Yesterday, an article published by the U.N. touting the benefits of world hunger (for the ruling elites) had caught my attention. As I read the article for myself, I anticipated it to wind up with “just kidding” or “this is sarcasm”.
The short essay concluded with no such indication, and came off as sincere advocacy for exploitation of the hungry. The article was originally published in 2008, but resurfaced at a time when global food shortages were anticipated.
As you might have expected, the moment the connected world took notice, it started trending. Then, the U.N. yeeted the article from their page, never to be seen or heard from again. Rest in peace, you beautiful bastard.
Just kidding. The article was archived, so you can still read it. Once something is on the internet, it’s up forever.
Consider what author George Kent had posted from the perspective of an employer. For many employers, particularly the unethical ones, it’s considered a dream come true when there are hundreds of applicants for each position, with each one willing to do the job for minimal compensation. I’ve seen a supervisor tell his crew as much.
Kent makes a point when he points out that there are exploitative relationships that aren’t legally classified as slavery. When a low-skill worker attempts to live off minimum wage, they usually have to endure whatever they have to with their employer, because they live hand-to-mouth, and can’t afford to miss a paycheck.
If this scenario hits close to home, perhaps the best advice I could give is to try to get into a skilled trade. A person could get into plumbing or masonry or what-have-you with relative ease by seeking out an apprenticeship, which is usually paid. If there is a career center near you, they might be able to set you up with an opportunity.
If you’re wondering whether the article was serious, here’s the U.N. on Twitter, assuring us that it was satire:
Oh, yes. Satire. Seems legit.
Does it really not occur to the U.N. that they’re central figures to conspiracy theories all over the world? Or that many people all over the world are literal-minded? Or that sarcasm is not carried very well with the written word, especially when something is translated (something that has a high potential of happening with their articles)?
Of course, when the article was first published (in current-year-minus-fourteen), the author likely didn’t anticipate that everyone would be on edge in the face of global food shortages.
But in an odd way, Kent may have provided us with a warning of exploitation that can be expected in the months to come. Those of us in the first world wouldn’t have it so bad, but things can get really nasty in places where food shortages were already a problem.
Don’t be hard on the author, as his article was written in a different time (and could have used more indication that it was satire).
But, in any case, food shortages are anticipated. Are you doing what you reasonably can to prepare?