A new survey says America's honeybee hives just staggered through the second highest death rate on record, with beekeepers losing nearly half of their managed colonies. But using costly measures to create new colonies, beekeepers are somehow keeping afloat. Thursday’s University of Maryland and Auburn University survey says that even though 48% of colonies were lost in the year that ended April 1, the number of United States honeybee colonies remained relatively stable. Honeybees are crucial to the food supply, pollinating more than 100 of the crops we eat, including nuts, vegetables and fruits. Scientists blame parasites, pesticides, starvation and climate change for large die-offs.
Another data point to fight against the deluge of “but it is not 150% established and shouldn’t we also look at <distraction>” “science” peddled by the pesticide industry:
Cuba has zero problems with its bees. Literally zero. They gave up on pesticides first out of necessity (fall of the USSR), then leaned into it, pesticides are generally outlawed and only see very rare use on state-run rice fields, a tiny fraction of their total agriculture.
The result is a very healthy bee population and flourishing honey exports. All of it passes EU organic certification with flying colours and tropical honey tastes real good so it’s not cheap stuff, either. Expect at least 30 Euro/kg as opposed to domestic rapeseed honey at 10 Euro/kg, or forest honey (generally the most expensive German stuff) at 16. EDIT: Actually the most expensive I could find was heather honey, 21 Euros. Never had it nor seen it in a supermarket.
One concrete thing to do is to get your governing body to promote diverse crop rotations. Ask them to end subsidies for single-crop farms, especially crops that don’t serve as a food source for bees or have been made toxic by pesticides (frequently found on massive corn farming operations).
I’d honestly have to do the math, but I suspect we’d be able to get rid of synthetic fertilizers if we actually wanted to. Afterall, what do you think happens to the nitrogen after we eat it? We pee and poop it out, for the most part. Yes, there are losses to the air when you till the soil, but a proper farm that focuses on soil health has ways to deal with that problem.
Right now we use the system we have because it’s cheap and easy to do so on an individual level. Growers want to simplify their workflow; they don’t want to actually manage the health of the land they work. It’s too much effort.
Plus, there’s a bunch of government policy that encourages bad farming practices and discourages good ones. Corn subsidies, banning the use of treated sewage for fertilizer, blatant blind-eye enforcement of labor laws, price-dropping policy instead of price-stabilizing policy, etc.
It’s not that we would starve, not in a properly structured system, anyway. It’s that food would become more expensive and some of us would transition to careers in agriculture. The pay would become seductive when the farms become desperate for labor. A farm that actually takes care of the land and the animals is absolutely more labor-intensive, and that’s why very few modern farms do it.
Edit: I should also say that the plants and animals we have today are not the same as the ones we had when the Haber process was invented. We wouldn’t be going back to the yields of the early 1900s. Even if we did everything exactly the same as they did back then, we’d still get better returns and have a more robust food delivery system. Hell, they didn’t even have refrigeration back then.
This is “don’t have kids” taken to its logical conclusion. Nothing absurd about this.
Pains me that more people are unable to follow the chain of thoughts and reach this conclusion.
Let me entertain a hypothetical solution. Would you suggest to Palestinians to “not have kids” to solve the ethnic conflict in that area?
what is with kbin posters and takes like this man
If anything, this is a non-sequitur.
But maybe there is a grain of truth in there. People who were horrified that the lemmy dev and main mod of lemmy.ml was a proponent of hard left stayed away of lemmy (both SW and instances) and went to kbin instead. And since “don’t have kids” is mostly popular on the more extreme left… you get self-selected opinions.
(honestly, I had no clue that I was not beehaw, just saw a braindead post and replied)
Telling one person that they can help out by not having kids is rather different from, as the dictionary says
Your definition seems to be quite limited. Many acknowledged genocides would not be treated as such. According to Wikipedia, the UN Genocide Convention is much broader:
Genocide is the intentional destruction of a people[a] in whole or in part. In 1948, the United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as any of five “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” These five acts were: killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group. Victims are targeted because of their real or perceived membership of a group, not randomly.[1][2]
Spreading an ideology according to which one shouldn’t have kids, thus preventing births, would fall into this definition.
Even suggesting to a whole group of people not to have kids is not the same as killing them.
You are correct, it is not the same as killing them, but no one was arguing that. Again, limiting genocide to the deliberate killing of individuals would be quite a lenient definition, and various laws that targeted various ethnic minorities would not be considered genocides, despite them being considered as ones and having the same exact effect. Consider forced sterilization. You don’t have to forcibly kill anyone, yet probably everyone here would agree that it is a genocide.
Genocide is the intentional destruction of a people[a] in whole or in part. In 1948, the United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as any of five “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” These five acts were: killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group. Victims are targeted because of their real or perceived membership of a group, not randomly.[1][2]
Spreading an ideology according to which one shouldn’t have kids, thus preventing births, would fall into this definition.
Even with this extended definition, your argument fails the most important criteria for genocide wtih the UN definition which is:
intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
And it also fails to mention that the argument being made is voluntary and so it wouldn’t fall under the act of :
Even with this extended definition, your argument fails the most important criteria for genocide with the UN definition which is:
The intent is always hard to prove. But I am glad that you agree that the only difference would be the intent ;)
Yet, if you read about some cases, you might see that the intent was not always proven or obvious, and some cases are considered genocide even without intent. For instance, take Holodomor, which is being more and more recognized as a genocide, even though unintentional. But I am happy to talk about other cases.
You appear to be unable or unwilling to distinguish between “preventing births” and “voluntarily choosing not to have children.”
Not sure why you’re quite so interested in escalating the rhetoric here (forced sterilization? in a thread that started with individual action to save honeybees? really?) but in view of the first rule of Beehaw (“Be(e) nice”) I’m not interested in joining you.
You appear to be unable or unwilling to distinguish between “preventing births” and “voluntarily choosing not to have children.”
I would be happy to further discuss the distinction and show you my willingness. But since you are not willing to engage in discussion.
Not sure why you’re quite so interested in escalating the rhetoric here (forced sterilization? in a thread that started with individual action to save honeybees? really?
I am not “escalating the rhetoric”. And I didn’t suggest either that the way to not have honeybees is to “not have kids”. If you want to talk about absurd statements, talk to that guy.
I personally disagree with the sentiment that going child-free is the solution to ecological catastrophe. Any individual’s decision to have children, or not, hardly compares to the systemic issues within agriculture and natural resource management which are causing it.
I thought beehaw was supposed to be the “nice” instance. You and others have done a wonderful job proving that otherwise today.
Well, the original comment in this thread which upset you came from your own instance. From where I’m sitting, that comment has been pretty much the only not-really-nice interaction you’ve had all day on here. Don’t really see where this strawman is coming from.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !news@beehaw.org
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
deleted by creator
Just would like to note that honeybees are not native to the US, we have tons of native pollinators
Still sucks though
My impression is the problem is primarily pesticide use is too ubiquitous. Help normalize pesticide free environments and you help bees.
In the case of bees, Neonicotinoids are a particular problem.
Edit: Another article
Another data point to fight against the deluge of “but it is not 150% established and shouldn’t we also look at <distraction>” “science” peddled by the pesticide industry:
Cuba has zero problems with its bees. Literally zero. They gave up on pesticides first out of necessity (fall of the USSR), then leaned into it, pesticides are generally outlawed and only see very rare use on state-run rice fields, a tiny fraction of their total agriculture.
The result is a very healthy bee population and flourishing honey exports. All of it passes EU organic certification with flying colours and tropical honey tastes real good so it’s not cheap stuff, either. Expect at least 30 Euro/kg as opposed to domestic rapeseed honey at 10 Euro/kg, or forest honey (
generally the most expensive German stuff) at 16. EDIT: Actually the most expensive I could find was heather honey, 21 Euros. Never had it nor seen it in a supermarket.Starting bee gardens and planting bee-friendly seeds wherever you can (provided they are not invasive to your area!)
But lots of seed companies offer “bee blends”, westcoastseeds offers seeds for this purpose. - Im sure similar wildflower mixes are available in different regions and countries.
I know this doesn’t eliminate pesticide use but every pesticide free patch of flowers helps
One concrete thing to do is to get your governing body to promote diverse crop rotations. Ask them to end subsidies for single-crop farms, especially crops that don’t serve as a food source for bees or have been made toxic by pesticides (frequently found on massive corn farming operations).
We really do need to just straight-up ban pesticides, antibiotics, and synthetic fertilizers in agriculture.
If there was a way for legislate that all farms needed to be mixed use, I’d go for immediately.
Yeah, I’m aware of the Haber-Bosch process.
I’d honestly have to do the math, but I suspect we’d be able to get rid of synthetic fertilizers if we actually wanted to. Afterall, what do you think happens to the nitrogen after we eat it? We pee and poop it out, for the most part. Yes, there are losses to the air when you till the soil, but a proper farm that focuses on soil health has ways to deal with that problem.
Right now we use the system we have because it’s cheap and easy to do so on an individual level. Growers want to simplify their workflow; they don’t want to actually manage the health of the land they work. It’s too much effort.
Plus, there’s a bunch of government policy that encourages bad farming practices and discourages good ones. Corn subsidies, banning the use of treated sewage for fertilizer, blatant blind-eye enforcement of labor laws, price-dropping policy instead of price-stabilizing policy, etc.
It’s not that we would starve, not in a properly structured system, anyway. It’s that food would become more expensive and some of us would transition to careers in agriculture. The pay would become seductive when the farms become desperate for labor. A farm that actually takes care of the land and the animals is absolutely more labor-intensive, and that’s why very few modern farms do it.
Edit: I should also say that the plants and animals we have today are not the same as the ones we had when the Haber process was invented. We wouldn’t be going back to the yields of the early 1900s. Even if we did everything exactly the same as they did back then, we’d still get better returns and have a more robust food delivery system. Hell, they didn’t even have refrigeration back then.
Don’t have kids…
Ah, so you support genocide.
…what? this is such an absurd non-sequitur. how do you arrive at this from “don’t have kids”. what is with kbin posters and takes like this man
This is “don’t have kids” taken to its logical conclusion. Nothing absurd about this.
Pains me that more people are unable to follow the chain of thoughts and reach this conclusion.
Let me entertain a hypothetical solution. Would you suggest to Palestinians to “not have kids” to solve the ethnic conflict in that area?
If anything, this is a non-sequitur.
But maybe there is a grain of truth in there. People who were horrified that the lemmy dev and main mod of lemmy.ml was a proponent of hard left stayed away of lemmy (both SW and instances) and went to kbin instead. And since “don’t have kids” is mostly popular on the more extreme left… you get self-selected opinions.
(honestly, I had no clue that I was not beehaw, just saw a braindead post and replied)
Telling one person that they can help out by not having kids is rather different from, as the dictionary says
Even suggesting to a whole group of people not to have kids is not the same as killing them.
So no, it’s not a logical conclusion. It’s illogical rhetoric. But you do you, I guess.
Your definition seems to be quite limited. Many acknowledged genocides would not be treated as such. According to Wikipedia, the UN Genocide Convention is much broader:
Spreading an ideology according to which one shouldn’t have kids, thus preventing births, would fall into this definition.
You are correct, it is not the same as killing them, but no one was arguing that. Again, limiting genocide to the deliberate killing of individuals would be quite a lenient definition, and various laws that targeted various ethnic minorities would not be considered genocides, despite them being considered as ones and having the same exact effect. Consider forced sterilization. You don’t have to forcibly kill anyone, yet probably everyone here would agree that it is a genocide.
Even with this extended definition, your argument fails the most important criteria for genocide wtih the UN definition which is:
And it also fails to mention that the argument being made is voluntary and so it wouldn’t fall under the act of :
The intent is always hard to prove. But I am glad that you agree that the only difference would be the intent ;)
Yet, if you read about some cases, you might see that the intent was not always proven or obvious, and some cases are considered genocide even without intent. For instance, take Holodomor, which is being more and more recognized as a genocide, even though unintentional. But I am happy to talk about other cases.
You appear to be unable or unwilling to distinguish between “preventing births” and “voluntarily choosing not to have children.”
Not sure why you’re quite so interested in escalating the rhetoric here (forced sterilization? in a thread that started with individual action to save honeybees? really?) but in view of the first rule of Beehaw (“Be(e) nice”) I’m not interested in joining you.
I would be happy to further discuss the distinction and show you my willingness. But since you are not willing to engage in discussion.
I am not “escalating the rhetoric”. And I didn’t suggest either that the way to not have honeybees is to “not have kids”. If you want to talk about absurd statements, talk to that guy.
It’s not genocide if you just decide not to have kids
deleted by creator
If your country doesn’t make it too hard, don’t forget adoption may be a solution for both.
It’s understandable that that’s a sensitive issue for you, but the advice honestly is pretty accurate
deleted by creator
I personally disagree with the sentiment that going child-free is the solution to ecological catastrophe. Any individual’s decision to have children, or not, hardly compares to the systemic issues within agriculture and natural resource management which are causing it.
Well, the original comment in this thread which upset you came from your own instance. From where I’m sitting, that comment has been pretty much the only not-really-nice interaction you’ve had all day on here. Don’t really see where this strawman is coming from.
deleted by creator
It is only “nice” if you agree with the ideology of the owners completely, otherwise you are banned.