Subject: Re: WDH, Pollinator & Bees (Was: One-Straw Revolution)
From: William D Hulet <whulet@uoguelph.ca>
Organization: University of Guelph
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 10:55:51 -0400
Message-ID: <MOD$970822.23752@rec.gardens.ecosystems>
References: <MOD$970806.6297@rec.gardens.ecosystems> <MOD$970819.22855@rec.gardens.ecosystems> <MOD$970820.26482@rec.gardens.ecosystems>
On Wed, 20 Aug 1997, Bill Morgan wrote:
>
> WDH makes some good points. Nothing is without risk, after all. But risk A
> has to be compared to risk B and the risk of doing nothing. Pesticides vs
> no action vs biological control. All have associated ecological risks. And
> it has to be considered for each separate case. It is not uniformly true
> that biological control is better than no action, or worse than using
> synthetic pesticides, etc.
I think that this is a false dichotomy. I don't believe in
"biological controls" versus "no action" so much as dumbed-down pseudo
panaceas versus an understanding of the subtle dynamics of the
horticultural ecosystem. I don't see a lot of difference between someone
who doesn't know what they're doing dumping pesticides all over their
vegetables versus dumping a ton of imported ladybugs on them. The point
is similar to debates about buying organice food. The point isn't
resolved by selling "organic Count Chocula" but rather by getting rid of
the desire to eat any type of Count Chocula at all.
>
> Also, the idea that "imported" honey bees have impact on "local feral
> hives" is specious. The local feral hives ARE honey bees. Wild bees
Hence the term "feral" instead of "wild". What I am concerned
about isn't the introduction of an exotic species so much as the annual
importation of swarms that are contaminated by trachea mites. These mites
are transmitted to the feral hives (supposedly, I'm no expert) which then
puts them under stress. It just seems to me to make a lot more sense to
have a large number of small-scale honey producers spread through a nation
of farmers with mixed crops instead of having a small number of mega-honey
producers moving their hives from huge mono-crop to huge mono-crop.
> > A story often told in agricultural circles is the Berkeley "Love-In" in
> > the '60's, where a "flower child" was asked by a reporter what would happen
> > if everyone adapted their life style. "Who would feed us?"
> >
This is a specious question. You could ask the same question of a
lot of other groups in society such as lawyers, engineers, salesmen, etc..
> And so the other end of the spectrum.
>
> You rightly decry those who go out and spray pesticides "on schedule" just
> because it is "on schedule". In rec.gardens, I often knock the people who
> had "something" on their plants and sprayed it with "something that we had
> in the cupboard." And here is their opposite of the ultimate
> interventionist: the one who thinks it will all take care of itself.
Again, the false dichotomy. If you accept the present context
this may be true. But there are other models of food production that
wouldn't require this particular sort of intervention. I would argue that
they require a different lifestyle, but one that I embrace as an an
improved quality of life.
>
> Well, no. It won't. For better or worse, we are now responsible. Collectively.
>
Actually I don't think we are---and that's the problem. Only a
small number of people really have a lot of choice in their lives, and
that is constrained by their particular situation. For example, try
running a farm if you don't inherit the land. And of those people who do
have some personal responsibility, how many really think about the results
of their actions? If you drain your fields and it causes a local stream
to dry up do you really care? Is this in any sense being "responsible"?
Even if you don't know, this isn't an excuse because surely people who do
things have a responsibility to educate themselves about the consequences
of their choices.