While humankind is wholly dependent on nature and its ‘ecosystem services’¹ to survive and thrive, we have come to see it as our subordinate and even that term demotes nature to an economically driven stock-flow at our disposal. Many parts of the world have gradually rejected a traditional symbiotic exchange with the natural world in favour of an autocratic take-make-dispose funnel.

Yet, the futures gathered in this chapter, and many of the others in this book, show a deep yearning to reconnect with nature and imagine how we could redress the balance of power. Nature-based solutions² are becoming better understood and used, where we harness natural systems to solve sustainability challenges—protecting structures that help maintain a balanced climate, like coral reefs and forests. We also look to nature to design our world, using biomimicry to recreate complex ecological systems in products, buildings and city planning.

Equal rights for people and nature

In the 2020s, a connection with, and appreciation of nature is beginning to return and scientists, cities, organisations and innovators turn to it for answers. Biomimicry³ and nature-based solutions are recognised as the best way out of the planetary crisis. By the end of this decade, our role as humans has shifted and we view intelligence in a holistic way that extends to the Earth.

AI optimises and automates complex processes across industries, making it easier for people to apply systems thinking. Nature’s rights have become commonly accepted, and we ascribe economic value to the environment and sanctions on its destruction. In 2032, a historic case in Malmö, Sweden, finds the first individual guilty of a ‘crime against nature’ for throwing litter in the canal.

At a time when the term ‘sustainability’ has become so watered down through over/misuse, companies and organisations are seeking bolder ways to tackle and talk about environmental issues. Regenerative thinking and practices⁴ take that step, surpassing the idea of maintaining what we have and instead aiming to restore and boost the health and vitality of nature and the interdependent ecosystems we inhabit. Companies like Lush cosmetics, Vivo barefoot, Interface and others have brought the term regenerative into their lexicon and missions, seeking different ways to ‘give back’ and revitalise. Rewilding programs are also gaining traction, where farmed or urban land is returned to the hands of nature. In 2001 in Sussex, England, farmers at Knepp estate took the bold step to transform 3,500 acres of land that had been intensively farmed for decades, back into wilderness. By reintroducing grazing animals, like wild pigs and fallow deer, and natural waterways, the area has seen the return of numerous varieties of plants, insects and animals.

The 2030s usher in a decade of scientific discovery with developments in the study of nature and resilience, AI and stricter sustainability requirements. There is a boom in sustainable materials and other regenerative and sustainable solutions, and circularity and the sharing economy have become the norm. AI makes independent decisions on resource management leading to zero waste and reducing dependence on virgin materials.

By 2032, AI has built holistic models and simulations of organic material to help improve its health and adaptability. We see biology as something we should and can change, and there has been a softening of the binary between natural and artificial.

By the 2050s, a large proportion of the Earth’s surface is dedicated to rewilding and resources are shared equally in urban populated areas. The capacity for both AI and humans to understand complex natural ecosystems is expanded. This gives rise to new social models for preserving nature, and researchers study natural entities in Jurassic Park-like labs. A new economic framework has evolved that draws on Indigenomics (indigenous economics) and has the wellbeing of the planet and all species as its primary objective.

While AI and technology can play a role in understanding and restoring natural systems, some voices see our reliance on it as a barrier to solving the climate and ecological crisis. In part because the very technology we are designing and applying to understand and rectify our problems is itself a drain on resources, and a contributor to climate change. In her article in Research Values, The Environment is not a System (2018), artist and environmental engineer, Tega Brain, goes further with a proposition that we should not view the environment as a system and that while we continue to see it as such, we will remain in “reductive metaphors of technological thought”. To restore balance with the natural world, we must supplant our tech-geared mindsets with new understandings.

Traditional and indigenous relationships with nature are, of course, far removed from technological bias and influence. Scientist and member of the Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Robin Wall Kimmerer reminds us in her book, Braiding Sweetgrass (2020), of humans’ inexperience in living on this planet, having inhabited it for much less time than other species. She also tells of our need to shift the language used for describing the natural world towards ‘animacy’, where we no longer refer to a tree, plant or river as a thing or an ‘it’ but rather as another being. Although still at the margins, indigenous epistemologies and ontologies are called upon to contribute to the global conversation regarding AI. The Indigenous Protocol and Artificial Intelligence Working Group ⁵ were formed to ask questions such as, how do we imagine a future with AI that contributes to the flourishing of all humans and non-humans? Paolo Nardi writes more about spirituality and indigenous wisdom in his essay on page 59.

A living brick

In 2042, AI has enabled a broader perspective of species and helps us understand how to live in balance with nature. We recognise all natural beings as ‘persons’ or legal entities with rights. Buildings and cities are made out of living materials—biological and intelligent—and are adaptable, multifunctional and reorganisable. This allows for increased function and less waste.

Within a local context, we have minimised climate change and ecosystem degradation rather than compensating for negative impacts. To make this approach global, we have built interconnected systems across borders, locally and internationally. As biodiversity and human diversity thrive, we no longer need to worry about solving environmental and social power issues and can focus on things that bring joy.

The assumptions revealed in these futures proffer that we will still live in cities and that cities, and indeed nature, will exist similarly to today. We will live in relative peace and stability with reliable energy and communications. Regeneration, rewilding and nature-based solutions are assumed to be the focus of most of humanity and offer solutions to the planetary health crisis. We presume that AI development will continue in a linear mode and that we are in control of it and that it will be regulated in a way that makes it widely available. AI is also assumed to be able to understand the complex processes of the natural world and continue to aid scientific discovery.

What if there were no more nation-states?

In 2042 the world is in the wake of a humanitarian crisis. Nuclear war has wiped out the majority of the world’s population. Only 747 million people have survived, necessitating a new beginning. People organise in tribes distributed across the globe, and locality has lost its importance. Nation-states have fallen, and a central majority government led by an AI governs globally, creating rules based on the long-term good of the planet. Different tribal structures are aggregated into a worldwide, decentralised autonomous blockchain. Occasional conflicts arise between neighbouring tribes. The AI-led government has established no-go areas to protect nature and these areas are considered holy, and breaching their boundaries, as well as crimes against nature, are punished. There is a new understanding of luxury where we place a high value on resources such as clean water due to scarcity.

Who profits from this situation and rewilding? How would AI decide how much we should rewild? Would humans need to be in the loop? How does AI decide what’s good for humans and for nature? We input the data, but where does it end? Will this mean completely localised economies? Do we need a global state to make this happen?

This narrative is based on a scenario collectively conceived and developed by core group participants in a Collaborative Foresight cycle. The group's voice was captured and creatively expanded by the writer.