# World Hunger Benefits (George Kent) [Original title: The Benefits of World Hunger; deleted UN article]



## Creamu (Jul 7, 2022)

'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.

The Benefits of World Hunger

Wê 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 naive 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 imporranrly, 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 tor 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"J 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 he available to take the jobs ac low-pay rates?

Most of the world's farmers are small-scale. Their access to food is inadequate or precarious. If they can make a profit with farming, they can feed their families throughout the year and reinvest in their farms by purchasing fertilizer, better quality seed and basic equipment. Much of the hunger literarure 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, 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.'

-George Kent

http://www2.hawaii.edu/~kent/BenefitsofWorldHunger.pdf


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 16, 2022)

Creamu said:


> The Benefits of World Hunger


I am going to vomit. No seriously. Because so much of this is just straight wrong.


Creamu said:


> The Benefits of World Hunger


There is no benefits to world hunger to human beings. The only benefit, is that CEO's can deploy a starvation wage, and say that those workers aren't "working hard enough"
We littearlly need to be fed in order to do things. We don't run on magic energy, we need calories to sustain our bodies. Failure to sustain our bodies, destroys our bone tissue, and a whole host of other issues.  FFS people who are constantly starving are more likely to have chronic diseases like dibeaties and heart disease. Within you know, a country that's so back ass backwards, that it takes *six months* to get a depression appointment for a restock on medication for people. Or the fact that we _literately_ charge insulin. you know... The fucking drug needed to _exist_ for some people.



Creamu said:


> Much of the hunger literarure talks about how it is important to assure that people are well fed so that they can be more productive. That is nonsense.


Dude is fucking talking nonesense. I'm not even talking from a political perspective but just a straight up scientific one. Starvation can be very closely linked to low blood sugar.  Low blood sugar which effects a persons capability to work, such as increased anxiety, faster heart beat, dizziness. If it's not treated in time, you can start getting blurry vision, difficulty concentrating. OR WORSE *SEIZURES OR JUST COLLAPSING*
Starvation is also heavily linked to decrease muscle mass, since the body has to burn through the muscles in the body as energy first, and then will burn fat second. It decreases our productivity literately. There is no material gain from having starving.

starving people is not ethical. Period. And if it's not ethical? Then it's not a good thing.


Creamu said:


> How many of us would sell our services if it were not for the threat of hunger?


How many of us *don't* want to die.


Creamu said:


> 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?


this as close as a mask off moment I've ever seen.
Let me rephrase what he said. You the person, working under a corporation wouldn't harvest the *corporations* vegetables. Or scrub the CEO's toliet. So we need to _starve_ people to keep them working.
What does that tell you?

Because the thing is there are people who want to live their dreams. Some of those dreams can be mundane,
doing those exact jobs.
|
Not everyone wants to be at the top. But what do we have? The "essential workers" are treated like garbage, and told that their pay, isn't meant to be a living wage. That it's just a "starter" wage, and they should move higher up. Higher up like into the advertising department. Higher up like the manager department.  That proves that companies, don't care about the worker, no matter how essential they are. It's just that they can kick them down even harder, without retaliation. It also shows their priorities. The worker, even though they are doing an essential service, is paid worse, than the advertising department. Advertising itself, doesn't help human lives. Adverting doesn't put food or water in our bellies. Advertising doesn't build homes. Advertising can't construct roads or foundations. But that, that's one, of the many jobs payed better than workers.


Creamu said:


> The conventional thinking is that hunger is caused by low-paying jobs.


it is. He's going to go on and move the goal post. he even stated it himself.


Creamu said:


> 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.



Let's separate that sentence. Hunger is caused by low-paying wages because we try to keep a house over our head, along with food and water. Humans die exposed to the elements.
That part is simple, the other half? It's a misdirection.

Hunger doesn't create low paying jobs. It's a human need, it's physically incapable of acting on the world, it's not a special entity, it's just a state of being. We need food to sustain. It's capitalists, who create the low paying job, taking _*advantage*_ of those people's situation. But realize what that would have to mean. That would mean, someone who already had a ton of money to invest in those resources, someone who ALREADY was well fed, and towards the top of the system, *choose* to pay those people poorly. *Choose* to do nothing about it, until they realized they could profit off it.

This is a inhumane way to exist.

And nor is that impossible to feed everyone, and keep sustainable work. We already proved it.

11% of americans in 2020 (that's a lot. a 9% percent increase from 2019)  was food insecure.

How much food do we waste?
* 30-40 percent of the food supply*.

40%
Do you understand how much water goes into that? Do understand how much of that, could of been used to help others?
This is the part that pisses me off. Because every fucking captalist will say "donate to the poor. Don't be wasteful of _your_ food" Food waste is treated as individual problem. When in actuality?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...h-food-made-homeless-warning-volunteers-stop/

https://www.businessinsider.com/why-grocery-stores-throw-out-so-much-food-2014-10

This is a _manufactured _problem.

Created by the need to market these things, instead of actually feeding people. If a apple isn't as red as the pristine image is. It's thrown out. Even if there's no signs of bugs or pests, even if it's completely edible. It get's throw out.
Buissness insider blames consumers. I blame the advertisers. The companies who pushed that perfect image. Creating a problem that in our current time, shouldn't even exist. If we normalized variations in what food looks like. We wouldn't have this issue.
_but it's not marketable now isn't it?_


----------



## Creamu (Jul 20, 2022)

Thank you for your response.


Nothereed said:


> I am going to vomit. No seriously. Because so much of this is just straight wrong.
> 
> There is no benefits to world hunger to human beings. The only benefit, is that CEO's can deploy a starvation wage, and say that those workers aren't "working hard enough"
> We littearlly need to be fed in order to do things. We don't run on magic energy, we need calories to sustain our bodies. Failure to sustain our bodies, destroys our bone tissue, and a whole host of other issues.


I don't think technocrats care about these details.


Nothereed said:


> FFS people who are constantly starving are more likely to have chronic diseases like dibeaties and heart disease.


You have studies on this?


Nothereed said:


> Within you know, a country that's so back ass backwards, that it takes *six months* to get a depression appointment for a restock on medication for people. Or the fact that we _literately_ charge insulin. you know... The fucking drug needed to _exist_ for some people.


I don't think they care.


Nothereed said:


> Dude is fucking talking nonesense. I'm not even talking from a political perspective but just a straight up scientific one. Starvation can be very closely linked to low blood sugar.  Low blood sugar which effects a persons capability to work, such as increased anxiety, faster heart beat, dizziness. If it's not treated in time, you can start getting blurry vision, difficulty concentrating. OR WORSE *SEIZURES OR JUST COLLAPSING*


*What about ketosis?*


Nothereed said:


> Starvation is also heavily linked to decrease muscle mass, since the body has to burn through the muscles in the body as energy first, and then will burn fat second.


Source on this would be intersting as well.


Nothereed said:


> It decreases our productivity literately. There is no material gain from having starving.


Don't you think that being in starvation/survival mode is a motivator to work for food?


Nothereed said:


> starving people is not ethical. Period. And if it's not ethical? Then it's not a good thing.


That is if you are concerned with ethics.


Nothereed said:


> this as close as a mask off moment I've ever seen.
> Let me rephrase what he said. You the person, working under a corporation wouldn't harvest the *corporations* vegetables. Or scrub the CEO's toliet. So we need to _starve_ people to keep them working.
> What does that tell you?


That they care about themselves more than about others?


Nothereed said:


> Because the thing is there are people who want to live their dreams. Some of those dreams can be mundane,
> doing those exact jobs.
> |
> Not everyone wants to be at the top. But what do we have? The "essential workers" are treated like garbage, and told that their pay, isn't meant to be a living wage. That it's just a "starter" wage, and they should move higher up. Higher up like into the advertising department. Higher up like the manager department.  That proves that companies, don't care about the worker, no matter how essential they are. It's just that they can kick them down even harder, without retaliation. It also shows their priorities. The worker, even though they are doing an essential service, is paid worse, than the advertising department. Advertising itself, doesn't help human lives. Adverting doesn't put food or water in our bellies. Advertising doesn't build homes. Advertising can't construct roads or foundations. But that, that's one, of the many jobs payed better than workers.


Yes, merchants are higher status than workers in this system.


Nothereed said:


> it is. He's going to go on and move the goal post. he even stated it himself.
> 
> 
> Let's separate that sentence. Hunger is caused by low-paying wages because we try to keep a house over our head, along with food and water. Humans die exposed to the elements.
> ...


Yes but they need to have desperate people first. If you don't see the point working for that wage you won't do it.


Nothereed said:


> But realize what that would have to mean. That would mean, someone who already had a ton of money to invest in those resources, someone who ALREADY was well fed, and towards the top of the system, *choose* to pay those people poorly. *Choose* to do nothing about it, until they realized they could profit off it.


Yes they act in self interest.


Nothereed said:


> This is a inhumane way to exist.
> 
> And nor is that impossible to feed everyone, and keep sustainable work. We already proved it.
> 
> ...


But if you help them all they will reproduce and you will have to take care of even more people.



Nothereed said:


> Created by the need to market these things, instead of actually feeding people. If a apple isn't as red as the pristine image is. It's thrown out. Even if there's no signs of bugs or pests, even if it's completely edible. It get's throw out.
> Buissness insider blames consumers. I blame the advertisers. The companies who pushed that perfect image. Creating a problem that in our current time, shouldn't even exist. If we normalized variations in what food looks like. We wouldn't have this issue.
> _but it's not marketable now isn't it?_


You want the populus weak if you are an 'elite' of weak nerds yourself (and therefore without public recoginition). You also want to control growth and decline.


----------

