Jonathan Swift's Argument Is Better

517 Words3 Pages

Swifts argument is better. Swift honestly had a better argument even though he was joking, it made more of an connection with me. The fact, eating and breeding humans would stop overpopulation, famine, and the poor not having any work opportunities. But Hardin’s argument was just harsh, I didn't really like how he talked about people he had a very negative perspective on other people such as immigrants. Hardin states that when immigrants come over to there home country they have to provide there needs and resources to the immigrants, but the immigrants just keep coming because they are getting free resources and they don't have to do anything to get the resources.“In sharing with each according to his needs, we must recognize that needs are determined by population size, which is determined by the rate of reproduction, which at present is regarded as a sovereign right of every nation, poor or not(Hardin)”. Swift figures if the poor eats there children then it would help with overpopulation because they wouldn't be keeping the kids, but instead they would eat the kids or sale them off.” I have already observed, it would greatly lessen the number of papists, with whom we are yearly overrun, being the principal breeders of the …show more content…

“As a result of such solutions to food shortage emergencies, the poor countries will not learn to mend their ways, and will suffer progressively greater emergencies as their populations grow” (Hardin).Swift thinks since the poor are in poverty because they don't have any job opportunities, so they should mate like animals then they can sale there kids as food, so not only will they have food but also have a job. ”This food would likewise bring great custom to taverns; where the vintners will certainly be so prudent as to procure the best receipts for dressing it to