On Post-Covid-19 Futures: What if viruses and bacteria were entitled with the first universal non-human rights?

Coronarratives and post-Covid-19 futures

On May 2020, we were invited by the KairUs collective to be part of the Art Meets Radical Openess festival, organised at the initiative of Servus.at. As the festival was switching to an online format due to the Covid-19 sanitary crisis, we were glad to co-organise this workshop and be part of the “Beautiful Seams: Unraveling the Intelligence of Everything” panel.

Amid Covid-19 crisis and along fellow panel speakers, Özgün Eylül İşcen, Anuradha Reddy, Linda Kronman and Andreas Zingerle from KairUs, we imagined a participatory session around this timely trending, and even candid, idea of “a world after Covid-19”. Considering the Coronavirus pandemic as a potential turning point, we formulated an ambiguous invitation to speculate on Post-Covid-19 futures:

COVID-19 forces most countries worldwide into various stages of lockdown. The ‘state of exception’ reveals various pre-existing conditions of nations level of preparedness as we are witnessing a global experiment in comparative governance. Large-scale testing has turned into a sensor informing statistically valid models for better public health response. Technology such as corona tracing apps promise a quicker return to the “new normal” and the race to develop a universal vaccination is assumed to be the only path to conquer this and future pandemics. These narratives portray innovation and technology as a saviour in a similar way as “smartness” has been promised to solve challenges such as climate change, over population, financial crisis, security threats, etc. In the midst of a pandemic it has become challenging to think about the future. “Coronarratives” shift as new research gets published, necessary preventive measures change overnight. The feeling of uncertainty fuels adversarial narratives. The most extreme corona conspiracy theories have led to burning of 5G towers. Reflexively interpreting sensing and modelling as ‘surveillance’, active governance as ‘social control’ and the current lockdowns as ‘dystopias’ seems short-sighted and calls for a more nuanced vocabulary.

In this workshop we want to take time, space and (privileged) right to think about the future. When the earlier imagined futures of “smartness” producing resilience seem to be failing, we like to share experiences and discuss local community responses and alternative ad-hoc networks that emerge within our newly defined living spaces in our countries, cities, neighbourhood and households.

At this point, a disclaimer is necessary as the workshop was suggesting to speculate on “Post-Covid-19 futures”. When this article is written, even if numerous European countries seem to have contained the spread of the virus, it isn’t the norm worldwide. As original invitation was to speculate on possible tomorrows, we also assume “Post-Covid-19 futures” may still remain fictional for a while. We are in a continuous “In-Covid-19” long now; as the pandemic continues to spread and kill.

In order to frame a little bit this exploration in post-Covid-19 futures, three main speculations were defined and opened for extrapolation and imagination:
- What if surveillance disappeared?
- What if work has been cancelled?
- What if viruses and bacteria were entitled with the first universal non-human rights?

Design Friction facilitated the latest and this article intends to sum up participants’ contributions to this (highly) speculative future.

On designing an invitation to speculate on more-than-human futures

In the beginning of the workshop, we took a moment to collectively curate, with participants, what was called “pieces of hopefulness and fearfulness”. We extracted from our personal observations, curious signals and other relevant news a series of hopeful and fearful pieces that could relate to the field of speculation on “more-than-human futures”. Below, we have selected some raw pieces that were used to fuel our participatory speculative exploration:

- The martial / war-mongering rhetorics and metaphors (Macron’s “We are at war” ; “invisible enemy”) as the only way to deal with the complexity of the Covid situation, including all the PR moves based on militarised initiatives.

- Animals (elephants, leopards, peacocks) are being spotted in urban spaces since lockdown (in India) — related to ecological commitments. / “Nature is taking back spaces”

- Similarly dolphins in harbours as ferries and cruise ships stop: nature recovers quickly (“World Without Us”)

- A Darwinian view of Covid with phrases such as “Sacrifice the weak/Sacrifice the old” being said at US protests

As a starting point to warm up participants’ imagination, we proposed the following speculative provocation:

“What if, in a post-COVID-19 future, viruses and bacteria were entitled with the first universal non-human rights?

Covid-19 crisis and antimicrobial resistance have proved viruses and bacteria are able to shape and alter the world as much as us, humans. We have finally accepted we are co-living with these “stakeholders” and they were entitled with “non-human” rights.

Let’s imagine fragments of this future — global shifts and mundane anecdotes, preferable or not — telling this world!”

Within our studio Design Friction, more-than-human and non-human futures figure among our favourite fields of investigation. Sometimes seen as too weird or too marginal perspectives to be worth exploring — in comparison with trendy vapourware such as aerial vehicles or conscious artificial intelligences — Covid-19 crisis has proven that non-humans must be part of speculations when designing futures. Presumably having started with a zoonosis, the emergence and development of the SARS-Cov-2 are deeply interlinked with the expansion of human activities. We acknowledge ongoing controversies and debates on the opportunity of qualifying a virus as a living micro-organism. However, for the workshop purpose, we opportunistically turned this Covid-19 momentum into a focus on the invisible “stakeholders”. In other words, we have timely welcomed this speculative ship allowing us to embark and to navigate in more-than-human futures.

In this post-Covid-19 future, the world has changed…

Crossing the what-if prompt and the insights from the discussions on “pieces of hopefulness and fearfulness”, we were all set for a world-building exercise.

The session was divided in two iterative phases, having the second group of participants building on the ideas of the first one. From these two phases, we can split ideas and thoughts into two categories:
- Defining what could be these first universal non-human rights,
- Envisaging how it would have changed the world as we know it, with fragments of this speculative future.

Defining the universal non-human rights

• Prior to any consideration on the very nature of the rights, the discussions interrogated how to phrase and frame the “acquisition” of these rights: were they given by Humans (“top-down”) or earned (“bottom-up”) by viruses and bacteria? The latest was favoured.
• First of all, those non-human rights should escape from the definition of usefulness and productivity. In fact, a form of “environmental completeness” should be the norm when imagining how we talk with/for the non-humans to guarantee their rights and make sure they are not seen as expandable population.
• A first triptych was defined as the foundation for these universal non-human rights, covering:
  1. Viruses and bacterial population growth,
  2. By-product ownership (on what viruses and bacteria produce),
  3. Interdependent relations of the ecosystem of viruses or bacteria with their hosts, human or not.

Discussions then focused on the following rights:

• No virus or bacteria can be annihilated without their “permission”, and especially “just” because they are threatening humans, such in the case of smallpox. The virus and bacteria rights make sure changing the system becomes the standard, rather than just opting to “erase” the virus or bacteria. Doing so, it fundamentally challenges the “normal” functioning of the system.
• Is recognised the “beneficial” work of the diseases for, in and on some parts of the environment. This contribution is appreciated from an environmental completeness and not only considered from a human perspective.
• Viruses and bacteria are guaranteed to have access to a diversified ecosystem of hosts, within their spectrum of transmission capabilities. In other words, it is ensured they have at their disposal enough various species to “contaminate” (from a human perspective), to “thrive” (from an environmental completeness perspective).
• To make sure those non-human rights can be acknowledged, a flexible and open definition of bacteria and viruses is crucial. It would also mean to imagine and operate new modes of interspecies communication, and even recruiting a more-than-human diplomatic corps to negotiate and enforce non-humans rights. This speculation comes close to some notions envisioned in Bruno Latour’s Parliament of Things.
• The act of defining what could be these universal non-human rights is necessarily doubled with a call to reflection. The key stake identified was to clarify if these non-humans have rights as an individual or as a population. During discussions, it was mentioned rights and responsibilities should be stated for both humans and non-humans; meaning a possible rewriting of universal human rights for consistency.

An additional salutary reflection came when participants suggested to take a critical perspective on the very nature of the speculation: which ideas/concepts of “rights” exist outside Western culture?
Unfortunately, the workshop setting didn’t allow to push the critical reflection further on the definition and consideration of non-human rights for bacteria and viruses. However, this part remains a mandatory step for any further initiative pushing this speculation forward.

Imagining fragments of this future

• Viruses and bacteria have a shared seat at the new World Health Organization table and are represented in some national parliaments.
• A zoonosis or a pandemic is now considered a form of migration and is addressed by following the similar rules applying to mobility rights.
• “Antimicrobial resistance” has been renamed as “bacteria thriving”, as a way to pacify and demilitarised the relations with our new “invisible friends”.
• All over the world, native cultures are finally protected and ultimately reinstated as they are recognised as an inspiration in balancing our relations with non-humans and truly respecting their rights.
• The International Justice Court for More-Than-Human Affairs has ruled the nature of a virus is to spread. During a momentous trial, 2020 and 2022 global lockdowns were condemned as a right violation. From this historic decision has emerged the crime of “virocide”.
• News are focusing on the ongoing ethical struggle to define what would be “good bacteria” allowed to spread and thrive without constraints and “bad bacteria” having a restricted access to the different parts of the world. Tensions arise concerns when the 10th International Convention for Hon-human Rights has to define which regions should host the so-called “undesired bacteria”, implying local population and culture might be worth less than others.
• To achieve a form of equality, going beyond the symbolic gesture, the non-human rights imply humans should not be protected at all costs. These questions continuously shake the international community, as well as philosophers, on the dilemma of deciding if some populations can be forced to host virus or bacteria to enforce the “It’s your turn now” policies, after having “killed” or “contained” these non-human entities for decades. Some pro-virus/bacteria rights suggest to revisit the principle of “decimation”: 1 on 10 humans can be, in one’s lifetime, designated to host a virus or bacteria.
• To enforce non-human rights, the concept of “reserves” for virus and bacteria. These “reserves” were designed as a clever reply to some conservative forces. The latter were pushing for conserving bacteria and viruses alive in ice, as a form of compromise. Non-human rights proponents won: viruses and bacteria should be given space and time.
  “Reserves” are situated in relatively isolated regions of the world. They are welcoming volunteers consenting to host viruses or bacteria in their bodies, for a set period, and then allow them to thrive. Volunteers are offered medical support to survive without endangering the non-human entities they offer support to.
• Over the years, advocates of other non-humans, including trees and artificial intelligences, are reclaiming their rights too.

Post-“Post-Covid-19 futures” and further perspectives

This article aims at sharing a synthesis of the workshop contributions in order to trigger further discussions and speculations. Obviously, this workshop falls in the category of “a too short, but very stimulating exercise”. We humbly recognised there is still some work to be done before being able to extract actual insights informing present decisions or actions for more-than-human policies.

As conceptual and demanding was this thought experiment, we believe a further speculative design / design fiction work could help in refining and materialising these provocative and reflective futures. We think there is value in continuing this exercise with these design approaches to explore what could be the unexpected applications and implications of perspectives drafted during the workshop. Pushing this further would also mean to bring an effort in mitigating some latent anthropocentric and anthropomorphic biases of this more-than-human future fragments.

Although we envisage to continue this exploration with additional speculative design and design fiction work. Nevertheless, it also appeared important to us to share these fragments of futures and related thoughts as an invitation to pluralise new contributions on what could be (grandiloquently) coined as “non-visible non-human-centred futures”.

As a last note and an opening for this proto-exploration:
Depending on whether you read this article, this whole reflection should be reconsidered in the light of Post-Post-Covid-19: did we actually defeat the virus? Or did we defeat our hopes for a different post-virus future? Did we learn to live with this new invisible “stakeholder” and other non-humans?

Warm and friendly acknowledgement

This speculative exploration wouldn’t have been possible without the thoughtful and prolific contributions from workshop participants!
We would also like to thank our fellow workshop co-organisers, and more especially Andreas and Linda from KairUs for the kind invitation to be part to this experience. And an additional round of applause for the AMRO team for this perfect workshop organisation despite the quite dire conditions!