The article is actually decently well written good-faith satire meant to address how poverty and hunger are inherent to capitalism as a system. The title was just too bold lol
You must log in or register to comment.
So he’s not defending/promoting “world Hunger”, just arguing that it’s not a bug but a feature developed to have cheap labor, and that the people in power don’t want to end it
Sounds good at a glance, but when you look at the way he reaches that conclusion (that the threat of hunger is the only reason people are willing to work), and his solution (for a class of “intellectuals” like him to take charge) however, are just neoliberal swill…
Maybe they should build a city in the ocean where these intellectuals have full control. Maybe experiment with some cool drugs.
Sounds positively Rapturous
Would you kindly come join us?
Lmfao, I’d pay to watch them descend in to chaos as they insist on ranking each other by importance or whatever arbitrary measure of superiority they choose, because they simply can’t function otherwise, until they all end up dead from refusing to “lower” themselves to cooperate with “inferiors”.
There’s an event coming up in November you’re really going to enjoy.
If only… But I suspect whatever happens in November, it isn’t going to be pleasing at all (to me as an anarchist, anyway), especially because it isn’t themselves they consume, like the hypothetical “intellectuals” on the desert island would, but the rest of us, and those most vulnerable first.
I imagine the UN wouldn’t let an author publish something that calls for revolution though lol
Sure, but they shouldn’t be publishing this garbage either.
That would be the first time the UN actually did anything.
This is such a clickbait, and it backfired.
The actual point conveyed in the article is that world hunger is beneficial for the rich as it allows to operate sweatshops and employ people under tyrannical conditions over low pay, which is not far from modern slavery. Which is super bad for everyone else, hence world hunger must be stopped and rich should get the taste of their own medicine.
But people did react to the headline, and possibly rightfully so.
Well i didnt read the article but it depends on the framing. Is he defending the capitalist status quo? If yes then he can go die of hunger imo. If the article points out that rich people benefit from hunger and that this is in fact bad, then thats cool.
He does directly state the latter.
Here’s an archived version of the article, courtesy to TheDarkQuark@lemmy.world:
What a self own with the title then. Should have changed it to “The beneficiaries of world hunger”
That’d be a banger title actually. Nice job! The concept of “benefitting from world hunger” is still bizarre enough for a doubletake, but doesn’t instantly piss off 99% of potential readers by headline alone lol.
Decided not to stir it, probably
Deleted
Deleted
Yeah I’m pretty sure the title was a bit of a tragic, click-baity, foot-gun. Lol
Removed by mod
On duty
Before you have an opinion on it, just read the article, it’s just one page. https://www2.hawaii.edu/~kent/BenefitsofWorldHunger.pdf
The UN really shot themselves in the foot by deleting it, because the title only looks bad if you don’t actually read the rest of the text, which they now made more difficult.
I edited my post 👍
No, the text is pretty fucked, too
The text is only fucked the the way that The Onion sticks are fucked: this is only labeled satire because of the tone of the article. The content is as true as “real” news.
The actual “fucked” content is that the author was correct, and that the wealthy benefit from hunger and the threat of starvation to maintain access to abundant cheap labour.
It’s fucked that the author appears to support such an arrangement…
It’s satire. The author is pointing out how morally reprehensible it is, using irony.
that’s not satire. He unironically, disapprovingly, argues that this is the real state of the world.
Ii is the real state of the world, but I don’t see any disapproval in the text.
FEE is an American Libertarian think tank.
Let that help you figure out what’s actually happening here.
deleted by creator
Well, he’s not wrong about hunger being an intended part of capitalism so workers are coerced into working for even less pay.
Calling it a “benefit” is very clickbaity though.
I mean some people are benefiting from it
The article is NOT satire – it’s provocative. The author argues that world hunger benefits the rich. Capiche?
I hope the UN restores the article.
Interview with author: https://fee.org/articles/un-deletes-article-titled-the-benefits-of-world-hunger-was-it-real-or-satire/
Read that fee article as well and it seems like the author just stated, that certain institutions benefit from world hunger.
In the interview, Kent explains he was not advocating global hunger but was intending to be “provocative” by saying certain individuals and institutions benefit from global hunger.
“No, it is not satire,” Kent told Marc Morano, founder and editor of Climate Depot. “I don’t see anything funny about it. It is not about advocacy of hunger.”
It doesn’t look like he’s advocating for global hunger, but criticizing those who do benefit from it
“No one works harder than hungry people”
While this is probably true, the problem is that their reward for this hard work in no way comes close to fixing their hunger problem.
Meanwhile the assholes in control of the economy and responsible for their hunger problem are taking all the rewards and hoarding it for no better reasons than to compare with other assholes.
To quote the article in question (highlight is my own):
“[H]ow 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.”
So is the title “the benefit of world hunger” more of a cynical title, then? Or is it actually making an argument in favor of world hunger for the benefit of our economy?
Both. It’s satire.
The “benefit” of world hunger is that it keeps people locked in their place and entrenches the status quo. This is actually true, and the author believes it, but he doesn’t like it.
Many people benefit from world hunger though, and every time you hear that poverty is a hard problem to solve you should ask yourself, how much of that is actual problems and how much is the status quo resisting change?
It’s an ironic title. Like saying “A benefit of loosing your legs is that you don’t need to buy shoes anymore. I mean I can’t get down the stairs to leave my apartment, but at least I never have to shop for shoes again!”.
The benefit is real, but it’s also clearly not in proportion to the drawbacks presented, so focusing on the benefit is a joke.
No one works harder than people whose lives are threatened [for example, by starvation] and they are working to not die.
The logical conclusion of this is that we should bring back slavery and extermination camps because that’s how you maximize the efficiency from of humans. /s (obviously)
Yo I see this shit posted all the time. The article was written in 2008 for the UNs magazine and meant to be satire. It has since been removed by the UN for being ambiguous.
https://communist.red/the-benefits-of-world-hunger-un-blurs-the-line-between-satire-and-reality/
Yeah I posted this and went to bed without ever looking for the article. Made an edit that should federate soon enough acknowledging this
He calls it “not satire” but “provocative”. So he doesn’t mean it, but says it to provoke a reaction… Like satire.
This just feels like either
A. He doesn’t fully get what satire is and assumes it has to be lighthearted or
B. He’s using “provocative” to basically mean “clickbait, but I’m too pretentious to call it that”
Yeh it’s pretty clearly not sincere in voice. Seems like by saying ‘not satire’ they’re trying to avoid people thinking they mean the content of what the article describes isn’t sincerely true, but given how it’s written, it’s hard to conclude the author cheering on from the sidelines. Te nonchalance and unaffected language when discussing a travesty seems pretty clearly to be a device used for effect which frankly is pretty close to what gets called satire.
Contending that it was what, assholes?
OP really should have just linked the article:
The article:
Thanks!
deleted by creator
In a sense he is right, since more people without work means more people you can employ in a new business, it’s just that this makes the case that our economy is organized in a bad way rather than that poverty is good.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
