TFA quotes George Kent as saying it's not satire. The point was that there are people who benefit from others being hungry, that is Kent's position.

> “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. “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.”

>the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule

But it doesn't use any of the above. It's just a factual description of conditions under which people enslaved by hunger live and how we* benefit from their misfortune. It's not even exaggeration, it downplays how much we* benefit from hunger.

*in general richer people(not rich, just richer than exploited masses)

Your link clearly mentions that the author did not mean it as satire.

From the article

"Kent said he was not writing sardonically"

Sardonic

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sardonic

"disdainfully or skeptically humorous"

The author confirms that it was not.

the links says it's not satire.