I guess I miscommunicated the thrust of my argument. It seems to me that the paradox presented in the linked article hinges on an assumption that "nobody wants"

I guess I miscommunicated the thrust of my argument. It seems to me that the paradox presented in the linked article hinges on an assumption that "nobody wants" there to be suffering. This seems flawed to me. There are plenty of people - some of whom are in positions of great power - who are content to generate a large degree of suffering in order to advance personal goals. This is currently very clear in Ukraine and Gaza. But it applies equally well to people that drive shady mergers and acquisitions at the cost of the consumer, or people that push drugs at the cost of addicts' health and relationships. It's not "nobody wants this", but "sufficiently many people are sufficiently apathetic to continue this state of affairs".