A stone, a planet, a star… They all can exist billions of years without the need to die in order to free the vacant space
If they “die” somehow, they do not experience any pain or suffer. That sort of “perfection” is more attractive for my perception than the one you described above
Thus I come back to the statement: the nature is not perfect… Fix it
You keep using the words 'perfect/perfection' - would you care to take a stab at defining what you mean by 'perfection' ? (It won't be easy
) The other way of approaching this, of course, is to say "nature ain't perfect (undefined) - so learn to live with it."
If you satisfied with the winter survival rates of your colonies - that`s fair enough. I prefer to rely on chemistry, biochemistry, medicine, and other kinds of scientific approaches, helping to fix nature errors… in my understanding of course
Many years ago, skep beekeepers used to kill-off both their strongest and weakest colonies - this would suggest that they had an intuitive understanding that a colony will only be 'strong' in one regard, if it is weaker in another - so that a colony deemed 'stronger' by producing more honey (say) than other colonies, will be weaker in some other way - say, in regard to the fending-off of disease. This was a system that worked very well for hundreds of years.
These days, we (and not just beekeepers) have entered a phase of history in which we want 'more-and-more' from 'less-and less' - so we maximise crop yields with artificial fertilisers, we feed our ruminants animal proteins and nearly all livestock with antibiotics.
This is very clever - humans are quite good at being clever - but is it wise ? Wisdom is about anticipating long-term consequences - and we're far too selfish and short-termist (as a species) for that.
I think it is supremely arrogant (
- a smiley to hopefully show that I'm not being aggressive here) for human beings to consider that they have anything other that a superficial understanding of natural processes.
Scientists (and I speak as a former scientist) have become the new priests of our society, and many look to them for guidance and wisdom. But the way in which biological thinking is pursued is seriously flawed. It cannot be subjected to the same reductionist approach which is applicable to both physics and chemistry. To explain why, here, would take too long and no doubt irritate the natives.
Perhaps I'll write a book about it. Or then again, maybe not ...
LJ
