Perhaps Jonathan Swift had the right idea. His famed book "A Modest Proposal" called for a radical solution to solve the problems of poverty-ridden Ireland in the 19th century. Simply put, he advocated that the nation's peasants feed their babies to the rich. The argument was extremely logical, the inhumanity of such a suggestion aside. Beggars would have fewer mouths to feed and Ireland's wealthy would pay them to receive fresh meat.

I thought of this essay last week in a session of Biology 8: AIDS and Cancer. Our guest lecturer was a doctor, and at one point she was explaining that AIDS is harder to fight than many other contemporary diseases in this country because we must first win a war against the culture of poverty. She alluded to the Bush administration's cuts in addiction programs and benefits like Welfare and Social Security.

This was quickly countered by a truly Swiftian proposal from one of the campus' most notorious Conservatives. He claimed that the majority of today's AIDS sufferers belonged to an "underclass" of citizens, and he had the perfect solution. He suggested that those in power, in control of the resources, should leave the problem alone, let nature take its course. With such a strategy, he asked, couldn't the disease be effectively eradicated?

Swift's piece, as a work of satire, was merely a comment on the society in which he was struggling. "I grant this food will be somewhat dear, and therefore very proper for landlords, who, as they have already devoured most of the parents, seem to have the best title to the children." He took the structures that existed in the society and added a taboo-cannibalism-to shock, offend and hopefully to force those in power to question their practices.

It is unclear whether my classmate intended to satirize our government's treatment of AIDS and the poor or not. Having read his writings and heard him speak, however, I would not be surprised to learn that he was sincere. Either scenario is troublesome.

Contemporary culture has put us all in an environment of censorship. Extreme ideas label one as a radical, and in politics today, being a radical, a Dennis Kucinich or a Pat Buchanan, will not only prevent you from being elected, but it will make you look crazy. Perhaps my classmate is one such radical. Perhaps he should be praised for overcoming the barrier of political correctness. But such approval for speaking one's mind does not justify the claims that one makes.

I have yet to see the compassion of compassionate conservativism, and if this is how one Conservative thinks, are the Conservatives in power thinking along those same lines? I have met a large number of people on campus who describe themselves as "fiscally conservative, socially liberal." What about when the two collide? The Republican Party's platform is not one of oppressing poor people, it is that of hard work, capitalism and the American Dream. How are those in this "underclass" supposed to work if we "let nature take its course?"

If my classmates' comments were to be taken in the context of satire, the disturbing truth is that we are letting nature take its course on an international level. Swift wrote "A Modest Proposal" because cannibalism did occur at the time with the landlords' metaphorical "devouring" of peasants.

Nature is devastating parts of the world that we, as Americans, have little interest in. The industrialized countries have turned Africa into the world's "underclass." Just as Conservatives in this country seem to have little concern for the American poor, they extend their "compassion" abroad and allow millions to die of a preventable disease.

I would like to take my classmate's callous remarks and turn them into a satire-to, as stated above, "shock, offend and hopefully force those in power to question their practices." Let's allow nature to take its course. Better yet, let's create quarantined ghettos for AIDS victims and their families. We can encourage unsafe sexual practices in an attempt to simply clear the streets of the poor. Criminals, the homeless, racial minorities and the easiest of all, the gays, will be targeted. We can remove all the undesirable aspects of society without lifting a finger. It is Darwinism at its finest. If one cannot avoid catching AIDS, one deserves to die.

Such a line of thinking disturbs me as much as it disturbed the doctor in class, who alluded to Lord Jeffrey Amherst's cordial exchanges with the Native Americans. We cannot ignore those in need. This goes beyond AIDS, to all the effects of poverty. We cannot let nature take its course. I hope that the next administration will strive to uphold it more than the current chooses to. Otherwise, how many steps are we from selling our children for food? As Jonathan Swift seemed to think, not as many as one might hope.