The redneck strike again.

[The Grand Nudger]

Unless the extra food is actually being sent to hungry people, then there's definitely unnecessary food production. You could cut all the food production involved in keeping Americans obese, and that would have a total of zero effect on already-starving families around the world.

Actually, benny, that would impoverish yet more people. The people that grow that food. Impoverished people have a habit of being slightly less than well-fed.

Yes, that's right. But if you're feeding the beans to fatten up a cow, then you get the double whammy. I doubt cows eat beans, though-- so lets say corn and wheat.

Already been handled in this thread, but I don't mind repeating myself. Corn for cattle is not corn fit for human consumption. The areas in which those two very different commodities can be grown and the manner in which they are grown is vastly different. Land that can't handle production for human consumption is very often used to produce feed. They aren't competitors, they're collaborators.

Probably not, because those starving mouths have no money. But at least it would minimize the animal suffering and minimize our impact on our OWN environment to a degree.

People actually starve with money in their pockets. It's an issue of energy, logistics, and incentive for producers, processors, and shippers. For instance, it;s corn that;s fattening us up, and corn is probably the only thing that we could realistically send to those people...but we'd just be consuming more energy (read: oil) causing more environmental damage (because:energy) while exporting our health issues to people who are already suffering. A 5 year old just might come up with an idea like that - but I'd put her silly ass in the corner for suggesting it.

Meanwhile, the producers would just raise the price of food for the american consumer...they wouldn't produce less of it - they can't, they would just find some other stream to plug into. Like animal byproducts, or biofuels.

I don't think there are good moral reasons, because that idea leads straight into circular thinking-- what's a good way to decide what's good?

I'll rephrase for you. The justifications you've offered for your moral stance are non-factual. They are misconceptions. Any justification that flows from misconceptions isn't a very good one - even if your moral stance is.

Let me ask you this-- would you speak up or even campaign for the rights of black people, given your current stance on human morality? I'm guessing you would. Almost all white people have accepted that non-white people belong under the umbrella of protection offered by the extension of moral ideas. Do you think Southerners ever talk about this extension with the term "high horse?" You bet!

The fact is that if you see reason to draw someone (or something) under that moral umbrella, you have a duty to pursuade others to do so as well-- otherwise, why did you adopt the more in the first place?

-and if you want to persuade people, it helps not to get caught with your pants down. I'm an activist. I actually sell other people on the idea of activism. I want to reduce the suffering of animals, the damage done to our environment, the hunger and suffering we experience. But I actually have to overcome the very objections you've offered, entirely vacuous objections..... to successfully do so. Let that sink in.