Honeybee deaths reaching crisis point in UK

[Porcupine_in_MA]

Rainey, most, if not all, paper products are made from paper that comes from tree farms. Not "raped wilderness".

[Raineyrocks]

Rainey, most, if not all, paper products are made from paper that comes from tree farms. Not "raped wilderness".

Okay, that's good but I was just making a point about some humans, mainly corporations taking and not giving back, maybe it wasn't the greatest point I'll admit that.     On the other hand why do I constantly hear about the Amazon Rain Forest being depleted of it's natural resources?  What are they talking about?  I thought it was trees.

http://www.rain-tree.com/facts.htm

[Porcupine_in_MA]

Rainey, most, if not all, paper products are made from paper that comes from tree farms. Not "raped wilderness".

Okay, that's good but I was just making a point about some humans, mainly corporations taking and not giving back, maybe it wasn't the greatest point I'll admit that.     On the other hand why do I constantly hear about the Amazon Rain Forest being depleted of it's natural resources?  What are they talking about?  I thought it was trees.

http://www.rain-tree.com/facts.htm

That's the perfect example of mercantilism, government giving monopoly privaleges to corporations and sometimes the government itself doing the cutting. Rubber farmers who have lived for years and years and should own the majority of the land and would protect said land, get run off or killed or just ignored by said corps and government.

[Dylboz]

Slash and burn for low grade pasture and farm land for poor people. Not paper. In fact, rainforest trees aren't much good for wood pulp. There are some beautiful and expensive hardwoods, but they are not the most common bio-mass.

As for Golden Rice, it was made because they can't grow carrots or any other high beta-carotene vegetables in rice paddies. They were integrating a new product into the pre-existing infrastructure so it could do the maximum benefit with the least effort.

Also, I think you didn't quite parse my syntax correctly. I meant no offense, I said "unless you are..." I just meant that I did not think you should be so trepidascious about GM foods and biotech unless you want to align yourself with the most hardcore anti-human enviromentalists. My apologies.

For the record, I like things being "green" as long as that doesn't come at the expense of human lives or require the billions living in the 3rd world never achieve parity in lifestyle or freedom with those of us who were lucky enough to be born in the 1st. I love animals and nature, and I see disaster for us in the rapid extinction of species, and pollution, etc. I just think people's lives are important too, and free market solutions and property rights will solve these problems by promoting stewardship and responsible resource management over rent-seeking and threats of violence.

[Raineyrocks]

Slash and burn for low grade pasture and farm land for poor people. Not paper. In fact, rainforest trees aren't much good for wood pulp. There are some beautiful and expensive hardwoods, but they are not the most common bio-mass.

As for Golden Rice, it was made because they can't grow carrots or any other high beta-carotene vegetables in rice paddies. They were integrating a new product into the pre-existing infrastructure so it could do the maximum benefit with the least effort.

Also, I think you didn't quite parse my syntax correctly. I meant no offense, I said "unless you are..." I just meant that I did not think you should be so trepidascious about GM foods and biotech unless you want to align yourself with the most hardcore anti-human enviromentalists. My apologies.

For the record, I like things being "green" as long as that doesn't come at the expense of human lives or require the billions living in the 3rd world never achieve parity in lifestyle or freedom with those of us who were lucky enough to be born in the 1st. I love animals and nature, and I see disaster for us in the rapid extinction of species, and pollution, etc. I just think people's lives are important too, and free market solutions and property rights will solve these problems by promoting stewardship and responsible resource management over rent-seeking and threats of violence.

Thanks for the information about the rainforest and the Golden Rice, that makes sense.  Sorry for taking you out of context regarding the "unless" part of your sentence, I was in defense mode for some reason.

I think people's lives are important too and humans have to respect certain ecosystems or it will harm them in the long run.   If that's how a free market, (I don't know a lot of that terminology), works it sounds great.   

[J’raxis 270145]

I understand that genes are natural but is splicing and combining them in a lab setting?

Why do people think humans and what we do is not natural? If beavers build a dam, it's natural, but if humans build a skyscraper or a new kind of rice, it's not natural? I would posit that the next step in our evolution is for us to take an active role in it leading to the inevitable transcendence from our biological bodies and that it's completely natural for us to do so; practically destiny even.

I can understand humans doing things to live such as the beaver builds a dam for shelter, we build houses for shelter however I believe that humans go overboard ...

How are we going "overboard"? Beavers build to the extent of their natural limits—as do we, which are a lot higher. Are you saying we should, ah, artifically limit our own building abilities to that of lesser-abled animals like beavers?

[J’raxis 270145]

For the record, I like things being "green" as long as that doesn't come at the expense of human lives or require the billions living in the 3rd world never achieve parity in lifestyle or freedom with those of us who were lucky enough to be born in the 1st. I love animals and nature, and I see disaster for us in the rapid extinction of species, and pollution, etc. I just think people's lives are important too, and free market solutions and property rights will solve these problems by promoting stewardship and responsible resource management over rent-seeking and threats of violence.

Indeed—I see being "green" as a good thing so long as it's not limiting my standard of living. Going green where it's actually saving money, energy, &c., is a great thing. But some green types want us all to start living like third-worlders again.

[Raineyrocks]

I understand that genes are natural but is splicing and combining them in a lab setting?

Why do people think humans and what we do is not natural? If beavers build a dam, it's natural, but if humans build a skyscraper or a new kind of rice, it's not natural? I would posit that the next step in our evolution is for us to take an active role in it leading to the inevitable transcendence from our biological bodies and that it's completely natural for us to do so; practically destiny even.

I can understand humans doing things to live such as the beaver builds a dam for shelter, we build houses for shelter however I believe that humans go overboard ...

How are we going "overboard"? Beavers build to the extent of their natural limits—as do we, which are a lot higher. Are you saying we should, ah, artifically limit our own building abilities to that of lesser-abled animals like beavers?

So then beavers build 4600 square foot homes?  I'm so not in the mood for this bullshit now, think what you want I don't care and maybe you should read the words I wrote which were "I believe".  So see that means you don't have to believe it if you don't want to.

[ByronB]

So then beavers build 4600 square foot homes?  I'm so not in the mood for this bullshit now, think what you want I don't care and maybe you should read the words I wrote which were "I believe".  So see that means you don't have to believe it if you don't want to.

rainey, I think I see your point but the problem is that in order to even sustain our current population trucks, trains, coal-fired power plants, etc. all have to be used and since no one is perfect (some FAR from it) abuses will occur that hurt the environment even worse.

Here is the problem, if you take down that structure it would be genocide on a massive scale, especially to the cities. This leaves two options (that I can think of) either reduce our population by government mandates (I hope none of us want to go that route) or we continue on developing new technology, better crops, better pesticides (that don't kill bees), more efficient vehicles, etc.

So I'm sure most of the people here agree with you (mostly), they just don't think that there is much of a moral alternative to harnessing the world to feed ourselves.

[Pat McCotter]

So the infrastructure of civilization is here; it's too big to pare down; we cannot effectively do anything about; live with it.

So the government is here; it's too big to pare down; we cannot effectively do anything about; live with it.

[Raineyrocks]

So then beavers build 4600 square foot homes?  I'm so not in the mood for this bullshit now, think what you want I don't care and maybe you should read the words I wrote which were "I believe".  So see that means you don't have to believe it if you don't want to.

rainey, I think I see your point but the problem is that in order to even sustain our current population trucks, trains, coal-fired power plants, etc. all have to be used and since no one is perfect (some FAR from it) abuses will occur that hurt the environment even worse.

Here is the problem, if you take down that structure it would be genocide on a massive scale, especially to the cities. This leaves two options (that I can think of) either reduce our population by government mandates (I hope none of us want to go that route) or we continue on developing new technology, better crops, better pesticides (that don't kill bees), more efficient vehicles, etc.

So I'm sure most of the people here agree with you (mostly), they just don't think that there is much of a moral alternative to harnessing the world to feed ourselves.

Thanks Byron, I see your point too!

[DigitalWarrior]

Do you have a problem with selective breeding which gave us awesome things like dogs, horses, yellow bananas, or wheat?  Selective breeding was done at the outset of civilization when someone said "If we want a cow that gives milk and doesn't try to kill people, then we kill every cow that doesn't give milk or kills people and breed the rest."

If not, then why not cut out the middle man and just twiddle the bits that need to be twiddled?  It seems random mutation would be more likely to produce poisonous cows with rattlesnake tails than a decent lab tech who wants vitamin fortified milk.  Aids and Avian Flu is natural.  Poodles are not, yet represent less a threat to our lives.

At no point in written history have we abstained from genetically modifying foods, we just used methods that were more likely to result in awful land-dwelling giant squid monsters.

As far as labeling, wouldn't it be efficient to create a logo that can only be placed on items which meet the arbitrary requirements of "naturalness".  If someone uses the logo without permission, then use the lawyers to beat the crap out of them.



BTW, if you are concerned about diseases related to monoculture, you have a valid concern, but it is a danger with any successful adaptation, lab based or no.

[J’raxis 270145]

So the infrastructure of civilization is here; it's too big to pare down; we cannot effectively do anything about; live with it.

So the government is here; it's too big to pare down; we cannot effectively do anything about; live with it.

Straw man. There's an actual, good reason to get rid of government (technically, the authoritarian model of government, a.k.a., the State): It engages in unsolicited, non-defensive use of force against people, and is therefore immoral.

But, why should we "pare down" civilization? What is fundamentally immoral about using our natural intelligence to build what we wish? Like I said earlier, there is no difference between mankind's ability to build, and a beaver's ability to build, or any other animals natural abilities. Both are "natural" products of our evolution or creation or whatever.

At most, what we build should be tested on a case-by-case basis, and only if something is actually proven to be harmful, should it be considered immoral to continue with it. But it's faulty induction to conclude from such that our building capabilities are somehow fundamentally "wrong."

[John Edward Mercier]

If they were African, instead of European, bees would everyone be just as upset?
European honeybees are important pollinators by human design...

[John Edward Mercier]

J.
Suggesting that beaver dams aren't harmful is not honest. Habitat is changed, some good and bad comes from this depending on POV.