Fiscal Constraints, Page 2

  *****

  “See? Inconsistencies! We cannot afford inconsistencies!”

  “Yes, but…”

  “No! No ‘buts’, we cannot afford ‘buts’. There must be no mistakes, no flaws. The transition must be smooth and even. If the model is flawed, think of the chaos when we apply this change to the real thing.”

  “Yes, sir. I know that, sir, but I must point out that the trees do represent a substantial percentage of the total budget. Therefore by…”

  “Yes, yes. I do understand simple economics. It’s always the same with you youngsters. You come up here, fresh out of training, thinking you’re the only ones with new ideas, the only ones who can understand the problems or come up with the solutions. But you don’t have the experience. You don’t see the big picture. With you it’s all process and methodology and cost-benefits analysis. Well, it isn’t. It’s all about balance. You think you can make major savings just by cutting out one component and the whole thing will proceed as smoothly as before. It’s not like that. Everything affects everything else. Any change impacts on the whole design. Did you really think this job was that simple?”

  “No sir, I…”

  “Don’t interrupt. We have to worry about balance, about harmony, about stability. Little things have big consequences. That’s why we have the model, to test the changes. So, you thought you’d cut out trees and it didn’t work. I could have told you that without bothering to run the model. Think of paper, coal, soil erosion, wood as a major economic resource, rain forests as oxygen recyclers…”

  “Dogs.”

  “Don’t be facetious.”

  “Sorry, sir.”

  “Quite. Ramifications, my boy, ramifications! That’s what we have to worry about. Everything depending on everything else. A subtle and harmonious whole. We are dealing with a delicate balance, a very delicate balance. Push it too far and we end up with another barren rock, spinning pointlessly in space. We have quite enough of those already, thank you very much, and very dull they are too.”

  “But important to the overall gravitational mass of the system, sir.”

  “Stop interrupting! They are dull and they are lifeless, only useful for sweeping up debris. There is no Art in them.”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “So, even if you do remove the trees, even if you find substitutes for all the functions of the trees, find new habitats for all the arboreal animals - all of them, mind - devise new food supplies for the browsers and the grazers, invent whole new food chains for whatever replaces the forest canopies, you still can’t be sure that you haven’t overlooked one tiny little detail. It may seem like a minor, irrelevant aspect of trees, but it will be enough to destroy that whole, delicate balance and end up wasting the entire world. That’s why we have the model, my boy! So we can study change. Every tiny alteration can be represented within it, thoroughly studied under carefully controlled conditions and its impact fully assessed before we release the design to the production teams. Understand?”

  “Absolutely.”

  “Quite. Now, for a change, do we have any sensible suggestions?”

  “Uh…”

  “Well? Go on. Never be afraid to speak up. We encourage that around here.”

  “About the trees…”

  “Make it good…”

  “Well, couldn’t we at least cut back on their numbers? They are very expensive items, sir. Lots of different types, lots of fiddly bits to manufacture and install. We could cut their total number by, say, fifty percent, without introducing any major consistencies. At least, none that a little gentle tweaking of the parameters wouldn’t fix.”

  “Hm.. It’s a possibility. We could put in substantially more grasslands, to make up for it. Or perhaps a few more marshes. No, it would have to be something that produces as much oxygen as trees and is as useful as a habitat, food supply and raw material. This will require some careful thought.”

  “Bamboo, sir?”

  “Bamboo? It’s a sort of grass, isn’t it?”

  “Yes , sir. Kind of. A very big grass. Quite tree-like in some ways, sir. We already have at least one animal that is quite dependent on it.”

  “Oh, yes. I remember now. Pandas.”

  “Exactly, sir. Pandas.”

  “Damned fool design.”

  “Sir?”

  “Pandas. Damned fool design. Animal is totally dependent on a specific bamboo. Remove the bamboo, the pandas die. So the lunatics designed the bamboo to flower and then die every five years. Imagine it! Every five years all the bamboo in the area dies and the pandas either move, or starve. And do you know what the ultimate stupidity is, my boy?”

  “Sir?

  “They designed the panda as a carnivore! Can you imagine it! A large carnivore that is totally dependent on a flowering grass that dies out once every five years. The poor brutes can barely digest the stuff. They have to eat vast quantities of it just to survive and so they are too busy eating to do anything else, and that includes breeding. Hm… now there’s a thought - if we increased the bamboo supply, we could support more pandas.”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “Are pandas cheap?”

  “No, sir.”

  “Pity. It was a nice idea. Damned fool design, but I always rather liked them. They confuse the Dominant Species. So wonderful. Grass-eating carnivores who refuse to breed! An evolutionary dead end, but they keep on going. You see, my boy, even in this job you get to exercise your sense of humour. Whoever drew up the original specifications must have laughed himself silly over that one!”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “Still, back to business. Is bamboo any good as a natural resource?”

  “Oh, yes, sir! Better than wood in some cases. Lighter and tougher for building, for example. It also supports a whole range of flora and fauna, both as food source and habitat as well as being aesthetically appealing in its own right. Also, at the moment we have several new types undergoing tests, including some very tree-like ones.”

  “You have a special interest in bamboo, do you?”

  “Worked on the original design team, sir.”

  “But not on the pandas?”

  “Nothing to do with me, sir. We weren’t told about them or their dietary needs until the bamboo was finished.”

  “Bit of a cock-up there. Still… this bamboo… Is it cheap?”

  “Cheaper than trees, sir. Much faster growing.”

  “Good. And do you think we should give it a try?”

  “Worth a shot, sir!”

  “You really think so?”

  “Oh yes, sir!”

  “Well, shall I tell you why you are wrong?”

  “Sir?”

  “Climate, my boy, climate. We already have viable tree designs for every plausible climate. We can grow them almost anywhere. Not so for bamboo. And by the time we’ve designed and implemented bamboos for all those other climates the costs will have spiralled and we’d have been better off with trees in the first place. D’you understand?”

  “I suppose so, sir.”

  “Oh well, it was an idea. Never mind, lad, at least you’re trying to find solutions, which is more than most of your colleagues would do in this situation. And more importantly, you’re learning. I won’t be in charge forever, you know. Someone will have to take over all this. Think about that. Now, we’ll just have to try something else. So, what vibrant new ideas do you have for me?”

  “None really, sir. Except…”

  “Yes?”

  “Well, I was wondering if we could do something with the insects. There’s an awful lot of them and they do seem to be surprisingly expensive.”

  “Insects expensive? D’you mean because there are so many of them, or are they individually expensive?”

  “Individually expensive, sir. Individually very expensive. And there are lots of them.”

  “Good lad. I see your training has not all been
a waste of time. Now, tell me why they’re so expensive. Would you not have thought that they would be relatively cheap? Being so adaptable and all that.”

  “Oh no, sir, they’re not really adaptable. The basic concept can be applied to lots of different environments and functions, but individual species are barely adaptable at all. We have lots of insects, but we also have a vast number of different types, many of them almost, but most importantly, not quite, identical. Each specific type only has a small range of habitats. That means relatively small production runs, but individually high design costs for each species. It would be more economical if we had the same number of insects, but less diversity. It’s an expensive thing, diversity, a very expensive thing.”

  “Very good! I see you did pay attention during training. It’s true that the basic design of any animal species is much the same regardless of type. Most of your colleagues don’t seem to appreciate these fine points, but you do show some promise. Hmm… I wonder, we do have an awful lot of different insect types, don’t we? Any overlaps in function?”

  “Well…”

  “What I’m driving at is this: If we were to, um, lose a species, here and there, would anyone actually notice? And would we save enough to bring us back within budget?”

  “Only one way to find out, sir. Run it through the model!”

  “Precisely. Get on with it!”