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.
 
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
the first four can be solved by actually reading the article you're complaining about and the fifth can be fixed by not hating the antichrist and taking your meds
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrJokerRager
the first four can be solved by actually reading the article you're complaining about
Yeah, but there's an inherent paradox there. If I knew enough about him to know who he is, I would never read anything he's written. If, in the process of reading the article, I were to learn who he is, I would immediately stop reading. There is no path by which a reasonable person would reach the end of this article, or even the halfway point.
 
If you strip away the concern creeping through and replace it with a much more self-congratulatory or celebratory tone in spots, this would actually be excellent satire. I suspect the author doesn't have it in him to go full monty on the biting satire. You can tell what he's going at, but it's like watching someone wind up for a punch and then flinch/pull a bit at the last second.
 
That last paragraph from the now-deleted UN article:

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.

They're not confessing. They're bragging.

 
Well, the a former head of Nestle is on record as saying water isn't a basic human right so...
I mean, it's not. Go to the center of the Sahara, or BFE in the desert anywhere and you'll find out. Water simply is not there unless you have the ability to dig a well. Nobody will build a pipeline to deliver to you. Nobody is going to send tankers out for free. This is the kind of attitude that has plunged out west into a drought, with places like Vegas draining the Hoover Dam's reservoir for lawns.

Thinking of someone dying of thirst is uncomfortable. It certainly would be an unmitigated good thing if we could make it as available as a basic human right. But the unfortunate reality is it is one of the most basic and vital resources humans need to find/create to live. You don't have a right to prevent others from getting water, but conversely it's not a human right either.
 
It's a stupid article one way or the other, almost nobody supports world hunger, unless your the NPK. It would be very fitting criticism of the NPK since that's literally in their playbook, but it's directed at capitalism, the thing that does feed people. But then it doesn't come off as transgressive if you attack the NPK, does it?

And then they pulled it, which sparks further belief that it was serious in its intent all along.

Out of touch all the way around.
 
Well, the a former head of Nestle is on record as saying water isn't a basic human right so...
I'm a little tired of this being brought up as if a reader can't figure out what's being said, and what's not being said, by the Nestle guy.

Potable water requires resources and labor to produce. Declaring anything like that a positive "human right" is basically just ignoring those costs and labor and demanding, "make this free to everyone!" Which, ironically, would not result in a greater quantity of affordable, processed, potable water no matter how counterintuitive that seems and no matter how much we've grown to take it for granted. But it makes mental midget socialists feel good about themselves, so of course they say loudly it from atop their soapboxes. Words cost nothing.

Don't get me wrong. Companies would love to charge you for the air you breathe (one can imagine a terrifying scenario in an off-world colony that would made the worst of the Industrial Revolution look quaint in comparison), but they can't. And they can't really take water away from you either because it falls regularly from the fucking sky. Obviously.
 
Don't get me wrong. Companies would love to charge you for the air you breathe (one can imagine a terrifying scenario in an off-world colony that would made the worst of the Industrial Revolution look quaint in comparison), but they can't. And they can't really take water away from you either because it falls regularly from the fucking sky. Obviously.
Fine replace it with the government saying you can't collect rainwater from your own roof to drink. There were several states with laws against it or discouraging it until recently. Then there were weird cases where property water rights also included rainwater.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrJokerRager
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.
The UN has a delusional understanding of their current level of trustworthiness if they think they can publish an article like this without heavily signposting that it's satire.

Just call it a modest proposal in the header and you're good, but it's not about reading comprehension when your satirical argument fits a pre-existing, 'Eat the bugs, you'll own nothing and be happy, look at the countries we have on the Human Rights Council' trend.
 
It's a stupid article one way or the other, almost nobody supports world hunger, unless your the NPK. It would be very fitting criticism of the NPK since that's literally in their playbook, but it's directed at capitalism, the thing that does feed people. But then it doesn't come off as transgressive if you attack the NPK, does it?

And then they pulled it, which sparks further belief that it was serious in its intent all along.

Out of touch all the way around.
I'm thinking it was pulled because someone Very Important took umbrage.

I don't think it's possible to assert clean water and food as a positive human right. A right is something that you basically have to back with "And if you fuck with this you'll get ultraviolence'd" or similar. There's really no such thing as an inalienable right, there are just rights that can be effectively asserted the moment someone looks at them crosseyed and everything else is "this is what we LET you have". Rights in general don't exist "just so" and to think they can is naive as fuck, because all it takes is one sufficiently powerful person/group of people to challenge it without sufficient pushback.

That said, people should not have their ability to procure such essential needs via fair labor, reasonable trade and such infringed upon, and there are certainly regimes that can, have and will do exactly that, usually for the very reasons he points out. It's not a capitalist vs. socialist thing like the author would probably like to believe.
 
If you strip away the concern creeping through and replace it with a much more self-congratulatory or celebratory tone in spots, this would actually be excellent satire. I suspect the author doesn't have it in him to go full monty on the biting satire. You can tell what he's going at, but it's like watching someone wind up for a punch and then flinch/pull a bit at the last second.
That's lefty satire in a nutshell tho
 
I'm sure this will become a white supremacist conspiracy theory that this article existed now just like UN Migrant Replacement is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrJokerRager
Well, the a former head of Nestle is on record as saying water isn't a basic human right so...

clean safe water is a product. people react to that statement like they believe you can stick a straw in the ground and drink. probably it's better for society for that particular product to be provided by the state but it costs money and requires expertise. someone is paying for it.
 
And they can't really take water away from you either because it falls regularly from the fucking sky. Obviously.

Fine replace it with the government saying you can't collect rainwater from your own roof to drink. There were several states with laws against it or discouraging it until recently. Then there were weird cases where property water rights also included rainwater.
It is illegal in all of the UK to collect rainwater.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: frozenrunner
The UN has a delusional understanding of their current level of trustworthiness if they think they can publish an article like this without heavily signposting that it's satire.

Just call it a modest proposal in the header and you're good, but it's not about reading comprehension when your satirical argument fits a pre-existing, 'Eat the bugs, you'll own nothing and be happy, look at the countries we have on the Human Rights Council' trend.
It's also THE FUCKING UN. What are they doing posting satirical article? On paper, they are meant to be a super serious organisation dealing with serious global issues, not the Onion. I know in actuality they are a joke and full of criminality, but don't say the quiet part out loud.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Next Task
And they can't really take water away from you either because it falls regularly from the fucking sky. Obviously.
According to several counties in Oregon, that rain water belongs to the county.

The aquifer water belongs to the county and to Nestle, who will drop taps in and lower the aquifer in order to ship the water to bottling plants. They will also put in pumps at the origin site of rivers, draining it, and lowering the level of the water to move water for their products.

The water doesn't belong to the people who it rains on.

It belongs to the county.
 
Back