Human Veal or: How to Give Welfare a Swift Kick in the BAM!

…the following is another wiritng that had been submitted in response to a homework assignment. Before reading the following, I would recommend reviewing Johnathon Swift’s A Modest Proposal.

First, I would like to say that perhaps we should introduce Swift’s proposal for the better use of infants and children in this country; if we were to enact such a proposal it would solve our current issues with the nation’s economy and welfare. Through the establishment of such a plan we could eliminate the costs of sexual education in public schools, as those who would be in attendance would undoubtedly be only of the upper classes; there would be no need to educate these children on the matter as—since they come from a better stock—they would not carry any interest in, nor would they have the time left alone—as their parents or paid caregivers would be at home—for breeding. For that matter, the costs of education would decline as the children from the lesser classes would not be in school; those having been selected for further breeding and labor would not require education, nor would those who are being kept alive for additional ripening before the slaughter.

Medical and nutritional costs that we currently associate with the upbringing of children would go under an overhaul and be decreased as the bulk would now be livestock. This sort of change should be an easy transition for some federal agencies, such as the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Currently the USDA provides a program providing additional nutritional foods to families under the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program. WIC could continue to operate, though under a different section under the USDA, by providing our new human farmers with additional feed if necessary.

Costs associated with Social Security would also decline, eventually allowing for the expiration of the associated programs. The decline in Social Security would come from the introduction of farming practices in humanity—by allowing for the use of persons as livestock there would understandably be a reduction in having disabled or otherwise handicapped infants growing to maturity. Any infant born with any defect would be euthanized or aborted in the same manner as is done in current handling of livestock. It may, however, be found that certain defects or maladies—as we currently see them—may, in fact, be considered a delicacy.

While reading Swift’s proposal I was given the opportunity to try and classify my own family and figure out how my children would be best used under such a plan—my children would have to be branded as stock of some sort as we do come from a lower class and make use of the current welfare systems. My son, I fear, would not be suitable for consumption; as is noted in Swift’s proposal, my son is rather lanky and would be too tough a morsel to chew. At the age of seven, he is very thin and already 12 ½ hands high—this build would be unlikely to yield a tasty crop, so it would be doubtful that he would be allowed to sire. It would be very likely that my son would be employed in labor of some sort, unless we choose to have men of such stock to become beasts used in sporting events.

My eldest daughter, having gone beyond the proper age for dining, would become a great candidate for breeding once she becomes of that age. In her current state we see that she is rather short and has a graciously good amount of meat on her bones. With science showing that these traits are often hereditary we can safely assume that she would yield plenty of children with desirable traits for consumption.

Our youngest daughter is close to ripening to an age of two, and would make for a nice Sunday roast of average tenderness. Though she may currently be of an average height and weight ratio, I believe that supplying her with the proper feed over the next two months would yield a meat with excellent marbling of the fatty tissues. With a good ratio of fat and proper slow-roasting techniques applied her meat should easily melt in one’s mouth with a delicious buttery effect.

…obviously the words that precede this were written with the same sort of political satire intended by Swift.

None of us would actually imagine the use of the underprivileged as livestock. Swift’s sarcastic approach to the needs of public welfare serve as an interesting call to attention, however. In a society that was busy issuing complaints on its current state Swift decided to present a “solution” where none others—of good thought—had been given. It is lightly noted at the end of the proposal that the work is satire in the statements, “…I have not the least personal interest in endeavoring to promote this necessary work,” and “…[my] youngest being nine years old [thus, beyond age of consumption], and my wife [is] past child-bearing.”

While Swift’s work is obviously political in nature, Locke’s work is philosophical. Locke writes of society in his work with an eye towards what makes us who we are, and how differing our positions may be. In his Epistle, Locke writes that the whole of his text is spiritual in nature, and that he recognizes that these views differ as much as our varying palates. The only section of Locke’s Epistle that may be viewed as political is his noted revision in where he had addressed concerns that had been brought about in another edition of his work. The revisions made were to clear confusion and quell uproar that came in the philosophical differences—thus creating a need for something akin to “political correctness”—between his work and the readers.

Works Cited

Locke, J. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Columbia.edu. 1995. Web. 18 Nov. 2011.

Swift, J. A Modest Proposal. Luminarium.org. 1999. Web. 18 Nov. 2011.

…yes, I went way over on this one; but how could I resist joining in on Swift’s satire?

…and yes, the title for this post is a series of bad puns/references. (Dr. Strangelove formatted; “a Swift kick”; and of course, we’re talking about food so, BAM!–Emeril)