Plan D: Displacement Through Displacement
While this plan comes perilously close to what is often described bluntly as “murder,” it is in its ontological motives an entirely different phenomenon. In biological terms, the act is not only a common occurrence but is best described as a sacrifice to the species. I obviously hesitate here to fall back on biology to either explain or justify my actions since we, as a culture and society, have moved so beyond its constraints.
Plan D is in its truest sense a contingency plan and one that would only be put into operation if Plans A, B, or C were to fail, which I cannot foresee happening, thus raising the question of whether any description of Plan D is even necessary. If it does, for some unforeseen reason, become necessary, it will then require the most careful planning and execution of any of the plans. For, while there is momentum and some margin for error embedded in Plans A through C, there is neither in Plan D, since it is, as will be obvious, a plan that requires immaculate timing and one that includes some covert actions. Death—even murder—is by comparison a fairly simplistic undertaking. Displacement, on the other hand, encompasses both removal and replacement in a near simultaneous time-frame. If enacted, it would, for a variety of reasons, need to be put into operation at Alel’s place of work, not only to ensure maximal transition lubricity, but also to enable maximum process efficiency in the disposal and molecular reconfiguration of the body. It is my great hope that the need for Plan D will not be realized. Why I am so apparently squeamish about physical death relates, obviously, to the fact that it so rarely occurs these days—at least through “natural” causes. Accidents continue to take place, but with conjugal organ harvesting programs now mandated by the government at birth, life expectancy rates have nearly doubled and are, some say, likely to triple in the next decade. Who ever thought Moore’s Law would ever be applied to humans!
