Mail Order Queens

[Mint Bee]

whether one treats or does not treat, as soon as a humans started harvesting honey and then came along with a box and frames of convenience, they started impacting the development of the species. The extension to a darwinistic approach seems to ignore our influence however unintended that is still continued today. All beekeepers are practicing an unnatural activity - some more than others

 

[Beesnaturally]

I suppose they might as well argue here as anywhere else. Bit daft putting a post about Buckfast up in the TF section

It's about free living bees, not buckfasts. Buckfasts were just used to illustrate a point.

 

[Beesnaturally]

Quite a mistaken view, from which flow many of the ills the world now faces: it persuades mankind to believe it is separate and above nature, and so immune from the consequences of avaricious human practices, and at ease with using nature as an infinite and disposable commodity.

Nature is a jigsaw and we are one piece; like it or not, the puzzle is incomplete without our inclusion.

Well, let's look at the context. This is how i would cast things:

Natural selection is what happens when people aren't involved. Breeding is what happens when people aim to replace natural selection.

Inadvertent 'breeding" is what happens when people affect natural selection as a byproduct of what they are doing.

I would claim that the natural in natural selection is a clear statement of a humanless environment.

I confess it's not easy. There may be other contexts in which I might adopt your view (thought I can't think of any at present)

What I would avoid is a reading in which the claim that man is part of nature gives him carte blanche to follow his instincts regardless of consequence. Man can rise above jungle behaviour.

 

[Beesnaturally]

some of the people involved are highly successful beekeepers.

Sadly, being a highly successful beekeeper doesn't automatically mean you are doing no harm. There are many highly successful farmers dismantling rainforests. Etc.

 

[Wilco]

Well, let's look at the context. This is how i would cast things:

Natural selection is what happens when people aren't involved. Breeding is what happens when people aim to replace natural selection.

Inadvertent 'breeding" is what happens when people affect natural selection as a byproduct of what they are doing.

I would claim that the natural in natural selection is a clear statement of a humanless environment.

I confess it's not easy. There may be other contexts in which I might adopt your view (thought I can't think of any at present)

What I would avoid is a reading in which the claim that man is part of nature gives him carte blanche to follow his instincts regardless of consequence. Man can rise above jungle behaviour.

Breeding - humans making selections intentionally.

Natural selection - survival of the fittest even if the selection pressure is human behaviours. Humans are part of nature unless you can come up with an arbitrary point at which humans stopped 'being part of nature'.

'Man can rise above jungle behaviour'. You appear to be appealing to an absolute standard of morality.

 

[ericbeaumont]

Natural selection is what happens when people aren't involved

Such a blissful ideal could only have existed before humans arrived, but once rudimentary man rose on two feet and developed between his ears, that game was over.

That's a bit like saying people who were murdered died from natural causes, which makes the murderers innocent

the claim that man is part of nature gives him carte blanche to follow his instincts regardless of consequence

Two factors at work: while man is inherently part of nature, he differs from say, the fox, in that he has developed empathy, conscience and a host of ethical thoughts which have in time restricted his freedom to kill, and imposed consequences for doing so. `

If man were to get off his high horse and return to his place in the jigsaw of nature, to reconnect with other parts directly, our everyday decisions would flow differently - no plastic grass, no HS2, no deforestation - but the urge to use nature as a commodity is so embedded in capitalist consumer desires, that it is unlikely that this ship can be turned round anytime soon.

 

[Beesnaturally]

Such a blissful ideal could only have existed before humans arrived, but once rudimentary man rose on two feet and developed between his ears, that game was over.



Two factors at work: while man is inherently part of nature, he differs from say, the fox, in that he has developed empathy, conscience and a host of ethical thoughts which have in time restricted his freedom to kill, and imposed consequences for doing so. `

If man were to get off his high horse and return to his place in the jigsaw of nature, to reconnect with other parts directly, our everyday decisions would flow differently - no plastic grass, no HS2, no deforestation - but the urge to use nature as a commodity is so embedded in capitalist consumer desires, that it is unlikely that this ship can be turned round anytime soon.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Where we differ is that I believe that treating and importing bees are high horse behaviours. They diminish our ecology - something that is already gasping for breath. A little more empathy there would be a fine thing.

I know not all beekeepers will do that. But having the facts known encourages some to think about what they do, and some to make an effort to minimise the recognisable harms.

 

[Beesnaturally]

Breeding - humans making selections intentionally.

Natural selection - survival of the fittest even if the selection pressure is human behaviours. Humans are part of nature unless you can come up with an arbitrary point at which humans stopped 'being part of nature'.

'Man can rise above jungle behaviour'. You appear to be appealing to an absolute standard of morality.

Its not just 'survival of the fittest. Natural selection constantly hones wild population toward an optimal state. The 'fitter' the population is, the more it flourishes.

Natural selections is not only absolutely necessary for survival, it brings about optimal health in constantly changing environments. (The optimum, btw, is the maximalisation of available energy resources and its conversion to viable offspring.)

But this is really about how we want the language to work for our purposes - how to make it help us make sense and have the conversation we want clearly. To that end we can hardly call human selection natural. If we do then there is no difference between natural selection and natural selection (by humans).

For that reason we speak of selection by humans as breeding. It is distinct from natural selection.

 

[Beesnaturally]

Such a blissful ideal could only have existed before humans arrived, but once rudimentary man rose on two feet and developed between his ears, that game was over.

I agree; but we have choices. Both communally and as individuals we can choose to ignore the harms we are casually capable of, or try to avoid them.

We can do the latter much better when we are aware that they are occurring. (And we often avoid such knowledge in order to preserve our self-righteousness and feel free to go on as suits us.)

 

[mbc]

Triploid trout

 

[madasafish]

If you really really believe in avoiding human breeding of animals, you would drink no milk (cows are bred) eat no pigs (as cows), eat no bread (a bred strain of grass), and then you could have the moral high ground..
Putting the genie back in the lamp is impossible.

 

[Beesnaturally]

If you really really believe in avoiding human breeding of animals, you would drink no milk (cows are bred) eat no pigs (as cows), eat no bread (a bred strain of grass), and then you could have the moral high ground..
Putting the genie back in the lamp is impossible.

What makes you think I think that?

 

[Mint Bee]

What makes you think I think that?

from your web site I believe. Doesn't seem to support the argument for non interventional natural selection you put forward

​

We have never treated, nor manipulated in any way against varroa. We allow nature to take its course in the apiary, and do nothing that might harm the wild bees around us. We undertake selective reproduction, using unaided multi-year productivity as our key indicator, seeking all round vitality and productivity. by doing so we are aiding the development of independent good health, both inside and around our apiary.

Taking those colonies found to be the most enduring and vigorous, and using methods developed by one of the leading exponents of resistance breeding, Dr. John Kefus, we have arrived at a position where a good proportion of our completely untreated hives thrive and produce a good honey crop year after year.

 

[madasafish]

from your web site I believe. Doesn't seem to support the argument for non interventional natural selection you put forward

​

We have never treated, nor manipulated in any way against varroa. We allow nature to take its course in the apiary, and do nothing that might harm the wild bees around us. We undertake selective reproduction, using unaided multi-year productivity as our key indicator, seeking all round vitality and productivity. by doing so we are aiding the development of independent good health, both inside and around our apiary.

Taking those colonies found t"

o be the most enduring and vigorous, and using methods developed by one of the leading exponents of resistance breeding, Dr. John Kefus, we have arrived at a position where a good proportion of our completely untreated hives thrive and produce a good honey crop year after year.

"and do nothing that might harm the wild bees around us"

Selective breeding means your bloodlines are different. They will mate with local bees, Unless you have years of data on local bees , you have no means of knowing. If your words were an advert the Advertising Standards Authority would ask you to prove your claims..

No doubt you have an independent expert review local bees over a decade or two to back up your claims..

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

No doubt you have an independent expert review local bees over a decade or two to back up your claims..

don't worry, if they haven't, they'll soon make one up

 

[Beesnaturally]

don't worry, if they haven't, they'll soon make one up

Why don't you make one up? Try this:

(Imagine...)
For many years you have bred alsatians. In all that time you have successfully controlled mating, matching only purebreeds with purebreeds.

But lately you've got slack. Specifically you haven't been maintaining or inspecting your fences. One day you wake to find a rottweiler dog in among several ladydogs on heat.

Now: what is your prediction: will the pups be purebred alsatians?

If you think not, what is your theory for why not?

 

[madasafish]

Why don't you make one up? Try this:

(Imagine...)
For many years you have bred alsatians. In all that time you have successfully controlled mating, matching only purebreeds with purebreeds.

But lately you've got slack. Specifically you haven't been maintaining or inspecting your fences. One day you wake to find a rottweiler dog in among several ladydogs on heat.

Now: what is your prediction: will the pups be purebred alsatians?

If you think not, what is your theory for why not?

An answer based on the principle: if stuck in a hole of your own making, change the subject.

 

[Erichalfbee]

A film. Trailer:



All links to the full film (25 mins) are password protected, but these are so easy to guess (or in fact are given away) I don't really see the point. For example https://screeningroom.nfts.co.uk/gr...346871465112/mail-order-queens?autoStart=true password NFTS2024

Trigger warning: The full film does feature Blenheim Palace.

While the documentary is nicely shot, you won't learn anything beyond what the 2 minute trailer says. It's still a pleasant way to waste 25 mins though. If you don't believe in the concept of local bees or are a Buckfast enthusiast then probably best not to watch it. I've posted it in the Treatment Free section in an attempt to try and avoid tedious arguments that have been done to death.

But that is exactly what's happened considering there are Buckfast in the film
Lets all stop arguing about it and just enjoy the film