From the UN: 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.
Note: This article was up at the time of publication but the link now returns a 404. We regret any inconvenience.
Makes me pine for the good old days of foraging, when we we could just lay around with grapes and BBQ wildebeest dropping like magic into our open mouths.Report
This argument logically leads to the conclusion that we must institute a maximum wealth limit, so as to keep people hungry and productive.
I’m not saying I like the conclusion.
I’m just finding the logic hard to counter.Report
If the end result of the line of thought is insane then one or more of the underlying assumptions probably were.Report
I think the term “Galaxy Brain” is what the kids are calling it nowadays.Report
The maximum wealth limit in this case would need to be at something the Khmer Rogue would like. This isn’t an argument I’d make at this time.Report
I can’t think the cause of anti-capitalism has been put better. Hunger is good because it provides a cheap source of labour which increases the wealth of a few. Are we all doormats for a few billionaires.Report
Problem #1:
This was a strawman presentation/argument by an anti-capitalist.
Problem #2:
One of the hallmarks of the countries which have gotten rid of capitalism is famine and starvation.Report
Problem #3:
Capitalist countries have largely eliminated hunger: either directly, by creating opportunities for the poor to accumulate wealth, or indirectly, by being so successful at creating wealth that they can help the truly disadvantaged through charitable works.
Problem 4:
The idea of relatively cheap labor isn’t dependent on the existence of hunger.Report
I can’t think the cause of anti-capitalism has been put better.
A harsh but fair appraisal of the intellectual prowess of the anti-capitalist movement.Report
Worth reading the whole piece. Here is the concluding paragraph:
“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.”
The argument isn’t “Hunger is good.” The argument is “Hunger existing for some benefits others. And what is why it persists.” He may be right and he may be wrong on those points but I think a closer reading of the whole piece reveals he isn’t actually advocating for hunger as an inherent good. That said, when you leave yourself so open to misinterpretation or misrepresentation, you can’t really cry foul when that then follows.Report
Good to know it isn’t the stupid thing I assumed.
That is could so plausibly be a serious argument is revealing.Report
It is exactly the stupid thing I assumed. It was pretty obvious from the excerpt quoted in the original post. “Capitalism requires poverty to function” is a talking point I see from economically illiterate leftists all the time.Report
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/aaaahReport
Part of the problem, of course, is that this is written on the official UN site.
If it were on modestproposal.blogspot.com, it’d be unremarkable.Report
Well, yes and no. This is an article in their online magazine, “The Chronicle.” It is not an official policy position or anything like that.
The Chronicle describes itself as: “[T]he “magazine of the United Nations”, the UN Chronicle featured in-depth articles submitted by United Nations officials, international experts and policy-makers, as well as representatives of non-governmental organizations and civil society from all parts of the world.”
So, this isn’t really “From the UN” but rather is from George Kent who wrote it back in 2009 and submitted it to The Chronicle which did indeed publish it.
I agree it’s a bad look by the UN. I’m not surprised that people are up in arms about it.
But, with the benefit of more information, I think we can all put our own arms down… no?
Here is more on the topic: https://www.opindia.com/2022/07/article-describing-benefits-of-world-hunger-published-by-the-un-goes-viral/Report
It is now not there at all.Report
I guess the UN cancelled him.Report
See it as “accountability”.Report
Some ideas just can’t be tolerated.Report
(In case anyone doesn’t know)
“A Modest Proposal” is a 1729 “solution” (actually satire) for fixing poverty. He spends the first third of the piece laying out the problem in a serious way and then shifts to suggesting (n the same tone) the poor sell their children to the rich to be eaten.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_ProposalReport
No one with a 6th grade or higher level of reading comprehension could have read the whole article and believed it was sincere.Report
Link doesn’t work.Report
It did a few minutes ago. If this is “blowing up”, they probably took it down.Report
I’ve added a note to the bottom of the post.Report
I don’t know how long it’ll stay up, but here’s a copy:
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~kent/BenefitsofWorldHunger.pdfReport
Author: 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.Report
Concluding Paragraph:
For those of us at rhe 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 assetReport
There is no idea so stupid that you can’t find at least one university professor advocating it.Report
There are some ideas that the author of “Freedom from Want: The Human Right to Adequate Food” wouldn’t advocate. But if you’re referring to the clunky socialist formulations implied in the article’s satire, then we can agree.Report
I stand by my original assertion. Make some idiotic suggestion, left or right, and with enough time and digging one can find a pointy headed academic, left or right, advocating it in all seriousness.Report
That may be true, although I’m not sure if you could in this case. But there was no way this professor was serious about this argument on that site. It doesn’t pass the sniff test. And look, we’ve all commented on things without a moment’s thought, but that’s not the same thing as someone saying that this article holds up to a moment’s thought.Report
His argument is the (rich) world finds it useful to keep the poor world hungry. He’s written a book spelling that out.
I can’t tell if this is “the rich are evil (we need socialism)” in addition.Report
I think he’s on the other side. He’s suggesting that the world doesn’t want to solve world hunger because of it’s effect on the rich world’s labor force.Report
His book (or a thumbnail review of it): http://press.georgetown.edu/book/georgetown/freedom-wantReport
I’m not 100% sure anyone here read the article and took it seriously.Report
I’m pretty sure the OP intended to present it as a serious article.Report
I intended to present it as an article posted on the official UN website.
I was told that it was only *KINDA* posted on the UN website.Report
Did you:
A) Think it was a serious article that told us something about the UN
B) Think it was a satirical article that told us something about the
C) Something else
Also, did you read the whole thing before posting it?Report
I didn’t think that it was satirical as much as being dark “AF”, as the kidz say, in service to the point that the wealthy benefit from poverty because it provides, among other things, cheap labor.
I don’t think that it was arguing on behalf of world hunger. But, like, “A Modest Proposal” was satire. This? This was just shining a bright light on an exceptionally unpleasant truth.
I read the whole thing before posting it.
It was on the UN.org site, if I recall correctly.Report
Let me ask this then: Why did you choose to share this article and why did you choose the excerpt that you did?
Based on everything I’ve seen here, I can’t help but think on some level you were trying to reflect poorly on the UN, as an organization that promotes world hunger.
But if you intended something else, please enlighten me.Report
I thought that the article was risible as heck.
As for the excerpt, it was the first three paragraphs. Those are usually a good choice for any given excerpt. Make people hungry for more, if you will.
I do think that the article reflects poorly on the UN. I imagine that the UN removed it because they agree on that point.Report
Poe’s Law says that this is a serious proposal advocated by someone.
My money would be on CATO or Reason or AEI as the usual suspects.Report
God, it’s adorable when non-economist academics think that they’re qualified to comment on economics.Report
It took me an evening of thinking about this to realize I’d missed the most interesting thing in the thread. The leftward side was far more likely to have treated the original article as serious than the rightward side.
I see two possible reasons. One is that it’s a lot easier to spot someone parodying your own ideas than your opponents. The other is Haidt’s observation that liberals don’t understand conservative arguments as well as conservatives understand liberal arguments. One of his experiments involved liberals and conservatives trying to answer as the other. Liberals were twice as likely to fail.Report
The UN article is pure cynicism. It was not intended as an apologetic for rich people. Still, the critical piece of economics is glossed over in the article: most people are poor and work for food because that is what our current civilization needs–a bunch of low-skilled, unintelligent slaves to do the yucky jobs. The Star Trek Civilization (everyone is smart and engaged in science jobs) is a pipe dream, and even if attainable, it would require a systematic or cataclysmic culling of billions of existing, untrainable serfs. Sure, we someday might automate all yucky jobs, but then what do we do with the billions of untrainable serfs who would then have no jobs? Feed them anyway? Maybe. Poison their free food and depopulate. More likely. Eventually, though, yes, a reengineered population would have higher IQs and invent an economy that sustains 100% intellectual endeavors. But no one really thinks this will ever happen, and it’s not just because of the catch-22 of being stuck for thousands of years in the work-4-food paradigm. This paradigm exists in no small part due to despots’ love of enslaving people which they love at least as much as mass-murdering people. And despots, like the poor, will always be with us!Report
As I’ve implied in earlier comments, this is really bad. Yes, I understand that it’s facetious. Yes, I understand the point he’s actually trying to make, and that’s the thing that I’m saying is stupid.
This is essentially a riff on the old canard that capitalism needs an underclass to function. This simply isn’t true. It’s hard to know where to start explaining why this is wrong, but the gist of it is that as long as they’re allowed to, prices will adjust as needed for a market to clear. If there aren’t enough people picking strawberries at current strawberry-picking wages, strawberry prices and strawberry-picking wages will rise until the quantity of strawberries demanded equals the quantity supplied. Strawberries may become rarer and more expensive, but the economy will keep on chugging along just fine. Maybe more money will be invested in automating strawberry picking, if that’s something that can be economically achieved.
Hypothetically, it’s possible for labor markets to clear even if everyone has the exact same talents and opportunity. Things would look very different in such a world (e.g. janitors would probably get paid more than software engineers, since every janitor has the ability to become a software engineer and has to be paid enough to do janitorial work instead), but the economy would still function just fine.
Another major error here is the claim that hungry people are especially productive. In fact, hungry people have very low productivity, which is why they’re hungry. If they became more productive, their labor would be more expensive, true, but they would also be more productive, which means that employers and consumers would get more in return for higher wages. Note, as a sanity check, that as global rates of malnutrition have fallen, standards of living have continued to rise in wealthy countries.
Of course, it is true that people work longer hours in less wealthy countries, but a) the difference is fairly modest, and b) this is offset by lower productivity. So, again, hungry people do not actually produce more than well-fed people, even if they work more.
Also worth noting that a global shortage of cheap labor would stimulate investment into automation technology, resulting n further improvements in productivity.
Up until now I’ve been assuming that if hunger is to be alleviated, it’s to be alleviated through productivity enhancements that allow people in poverty to earn higher market incomes. It is plausible that many people would work somewhat less if they were simply given food as charity. This would slightly lower standards of living in wealthy countries (especially if wealthy countries were providing the charity), but it certainly wouldn’t be disastrous, and the hardest-hit would be the lower classes in wealthy countries, not the upper classes.
If you wanted to make a case that people in wealthy countries benefit from the failure of poor countries to develop without coming off as a total idiot, the best approach would probably be the natural resources/global warming angle. If the whole world were consuming energy at the same rate as the US, or even Europe, this would rapidly accelerate global warming and the exhaustion of energy stores. On the other hand, it would also accelerate the development of alternative energy sources.
I haven’t thoroughly addressed all of his points, but there’s the BS asymmetry principle for you. It would take dozens of pages to really lay out in detail why this one page of nonsense is so wrong.Report
The US is the richest country, we have so little hunger that the goal posts have to be moved to “good food” or “food deserts” in order to find things to do for activists.Report
I used to think that the lack of mental competence required to read and interpret a written essay was selective, people intentionally affecting an inability to comprehend metaphor when deployed in service of non-progressive-liberal concepts so as to declare the work in question dismissible on moral-transgression grounds rather than deserving of intellectual engagement.
After this, I’m not so sure. Maybe there’s a lot of dudes who are just dumb.Report
Also available from the web archive where you can post links and they’ll make a copy online accessible for everyone from their archive. Good to know and use.
You can also track web page changes there, which gives interesting insights too.Report
Here’s the link: http://web.archive.org/web/20220319030933/https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/benefits-world-hunger
Here’s the site: http://web.archive.org/Report