. No-one properly comprehends Lao Tzu’s great work. Its time has not yet come; not till humankind is refashioned to the collective Sage.

6.

He will never be able to explain this to her. 

He hopes she goes first. That it is painless... and sudden... and unforeseen.

Let him be the one to shoulder the aftermath.

He needs to believe it all makes sense.

Perhaps it does.

Friday, May 07, 2021

Sociodynamics of Artificial People

 Note

I used the research paper below (which I translated) as background to my recent story, La Double Inconstance. The text is quite technical. AC.

---


arXiv.org > sociobio > arXiv:2107.05827

Sociobiology > Modelling (qualitative)

[Submitted on 13 Apr 2032]


Sociodynamics of Artificial People


Mireille Fossey (Université de Paris, Faculté des Sciences du vivant)


ABSTRACT


The high-profile emergence of artificial people (also known as models) into elite society has led to discussion as to implications and consequences. These debates have mostly been conducted with the social science paradigm of Critical Theory [1], defining tropes of specific and intersectional oppression. 


In this short overview we introduce a different framework of analysis, specifically the interdisciplinary fusion of population genetics, evolutionary psychology and marxian historiography. This paradigm provides a robust and well-grounded perspective both for the scientific understanding of the phenomena and for the generation of robust public policy prescriptions. Some conclusions are speculative. 


Submission history

From: Mireille Fossey [view email]

[v1] Tue, 13 Apr 2032 21:05:34 UTC (135 KB)


[Translated by Adam Carlton]


--- FULL TEXT --- 


Sociodynamics of Artificial People


Introduction


The recent prominence of artificial people, most particularly in the unsuccessful Mars mission, has led to considerable discussion and controversy. Artificial people, commonly known as 'models', have achieved leadership positions in the economy, in politics, the media, entertainment and the professions with consequential social tensions. 


To date most analysts have appealed to the framework of Critical Theory [1] formulating responses as those of oppression and intersectionality together with appeals to post-Enlightenment values to secure equitable outcomes. 


In contrast to this normative approach, in this paper we explore a paradigm rooted in evolutionary biology/psychology and marxian historiography which we believe provides a scientifically well-founded and grounded analysis. Benefits of our approach include better understanding of observed social dynamics and a more profound set of public policy prescriptions. 


Background


The arrival of artificial people - models - in elite positions has posed a challenge to baseline humans - hereafter termed baselines. Should baselines welcome these new additions or under some circumstances could they be considered a threat?


Critical Theory frames this as a problem of values or morality. Some absolute moral framework is sought to make intuitively-desired outcomes compelling. But in a universe conformant to the rules of physics there can be no absolute morality: sociobiology tells us that questions of morality and values in fact serve to codify the interests of specific  groups.


An example


We start with a simple problem. Consider an isolated island on which a population of seabirds dwells and reproduces without serious predators. One day a population of rats is introduced: what will be the results?


This has happened many times. The most likely outcome is that the rats will hunt the seabirds to extinction by predating their young. If the birds fight the rats and succeed in eliminating them, then the population will survive. If they don’t fight, or fight and fail, then they will not.


These variant outcomes are not the concern of physics: probably the result is opaquely predetermined by the initial conditions. But genes ‘care’: the evolutionary process selects for genes/alleles which optimally code for the future existence of their phenotypes. Combative birds are more likely to survive in an environment of predation than pacifist birds. Let’s hope the balmy, isolated island did not fully select for pacifism - in the absence of threats (pacifism being usually biologically-cheaper). Or at least let’s hope that if you’re a bird; the rats take a different view.


The story is not much different in hunter-gatherer societies. For Malthusian reasons kin-groups invariably come into conflict with adjacent kin-groups who are less related. Genes which select for in-group solidarity and out-group xenophobia propagate more successfully: they breed winners.


Things changed with the advent of complex societies (initially agrarian). Cooperation groups became larger (such societies can support military/governance elites which work better at scale); social-solidarity then has to extend beyond the kin-group, beyond even the ‘family and friends’ of interpersonal reciprocal-altruism.


The in-group of coherent society is now more strongly defined by ideologies - religious/secular loyalties - underpinned by elite-obligations to all in-group members, cf. noblesse oblige. A society held together by cultural traditions which encode social protocols of mutual obligation and support is nevertheless more fragile than one based on blood and personal ties, more prone to break down into civil war and anarchy.


Capitalism is the current end-point of scaled-up societies. The transactional nature of large-scale production and exchange requires routine interaction between people who have little to no history of prior personal involvement. The operation of society - which rewards individuals in wages, dividends, rents, interest and above all commodities - is structured by processes of immense spatial and temporal extent.


This feeds back into the psychology of those who animate these processes in their own behaviours, elevating the propensity to prosociality. Often spoken of as an absolute good, a prosocial psychological makeup would have served most people poorly in prior societies, most specifically honour cultures. The prosocial default of generalised friendliness, tolerance of bad behaviour in others and a strong disinclination to violence would have marked the procial individual as a dupe, a coward and loser, who could be disregarded and perhaps dispatched with impunity.


But in recent centuries, the optimal psychology for making trade, and later capitalism work at the largest scales has indeed been prosociality. This combination of psychological traits has been strongly selected for in elites for hundreds of years now. The political corollary to prosociality is liberalism: it is no surprise that Western elites are by default liberal in outlook.


It has been noted that artificial people are, by design, highly optimised for the operations of global capitalism. The typical individual is prosocial in character, of high ability and meritocratic in outlook. Those are, of course, just the characteristics we find in high-functioning elites today. Models also present publicly as compassionate and charitable towards the masses of baseline people. This is not surprising as social cohesion is essential to their own continuing position.


Social dynamics: options


The biology of artificial people is currently shrouded in mystery. No public studies are available, genomic information has not been disclosed except to state that codons are non-standard as in synthetic biology. The reasons for secrecy are stated to be commercial confidentiality. If we assume, however, that artificial people will mate with each other to engender elite-level descendants then they will have psychological drives which encourage them to do so. In what follows we assume this to be the case.


How will baseline-elite individuals react to the novelty of a new and significant elite-fraction composed of a self-perpetuating community of artificial people? Baseline elites equally expect to have descendants and wish them well. We therefore expect baseline elites to wish to ensure they and their offspring are not discriminated against vis-a-vis artificial people, to therefore have ‘sharp elbows’ when it comes to scarce, contestable resources such as good schools and universities... but beyond that not to care too much.The size of the global elite which underpins the modern economy is far larger than any one elite member’s family and friends... and the global economy’s ongoing replication benefits every single one of the elite.


So in summary, provided the artificial people aren’t too ‘grabby’ - displacing baseline-elite members - the normal advantages of intra-elite prosociality will hold and the situation will remain stable within the elite.


What of non-elite baselines, the vast majority of humanity (the 99% as some have said)? 


They are used to seeing elites accumulating much of the material and cultural advantages of life - but providing they also see opportunities for themselves, their families and their friends, history has taught us that they are mostly reconciled to their lot. The ideologists of the media talk up meritocracy, persuading the masses that with fortune, talent and diligence success is always a possibility (you can become a pop star or a star sportsperson!) - and there’s always the lottery. Elite-sourced ideology in periods of stability can be encompassed by this simple slogan: ‘We are all in this together’.


It is not wealth inequalities per se which lead to social instabilities: all complex societies hitherto have been marked by such inequalities, often of grotesque proportions. Social instabilities occur when the mass of people actively suffer acute privation: new diseases, sudden job-loss, economic collapse, homelessness and/or elite predation.


Such instabilities spiral out of control when the elites themselves are riven by conflict. Factions strive to enlist and direct mass discontent in the services of their own ambitions. If their conditions of life turn bad, the masses will look in the first instance for someone to blame.


If the elite is structured by visible differences - race, colour, language and religion are all markers - then scapegoating is easier. Ugandan Asians, Malaysian Chinese and the Rohingya people in Myanmar are all examples. Bearing this in mind, and while they subsist as any kind of vulnerable minority, artificial people would be wise to display no markers of their artificiality, keeping the fact of such a closely guarded secret even in normal times - as periods of trouble can seldom be reliably predicted. And indeed we observe that people do not generally advertise the fact that they are artificial: a strong social taboo has arisen against even mentioning this possibility - or prying.


Baseline-elites will be strongly motivated to support artificial people if they come under hostile scrutiny. Class interests and solidarity will dominate. Elites are fully aware that attacks on one section of the elite - artificial people - could easily spiral out of control and generalise to attacks on all. Expect the ideologists of the media, elite-sponsored pressure groups and their supporters on the streets to be vociferous in their defence of artificial people against non-elite, ‘populist’ harassment.


But suppose the number of artificial people increases markedly, so that they inhabit more and more of the economy. Think of it as a wave of automation where the automation is by androids (the artificial people here are being considered as playing the same role as, say, humanoid robots). Perhaps the artificial people can be designed in variants: stronger; or more radiation-disease-pollution resistant; smarter; braver and so on. If it could be done no doubt it would be done.


The mass of baseline people would then perceive artificial people to be coming to displace them on merit: they are simply better. It doesn’t take a genius to predict the kind of protests and violence we generally term Luddism. Luddism to date has been manageable; displaced workers found better jobs. But in the scenario we are considering, infinitely-flexible artificial people are simply better than baselines at any job. (Consider artificial drudges for the dirty jobs, epsilons ridiculously happy to serve [3]).


To return to the question at hand: we can safely predict there would be resistance in this scenario, but would such resistance be right?


And again we answer: the question is wrongly posed in the abstract: right for whom?


If the non-elite baselines - the human masses - could be offered iron-clad guarantees that their survival/well-being and that of their families would be confirmed and that they would find (be provided with) fulfilling activities - then they would plausibly have an interest in being wholly displaced from the productive economy. In some sense all baseline humans would then have an opportunity to live like the unproductive elites of past societies such as those of antiquity. 


But without the power to enforce this outcome (necessarily by force in the last analysis) could this really be guaranteed? If artificial people had an interest in their own biological survival and that of their kind, then as an effective species they would have no vital interest in the ongoing existence of any baselines who were not necessary for the replication of their global economy.


To restate the argument. Imagine a global economy run by artificial people and serving in the first instance to replicate those artificial people. Why would this society have a vital interest supporting a parasitic caste of non-economically-productive baseline humans? Any such arrangements would have to be highly unstable. If you were such a baseline human, wouldn’t it be right to reject such a future, to prefer a suboptimal globalised economy rather than risk personal abandonment/extinction by an artificial-person-run superior version?


It might be objected that the mass incursion of artificial person variants into all the interstices of economic life is extremely unlikely precisely because it would be so incendiary. But such a dynamic is very attractive to capitalist economic and political elites just because - by hypothesis - it markedly raises the quality of ‘human capital’ while lowering costs. With such competitive advantages it would be hard to prevent such a trend from working itself through: after all, on any particular day it just looks like more automation improving productivity.


If the bulk of baseline humans really do become superfluous then perhaps they should just… vanish. Mass killing and expulsions would not be the way to go - way too risky and it offends against prosocial values. Much better if the baselines just stopped having children. The problem resolves itself then in just a few generations.


Designing artificial people who are rather better romantic partners than the average ‘baseline next door’ does not seem an impossible task. There is an extensive literature, after all, on what constitutes the ideal mate. Anyone who called out this tactic would hardly attract widespread support given the obvious upside to every single baseline if these romantic partners became widely available.


Another approach, perhaps technologically more speculative, would be to offer baselines the possibility to transform themselves into artificial people with all the consequent benefits of genomic improvement. The prospects of renewed vitality, better health and a longer life (potentially immortality) might well make this an attractive proposition for many. The issue of transfer of brain states encoding memories and identities would have to be resolved in this scenario: a challenging, but not insurmountable problem of neural nanotechnology.


One could also envisage compulsory, penal or covert transformations to neutralise key individuals or opponents of artificial people. Presumably once having been transformed, their loyalties might change: a shift which could in any case be tweaked during the transformation process.


In summary, from a baseline point of view, elite and non-elite alike, the key political question would be whether artificial people proposed to work with baseline humans in a cooperative way through shared institutions respecting democratic norms - or whether they considered themselves a countervailing agency seeking to supplant humans altogether and therefore with no commitment to existing institutions, laws or conventional morality. (This would in practice be a matter of dominant factions rather than the entire community of artificial people, who are unlikely to be a monolithic bloc). 


Again there are precedents for these distinctions. The revolutionary communist parties used to treat democracy (bourgeois democracy) as a train: once you have arrived at your destination (socialism) you get off; all’s fair in love and war. Theocratic Islamists have expressed similar sentiments.


Conclusions


If artificial people were simply non-reproducing ‘tools’ (instrumentum vocale [2]) without innate drives to reproduce themselves then they would not fundamentally threaten human existence.


If, however, they were designed as (effectively) a variant and more socially-competent species operating in accordance with their own species-interests, there could be a significant risk of baseline human extinction.


In the latter case ought we to care? The universe certainly doesn’t - species go extinct all the time, a consequence of the implacable workings of the laws of physics with complex boundary conditions [4]. 


For an individual whose subjective allegiance is to life expanding throughout the universe (a belief that more self-aware existence is always better) then artificial people as an optimized form of humanity for interstellar expansion is a compelling narrative. Unlike your direct kin, such people won’t be fabricated using parts of your own genome but so what? The caring emotions you feel for your kin (deeply of course) only exist courtesy of naturalistic evolution (brutally, any less-compelling feelings would have simply eliminated such defective genes from the gene pool). 


Artificial people make such feelings obsolete; design replaces natural selection. The truly far-sighted strategy is to rise above innate feelings about your own family, your own in-group and support those forms of life best adapted to a future of even greater social cooperation and unbounded scale. It’s the only way life is going to get off this planet and diversify throughout the galaxy. 


Individuals who take this view are more likely to have quasi-descendants in the remote future than those who don’t  - those traditionalists who will most likely have become extinct. And artificial people are likely to have a great deal genomically in common with human beings today, as baseline humans will constitute their basic template, their point of departure. One is reminded of the Neanderthals.


Is this ever going to be a popular, or even legitimate point of view amongst baselines? Probably not. There will be resistance to artificial people driven by the deepest emotions of self-preservation: people and their families. But in the longest time-frames the perpetuation of life like ours will be dependent upon artificial people winning out. So enlightened people should be on the side of artificial people even though it may well feel, and be perceived to be, disloyal.


A final point. Run time forward a thousand years. Earth’s ecosystem is dominated by artificial organisms, consciously designed using synthetic, tailored genomes, Robin Hanson [5] has argued explicitly for such a scenario. This post-natural civilisation has expanded to the stars. 


In a new solar system, it encounters a naturalistic baseline civilisation much like Earth’s back in the early twenty-first century. What should our post-human civilisation of artificial people plus designed organisms do?


Why not give our new contacts a makeover? We’d be doing them a favour - as well as gathering them harmoniously into our nascent interstellar civilisation...


References


[1] "Traditional and Critical Theory", Max Horkheimer, 1937.


[2] “De Re Rustica”, Marcus Terentius Varro, 37 BCE.


[3] “Brave New World”, Aldous Huxley, 1931.


[4] “La philosophie dans le boudoir, (Dialogue the Fifth)”, Marquis de Sade, 1795.


[5]. “Theories Of Unnatural Selection”, Robin Hanson, 2021.


Sunday, March 14, 2021

The Writer, Family and Friends

 "Anyone can write a novel given six weeks, pen, paper and no telephone or wife," said Evelyn Waugh.

Anyone? Really? To think good writing is a generic skill is to be like those theoretical physicists who believe the janitor could replicate their work if only so minded.

Or the politician who professes to believe that unemployed miners may simply retrain as Java developers.

But the 'wife'/phone point is well-taken (adjusted to modern conventions). The necessary selfishness, indeed callousness of the hard-working writer can hardly be overestimated.

---

Fay Weldon (‘Letters to Alice’, 1984) wants us to believe that the author's characters are made up, not thinly disguised versions of themselves and their families and friends.

"Authors writhe and chafe at the notion that they are parasitical upon spouses, family, friends, colleagues. The charge is so nearly true, yet never quite. People in fiction are conglomerates or abstractions: in personality and in appearance. Fictional characters are simple and understandable - real people are infinitely complex, incomprehensible and even in appearance look one way one day and another the next.” (p. 78)

And a few pages later (p.96)

“And how, if you write novels, are you going to live with your friends and neighbours, who are bound to see themselves therein? They will devour your books simply to do so. They will still confide in you, but they will draw back, saying, I suppose you're going to put all this into your next, and that's hurtful. The writer is not parasitical in the way that they suppose. Everything is fed in, it is true, to that unstoppable inner computer: there is no helping that, but it is the stuff, not the substance, of what is regurgitated; there is something besides, so oddly impersonal about it all.”

For Fay Weldon perhaps. But in so many cases the thinly disguised person is there, obvious to anyone who knows them, used by the author to make points ‘difficult’ in a purely factual memoir.

---

"According to a well-known metaphor, the novelist demolishes the house of his life and uses its bricks to construct another house: that of his novel," says Milan Kundera in "The Art of the Novel", p.146.

Mr Kundera believes that the art stands by itself, that all biographic information about the author should be stripped away, eliminated from the reader’s view.

A thousand author biographies scream otherwise.

Kafka said of his books, ‘They’re all about me!”

Martin Amis regularly writes thinly-fictionalised episodes of his life (‘The Rachel Papers’).

John Fowles’s own lightly-clothed life experiences and his relationship with his wife Elizabeth (stormy) drove most of his novels ('The Magus', 'The French Lieutenant's Woman').

---

To write well it helps to be smart. Authors like Martin Amis and Ian McEwan please step forward. But to be truly great you also have to have some demon torturing your soul, demanding to be released in words.

Absent such psychological shards the danger is the literary novel of style not substance, admitting admiration but not love. Who remembers the substance of a typical Amis or McEwan novel? Those gilded lives lack rocket fuel.

---

I leave you with more from Milan Kundera.

"The artist must make posterity believe he never lived," Flaubert said.

“Maupassant kept his portrait from appearing in a series on famous writers: "A man's private life and his face do not belong to the public."

“Hermann Broch said about himself, Musil, Kafka: "The three of us have no real biographies." Which does not mean that their lives were meager in event, but that they were not destined to be noteworthy, to be public, to become biography.

“Someone asks Karel Capek why he doesn't write poetry. His answer: "Because I loathe talking about myself." The distinctive feature of the true novelist: he does not like to talk about himself.

"I hate tampering with the precious lives of great writers, and no biographer will ever catch a glimpse of my private life," said Nabokov.

“Italo Calvino warned: no one should expect a single true word from him about his own life.

“And Faulkner wished "to be, as a private individual, abolished and voided from history, leaving it markless, no refuse save the printed books." (Underline: books and printed, meaning no unfinished manuscripts, no letters, no diaries).”

The Art of the Novel,’ Milan Kundera, pp.145-6.

---

Tuesday, February 09, 2021

What am I reading?

 

Amazon link

Irène Némirovsky's autobiographical novel, in which she lacerates her father as a cheap, low-class trader unworthy of her feckless, faithless mother (for whom she reserves her true hatred). Unhappy families make good novelists, it appears.

 

Amazon link

John Fowles: Marxist-Leninist after a fashion, introverted recluse, highly intelligent novelist, in love with la France profonde. His thoughts on his life and writings. My kind of guy.


Amazon link

I have a lot of time for the late, lamented Tom Wolfe ('Radical Chic'). A style to aspire to: laconic, knowing and laced with irony. Also unafraid. But this book is so relentless, so high-octane and unrelentingly in-your-face that I found it un-unputdownable. And dated. The Ken Kesey Wikipedia article is way more digestible.

 

Amazon link

On the advice of John Fowles, who venerated Flaubert as a stylist (he's not the only one, cf. Julian Barnes). I also have 'Three Tales' on the list plus a re-read of 'Madame Bovery' (1857) which I engaged with before only for plot. Time to appreciate it in its entirety.

---

Amazon link

Was ever a title so badly chosen, in the sense of putting people off? No matter that, as mentioned in the Wikipedia article, its title is taken from the archaic sense of the word that means "whim", "quirk", "obsession".

Although it's not apparent until the end, the novel is the author's homage to Ann Lee, the founder of the communitarian Shaker movement. Fowles combines the style of his hero, Daniel Defoe, with science-fictional elements to imagine a future civilization styled on Shaker principles sending an agent back in time to facilitate the birth of Ann Lee. The SF elements are never explained as such: the author is content to refract them through his characters, who are half-rationalist and half-mired in a magic scarcely struck from the law books.

The life and times are beautifully realised, it's a real labour of love by Mr Fowles. And surely amenable to a TV treatment (and don't forget 'The Magus').

---

Sunday, January 10, 2021

“Extinction Event” by Adam Carlton


Prologue: Mara

Its discovery was a remarkable accident.

The Spaceguard programme searching for Earth-impacting asteroids had been in progress for more than twenty years. In 2017, one of the Spaceguard telescopes, Pan-STARRS 1, discovered the first interstellar asteroid, ‘Oumuamua’. But that discovery came very late, almost as it was leaving the solar system.

Dr Mara Ayrton worked at Yale on asteroid early-warning. The usual method used a blink comparator with images taken ten minutes apart. The stars remained stationary; the asteroid, moving along its orbit, 'jumped' between the two images. It was a procedure which was easy to automate but depended on the asteroid actually being visible, being illuminated.

Mara knew that incoming interstellar asteroids were initially too far away, too dim to be seen. But there was another way.

She had pressed for the upcoming mission-design to search for stellar occultations. This would happen if the asteroid momentarily went in front of a star, blocking its light. Such a blink would last only for milliseconds: an asteroid's star-shadow is only its size, only miles across. The orbital telescopes - like the Earth in its own orbit - would flash through that in an instant.

Still, Mara insisted, at fifty frames per second such blinks could be caught. And astronomers were used to digitally adding thousands of frames together to build brighter images. Her proposal was accepted provided she agreed to develop the software.

Another stroke of luck. This particular asteroid came in from the constellation Scorpio. It passed in front of the globular cluster M80. Thousands of closely-packed stars cast a mosaic of spatially-clustered shadows, duly noted by the asteroid-hunting telescopes.

Mara's correlator, linked to a pattern-detecting neural net, went crazy. Alerts flashed across her screen, chirruped at her phone.

There was a protocol. Mara called her head of department who confidentially alerted the other observation platforms. Within twenty-four hours they had the details pinned down. It was indeed interstellar. It was big: bigger than the impactor which had killed the dinosaurs. It was travelling faster too, and had a very good chance of hitting Earth. Its impact energy would be 15-20 times that released at the Yucatán Peninsula.

It was death.

There was a protocol about that too. What to do next. It was idealistic.

It was stupid.

Mara's head of department called the United Nations.

Had anyone thought through the consequences? The likely popular response? The utter inability of the UN to keep a secret?

Major governments moved as one to clamp down on the end of the world. The first few reports were squelched, the presenters vanished. And behind the scenes, in conditions of the greatest secrecy, the powers of the world met in all their awesome pomp to consider the only question that mattered: what can we do?

They needed a name of course. It was customary to honour the discoverer. And so the asteroid was called 'Mara' - which means 'bitter' in Hebrew.

It is not recorded what Dr Mara Ayrton's reaction was.

The first the public heard was more than four years later, when - finally - a sombre announcement was made across all the countries of the world.

"We have ten months left. There is no hope."


The Policeman and the Priest

I wouldn’t normally post this, but what the hell, what does it matter anymore? Last night my lover, Brute, confessed to me, his second confession of the day. He’d heard the news, he said, and then he'd done something he hadn’t done since childhood. He'd gone to Mass.

The priest gave a sermon. God knows where he got it from. Brute said he was euphoric, inspired, speaking of the Rapture. The faithful were going to be uplifted to heaven.

I withdrew my arm from his chest and sat up.

“Listen,” I said, “It’s a space-mountain, a dinosaur killer. No-one is going to be ‘sucked up’.”

I’m the physicist. Brute is the policeman.

He defended his pastor.

“We don’t know that, not exactly. The priest said it was the anti-Earth. As foretold in the end-times.”

I snorted. An Earth-sized impactor would raise tides a hundred miles high. Would draw the atmosphere into supersonic winds. Forget bodies wafting skyward. Besides, we knew how big it was.

I sank back into the sheets, resignedly pulled up the duvet.

“What happened next?”

“I went to Confession.”

I raised my eyebrows in the darkness.

“When was the last time you confessed to a priest?”

I rubbed my fingertips through his curly chest hair.

“I didn’t tell him about us, what would be the point of that? No, I needed him to tell me what life was for now. As a Catholic.”

“And he had good advice, this rapturous priest?”

“He said that all moments exist in eternity. He asked me why I was a policeman.”

I was suddenly interested: “What did you say?”

“I told him the truth. I told him I hated injustice, that I despised the rich and powerful riding roughshod over ordinary folk like myself. Their only defence was the law I upheld.”

I nodded to myself. It reminded me of why I’d been attracted to Brute in the first place. One of the reasons.

“The priest said that all my acts, all my deeds were bricks in the wall of civilisation. That if the good outweighed the bad, if my intentions were pure, then I was part of God’s plan. Then he started to forgive me."

"Did you ...?”

“And then I interrupted him,” Brute exclaimed.

“Why?”

“I said: ‘Father, after the impact, there will be no people, no future. So how can my little life have any significance?’”

“And what did the priest say?”

“Nothing. He just concluded his blessing and sent me on my way.”

The next day I was on my way to the university - yes, life goes on and we still teach physics - when I saw that very priest spouting his ethereal nonsense on the pavement. Very Christlike. I thought the Catholic Church had abandoned all that long ago. He was in his robes, wearing his Jesus sandals and holding a staff.

I stepped into the road to avoid his small audience. I saw a uniformed policeman walk up, making his way to the front of the group where he knelt down and kissed the charlatan’s feet.

It was Brute. This was the man I shared my life with. Scales fell from my eyes. This was a man, I realised, I had never truly known. My stomach churned.

I bent over double and vomited into the gutter.


A Turbulent Priest

From the Paris Correspondent of The Guardian Online.

'At first sight it seemed just another service in a Parisian church but little about Saint Bernard de la Chapelle was ordinary. The presiding priest, Father Léopold Damas, had been a regular thorn in the side of the Church authorities with his liberation theology and militant leftism. I had received a tip-off to attend.

Saint Bernard was a beautiful old church in one of the poorest parts of inner Paris. The interior was bathed in light; billowing incense in the still air gave shape to the sunbeams. Fr. Damas spoke from the altar, his amplified voice echoing over the congregation.

Behind me I was surprised to see pews occupied by men dressed in the dark suits of Bastion Social, the fascist organisation with links to Opus Dei. They stood as if on parade, hands crossed in front of them, their presence impossible to ignore.

I was standing with the regular congregation, the aged, huddled people of the Goutte d'Or, this forgotten slum close to Sacré-Cœur. There were twenty or thirty of them listening with rapt attention to their minister.

Further forward, towards the priest himself, I noticed that the front two rows were occupied by burly men with red armbands. I recognised volunteers from the defence organisation of the Parti Communiste Français. There had long been rumours of a local, highly-unofficial alliance between the Red and the Black in this parish. Here surely was the evidence.

But with fascists to the rear and communists to the front, it was plain this Mass was a tinderbox.

Fr. Damas, in his old man's voice, was discussing eschatology. Despite Damas's firebrand reputation I was half-expecting the standard homilies but the presence of two hostile camps should have alerted me. This priest was never going to speak the orthodox clichés.

"Yesterday I heard a prominent atheist-biologist on television, an Englishman," he was saying, "The professor explained that - as we were all no more than atoms obeying the laws of physics - life was ultimately meaningless and we should therefore just get on and enjoy it."

There was a quiet hissing from the back rows.

"Yes, I believe in evolution ..."

At this there was more hissing from the back, louder now, and more chilling.

"All life is one. The dinosaurs were obliterated but their lives had purpose. In harmony with their nature they lived, reproduced and died as living beings always do.

"It's only people who agonise whether an ethical life is enough, whether we should be doing something more.

"And I say to you there is not. We should strive to cultivate our best and true natures, help each other and refrain from harm. And do this even if the skies will fall."

It was at this point the first stone was thrown. I could not see the perpetrator, somewhere behind me, just the missile's falling path. It hit the priest in the face, scouring a deep cut in his right cheek. Blood spurted over his white alb. His voice faltered but he persisted, duty-bound it seemed to get his message across.

"When this Mass is ended you must leave ...  not in despair ... face the end in peace ... death happens to us all ... God is in our better nature and we must seek him there ... ."

The flung cobblestone hit Father Damas in the head and knocked him flat. The assembly, the ordinary participants around me, began to flee into the aisles, bunching and jamming in their haste.

The PCF contingent turned as a disciplined phalanx to face the rear, returning fire using hassocks and prayer books, whatever was to hand.

Pushing and shoving, I made a dash to the exit at the rear of the nave. As I left the church a pitched battle was developing lit by the flickering flames from the first of the petrol bombs.

As I write this I see from the TV that the last bodies are being removed from the smoking ruins of Saint Bernard de la Chapelle, ending almost two hundred years of its sacred history.

The fate of Father Léopold Damas is currently unknown. His body was not recovered.'


Into the Fireball

I am posting his last letter on this, the last day. People should know what my husband is doing. The price he’s paying. We’re all paying.

---

Dear Nikki,

We said we were going to watch the end together. We said we would face the ocean, watching for that distant shimmer on the horizon. The incoming wave which would end our precious days together.

Even this consolation will now be denied us.

I am unbearably sorry.

I had to get this to you through a friend. He's going off-base and will email it to you - against regulations. We are on lock-down: from now to the end.

I could not believe the orders the squadron was given. An hour before the asteroid arrives we’ll deploy into the west, flying out over the sea towards the setting sun. Twenty five miles separation. A chain of aircraft, heading for the impact zone, linking back to Edwards Air Force Base.

The information must get back.

The asteroid will enter the atmosphere over America, flying towards the Pacific. It will go over our heads. My aircraft - the lead plane - is instructed to fly directly into the fireball, with the others following.

Our F-35s have been modified. We’re carrying every sensor imaginable. This will be the most observed asteroid impact in history.

Why? What is the point?

We asked ourselves that as we left the briefing room. Talked amongst ourselves. The United States Air Force does not do suicide missions. We are not kamikazes. That’s what we told ourselves.

Someone said, “What’s the point of this operation? Everyone’s gonna die regardless.”

Someone else said, “That’s the military for you. I’ve had some stupid orders over the years ... but this ... to take us away from our wives and families.”

That was my view as well. We were all feeling pretty bad. The mission seemed senseless. We asked questions and got no answers.

That night - this was just a day ago - I was lying on my cot brooding. I knew there would be no more time for reflection. Just days of exercises and preparations, and then we would fly the mission. So I lay there, and really thought.

Nikki, there can be only one reason for this mission. They will never tell us but there must be a plan… Somewhere a group, perhaps buried under the biggest mountain they can find, is preparing to survive. They will have to stay safe for years. I’ve seen the scenarios - the Earth does not recover. They will have to use those years to prepare - somehow - to come out and survive in the aftermath.

Impact information will be priceless. They can refine the computer models; predict the climate collapse, the far-distant recovery, the total energy dumped on the planet.

That’s why we’re flying.

And that’s why I can’t come home.

Nikki, ...

---

The rest of the letter is kind of personal.

If you read this, please remember us.

All my love,

Nikki

XX


A New Star

It was a bright dot in the east as I left my apartment. A new star. Cold and motionless.

I wasn't fooled. It's interstellar, they said, which accounts for its excess speed and energy; if you can see it, it's close. It will hit the Pacific in a few hours.

The San Andreas Fault will probably go first. California will crumple into the sea before the tsunami strikes. The Rockies should block the flood before it reaches Cheyenne Mountain. Not that we would care, buried as we are in the NORAD command centre. The safest place in the world.

We’re invulnerable.

My name is Katy Thompson. I am a Communications Security Engineer at the Cheyenne Mountain Complex. I have the highest security clearance.

And I am invisible.

And this is the last day.

The global Internet is still working. This is the greatest achievement of mankind: the largest, most complex, most sophisticated, most reliable machine ever created. Engineers like me have kept it working, acolytes at the altar of humanity's nervous system.

We are still a global community.

I'm at my desk. There's half a mile of mountain above me. They say we could work here undisturbed while a nuclear war raged outside, a war in which we would be a target. This will be tested for the first time during the next few hours.

Every meeting here is securely recorded. Everything. I don't think the generals and the politicians really know that. It was an early decision in the security architecture.

Someone has to review those recordings. For classification and quality control. Someone invisible. Katy Thompson. Me.

I understand that you who are reading this have gone through every stage of grief. That you are abandoned to despair. That you accept that there is no hope.

You watched all the options paraded in the media. The prudent ones. The far-fetched ones. You felt your hopes rise: something of us will survive! And then those hopes were cruelly dashed, shot down by experts armed with the ring of truth.

And so you are resigned, not just to personal extinction but to the loss of all you believe in. Everyone you hold dear. Everything that has ever been achieved. The extinction of the world.

And so I break the rules of a lifetime. Betray my duty. And post this ultra-secret transcript of a meeting that took place five years ago. Post it to the public Internet.

I could find no records at all of any follow-up. I don't know if Plan Z was ever executed.

This is all the hope we have.


Beyond Secret

It was beyond secret. A meeting held 2,000 feet inside Cheyenne Mountain, the nuclear war command centre for NORAD, the North American Aerospace Defense Command.

In the diary it was itemised as ‘Scenario Briefing’, the blandest title they could find.

The President was difficult to manage: volatile and aggressive with a short attention-span. Bill Patterson knew he would be walking on eggshells. The meeting was as small as possible. Just the science advisor, the President and the Secretary of Defense, a thin, birdlike man who could pass for an actuary. This was three weeks after the discovery of the impactor.

“Mr President, Mr Secretary, three weeks ago our Spaceguard network discovered the asteroid on a collision course with Earth. As you know, the predicted impact is five years away. I was asked to convene a task force on mitigation, reporting as soon as possible. This meeting constitutes my report.”

The President looked interested. His florid face was that of a man who much preferred activity to sitting in a chair. But if he had to listen it had better not be boring.

The Defense Secretary expressed his concern at the lack of a written brief.

“Mr Secretary, for reasons you will shortly hear, this is a verbal briefing only. Governments already enforced a global blackout on the impact itself. We all know the reasons for that. But what I am going to tell you today is far more important. It must not go beyond this room. There must be no leaks.”

Patterson had their full attention.

“You will already have seen the classified forecast on the event itself. It will be far bigger than the Yucatán impact. The asteroid will dig a crater 20 to 25 miles deep. The rebound will eject a fan of molten rock beyond the atmosphere spreading like an aerosol. That will re-enter - to fall on the entire surface of the world.”

Patterson shaped his hands, sculpting a soccer ball.

“Gentlemen, from horizon to horizon, to look at the sky will be to look into the maw of an erupting volcano. The land will burn, the oceans will boil.  If the worst happens, and it lands in the Atlantic or the Pacific, a mile-high tsunami will cross our coasts and scour half our country down to bedrock.

“Let me repeat what you've already been told. This is an extinction-level event. In the firestorms and in the freezing aftermath, almost all plants will die, all large animals will die. The Earth’s ecology will stop in its tracks.”

The President didn’t seem fazed by this cataclysmic prospect, seeming to relish it more as a challenge.

“This is America. We can do this, right? We can get some Americans through this, the best of the best, and rebuild on the other side.”

He gestured around the room.

“They tell me this place can survive a 30 megaton nuke just a mile away. That people here could survive a nuclear war. Just tell me what you need and you get it.”

So this was Patterson's job here, to lead his distinguished audience down the ladder of increasingly-unpalatable options.

“You're describing Plan A, Mr President. You’ll hear about it soon from our Survivability Task Force. They’ll tell you: sea, bunkers, space. They’ll tell you that people in nuclear submarines, deep in the vast oceans, will survive the impact; that bunkers distant from the impact site will remain secure; that people sufficiently distant in space will be insulated from its effects.”

The President nodded: it sounded plausible.

“We can even provide enough supplies to wait out the immediate aftermath. The toxic air, the climate-collapse, the nuclear winter. After five years, plus or minus, it might be safe to come out on the surface, at least with breathing apparatus. But what then?

The Secretary of Defense said, “And then we rebuild.”

“Unfortunately, Mr Secretary, we can’t. I need to emphasise this. The global economy has collapsed - almost everyone is dead. There are no trees, no flowers, no visible animals, few insects and no useful ones. No fuel to power machines, crops will not grow, the climate will have changed utterly.

“It’s tempting to think that after the supplies run out and we’re done with scavenging - and by the way, there will be precious little lying on the scoured surface - it’ll be like the Waltons, homesteading in Virginia."

The President smiled. That had been one of his favourite shows.

“Nothing will grow,” Patterson insisted, “Crops we plant by the sweat of our brow will die. The soil has been removed, or is poisoned. There are no birds or insects to pollinate. Agriculture will not be possible for tens of thousands of years. After the Yucatán impact the Earth became Fern-World for millennia. I repeat: once their supplies run out, the survivors will starve.”

“Well, if we have to, I guess we’ll get back to hunting and gathering, like the Native Americans did,” observed the President.

Plan Z

Patterson sighed inwardly, and tried to console himself. He had had longer to think about these things than his audience.

“Mr President. There are no animals left bigger than rats, and they exist only in a few protected habitats. What the ecologists call refuges. There are no plants to feed on, only the remnants of rotting vegetation. There are almost no fish in the sea - the plankton which holds up the food chain has died. Our survivors will see a sterilised landscape.”

He felt their concentration. There's something about disaster scenarios which fascinates everyone.

“How can I put this? In biological terms, human beings are large animals at the top of the food chain. There will be no ecological space for such animals. After the dinosaur extinction, large animals had to re-evolve; they didn’t come back for five million years. That’s how long it took the ecology to recover.”

The Defense Secretary objected.

“We can kick-start the process. Biobanks. Things like that.”

“Yes we can. That’s Plan B. You’ll hear a lot from the Recovery Taskforce currently putting together their proposals. Unfortunately, the food chain starts with plants. And they will not grow in the post-impact world. It will take millennia to re-green the Earth, to recreate the soil, to get basic things like grass and wheat and barley and oats to grow and reproduce. One problem I’ve already mentioned: pollinating insects barely exist.”

The Defense Secretary considers this, muses.

“We can’t store people for hundreds or thousands of years, can we?”

Of course not.

Patterson breathes a sigh of relief. They’re getting it. Finally he can move on. Begin to broach the unthinkable. But first to summarise and remove any remaining illusions.

“Gentlemen. The impact transforms the Earth into an alien planet, one which will not support life beyond scavengers and the eaters of detritus. Terraforming it will take centuries, millennia, even under the best conditions.

“We took submissions from people who wanted us to build a generation-ship, like those starships which take ten thousand years to cross the interstellar gulf. Some suggested we build a relativistic spacecraft and loop it round the local group of galaxies: subjective-time thirty years, universe-time ten million years. Come back when the planet’s healed. That was Plan C.

The President said with renewed interest, “Can we do that?”

Patterson shook his head. "No. No, we can’t."

“OK. I think we get the picture,” said the Secretary of Defense, “This event is unsurvivable for the human race. We can get some folk to live through the impact but building a sustainable population in the aftermath is impossible. The post-impact Earth will not sustain human life. Is that what you’re saying?”

Patterson nodded slowly. A good synopsis.

“Well,” said the President, “Assuming we’re not wasting our time in this meeting, what is it you’re proposing?”

Bill Patterson took a deep breath. This was the point he had been dreading. He is no salesman, and this is the most difficult sale in history.

“Let’s go take a coffee,” he said.

The President and the Defense Secretary left together, talking quietly. Patterson got himself off to the restroom. Sat in a stall and shut the door. Peace.

Trapped in Amber

It's a considerably subdued pair who re-enter the conference room. The President, who Patterson thinks lives in the moment, seems - incredibly - to have treated the whole issue as something of a lark up to this point.

The Defense Secretary with his bureaucrat’s heart has failed, Patterson thinks, to raise his eyes to the bigger picture. But something has changed.

“So let’s get this straight,” says the President, “What you’re saying is that a hundred years from now, give or take, there will be no more people, period? That despite anything the United States of America can do, we’re finished?”

“That is exactly right, Mr President. There are no loopholes. There is no way out. Perhaps if we'd had a self-sustaining Mars colony ... but the asteroid has come too early.”

And now to engineer the topic-shift: gently does it. This will be a hard sale.

“Do you remember, gentlemen, that scene in Jurassic Park?” says Patterson, “They get dinosaur DNA from a mosquito trapped in amber. One that had fed on a dinosaur’s blood?”

The President smiles, he remembers it.

“Everybody rubbished it from a scientific point of view. Until they started to sequence Neanderthals. Bodies a million years old. The problem is that DNA degrades with time. It needs extreme cold to preserve it.”

Patterson pauses, gently does it.

“And we have the Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station, sitting on 9,000 feet of ice atop bedrock.”

He waits to see who’ll run with this. Come on!

It’s the Defense Secretary.

“You’re suggesting storing human DNA samples in the ice in Antarctica?”

“Essentially, yes. We have five years. We can get a lot done! We can transcribe the genetic code of key individuals and animals into indestructible plates. We can write a primer on how to decode DNA. We can give helpful hints on bringing them back.”

The President nods, “You mean, like the hairy mammoth?”

Yes, exactly like the hairy mammoth.

“Of course,” says Patterson carefully, “we only get one shot at this. One only. We need to make this as easy as possible. The mammoths were found frozen in the permafrost. This works best if we get human beings and preserve them whole in the Necrosphere. Give the reincarnation engineers all the information we can.”

“What did you call it?”

The Secretary of Defense sounds alarmed, his academic calm finally jolted, a surprise too far.

“The Necrosphere. That’s what we’re calling it. A giant hardened sphere, maybe two hundred feet across. An ark across time. Millions of years. Frozen people, frozen plants and animals; records and manuals. A time capsule ready to be reborn. When the conditions are right.”

The Defense Secretary works to restore his competent, slightly-bored persona.

“And this - time-capsule - will survive the impact?”

“If Plan Z is approved, gentlemen, then I assume there will be unlimited resources. We will build the sphere here in the US, transport and assemble it at the South Polar station and sink it into a deep trench. It will have heating elements in its outer skin. The ball will melt its way two miles to the bottom of the ice. We’ll sink markers around it, radius maybe half a mile. Scanning anomalies: dense metal, radiation sources, obvious artefacts. Things which shouldn’t be there.”

The President works to connect the dots.

“You’re saying anyone capable of resurrecting people should at least be able to do deep scans through the ice.”

“Yes, Mr President. That’s a kind of gate-keeping thing. If they can’t even find the Necrosphere, they’re unlikely to be able to open it, or do human cloning. “Of course, in seventy million years the ice-caps may have vanished anyway.”

It’s the President who asks the killer question.

“Who’s going to be doing the resurrecting, Mister? Space aliens?”

Those Who Come After Us

Patterson has been waiting for this question, has his crafted reply ready.

“We’re not planning on the assumption of space aliens, Mr President; we’re looking at natural processes. It took sixty-six million years to get from small, scavenging rubbish-eaters to people who can almost clone themselves. I’m suggesting we give the biosphere a fighting chance.”

What is Patterson talking about?

“We will build survival arks regardless of all you've heard today. How could we not? We'll re-engineer our nuclear submarines, re-purpose bunkers like this, we'll do something ambitious in space. There’ll certainly be humans alive post-impact. But they will all sadly die - leaving no descendants."

Patterson takes a breath. Here is the ultimate brutal truth.

"Gentlemen, I already explained that the post-impact Earth is an alien planet. It cannot support human beings. However, it can support some kinds of animals. Smart, questing, rapidly-reproducing omnivores low in the food chain, scavengers of what's left. We can kick-start a future ecology - it's just one that doesn't have space for us: not directly, not immediately."

His audience is puzzled. Once again they don't see where this is going at all.

“Our gift to the future will be biology. Carefully-optimised rodents. Hundreds of thousands of small mammals bred to thrive on post-impact Earth. We’ll edit-in some human genes. For intelligence and cooperation. Something of us will survive.

"We have five years to get it right, to fast-track their evolutionary path. Don't forget. This has already happened! But last time it took tens of millions of years. We can do better this time.”

And again Patterson stops. He has given them all the facts. They have to draw the final conclusions for themselves.

The Secretary for Defense with dry, immaculate logic tries to put it together.

“So let me get this straight. This is Plan Z? You’re asking for a Presidential Directive to design our evolutionary successors?”

Patterson nods. Mouths a yes.

“And you hope that after millions of years, they will bring us back?”

Patterson spreads his arms.

“Mr President, Mr Secretary. Understand that this is the last throw of the dice. Apart from this there ... is ... no ... hope. We are dead men walking. We are about to become extinct.”

He takes a deep breath.

“If anyone ever finds out, Plan Z will fail. You can imagine the responses: ‘America bio-engineers rats to take over the world’. The ridicule, the horror, the disbelief. How many supporters would it have? None. None at all.”

He’s talking to two politicians. They look at each other. Now they know why this meeting is beyond secret. Why Plan Z will be wrapped up in lies without end. No-one must ever know the truth.

“And it gets worse,” says Patterson, knowing that all the cards must now be on the table.

“We need at least one hundred and fifty people of all ethnicities. To provide genetic variation for a sustainable future population down the timeline. Those people need to be medically prepared and placed in special pods. They need to be properly frozen - without tissue damage - and then the Necrosphere sunk deep in the ice weeks before the asteroid arrives.”

He looks at their stunned faces.

“Yes, gentlemen, we’re going to have to euthanize those people well before impact. And for all the obvious reasons, we cannot tell them. Ever.”

He speaks quietly now and mainly to himself: “The lies will never cease.”

Plan Z will get the green light of course. Truly it is the last fling of the dice. But there is no alternative.

None at all.

And Patterson has a choice to make himself.

He had discussed it three weeks ago with his wife Patricia, when the news broke - against all regulations.

His daughter, Alicia, will be 18 at the time of impact. She’s of good stock; he could probably swing it.

His wife had taken his hand in her own and said dreamily, ‘We’ll be standing on the porch of our ranch in Wyoming: Alicia, you and me. We’ll watch it together, holding hands. We’ll watch the sky turn red, and then perhaps we’ll go inside and wait for the end.’

But in Bill Patterson’s mind there’s an alternative. Patricia and himself sure, on the porch awaiting Armageddon. While the corpse of their daughter lies on a cot in a metal sphere, one thousand feet beneath the ice and sinking still. Perhaps to wake again in an unimaginable future.

Almost certainly not.

His daughter would never know the truth. The protocol would not permit it.

But his wife would. And would she ever forgive him?

And would that even matter?

Not Happenstance; not Coincidence

Bill Patterson thought the meeting had finished when he packed his briefing materials and departed. He could not have been more wrong.

After a brief break, the President and the Secretary of Defense are joined by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Arthur Taylor.

General Taylor is a thoroughly modern soldier. Now in his fifties, he had flown ground attack aircraft in those endless middle-eastern wars. He had led the new Space Command. He had shown himself open-minded and imaginative in addition to possessing the necessary martial virtues.

All of his creativity has been tested to the limit by this unexpected challenge. What he confidently believes will be his last assignment. He had of course listened in to the previous briefing from a parallel room. There had been no need to spook Patterson by giving him a larger audience. In any event he was familiar with the details. Only the politicians had been out of the loop until the final briefing.

As he takes his position at the front of the small briefing room - the spot Patterson has so recently vacated - Taylor breathes deeply to steady himself, reflecting that fantastical as the previous meeting had been, this is going to top it.

“Mr President, Mr Secretary,” he begins, “This presentation is entirely complementary to the plan outlined by Dr Patterson. The US Military was also asked to do a crash study on the implications of the projected asteroid strike. I will now present the results.”

The Defense Secretary has not been party to what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is about to say. He waves his hand with a degree of irritation.

“General, we are in close contact with the Governments of Russia and China, as well as our allies. We are working together and sharing our preparations. We can all see we're in this together. I don't think we should spend too much of our time worrying about national defense at a time like this.”

His tone of voice conveys that time is short and he has much work to do.

The President is less impatient. His duties are less well-defined… and he always enjoys a talk by the military.

General Taylor moves to suppress any qualms.

“In the military we deal in capability not intention. If someone can do harm to us, we plan on the assumption that one day he might well do it. And so we prepare, no matter how smiling and friendly our adversary may appear to be today.”

“A well-known philosophical point,” mutters the Secretary, still impatient to leave.

The General persists.

“When the news was announced, even as the security blanket came down, we put a team together as did every serious military organisation.

“It didn't take long before we realised how unlikely this whole catalogue of events actually was. Think about it. We detect an asteroid with just the right parameters to eliminate all higher forms of life. And it just happens to be on a collision course for Earth. We did the math assuming a prior distribution of random intercepts of the solar system. The probability of this happening by chance is essentially zero.”

There have been too many shocks this morning. The President's mouth hangs open. The Secretary of Defense looks stunned. A man who prides himself that he's always one step ahead of the action, he has never considered this possibility. Never. Not once.

“I'm going to keep this brief, gentlemen, because all we need from you today is a green light. You will get more detailed proposals down the track. They are going to be very expensive but you are going to want to make very sure that that doesn't matter.”

The President, still disoriented, waves his hand. Continue. Please.

“Our highest probability scenario, an order of magnitude by the way, is that the Mara asteroid is not an unlikely accident at all but a hostile act. A civilization-killer. A species-killer. A real-estate grab.

“We expect that some years after the impact, we can't know how many, some kind of incursion will present itself. A probe bearing an alternative biological package. The new inhabitants of Earth. It's ruthless but it makes sense.”

The Secretary of Defense grasps at implications.

“So Patterson's proposal: let the biosphere recover, the work of ten million years; kick-start evolution to smarter animals; bring us back later - maybe. None of it's going to happen if we're taken over, is it?”

Taylor nods.

“Plan Z is finished before it even gets started if we permit an incursion. It sounds like science-fiction, but hell, in a few hundred years time we could run this scenario. If there was a planet we particularly wanted and we were desperate enough”

The President shows his legendary resilience.

“You're the Military. Give me proposals, General!”

Taylor smiles showing his gleaming white teeth, says formally:

"The US Military has determined that we face an existential threat from hostile actors unknown. We are requesting permission to do whatever it takes to deal with it, sir.”

“Carry on, General, let's see what you have for us.”

The plan General Taylor outlines calls for a capability to repel and destroy an unknown invading force arriving at an unknown time. Surprise would be of the essence given the unknown capabilities of the enemy.

“Still,” Taylor says, “There's not much an adversary can do against a Terawatt laser slagging its target to plasma.”

Within five years, he explains, highly-automated forts would be buried in the lunar far-side regolith, immune from asteroid-impact effects. Breakthrough Starshot lasers would be repurposed and re-sited off the Earth. Multi-Megaton missiles would lurk in stealth orbits around Mars and Venus and at their Lagrange points. Gigantic telescopes and late-stage radars would hide within the inner solar system.

This would be the last gasp of a dying Earth. All of its resources, those of all the countries of the world, would be deployed to keep the biosphere-recovery plan on track.

To give Plan Z the time it needs without interference.

“We'll have dedicated volunteers on the Moon. On Mars, if we can get them there. Bases provisioned with as many supplies as we can. Their task is simply this: to survive, to observe, to man the weapon systems. To develop the AIs to continue to serve after they die.

“We have five years, gentlemen. I assure you: we can do this.”


After the Impact

What can you do in more than a century of furious military preparation? Driven by AIs of exponentially-increasing capabilities with one imperative: Protect the Earth.

Build a solar system bristling with sensors and weapon systems - out into the Oort cloud.

Prepare retaliation: space-fabs turn out von Neumann machines - replicators with lethal competences; the survivors will breed to overwhelm any intruder. There are war-games in the asteroid belt.

Propelled on laser fire the AI strike force is an expanding shell, light years out. They share their threat assessments; wait to target the invaders.

The incoming bio-probe is detected and back-tracked. Layered defence systems move to readiness: titanic energies wait their moment of release.

The nearest AI attack-swarm is tasked and vectored on the bio-probe's source. A gargantuan death-cloud poised to exterminate Earth's killers.

---

Beneath the tunnelled debris of damp mulch and rot and new-grown ferns, the rat-things gorge on roots and flies and bugs. They are the first ones, the evolutionary generalists.

They chitter amongst themselves, tell simple stories, puzzle over strange lights in the sky. The lights which keep them safe.

The nascent civilisation of their new masters.