A Modest Proposal

 

A harmonious crisis will peak

when children become delightful to the tongue;

     a celebrated advantage looms over the heads

     of the poor, only to be seized, sold, and eaten.

problems are exacerbated, over blown—deficiency solved, a crib away

 

Swift's tongue pushed cheek,

     but a good proposal weathers time—finally fulfills its need.

 

         The United Nations continues to release authoritative and distressing data regarding the accelerating rate of consumption of the Earth's natural resources. To address the perceived issues, U.N. Undersecretary General Nitin Desai led the Earth Summit in Johannesburg, August 26 to September 4, 2002. More than 100 world leaders attended. Desai noted, "If we do nothing to change our current indiscriminate patterns of development, we will compromise the long-term security of the Earth and its people."

         The five key issues discussed at the Summit were water and sanitation, energy, agricultural productivity, biodiversity, and human health. The primary goals were to accelerate economic development while preserving the environment. Statistics were discussed showing that sea levels are rising, forests are being destroyed at the rate of 2-3% per year, and more than 2 billion people currently face water shortages. The rising global population and the increase in food and water consumption per capita exacerbate all such problems in spite of reduced capacities to produce food worldwide. One billion people currently lack safe drinking water and 2.5 billion lack adequate sanitation facilities. One estimate suggests that by the year 2025, 50% of the world's population will face water shortage, and by the year 2050, 50% of the world's population will be starving. "We must agree on policies and programs that improve agricultural yields in order to meet our long-term food needs," Desai said, "and the goal to expand sustainable agricultural practices, including the introduction of efficient irrigation systems, is equally pressing."

         The most shocking aspect of the U.N. report was the one deficiency: There was no mention of the need to curb the human population. And this is the only solution that can solve the environmental crisis that exists, allowing mankind to live in harmony with nature. Population control is possibly just too unpopular an issue, one that politicians feel they cannot solve. It seems that even thinking people throw up their hands, stick their heads in the sand, and ignore the only logical solution that is available.

I recently came across an essay entitled "A Modest Proposal" (http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html) written in 1729 by Jonathan Swift, the author of Gulliver's Travels, one of Britain's most famous satirists. In this brief article, Swift discusses the problems facing poor people in Ireland, most of whom have more children than they can support. "Too many kids force the parents to beg in the streets - with their string of filthy offspring tagging along behind them. Worse, women of the streets frequently sacrifice their babies to avoid the expense with no benefit to anyone." He therefore puts forth his own satirical proposal.

         Swift notes, "I have been assured by a very knowledgeable American that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, baked, or broiled; and I don't doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout." He advises mothers to let their infants suck plentifully in the last month, so as to render them plump and fat for a good table. After all, "a plump child should make two dishes at an entertainment for friends, with plenty left over for subsequent meals when the family dines alone."

         Swift goes on to calculate the advantage to both seller and purchaser. He writes, "I have computed the charge of nursing a beggar's child to be about two shillings per annum, rags included, and I believe no gentleman would refuse to pay ten shillings for the carcass of a good fat child, which should easily make four dishes of excellent nutritive meat. The mother will have eight shillings net profit and therefore be fit for work till she produces another child."

         Summarizing the benefits of his proposal, Swift concludes as follows: "First, poor tenants would have something valuable of their own which by law may help to pay their landlord's rent. Second, the profit of a new dish introduced to the tables of gentlemen of fortune who have refinement in taste would be immeasurable. Third, since the money should circulate largely among people of the country, the goods would contribute entirely of their own growth and manufacture. Fourth, the breeders, besides gaining wealth by the sale of their children, would be rid of the charge of maintaining them. Fifth, this food should bring great advantage to taverns where cooks would certainly be so prudent as to procure the best receipts for dressing it to perfection. Consequently, all the fine gentlemen who justly pride themselves on their knowledge in good eating should frequent their houses. Sixth, this solution would be a great inducement to marriage, which all wise nations have either encouraged by rewards or enforced by laws and penalties. Finally, the care and tenderness of parents toward their children would surely increase if they were certain of a settlement. After all, their children would add to their profit instead of their expense; men would become as fond of their wives during the time of their pregnancy as they are of their mares in foal, their cows in calf, and their sows when they are ready to farrow."

         Finally, Swift professes, "In the sincerity of my heart, I have not the least personal interest in endeavoring to promote this necessary work, having no other motive than the public good of my country. My plan will advance trade, provide for infants, relieve the poor, and give some pleasure to the rich. I have no children by which I can propose to get a single penny, the youngest being nine years old, and my wife being past the child-bearing age."

         Since Swift wrote his essay nearly three centuries ago, human efforts have not led to a sustainable improvement in social conditions worldwide. With scientific advances in medicine and the industrial revolution, we have increased our numbers dramatically so that relatively few individuals reap the benefits of our greater economic potential. Oscar Wilde noted that for each problem solved by science, 10 more are created! It is not possible for more than a small fraction of our current population to live in harmony with nature. We have already depleted the oceans of most of their fish life, burned over half of the world's forests, driven millions of living species to extinction, and caused significant global warming. In view of these facts, is Swift's satirical proposal any less rational than our present course of action, allowing and even promoting unrestricted birth?