An essay certainly inspired by Jonathan Swift's 'A Modest Proposal'. The rest... work it out yourself.
It is a reality that frequently comes to my irritated attention that some people balk at the more brutal aspects of human nature. Why not balk at the sky, I retort! Unpleasantness is an inevitability of human existence and the various attempts to temper these immediately less appealing emotions are as futile as they are misguided. We must learn not only to accept them but on some level embrace them; to deny any part of the human essence is merely to immaturely place limitations upon ourselves. If one refuses to allow one to aim for the dizziest heights of the sky, who knows how far one could truly ascend?
Of course, there are many aspects of human nature that we attempt to restrain – our methods of deception, our penchant and tendency for violence and the like. Such things are an integral part of our skills for survival. In earlier ages, we had to rely on our wit, our will and our power. These things inevitably led to some discordant expressions such as war and exploitation but, and this is key, the strong survive! Power is, for all its ugliness, vital to our existence. The Nietzschean concept of the ‘will to power’ shows us the weakness of sentimentality. We are not talking mere survival but advancement; a growth of superiority. This is an essence within all of us and the more we seek it, the more we find it, the better we become. We have seen this in history. It is the cut-throat, the self-centred, the strong that reach to the positions of privilege, leadership and greatness. Our sentimentality is in fact a childish attempt to reject the discomforting truth of our potential for self-centeredness and an unreasonable guilt about what we are. We should not deny what we are, for the supposed sin of pride allows us to leave the supposedly sympathetic, in truth pathetically sanctimonious, lagging behind.
We can analyse any number of the inhuman activities of humanity. But if we take that greatest taboo or, more accurately, that greatest myth of human wrong-doing – cannibalism – and explain its legitimacy – nay, even its utility – we shall begin to see the true face of our current human essence. A few years ago, it became a ‘dirty’ and yet well-known secret that the higher levels of our society, as well as in the more opulent sections of the countries of greater affluence, were dining on specially bred and fed human beings. Such privileges are frequently the good fortune of society’s betters until they become more commercially viable and economically acceptable. Like the joys of hunting rare species, this currently illegal act, when discussed, is spoken about in tones of great disgust. In reality, this veneer of abhorrence was an attempt to veil a jealousy as well as being another childish foray into sentimentality. However, unlike the aforementioned act, the abundance of humans means this is less likely to remain an illegal enjoyment for a daring elite; it will more likely become a widely-accepted and widely enjoyed practice. This controversial dietary choice will inevitably have its deriders and naysayers but we have been here before. Those tired animal rightists who stand on the street, gnawing miserably on grass whilst they wave banners of disapproval regarding flesh consumption that have their disdain meet with condescending smiles and rolled eyes, they are the precursor to today’s deriders of this new taboo. However, for all their immature howls of injustice and inhumanity, the plant-eating brigade do have one thing correct – all flesh is flesh. This is a fact that the less philosophically inclined and ethically aware may attempt to reject. That human life is somehow greater, is somehow sweeter. I promise you this: it is only sweeter when it is on the palette.
There have been many peculiarities in the human diet – most are confused when they first hear of the exotic delicacies of the French such as escargot; some feel uncomfortable with the consumption of sweet-breads; and some are amused or unimpressed by the exhaustive use of an animal in recipes such as the Scottish dish of haggis. In due course, a slither of human thigh will become the daring choice off a menu until eventually it will become disarmingly familiar. And there will be those who will cry their tired calls of sentimentality, just like those who rally against foie gras or veal meat. However, if we look at the truth of human endeavour and how we treat each other, if we look at examples throughout history to the modern day, a time that most would admit to being the current climax of humanity, we can see that we do not measure up to the compassionate beings we claim and envision ourselves to be.
First, we must dispel this hilarious myth that cannibalism is unnatural. What an ignorant claim! What a vacuous statement! Let us be clear that cannibalism has been a long-known human tradition. It has been practised by the greatest rulers of classical Egyptian empires to the lowliest African tribesman to well beyond. It is of greatest legends in various cultures to the greatest realities of various histories. We find it in the Bible and beyond. The phrase cannibalism even derives from the naming of a tribe that practiced such acts. It is a trait apparent in our evolutionary ancestors and brethren. So let us refrain from naivety and accept the reality that anthropophagy has been practised for millennia and leave the concept of the natural behind. What is more, the idea of what is natural and what is not reveals personal sympathies much more than it reveals a factual, normative path. Many people have claimed war to be natural and unnatural; homosexuality the same. Let us unshackle ourselves from the superfluous concept of the natural and embrace the much more prescient concept of the right. And when it comes to the right, we see many things that are childishly dismissed as unpalatable are actually necessary and just. Again, we may return to that other great sin, warfare. At its ugliest, it lends itself to that great horror of humanity that is genocide. These days, an inevitable consequence of conflict is that the vast majority of war victims will not be combatants. But who truly calls for an end for war? The tired and tiring utopians; the romantics; they are the ones who pathetically call for pacifism. The leaders acknowledge the necessity for pragmatism; the greatest thinkers of our time will not descend into such radical posturing as reserving themselves into the black and white of peace or war; when it is right, it is excusable and it may even be necessary. We can speak in the old clichés of cracked eggs and omelettes but the less blinkered, the less ideologically driven (though they may laughably call their ideological motivations compassion), will accept the subtle truth held within. And if we can accept the cracked eggs of conflict, we can also accept the practical consequence of human loss for sustenance and delectation. Once again, we may hear those weak cries of derision about such supposed heartlessness and lack of humanity, but we can observe the various misfortunes that face human beings all over the world and raise a challenge that the rearing of humans for meat can guarantee a higher quality of life in many cases, albeit for a certain, but by no means shortened, length of time. I am, of course, making a comparison between the kind and humane treatment that could be given to these humans before they are secretly sedated and slaughtered and those that live, for want of a better term, bleakly and briefly in poor, desperate nations where disease and starvation are rife; those with nothing to hope for in regards to their existence bar the bliss of brevity.
This must be our second focus of attention. The plight of the impoverished in these sickly nations – do we really call them human? Can we really say that they are valued as such? Certainly not by their own leaders who realise that their interests lie within themselves and themselves alone. Certainly not by those in other countries that offer the minimal in attention, let alone assistance to these starving fools devoid of hope or opportunity, for they have also learnt where their interest lies – at home and not abroad. We cannot say the ill-fortune of these suffering individuals does not reach our recognition, but our responses are minimal, our involvement is insignificant. We have the tokenistic charities of Oxfam or Water Aid or whatever else but, again, we must acknowledge these as mere veneers to hide our unwarranted embarrassment at focusing our attentions where they are most immediate, most prevalent and most necessary. The veneer may cover the truth but it is not a truth that we should be ashamed of; instead it is a truth that overly-emotive moralists portray as shameful when it is simply an act of self-sustenance. And, with the acknowledgement that the devastating disposition of these dispossessed is not only apparent as not our priority but, more significantly, not our responsibility, we can analyse – with pity and little more – the precise nature of their predicament.
Consider – in the earlier times that we tend to call barbaric due to a naïve arrogance that we are on some progressive trajectory, earlier times that we could describe as liberated from sentimental restraint (to what degree has our advancement been slowed by the constricting causes of compassion?) – when, in those by-gone times, slavery was common-place and perceived as just. Consider, if we once again remove limiting moral-romanticism, how truly barbaric was our treatment of those lesser beings, those slaves? Especially when we contrast those slaves to the people that these days we, in truth, comfortably ignore. It has been noted countless times that the treatment of the slaves, while not reaching the laughably loftiest ideals of today’s standards, was far higher than the treatment of our sorrowful lowliest. Slaves were an asset – they were fed, sheltered, kept strong by work – they were used and this made them useful. They were, therefore, of significance. Compare that to the forgotten and forlorn of our era: they are not fed nor are they sheltered. People have no use for them and so they have dwindled into insignificance. It is reasonable to argue that if all these people were given the supposed indignity of being slaves, their lives would be far more dignified. This means that we can conclude that the slaves of yonder years were more human than our treatment of lesser people in this humane time. Even the relationship between the higher people of our society is colder to those beneath them than the master-slave dichotomy; simple relations of transactions for goods or services and little more. Now that these lesser people are not property they have no genuine worth beyond such hollow concepts as ‘the intrinsic worth of the human essence’ or some other idea that may find itself put into print but means nothing in terms of action. In comparison, the slave of yesteryear may not have been emancipated by his ruler but at least he was involved with him. The right to self-worth means that worth may well not come from others and probably does not.
I do not mean to romanticise (romanticise? me? such notions leave me cold) the destitution of the slaves but simply highlight that the situation today as far more miserable for a great number of people. I also do not mean that we should simply raise their lot. It should be clear that I would never advocate arguments along the lines of charity or philanthropy. However, I would say that we have missed a trick. A gap in the market – specifically, the meat market. I argue this because there is an interest in the ingestion of our brethren but there is not an organised availability of such a thing. The finer details of how the consumption of our kindred comes to be I will not elaborate on here. I can already conceive the churlish cries to my propositions, I will not cause further furore by going into what will be described as a nasty, brutish reality, supposedly far more unnatural than our state of nature. Instead, I will clarify my proposition further for how to make this interest, not so much more humanely, but more efficiently and effectively run.
From these people of miserable caste, that still reproduce like the vermin they are truly seen to be, there is an abundance of offspring. Considering that they could not collectively raise one of them to living a life of any genuine worth, why not give that life a genuine value? A purchase at birth raises the quality of life for the child in the short-term and to a quality that could never be dreamt of by those that it will leave behind. A purchase gives money and options to a community that currently has neither. Both sides are fed for the benefit of a superior feeding. The community can do what they like with their new-found source of income and it is unlikely to encourage further over-breeding because the limit already appears reached. This means that their situation is likely to be improved due to a greater income and a more manageable population. Meanwhile, the newly purchased new-born lives a life of luxury until it is at its optimum point for killing, cooking and serving. The stories surrounding the production of the Kobe beef of Japan will pale in comparison to the amount of attentiveness and comfort these children will receive. Then at age eight, when the meat is primed, the product is treated to fine farewell meal and has its every whim catered for until it is time to sedate it, in a thoroughly humane manner (because distress can cause a rush of chemicals can ruin the meat) before it is killed painlessly and prepared almost immediately for a fresh and decidedly decadent delicacy. When all things are considered, it becomes powerfully clear that this move will most likely be more moral (though it will immediately offend those moral fascist dregs of our society) and more appropriate than the world as it is even if this perceived dirty secret was not indulged in.
All things considered, this proposal works on a manner of levels. Ignoring our pathetic sentimentalities that allow us to lament at the plight of others but do little else, we can see that the old ritual of cannibalism would be morally superior to status quo. Yet, I do not propose this argument because it is kind or natural but because it is an entitlement of those privileged with a superiority of character. Those of us who lord at the top of society do because we are not constrained by strict social expectations; we are the mavericks, the characters and the renegade sophisticates; our place is not bound by the decrees of convention for it is through our denial of such conventionalities that our place is confirmed and excused. Our world, though many fail to perceive it, is certainly a meritocracy of monumental magnitude. To acknowledge this, however, it is necessary to accept that the merits of self-interest and advantage are the mastering factors and not such twee notions as mutuality, reciprocity or assistance. These latter concepts clearly imply dependence and from such dependence we must infer weakness, not merit. And this is so borne out in reality, from treatment of individual to individual, nation to nation, and inferior to superior and any other relation one cares to name. It is enshrined in law, as if sovereign, that one person may rule over another in our elitist meritocracy. The question of the matter is how far this rule should be allowed to extend. We are told that we must give humans certain rights and privileges for the merit of being conceived and born. This is illusory; in theory and certainly in action. It is also in contradiction with the whole concept of a meritocracy where the self-interested define their interests – a rational enough set-up. Therefore, the rule should extend as far as the ruler sees fit. If elites want to expand the realms of their experience, this may impose upon the freedom of others. But we do not deny wealth accumulation if it is done to the poverty of others; we do not limit property ownership simply so that others may own; we allow impositions to others for the benefit of the individual. It seems the logical conclusion is the imposition of death so that another may feel fully alive. What is the counter to this? Sentimentality! A thing that is illogical, irrational; immediately appealing but, in truth when succumbed to, permanently limiting. As I dined on tender morsels of man-boy the other week, with a Nobel-prize winning economist and a Member of Parliament (who shall remain nameless so that they do not have to suffer the pitiful resentments of the politically-correct brigade), we discussed the perceptions of the people who understand their place so well. Whether they are at the top, the middle or the bottom, some people understand that the place they have found themselves is the place that they have earned. Hopefully, in time, if they do not willingly place their necks in the yoke of sentimentality, they will recognise that the place of some can be on the plate of others.
