No they call it Sequel Server

I honestly kind of like the title and the angle of being brutally honest about the fact that the author (like most who are well off) actually benefit a lot from world hunger. That’s an important point, not because we should support world hunger, but because if we are to tackle it we must be willing to lower our standard of living.

To quote the article in question (highlight is my own):

“[H]ow 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.”

Before you have an opinion on it, just read the article, it’s just one page. https://www2.hawaii.edu/~kent/BenefitsofWorldHunger.pdf

The UN really shot themselves in the foot by deleting it, because the title only looks bad if you don’t actually read the rest of the text, which they now made more difficult.

It does explain those things! I quote:

“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.”

The title is clearly thinly veiled satire and a pointed reminder that our current wealth is founded on the suffering of the poor.

Just read the article, it’s one page. https://www2.hawaii.edu/~kent/BenefitsofWorldHunger.pdf

But I’m sure George Kent, author of “Freedom from Want: The Human Right to Adequate Food” is actually a shill for wealthy scum.

Imagine if China, Taiwan or Korea would start doing this shit. Or maybe they already have! Maybe the device you are reading this on would explode in the event of war!

The US doesn’t even recognize the authority of the internation war crime tribunal, you really think they (or any other superpower) would accept binding arbitration in matters of international relations?

I’m still pissed at being forced to write in a passive voice in university. It’s awkward and carries less information, and makes it seem like nobody had any agency, science just kind of happened on its own and you were there to observe it.

I don’t know why anyone would prefer something like “An experiment was conducted and it was found that…”

To the much better “We conducted an experiment and found…”

It’s only 7.4% if you’re discounting the large service sector and looking only at goods (which may be what people mean by “exports”, idk). That’s why our numbers differ, it’s 4.2% of all exports, and 7.4% of exported goods.

Oil and gas products account for 4.2% of Sweden’s exports. The gas exports alone almost rival those of dairy and eggs! Truly a petrostate if I ever saw one

Are you perhaps thinking of a different country?