Well, just be careful what you say. Maligning food can land you in court in some states.
useless post number 1
Ryan: SpazDude cannot be taken seriously.
Vegetarian is best for all, since it uses less resources.
Grain to feed 10 people creates enough beef to feed one.
Same with large fish eating fish. Vegetarian fish, like talapia, also have less bio stored chemicals.
Fish to feed 10 people create enough tuna to feed one person.
From each according to their needs…
Billy, your argument would only hold water if we were running out of resources to grow food. However, the midwest alone can grow enough food, now, to feed the world easilly. They are actually made to cut back by the government, and paid not to farm their entire land to keep prices from dropping to far. This makes your argument for vegetarianism moot.
As for the original question, why must it be a choice? Why not buy local organic? And if it were a choice, I’d say that locally grown can’t possibly feed entire cities everything they need. The climates are too different, not enough space, etc. I would also say organic farms pollute way less than the gas used to get the food to you. Either choice, however, is a fine one.
the rest of the world STARVES!!!
WHAT!! You’re saying it’s a USA gov’t conspiracy to PAY farmers to insure that the rest of the world STARVES!!!
WOW!!
And by the way, corn is fast replacing wheat throughoput the midwest, and not for food.
Corn for FUEL!! For your SUV!!!
Star Wars the movie writers and producers plagurized their theme. They need to be brought to justice.
.
sneetches.bmp (539 KB)
Amen, brother! That’s my paycheck!
No more spinich for me…
.
For those of you who are not aware, Yoops runs a plant where they take corn and turn it into fuel. Ethanol.
OR they are giving 3. world farmers a better chance to sell their products without being underbid.
But, yes, all in all there’s enough food to go around, so that isn’t why people are starving.
Useful fuel instead of surplus wheat. Since the starving children wouldn’t have gotten any of that wheat, it doesn’t do any harm.
Why can’t the starving children get the surplus wheat??!
Surplus means no one else needs it!
I don’t get it!
and a lot of 3rd world don’t have the climate, soil and water for wheat.
Surplus doesn’t mean no one needs it. I have surplus funds in my bank account, albeit a very small surplus, but that doesn’t mean I don’t need it. I save for when I will need it.
We have surplus players on the bench during a game. It’s called depth.
They wouldn’t because they can’t affort it. If we wanted to hand out food, we already have a surplus each year to take from. There’s already enough food, the problem is getting it to the right people. Making fuel from corn doesn’t change that.
That movie had really corny jokes.
Darth Tader was pretty cool, though.
Of course the benefit of non-organic food is that the chemicals choke all of the frogs out.
But I’ll defer to Billy; Mass produced meat isn’t a rational model of production for the United States. It’s a wasteful delegation of resources. And at least in Virginia, meat farms are the primary sources of water pollution for the entire Chesapeke Bay watershed: A constant production capacity of 5000 hogs confined to a small acreage of land, producing waste products on a day to day basis, will leech into the water supply without any natural dissapation and certainly be detrimental.
Hold on buddy, there is an important point that you are missing. TO BILLY AND EVERYONE ELSE WHO THINKS THE WORLD IS STARVING BECAUSE THERE ISN’T ENOUGH FOOD: YOU ARE WRONG!
It’s politics, not supply. We could easilly feed the starving nations of the world with what is possible to grow in the the united states and possibly the midwest. Not organicaly, of course, because yield is too low, but we could do it using conventional farming. We don’t because it’s simply not that easy. Firstly, that would involve giving away all the food, which is impossible. Farming isn’t cheap. Secondly, the governments of those starving nations profit and remain in power by controlling the necessities of life. They won’t let us feed their people. (see warlords stealing aid supply in somalia) etc. The fact is that the United States is growing far less food that it could grow, simply because if they grew more they’d saturated the market and go out of business. The starving people of the world aren’t even in this market, because their leaders won’t let them, and because they don’t have any money. Fix the politics, then feed them. Until then don’t f*ck with agriculture (except make it less polluting), and any vegetarian arguments using this theme are null and void.
Also, Billy, did you forget that I lived in Iowa for about 26 years? They grow soybeans and corn there, and they could grow much more. Corn is a GREAT gasoline alternative. It’s renewable and we have way more than we need. Why not? Btw, I’ve never seen a wheatfield in Iowa. Some alfalfa, but not wheat.
It’s true. The USA will kill and bomb innocent victims of a dictator regime to get oil, but never to feed people or save them from genocide.
BTW, even using corn for fuel is not economical, because it’s still relying on the combustion engine, and outdated idea.
Feed the people!!!
Whatever John Robbins.
Now you really are pushing my buttons. Name one country that is MORE generous as a Nation than the United States of America.