not quite tongue in cheek- the author himself has asserted it was not satire- but it also wasn’t an advocacy FOR world hunger. A look at Kent’s past papers and his own words do not support an analysis that he is FOR world hunger or considers it a net positive.
I plan more detail in my reply to party05 below, but to put it one way… Kent is not saying world hunger is good- he’s pouting out who benefits from it and how. Apart of like how online tracking isn’t inherently good- arguably bad- but it DOES offer benefits and to understand how bad it is and why it is truly bad it helps to understand who is benefiting from it (in both cases generally wealthy corporations and governments mostly) and how that benefits them. If I just SAY the government is “spying on you” it sounds a bit like a crackpot theory. How are they spying on you? For what ends? So that is where detailing the “benefits” of online tracking are important- to prove my point and not just be a crazy person who might Be right.
holy crap so the UN deleted the article after social media backlash, but basically the article stated that while well-fed people have a greater capacity for physical and intellectual labor, people who are hungry or at risk of going hungry want it more, and accomplish more, seeking to improve their lot or at least stay afloat.
which is a touch of a toss up; can we honestly say that if we had everything we need we would care to work hard? and sure, people who are passionate about their jobs will say “yes, absolutely.” but what about your factory worker? what about your fast food employee? a resounding “fuck no” will be the reply, unless they carry some kind of ambition or goal towards moving up the ladder, so to speak. and damn, i’d agree completely.
but the flip side of this is, well, PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO GO HUNGRY. PERIOD. children should not have to know what it is to skip a meal and parents should not have to go without so their babies can eat. i’ve done that and fuck me it
(cont.) was so heartbreaking. i’m in a better place now, and moving up, and i sympathize with those who still have to make that sacrifice. so is there a kernel of truth to this? probably, but the article used it as a justification for shitty practices that allow for food deserts and prevailing hunger, and to that i say There Is No Justification For Making Kids Go Hungry If There Are Some Means To Feed Them.
and yes, i am using biased and specific examples to demonstrate my point, but i think it stands to reason that they are examples we all can agree on.
I want to first say I relate as someone who has lived with hunger before and am happy those days are behind you and hope they remain behind you- ideally that society can put those days behind everyone for good, even those not yet born. Now, I added some info in the post by cake lover but wanted to just cover it a bit here too.
Just to be clear, Kent isn’t advocating that it is right or good or should happen. He is essentially both “showing the work” for who benefits from world hunger and how (which implies that these entities are perhaps not super eager to end it as it benefits them…) and pointing out that our present global system and economics, as well as the ability of those in “developed countries” like much of Europe, the US, Canada, etc. can’t function and provide for us as they do without suffering. This is true in more ways than hunger. “Outsourcing” labor is one example and a double edged sword. While it often “costs jobs” domestically and moves them across borders, it doesn’t just lower costs for companies- it is how companies are able to offer goods and services at the rates they are. The paradox is- using America- many are outraged or upset by outsourcing and are largely opposed to laws and actions which further the process- BUT- as we see any time we deal with inflation, people lose their shit..
politicians and even national leaders are ousted often by voters pissed off when prices increase and they suddenly have less money to spend. Numerous papers of various levels of credibility have been written to show the likely costs of consumer goods if we relied entirely on domestic production and labor at established rates- which happen to already be unlivable for many- so the numbers go up if we raise wages and well- for many or most goods we are looking at a massive increase in out of pocket costs if we went to domestic production.
The point there is that the world we live in and the lifestyle we keep by majority RELIES on human suffering. We try to ouch the human and environmental costs over seas out of sight where we can more easily ignore them or feel secure that “at least is isn’t us…” but GLOBAL climate change is only effected in nuances when you take a “dirty” industry and move the factories from Pittsburg or Chicago to India or China etc.
the smog and air quality may…
.. improve in the area you moved the pollution away from- along with the general environmental condition or appearance, but 2 million tons of pollution into the atmosphere or ocean is 2 million tons. To be clear- WHERE matters to some degree because of biomes and such- but overall the net is the same. It’s a bit like a kid “cleaning their room” by shoving it all under the bed or in the closet. If no one goes there, everything looks awesome- but if your under bed or closet are stacked with Pizza boxes the roaches and ants still come even if it takes away Ike before you can see them from your “clean” room.
So that’s sort of the underlying point of the article- more that there are rich and powerful people who benefit from poverty and suffering, and that our system isn’t sustainable or built in a way that really even makes it possible to “be kind” to everyone. It is inherently exploitive. Most people in America- even those who consider themselves poor or are considered poor- are still a month the richest and highest material standard of life citizens of the globe. We don’t tend to think of ourselves as the “1% of wealth” as we struggle to make rent or mortgage or drive to work being passed by people in cars that cost more than our salary etc. compared to Jeff Bezos or Sly Stallone etc. we don’t feel rich- but the way we look at their wealth as insane and how they spend money and what they have can be compared to how a good chunk of the global population is relative to the “average” American.
I plan more detail in my reply to party05 below, but to put it one way… Kent is not saying world hunger is good- he’s pouting out who benefits from it and how. Apart of like how online tracking isn’t inherently good- arguably bad- but it DOES offer benefits and to understand how bad it is and why it is truly bad it helps to understand who is benefiting from it (in both cases generally wealthy corporations and governments mostly) and how that benefits them. If I just SAY the government is “spying on you” it sounds a bit like a crackpot theory. How are they spying on you? For what ends? So that is where detailing the “benefits” of online tracking are important- to prove my point and not just be a crazy person who might Be right.
which is a touch of a toss up; can we honestly say that if we had everything we need we would care to work hard? and sure, people who are passionate about their jobs will say “yes, absolutely.” but what about your factory worker? what about your fast food employee? a resounding “fuck no” will be the reply, unless they carry some kind of ambition or goal towards moving up the ladder, so to speak. and damn, i’d agree completely.
but the flip side of this is, well, PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO GO HUNGRY. PERIOD. children should not have to know what it is to skip a meal and parents should not have to go without so their babies can eat. i’ve done that and fuck me it
and yes, i am using biased and specific examples to demonstrate my point, but i think it stands to reason that they are examples we all can agree on.
The point there is that the world we live in and the lifestyle we keep by majority RELIES on human suffering. We try to ouch the human and environmental costs over seas out of sight where we can more easily ignore them or feel secure that “at least is isn’t us…” but GLOBAL climate change is only effected in nuances when you take a “dirty” industry and move the factories from Pittsburg or Chicago to India or China etc.
the smog and air quality may…