Challenges to Comprehension Implied by the Logo of Laetus in Praesens
Laetus in Praesens Alternative view of segmented documents via Kairos
1 June 2025 | Draft

A Modest Proposal to Address Collective Suffering Pragmatically

Clarifying the response of the international community to the unacceptable

-- / --

Proposal

It is somewhat amazing, in this period of tragic suffering in many parts of the world, to recognize the extraordinary resemblance to the conditions in Ireland in the 18th century. These were an inspiration for a proposal by Jonathan Swift that continues to be cited with some frequency. Commonly referenced as A Modest Proposal, the full title is A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People from Being a Burthen to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Publick (1729). Given the number of readily accessible web references to that "modest proposal" at this time, including those with respect to Gaza, the question is how can the modesty of that proposal be otherwise explored. The essence of that carefully argued proposal, of which the original is provided by Wikisource as: I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child, well nursed, is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricasee, or a ragoust.

As with the level of poverty, starvation, and the contested recourse to abortion in 18th century Ireland, focus is now given to the desirability of supplementing the human diet with insects (Aryn Baker, They’re Healthy. They’re Sustainable. So Why Don’t Humans Eat More Bugs? Time, 26 February 2021; Amrou Awaysheh, 5 reasons why eating insects could reduce climate change, World Economic Forum, 9 February 2022; The latest buzz: eating insects can help tackle food insecurity, says FAO, UN News, 13 May 2013).

Of greater relevance to the modest proposal envisaged here is the extent to which humans are themselves selectively recognized as insects by leaders of nations of today, as noted by Pamela Paresky in contesting that framing (Human Beings Are Not Insects, Vermin, Parasites, or Garbage, Psychology Today, 1 September 2019). Paresky cites the Nazi view, that of those perpetrating the Rwanda genocide, the framing by Americans of the Japanese during World War II, and more recently that of Donald Trump with respect to migrants. Of even more current relevance is the reported framing of Palestinians by Israelis (Palestinians as insects and other animals, Wikipedia; Lubna Masarwa, Israeli doctor compared killing Palestinians in Gaza to ‘eliminating cockroaches’, Middle East Eye, 19 May 2025).

If humans in leadership roles are indeed able to frame other humans as insects, does this not then indicate an unxplored possibility for their consumption -- especially now that consumption of insects is being promoted as a probable future necessity? The possibility is especially credible in conditions so eloquently described by Reverend Jonathan Switft -- conditions by which many are expected to be confronted in the foreseeable future.

Beyond the clarification offered by Swift, there are of course technicalities to be addressed. Should the focus be on the corpses created by conflict -- an equivalent to so-called roadkill cuisine? Should the focus be on surplus children, as argued by Swift? Should it include older people, as has featured in many instances of cannibalism -- whether in exceptional circumstances or sanctioned by the culture? Should it be voluntary -- by comparison with assisted dying and some forms of sacrifice -- or should it involve some form of "conscription"? Existing procedures for organ donation could be reframed beyond transplantation and the needs of research.

Dietary constraints imposed by kosher and halal merit careful consideration -- notably as they effect the consumer and the killing process. That process itself merits particular attention given the manner in which the klling of animals may or may not feature visibly in the cuisine of a culture -- ensuring that it is fresh -- rather than undertaken under conditions which inhibit transparency. By contrast there is little inhibition in ensuring the media coverage of fatal military interventions more generaly -- and executions in particular circumstances.

Clarifying the unacceptable

However the particular purpose of this proposal, as with that of Swift, is to note the nature of the responses of authorities. Is it to be imagined that their response would differ to any degree whatsoever from their current ritual condemnation of Israel's treatment of Palestinians in Gaza? In referring to that treatment as "unacceptable", "abhorrent", "repugnant", or "excessive", the question is to what language authorities would have recourse in rejecting the modest proposal made above.

Several international authorities have issued statements strongly deploring Israeli actions in Gaza [emphasis added]:

These statements reflect widespread international condemnation and calls for Israel to comply with international humanitarian law and end actions causing civilian suffering in Gaza. The question is what the international community does once it has assessed a sitution to be "intolerable" and "unacceptable".

Prediction by Nostradamus
So high will the bushel of wheat rise,
That man will be eating his fellow man
(Nostradamus Quatrains Century II, #75) .

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License .

For further updates on this site, subscribe here