Trial in Absentia

In the 40th century, the most intellectually advanced species in the galaxy initiates a project to bring back as many extinct species as possible. They have already returned hundreds of species to life after careful evaluation by the Committee for the Revivification of Extinct Species (CaRES). The purpose of the committee is to evaluate whether each species meets just one criterion: “There must be no overwhelming, compelling evidence that the species should not be revived.” Here is an excerpt from the transcript of the meeting where members debate the revivification of an extinct species: humans.

- Duchie Jingles

Next on the list. The discussion is open.

Humans are interesting for all the reasons we cited during our chimpanzee review. In addition, they had a fascinating art culture unique among species and an unparalleled ability to mimic objects into two dimensions using pigments. Based on these depictions, they seem to have treasured fruit, their own young, wildlife, and far-off-horizons.

Perhaps because they couldn’t see very far in a figurative sense.

(chuckles)

Ah, I see we’re jumping right to the heart of the matter. Indeed, we must. Our endorsement isn’t automatic. We’re prepared to make difficult decisions.

So far, none have been that difficult. Three hundred forty-eight species approved, all unanimously.

Here’s an intriguing human characteristic: their selective application of ethics and logic. Taking your very own examples of what they treasured: wildlife and children, they showed a fascinating disregard for the welfare of the very things they seemed to treasure most. I don’t mean that disparagingly. I mean it truly as an example of cognitive diversity compared to us.

Is it disregard? I don’t think we know that much. Another way to characterize them is as victims of their own insatiability. A lion would destroy in order to feed itself, but after it was full, an edible beast could walk in front of it unharmed. Humans, on the other hand, knew no limits. They were never full, and therefore blind to want versus