Re:UN Deletes Article Titled ‘The Benefits of World Hunger.’...
by andsoitis on Friday August 05, 2022 @09:58AM
(#32356190)
Thanks.
The opening paragraph:
"We sometimes talk about hunger in the world as if it
were a scourge that all of us want to see abolished, view- ing it as comparable with the plague or AIDS. But that naive view prevents us trom 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."
I consider myself open-minded, but this introductory paragraph is outrageous if you consider what policies this would incentivize.
Re:UN Deletes Article Titled ‘The Benefits of World Hunger.’...
by franga2000 on Friday August 05, 2022 @05:54PM
(#32362411)
This is an accurate description of what IS happening in the world though. This opening is great. We DO need to come to grips with the fact some people benefit from it, or we will never be able to end it.
Re:UN Deletes Article Titled ‘The Benefits of World Hunger.’...
by advisedwang on Friday August 05, 2022 @12:51PM
(#32358709)
The article is neither satire nor advocating for world hunger.
Its dryly explaining capitalism uses need to incentivize work. Hunger ensures there's no alternative for workers to participating in the economy. The author doesn't clearly state approval or disapproval, just lays it out there.
For the UN this is a pretty radical position. Ending suffering, including hunger, is a major goal of the UN. Liberal capitalist democracies are the largest power-holders in the UN and to say that this system is not capable of solving hunger is to criticize these countries and admit that the UN as it exists is not capable of delivering on its promises. This is why the article was taken down.
Re:UN Deletes Article Titled ‘The Benefits of World Hunger.’...
by DangitBobby on Friday August 05, 2022 @11:29AM
(#32357560)
TFA quotes George Kent as saying it's not satire. The point was that there are people who benefit from others being hungry, that is Kent's position.
> “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?” Kent wrote. “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.”
Re:UN Deletes Article Titled ‘The Benefits of World Hunger.’...
by sobkas on Friday August 05, 2022 @11:09AM
(#32357237)
>the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule
But it doesn't use any of the above. It's just a factual description of conditions under which people enslaved by hunger live and how we* benefit from their misfortune. It's not even exaggeration, it downplays how much we* benefit from hunger.
*in general richer people(not rich, just richer than exploited masses)
Original UN Chronicle's article on site[0] and scan from printed magazine[1,pdf] archived.
[0] http://web.archive.org/web/20220330070452/https://www.un.org...
[1] https://shop.un.org/books/un-chronicle-v45-23-2008-40202
[pdf] http://www2.hawaii.edu/~kent/BenefitsofWorldHunger.pdf
The opening paragraph:
"We sometimes talk about hunger in the world as if it were a scourge that all of us want to see abolished, view- ing it as comparable with the plague or AIDS. But that naive view prevents us trom 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."
I consider myself open-minded, but this introductory paragraph is outrageous if you consider what policies this would incentivize.
Its dryly explaining capitalism uses need to incentivize work. Hunger ensures there's no alternative for workers to participating in the economy. The author doesn't clearly state approval or disapproval, just lays it out there.
For the UN this is a pretty radical position. Ending suffering, including hunger, is a major goal of the UN. Liberal capitalist democracies are the largest power-holders in the UN and to say that this system is not capable of solving hunger is to criticize these countries and admit that the UN as it exists is not capable of delivering on its promises. This is why the article was taken down.
https://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/commentary/un-to...
> “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?” Kent wrote. “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.”
But it doesn't use any of the above. It's just a factual description of conditions under which people enslaved by hunger live and how we* benefit from their misfortune. It's not even exaggeration, it downplays how much we* benefit from hunger.
*in general richer people(not rich, just richer than exploited masses)
1: a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
This is definitely a work holding people's vices and follies to scorn
"Kent said he was not writing sardonically"
Sardonic
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sardonic
"disdainfully or skeptically humorous"