Subject: Re: WDH, Pollinator & Bees (Was: One-Straw Revolution)
From: wtmorgan@pilot.msu.edu (Bill Morgan)
Organization: Michigan State University
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 00:00:38 -0400
Message-ID: <MOD$970826.11737@rec.gardens.ecosystems>
References: <MOD$970806.6297@rec.gardens.ecosystems> <MOD$970819.22855@rec.gardens.ecosystems> <MOD$970820.26482@rec.gardens.ecosystems> <MOD$970822.23752@rec.gardens.ecosystems>


In article <MOD$970822.23752@rec.gardens.ecosystems>, William D Hulet
wrote:

> 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.

Not a dichotomy: I am talking about three potential extremes (at least),
not two.

Nor false: There are unfortunately, people who go to such extremes in the
real world. As noted, every case is different, and things must me
considered in context, not within a cast-iron frame of reference. Sometimes
no action is the right "action." Sometimes biological control is the right
action. Sometimes cultural control is right,. etc.

The trick being to find an acceptable balance somehow. How to produce food
without trashing the environment. Agriculture is inherently an
environmentally destructive technology. It does not have to be as
destructive as it sometimes can be. We want to produce enough food without
undue damage. Finding that balance will never be easy.

>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.
A point I was also trying to make. Just because something is "organic" or
biological does not make it the right thing to do in any given situation.

> 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.
Easily accomplished: that stuff sux.

> > 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.
I didn't quite catch that nuance from your previous posting. My apologies.

>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.
Unfortunately, the tracheal mite ship has already sailed. Feral colonies
are or soon will be dead meat anyway, with or without shipping colonies
around for pollination. It might take a few years longer, but the ultimate
outcome is not in doubt: the feral colonies will be gone until a resistant
strain of bees arises or is created. In the meantime, pollination of some
crops will depend on native pollinators (sufficient for some crops, not for
others) and large-scale honey bee operations.

It would seem more efficient (in terms of pollination) to have more
small-scale operations rather than a few large-scale ones, but whether or
not that is economically realistic is an open question. In the near term, I
doubt that it is. As a long-term goal, it may be possible. But even that
will require significant changes. More beekeepers, for one.

[]

> > 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.

Again, not in the real world, the world that actually is. Maybe in an ideal
world, it would be.

> 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.
The question being how do you get there from here. And even can you get
there from here.

If you want to make such changes you have to start from present realities
and think very long term. And be willing to accept the failures that will
come with it. The other models will not work perfectly. Some may be abject
failures, some may be partial successes. You must be willing to abandon the
ideas that fail.

> > 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.
Are they then not responsible for what choice they do have, for the
decisions they *can* make? Organic apples or mega-commercial apples?

> 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?
Does lack of consideration absolve one of moral responsibility?

> If you drain your fields and it causes a local stream
> to dry up do you really care?
Depends on who you are, I think. I would 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.
Indeed. But realize that these choices aren't soley the province of the guy
with the plow. The citizen/voter has a say, even if not much of one. The
consumer likewise. There's a lot of inertia in political and economic
systems, but that does not mean that they cannot be influenced.

I don't mean to be pessimistic about all this. Much of what you say does
make sense, but I think significant changes in that direction seem to be a
long way off. Not impossible, but certainly not just around the corner.

And no change is without risk.

Regards,
Bill

--
Bill Morgan
wtmorgan@pilot.msu.edu
Center for Room Temperature Confusion