Orb (21 page)

“You two behave yourselves,” Thompson put in. Then to me: “Ignore them. If you can.”

“What is the genetic similarity between humans and yeast?” I continued.

“Twenty odd percent, I believe.”

“And humans and the Orb?”

“Zero. But of course you knew that. The plankton are not gene-based organisms and neither, apparently, are the Orb.”

I turned my attention back to Thompson.

“And we want to communicate with the Orb in, what? In the next three or four days?”

Thompson, a crease in his brow, stared at his hands, folded in front of him. My arguments had failed to shake his resolve.

“For argument’s sake,” he said, “I’ll take the other side of your communication equation and apply an optimistic view based on the premise the Orb are more adept than humans at communicating. There is some reason to believe this can be true. First consider our history, how Earth’s physical features—mountain ranges, oceans, deserts—isolated us into groups; how that isolation was the overarching reason for the cultural diversity and the racial and language barriers you alluded to. Now consider the Orb. How they occupy one vast ocean with absolutely no geological barriers and therefore never developed our too often divisive differences in race, culture, and language.”

“May I interject?” Diana requested. When she saw Thompson’s skeptical expression, she added, “I’ll be on point. This time anyway.”

Thompson nodded.

“There’s another factor to consider,” she said. “With apologies to Darwin, evolution, at least as we comprehend it, is not at work on this planet. The Orb are likely to have existed in roughly their present form for untold ages, perhaps tens of millions of years. They’ve enjoyed an incredibly stable environment. Can you imagine how exquisitely well they have adapted given an existence that is potentially a hundred times longer than ours as a species? It’s mind-boggling.”

“Meaning,” Thompson said, finishing the thought, “whatever form of communication they have, it must be pretty damn good.”

“Yeah, I got that,” I said. “I’ve no reason to disagree, but I was asked to play the pessimist, right?”

“Try not to overdo it,” Thompson said.

“One more thought.”

I grabbed the empty juice container and held it up.

“How would the Orb perceive this container? We humans have a few different ways; the Orb may have one, they may have one hundred. Do they see, feel, hear, or smell? We ask what color. Do they see color? We ask what shape. Do they consider the container as an object distinct from the table it is resting on? We
ask.
Do they have a concept of asking?”

“What all this leads to,” Paul said, “is that we should consider ourselves the weak link. That we need to transcend our own limitations in order to determine how and what the Orb are experiencing of the world around them.”

“I agree with Kyle,” Diana said, surprising me. “Expecting the Orb to somehow tell, and then for us to understand, what they think or feel, is nearly impossible.”

“Excuse me,” Thompson responded, “For a minute I mistook you for Doctor Diana Gilmore, the world-renowned biologist. Am I mistaken, or did I set my expectations too high?”

“Probably too low,” Diana shot back.

“You have no ideas on how the Orb might communicate?”

“Ideas? Too many, from the unlikely to the possible. Touch: like when two giraffes show affection by pressing their necks together; chemical: the exquisitely small quantity of sex pheromones detected by an oriental silkworm moth; sight: the dance of a honeybee directing the hive to nectar; electro-reception: the platypus detecting its prey’s muscular contractions; vibration: the sound waves used by whales to communicate through a thousand kilometers of ocean. Want me to think outside the norm? Magnetic fields, changes in temperature or molecular density … well you get the idea.”

“I’m pretty sure she’s Doctor Gilmore,” Kelly commented.

Diana
was
pretty impressive, I thought.

“I’m not asking any of you to solve this problem,” Thompson said evenly. “You forget, I’m the one who cautioned we’ll be leaving here with many questions unanswered. What I
do
expect is for you to come up with a plan, individually or collectively, on how to proceed.”

“What?” I asked, “We can’t just tread water?”

I was trying to be humorous but the remark caused Thompson to wince. He said nothing. I thought back to the remark he made two days ago; that we’d be fooling ourselves if we believed we weren’t subject to the same pressures affecting Melhaus.

Having heard enough, Thompson was about to conclude the morning meeting when he seemed to decide an issue weighing on his mind.

“Larry,” he said, standing.

No response.

“Doctor Melhaus,” he repeated, louder and firmer. “I’m addressing you.”

Melhaus glanced up.

“I’d like you and Doctor Takara to meet me in my cabin.”

“Can it wait?”

“Now.”

Ten minutes later, following her meeting with Thompson and Melhaus, and appearing agitated, Kelly found me in my cabin.

“From the start, the conversation did not go well,” she said. “It ended worse.”

“What can I do to help?” I asked, motioning her to sit down on the bed next to Angie.

“I’m OK. It’s just the adrenalin working its magic.”

I sat down beside her.

“I’m afraid,” she said, “there’s nothing that
can
be done.”

“Sounds bad. You want to talk about it?”

“Bruce made it all part of the ship’s record, telling Larry that they already had two off-the-record conversations to no avail, and his, meaning Larry’s, recent behavior dictated it be done that way.”

“What precipitated the meeting?”

“Late yesterday I advised Larry to start a short regimen of a drug called Kalmbex. I described the chemical, and provided several reasons why he would do well taking it. He vehemently refused. I then asked him how well he was sleeping. He was evasive. I strongly suggested he resume his sleep medication. He became argumentative, verbally abusive, and abruptly left. He left me no choice. I had to tell Bruce.”

“The meeting caught you by surprise?”

“Not exactly. Bruce advised me it was going to take place, not when. I can’t fault him for that. Larry’s nonresponsiveness this morning must have triggered the timing.”

“Is the audio file available?”

“Should be.”

The voice recognition in Thompson’s cabin does a good job of converting conversations into text form. The file, along with each speaker’s name and voice level, was immediately accessible at my workstation for me to hear and/or visually scan. Where indicated, the program extrapolates and brackets incomplete information. I’m able to read at three times the speed of normal conversation. For that reason, and to spare Kelly from repeating an apparently unpleasant experience, I decided to turn off the audio portion of the following file:

Recording commenced 0804hours 12-12-2232

Melhaus(61db):  Is this necessary?

Thompson(57db):  Sit down, please. You know the purpose of this recorded meet[ing]?

Melhaus(61db):  The purpose
and
the outcome.

Thompson(56db):  Truly? Have we arrived at the point where all discourse between us is rendered useless?”

Melhaus(63db):  In this circumstance, yes. Your main presumption is patently false: That you understand me better than I understand myself.

Thompson(60db):  Is that never possible? That you alone contradict the results of four hundred years of clinical case studies demonstrating we don’t always completely understand ourselves?

Melhaus(62db):  Which calls into question
your
objectivity, would it not?

Thompson(60db):  And Dr. Takara’s as well?

Takara(56db):  Larry, we’re not presuming to judge you. We have seen changes in your behavior that are, in our reasoned opinion, an outgrowth of the extraordinary stress placed on you from any number of causes. Our opinion has been confirmed by oth[ers]…

Melhaus(66db):  By whom?! By Mr. Lorenzo?! His credentials are more laughable than even yours: A handful of psychology courses and, oh yes, an author of short stories. If you respect his opinion so much, then apply his, what did he call it, [laughter] sanctuary theory to yourselves. You remember it, don’t you? The undue stress you speak of could be manifesting itself in any member of the crew and be affecting their behavior. And their judgment, inclusive of yours.

Thompson(57db):  Attempting to redirect this discussion won’t work, Larry.

Melhaus(62db):  So what
exactly
are you people accusing me of?

Thompson(57):  Poor choice of words.

Melhaus(62): 
My
choice of words.

Takara(58db):  Rather than get into specifics, I’d prefer to generalize your behavior as alternating between argumentative and withdrawn.

Melhaus(65db):  Argumentative? Is that what questioning ill-conceived decisions, and there have been several, is being called?

Thompson(57db):  When have I not solicited opposing viewpoints? Very few decisions are made without the entire crew’s participation, including yours, which I’ve always welcomed.

Melhaus(62db):  And I have been overruled on almost every point. Do you have any concept of just how difficult it is to be forced into watching all of you let the scientific discovery of our age slip through our fingers?

Takara(58db):  You’re setting yourself apart from the crew, Larry, and you shouldn’t.

Melhaus(62db):  Is this some kind of retribution for what you think happened to the
Ixodes
, despite proof offered to the contrary?

Thompson(57):  You surprise me. Is that how you see it?

Melhaus(65db):  That’s when I started taking notice of what you’re doing behind my back, undermining me and, in the process, the mission.

Thompson(57):  That’s quite an accusation. Would you care to elaborate?

Melhaus(62db):  In your absence, am I not second in command? You think I didn’t notice when you chose to marginalize me by putting Bertrand and Takara in charge during your escapade in the water?

Thompson(61db):  If you don[’t]…

Melhaus(65db):  You believed you had me fooled? You and the crew, afterward—when I heard you scheming behind my back?

Thompson(61db):  We shouldn’t interrupt one another, wouldn’t you agree? What I was about to say was this: That you see our actions as suspect because you don’t accept the premise on which they rest, the concern we have for you based on changes seen in your behavior.

Takara(58db):  And Larry, by overhearing a fragment of a conversation, you may have come away with the wrong impression.

Melhaus(68db):  Why lie to my face?! Isn’t the purpose of this meeting to coerce me into accepting a drug I refuse to take?!

Takara(58db):  I’m sorry you feel that way. Have you asked yourself why you are having such a hostile reaction to taking a mild tranquillizer, one that I, as ship’s doctor, strongly recommend?

Melhaus(65db):  You’re a fool or take me for one. Take a drug on your advice? To do so will give credence to everything you’ve alleged against me.

Thompson(61db):  Dr. Takara’s recommendation is measured and justified. As mission leader I am asking you to comply.

Melhaus(65db):  And I am completely within my rights to refuse your request. I thoroughly researched
Desio’s
AI. Even you can’t invent a reason to side-step regulations; you must establish that a crew member has a mental disorder and lacks the capacity to make an informed decision regarding the medication proposed.

Thompson(61db):  Well, then, I see no need to further pursue the matter. You are correct. The standard of proof for compelling a patient to undergo treatment with a psych drug is high, justifiably so in most situations, and I am required to follow it. However, the standard is not nearly so high for my taking other initiatives, and I intend to do so in what I hope you come to see as a measured response to your intractability. I am confining you to quarters until twelve hundred hours. Take the time to reflect. Maybe
that
will have a tranquilizing effect on your behavior.

Melhaus(70db):  Confining me to quarters?! By doing so you’re further jeopardizing the outcome of this mission! If I refuse?!

Thompson(57db):  Consider carefully what you say, Dr. Melhaus. You risk provoking a much sterner response.

Melhaus(67db):  And you expect
what
of me when I’m released from this forced imprisonment?

Thompson(58db):  At a minimum, civility toward your fellow crewmembers.

Melhaus(04db):  You’ll g[et] what you [dez]…