The article is neither satire nor advocating for world hunger. Its dryly explaining capitalism uses need to incentivize work. Hunger ensures there's no alterna

The article is neither satire nor advocating for world hunger. Its dryly explaining capitalism uses need to incentivize work. Hunger ensures there's no alternative for workers to participating in the economy. The author doesn't clearly state approval or disapproval, just lays it out there. For the UN this is a pretty radical position. Ending suffering, including hunger, is a major goal of the UN. Liberal capitalist democracies are the largest power-holders in the UN and to say that this system is not capable of solving hunger is to criticize these countries and admit that the UN as it exists is not capable of delivering on its promises. This is why the article was taken down.