You aren’t looking very hard. See the Jewish Encyclopedia entry for Ascetism.
That’s a myth.
I said, almost didn’t I? The Bhagavad Gita says it, Buddhism says it, and St. Paul says it. I think that covers three of the top four religions in the world and mor than half of the population of the world. 
What about potatoes?
I always thought it was bull because of the reasons given. Surely birds eat rice in the wild. Didn’t think to check out Scopes.
Rice is a commodity that keeps well in the pantry and people should stock enough so that minor shortages are not a problem. It’s human nature to hourd food and the constant barrage of news stories about rice will certainly make it worse.
Ironically I was thinking of stocking up on rice earlier this year but now that it’s gone up in price I will use what I have and replace it later in the year.
There’s no stortage of rice in the United States. There’s a surplus when measured against domestic demand - as usual. The cost of rice here is almost as cheap as our bottled water. It’s the cost in poor countries that’s causing the problems and the debate here.
Except that in the case of the current food crisis, it’s not the issue. The problem isn’t that the rice can’t reach the people in need due to war, crisis, etc… It’s that rice (along with other “basic foods”) has reached prices that make it unaffordable for those people for whom food already represented, say, 66% of the budget. In other words, it’s an actual food shortage on a global level, something I hadn’t heard of since maybe the late 70s, not a localized crisis related to local events, something we are unfortunately quite accustomed to.
Ethically? Hmm… we indeed probably shouldn’t go to the movies when people are starving in Africa.
If there’s some sort of brigh future ahead, I’m pretty sure that our generations of fat, self-indulgent, wealthy westerners who watched people starving on evening news before going to the movies won’t be fondly remembered. Our great-great grandchildren will wonder how we could possibly have been so greedy, cold-hearted, and indifferent to the sufferings we had in plain view. I’d rather not be asked then and have to justify myself 
Nope. Even though it might be right in the long term (people eat less meat, so eventually more land is used to grow cereals, which is, indeed a better use of land if what you want is maximizing food production) it certainly doesn’t help in the short term, where the allocation of land to meat or grain production can’t be changed overnight, and the existing stocks of rice and meat won’t magically increase or decrease.
More correctly, people should eat more meat now, so that the availability of rice, cereals, etc… would increase and their price would decrease in the short term, and less meat after the crisis so that land currently used to grow cattle would be used for the more productive grain farming.
If the only variables we’re allowed to take into account are the productions of meat vs grain/rice, that is. And if we assume that this crisis is accidental and not structural (in which case, it’s better to eat rice and let people starve for some time, indeed )
In reality, the best way to help now is probably to donate money.
Rice is a world commodity product and will rise in price accordingly. You are correct that the United States produces enough rice to cover consumption within it’s borders. But if the Japanese are willing to pay more then guess where American rice will head?
Cosco and Sam’s are already limiting the amount people can purchase.
The USA is not only a net exporter of rice, but one of the largest exporters of rice in the world. Any consumption by me of USA-grown rice has little to no impact on the world stage. I have no knowledge of how rice imported into the USA impacts the price of rice around the world.
As for any impact upon the poor in the USA, I would like to see figures as to rice consumption by America’s poor. My WAG is that America’s poor don’t have rice as a regular staple in their diet.
Ethically, I do what I can to help others who do not have whatever advantages I may possess. But I also know that there are haves and have nots in the world, including here in America, and no matter how much effort I inject into the mix, individually or with others, that concept will never change.
Real change will not come from me choosing not to consume rice. Real change can only happen if I can convince politicians to do the right thing, right now. In this election year where they are in it for themselves, and barring anything short of a catastrophe that impacts the elites in America and their pocketbooks, nothing will change.
It’s naive to assume you can discuss the world food condition without discussing economics and politics, two intertwined factors which help determine the pricing of agricultural products.
Nor does it make sense to ask about the ethics of one agricultural product without discussing it in context of world and local economic and political situations.
This is not an artificially simplified world where having X number of Americans reduce rice consumption by Y tons a year, which would reduce prices correspondingly in Bangladesh.
The Economist article cited above list two of the factors in increased prices as follows
Perhaps a better question would be if it is ethical to allow China and India to become richer, as that is a greater factor in the rising prices.
Is China’s one-child-only policy ethical?
Yes. They have a significant problem with an explosive population.
Truth! I saw one picture of some guy on fire! When it comes to exploding people, we really should think of the children! [/drive-by]
Must be all that rice.
If you’re feeling guilty about buying that bag of rice - buy 2 bags, and donate the second one to your local food bank
And your local food bank will give the money to local people. How is this ethical?
Im not necessarily on board with the OP, but I want clarification on the basic question: If there were a sharp drop in rice consumption in the US, and they replaced it in their diets not with other grains that are heavily traded in global commodities markets but with stuff like potatoes and fresh produce, would domestic rice suppliers then dump their excess rice on the global markets, resulting in lower prices in Third World retail markets?
No, the food bank will give the RICE to local people, who may not be able to afford it otherwise. I don’t see where money enters into it - food banks give out FOOD, not money.