U.N. deletes controversial article titled 'The Benefits of World Hunger'

The official magazine of the United Nations, the U.N. Chronicle, recently deleted a controversial article titled “The Benefits of World Hunger” after it went viral on Twitter.

The article, originally published in 2008, was written by George Kent, a retired University of Hawaii political science professor. Now, the link to the article leads to an “error page” on the U.N. Chronicle’s website.  

Kent argues that hunger is “fundamental to the working of the world’s economy.”

“Much of the hunger literature talks about how it is important to assure that people are well fed so that they can be more productive,” Kent wrote.

“That is nonsense. No one works harder than hungry people. Yes, people who are well nourished have a greater capacity for productive physical activity, but well-nourished people are far less willing to do that work,” he added.

The U.N. deleted the article after it began circling on social media, causing outrage. The U.N. Chronicle said the article should not be taken literally and was only a work of parody.

“This article appeared in the UN Chronicle 14 years ago as an attempt at satire and was never meant to be taken literally. We have been made aware of its failures, even as satire, and have removed it from our site.”

In the face of looming food/energy shortages caused by disastrous climate policies, the UN says “Hungry people are the most productive people, especially where there is a need for manual labour.”

Yeah. Starvation does that.

Don’t worry. It’s good for you.https://t.co/cI7gFchtD8

— The Real Andy Lee Show (@RealAndyLeeShow) July 6, 2022

However, Kent has since argued that the article was not intended to be satire. Instead, he intended to be “provocative” by arguing that certain individuals and institutions benefit from world hunger, according to an interview with Climate Depot.

"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."

According to the Foundation for Economic Education, a careful reading of the article suggests that Kent is being literal when he claims that some people benefit from global 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?” Kent wrote in the controversial paper. “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.”