UN The Benefits of World Hunger

https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/benefits-world-hunger

The Benefits of World Hunger

We sometimes talk about hunger in the world as if it were a scourge that all of us want to see abolished, viewing it as comparable with the plague or aids. But that naïve view prevents us from coming to grips with what causes and sustains hunger. Hunger has great positive value to many people. Indeed, it is fundamental to the working of the world's economy. Hungry people are the most productive people, especially where there is a need for manual labour.
We in developed countries sometimes see poor people by the roadside holding up signs saying "Will Work for Food". Actually, most people work for food. It is mainly because people need food to survive that they work so hard either in producing food for themselves in subsistence-level production, or by selling their services to others in exchange for money. How many of us would sell our services if it were not for the threat of hunger?
More importantly, how many of us would sell our services so cheaply if it were not for the threat of hunger? When we sell our services cheaply, we enrich others, those who own the factories, the machines and the lands, and ultimately own the people who work for them. For those who depend on the availability of cheap labour, hunger is the foundation of their wealth.
The conventional thinking is that hunger is caused by low-paying jobs. For example, an article reports on "Brazil's ethanol slaves: 200,000 migrant sugar cutters who prop up renewable energy boom".1 While it is true that hunger is caused by low-paying jobs, we need to understand that hunger at the same time causes low-paying jobs to be created. Who would have established massive biofuel production operations in Brazil if they did not know there were thousands of hungry people desperate enough to take the awful jobs they would offer? Who would build any sort of factory if they did not know that many people would be available to take the jobs at low-pay rates?
Much of the hunger literature talks about how it is important to assure that people are well fed so that they can be more productive. That is nonsense. No one works harder than hungry people. Yes, people who are well nourished have greater capacity for productive physical activity, but well-nourished people are far less willing to do that work.
The non-governmental organization Free the Slaves defines slaves as people who are not allowed to walk away from their jobs. It estimates that there are about 27 million slaves in the world,2 including those who are literally locked into workrooms and held as bonded labourers in South Asia. However, they do not include people who might be described as slaves to hunger, that is, those who are free to walk away from their jobs but have nothing better to go to. Maybe most people who work are slaves to hunger?
For those of us at the high end of the social ladder, ending hunger globally would be a disaster. If there were no hunger in the world, who would plow the fields? Who would harvest our vegetables? Who would work in the rendering plants? Who would clean our toilets? We would have to produce our own food and clean our own toilets. No wonder people at the high end are not rushing to solve the hunger problem. For many of us, hunger is not a problem, but an asset.
Notes 1 Tom Phillipps, "Brazil's ethanol slaves: 200,000 migrant sugar cutters who prop up renewable energy boom". The Guardian. Online, 9 March 2007.
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/energy/story/0,,2030144,00.html
2 Free the Slaves. Online, 2007. http://www.freetheslaves.net/

About the author​

George Kent​

George Kent is a professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Hawaii. He works on human rights, international relations, peace, development and environmental issues, with a special focus on nutrition and children. He has written several books, the latest is Freedom from Want: The Human Right to Adequate Food.
 
This was up on the globohomo anti-christ website but they mysteriously deleted it. Hmmm.. I wonder why?
Screenshot_393.png
 
Looks like satire, but it's impossible to tell these days.
Considering that the author of this article is also the author of a book calling for food to be made a basic human right? Anyone who can't see it as satire is retarded. It's a "hey guys what if I took an ideology I oppose to a strawmanned extreme" ala A Modest Proposal.
 
Considering that the author of this article is also the author of a book calling for food to be made a basic human right? Anyone who can't see it as satire is retarded. It's a "hey guys what if I took an ideology I oppose to a strawmanned extreme" ala A Modest Proposal.
Well, the a former head of Nestle is on record as saying water isn't a basic human right so...

“Water is, of course, the most important raw material we have today in the world. It’s a question of whether we should privatize the normal water supply for the population. And there are two different opinions on the matter. The one opinion, which I think is extreme, is represented by the NGOs, who bang on about declaring water a public right. That means that as a human being you should have a right to water. That’s an extreme solution. The other view says that water is a foodstuff like any other, and like any other foodstuff it should have a market value. Personally, I believe it’s better to give a foodstuff a value so that we’re all aware it has its price, and then that one should take specific measures for the part of the population that has no access to this water, and there are many different possibilities there.”
 
Last edited:
Considering that the author of this article is also the author of a book calling for food to be made a basic human right? Anyone who can't see it as satire is retarded. It's a "hey guys what if I took an ideology I oppose to a strawmanned extreme" ala A Modest Proposal.
On the UN's website.

Satire.

I mean, I know it has to be because it's that fucking insane. But I don't think of UN.org when I think of satire.
 
On the UN's website.

Satire.

I mean, I know it has to be because it's that fucking insane. But I don't think of UN.org when I think of satire.
I agree, but they also appear to have deleted thr article basically immediately. So what probably happened was some UN staffer ate the Onion and posted obvious satire as a real article.
 
I agree, but they also appear to have deleted thr article basically immediately. So what probably happened was some UN staffer ate the Onion and posted obvious satire as a real article.
On the Onion or even a blog this is actually a pretty good, somewhat tongue-in-cheek jab at the fact (which most of us were already aware of) that inducing desperation in people turns them into very pliable worker drones, though the waffling back and forth between the tongue in cheek and the serious "this happens and you know it does" parts glued together with mild snark kind of dilutes it.

On the UN's site, this is kind of like serving a po'boy to a table at a Michelin Four Star restaurant. Tasty, perfectly edible, but absolutely the wrong venue.
 
Considering that the author of this article is also the author of a book calling for food to be made a basic human right?
Yeah, but that would require several things:
  1. Knowing who this nerd is
  2. Knowing that he wrote a book
  3. Knowing what his book is about
  4. Reading an article by him despite knowing that he's a "calling it a human right makes it immune to scarcity" dweeb
  5. Not already being so blackpilled that the idea of the UN calling famine a good thing isn't beyond what you already expect of them
 
Do leftists like the UN at this point ? They are everything they supposedly despise: corporate leachers, create tension and conflict in their "peacekeeping" missions, and generally are a failure in everything they set out to do, a hinderance on many things. It makes no sense to me. The UN is a culture destroyer, actively pushing people from developing or impoverished nations to more stable places, just creating a cycle of tension and hatred that doesn't need to exist in the world.

I'm a proponent of the EU and the US assisting developing countries build infrastructure (I view it as international relations, leftists view it as colonialism, unless it's China of course). My ultimate question has always been why do we need a United Nations? Conflicts are going to happen regardless, and human history tells us let the strongest nation survive.

I know the article was tongue in cheek satire from what seems to be a pretty smart man. But knowing that some intern from an Ivy League school posted that makes me fearful about the next generation of UN workers. I don't want those people in charge.
 
Back