“Did that billboard say ‘Babies Were Meant to be Breakfast?’”
My father laughed, and I resented his amusement. It wasn’t my fault I couldn’t read the billboard correctly. I was concentrating on keeping up with the flow of traffic and making sure I didn’t drive into a ditch.
“No, it said ‘Babies Were Meant to be Breast-Fed.’”
“Oh.” The amazement I got from my mistaken perception was gone. There was nothing shocking or amusing anymore. Just some more propaganda designed to encourage extreme conservatism and keep women in the home, chained to their kids, I thought.
My misreading reminded me of Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal.” Written in 1729, it is one of the best examples of political satire. The subtitle of this essay is: “For Preventing The Children of Poor People in Ireland From Being A Burden to Their Parents or Country, and For Making Them Beneficial to The Public.” Swift saw the poverty around Ireland and knew something had to be done about it. Since so many children were born in a year (he estimates 120,000), it is obvious why he saw them as a solution to the problem. To make them beneficial, this essay does not advocate a conventional remedy such as education reform. Instead, Swift calls for something a bit more unconventional: reserve 20,000 children for breeding purposes, and turn the rest into commodities. “That the remaining hundred thousand may, at a year old, be offered in the sale to the persons of quality and fortune through the kingdom . . . A child will make two dishes at an entertainment for friends; and when the family dines alone, the fore or hind quarter will make a reasonable dish . . . “ Beyond eating infants, Swift also suggests that their skin “will make admirable gloves for ladies, and summer boots for fine gentlemen.” Swift does an excellent job of making strong arguments for his unconventional idea. He reasons: “Secondly, The poorer tenants will have something valuable of their own, which by law may be made liable to distress and help to pay their landlord’s rent, their corn and cattle being already seized, and money a thing unknown.” When I first read this, before realizing it was a satire, I was half-convinced that raising children as commodities would actually be a practical idea. We breed all sorts of animals for food and clothing; why not our own species? It would certainly help the overpopulation problem. Even I might be more enticed to have a few kids if I could make some money off of them. Instead of them draining all my money, I could get something in exchange for all my trouble, without having to go through the hassles of toilet training.
In the animal kingdom, consuming one’s offspring for nutrients is a common practice among many species. Last year, when I was in my women’s studies phase, I took Psychology of Women. One of the many articles we read was “Natural-born Mothers,” by Sarah Blaffer Hrdy. This article broke down the notion that motherhood is the most natural thing in the world by showing that, if faced with adverse conditions, animals will engage in fitness trade-offs. If animals conceive or bear offspring during periods of food shortages or other hardships, the mother will sacrifice her young if it means preserving her own well-being and the possibility of being able to reproduce again under better conditions. The most common example is that of the golden hamster: “In addition to building a nest, licking their pups clean, protecting and suckling them - all pleasantly conventional maternal pursuits - these hamster moms may also recoup maternal resources otherwise lost in the production of pups by eating a few.” But hamsters aren’t the only ones: mice, lemmings, voles, and badgers all have similar strategies to maintain their reproductive fitness if their babies are born during food shortages, droughts, or if there are predators lurking around. Some people might argue that fitness trade-offs in animals are the equivalent of adoption in humans. The point of a fitness trade-off, however, is to restore the resources lost in pregnancy and birth. In giving a baby up for adoption, the mother loses the child, but does not have the chance to gain anything from the sacrifice.
When I first read this, I thought it seemed like such a waste. I couldn’t imagine why, after all the work that went into producing offspring, a mother would want to just give it up. All that time and all those resources wasted for nothing. Even if animals recoup the losses by eating their children, it still means that all the energy they put into procreation went right back into their systems, leaving them where they were before.
However, most animals don’t invest as much into a pregnancy as humans do. None of the above animals has a gestation period of more than two months. Since the maternal investment is smaller, these animals have less to lose if they decide they need to give up and try again. When fitness is based solely on fertility, any method of improving reproductive potential is acceptable. An animal’s most important mission in life is to make sure its genes get passed on; the only way for it to secure a permanent spot in the world is to produce as many offspring as possible. So if a female bears children while there is a predator lurking around, it makes all the sense in the world for her to cut her losses, replenish her resources, and try again later. Maybe the babies would survive, but with all the uncertainties in life, sometimes it’s better not to take a chance.
Despite the fact that it was originally intended to be satirical, “A Modest Proposal” provides some very practical ideas for dealing both with poverty and overpopulation. Although nearly 300 years have passed since this was written, these are still two common problems all over the world. Strangely enough, nobody has actually taken Swift’s proposal to heart. In the centuries that have passed since Swift made this idea public, nobody has tried it, and we’re still struggling, which leads me to believe it just might work. Plus, we have proof from other species. Human beings are animals just like elephants, cats, and hamsters. If other species can use their offspring for their own benefit, we can, too. Of course, we don’t need to eat our own children. In a capitalist society, Swift’s idea works better. With all the time involved in pregnancy, as well as all the money that goes into good prenatal care and birthing expenses, a healthy baby would be worth a large sum of money in the eyes of gourmet chefs. As more and more women caught on to this idea, the price of babies would drop, and they would be an accessible food source for everyone. Of course, this leads to ethical questions about genetic engineering and methods of artificial reproduction such as in vitro fertilization. Some people might try to design exceptionally edible children that would be worth more on the food market, and some might try to artificially conceive twins or even triplets to increase their earning capacity. But I doubt multiples would be as desirable, considering they tend to be smaller; people would want the plumpest, juiciest specimens available. I feel similarly about genetically engineered children; they might have excellent characteristics, but since they would just be stock animals, they would fetch only a basic price. The exceptionally rare babies would be worth more. A genetically engineered baby is like salmon reproduced in a farm setting. But a perfectly formed child conceived naturally would be the equivalent of salmon caught in the wild.
Critics of the American capitalist system maintain that it puts families at a disadvantage, particularly the ones in which one of the parents (usually the mother) stay home to raise the children. They also say it puts single parents, especially those living in poverty, in a no-win situation. They argue that the work it takes to be a full-time parent is equivalent to any paid occupation, and we need to value it in the same way. I agree that society has to place a stronger emphasis on caring for children. But we don’t have to revert to a socialist system of government-controlled childcare to improve the situation. Instead, we need to recognize the economic potential of motherhood. Family life does not have to be an oppressive institution which costs one of the parents their economic mobility. Instead, being a mother could lead to a great deal of prosperity and freedom. A woman would not depend on her husband’s wage due to the income she earned from her offspring. Swift’s proposal creates a win-win situation for everyone in society. Family life does not need to cut mothers off from the work world; the home can become one of the most lucrative sites of labor in the world, and womanhood would finally earn the respect it deserves.
