Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[JohnDonne]

@nuke

I would say for quid pro quo relationships there has to be the element of consent of both parties. The bees likely cannot comprehend the arrangement and so their consent would at best be assumed or implied.

On the other hand, it's not clear whether bees are essentially automatons or are actual philisophical persons capable of consent, it's a dicey question. One could argue that whether the bees consent or not they are actually getting a better arrangement than they would in nature.

I don't argue about honey much for these reasons, it's more of a staying on the safe side thing for me.

The writen consent forms are filled out in triplicate but they are so small it's hard to read them without a microscope.

On a serious note the bees are free to leave the beehive at any point if they find the arrangement to be unsatisfactory.

To leave the beehive is to face certain death, as I understand it.

Anyway, just throwing the idea of consent as an important concept for mutual relationships out there. We wouldn't say slaves and masters have a mutually beneficial relationship even though on the surface it may appear that way.

[Montegriffo]

Cockroaches will tend to invade the nests if a beekeeper isn't good.

Really seems like a solution to dwindling bee populations would be to encourage kids into becoming bee keepers/mead producers but not enough kids want to do it.

OH well. I suppose I will be forced to do it and shoulder that burden once I get a piece of land I suppose. I'll take that bullet. For the bees.

There are several colonies here on the farm looked after by a neighbor and I've watched her collect a couple of wild swarms in the past. The last swarm tried to settle in the farmhouse's chimney and had to be smoked out and then collected when they re-grouped in the hedgerow. Fascinating stuff IMO.

They have a habit of making hives in the pipe yard where I work. There is an old man we call on to smoke them out and he takes them home with as much as the hive as he can intact. I helped him briefly but didn't get to watch the fun parts.

When I watched her do it the method was to place a cardboard box underneath the swarm then knock the branch heavily with a stick so they fell into it. Despite wearing all the gear she got stung for her efforts. Swarms happen when the colony gets too large and a second Queen is produced to lead half of them to a new life in a second colony.

[Montegriffo]

To leave the beehive is to face certain death, as I understand it.

As individuals yes but they can leave en masse and set up elsewhere. I think they are only likely to do this if the hive is not maintained properly.

[TheReal_ND]

There are several colonies here on the farm looked after by a neighbor and I've watched her collect a couple of wild swarms in the past. The last swarm tried to settle in the farmhouse's chimney and had to be smoked out and then collected when they re-grouped in the hedgerow. Fascinating stuff IMO.

They have a habit of making hives in the pipe yard where I work. There is an old man we call on to smoke them out and he takes them home with as much as the hive as he can intact. I helped him briefly but didn't get to watch the fun parts.

When I watched her do it the method was to place a cardboard box underneath the swarm then knock the branch heavily with a stick so they fell into it. Despite wearing all the gear she got stung for her efforts. Swarms happen when the colony gets too large and a second Queen is produced to lead half of them to a new life in a second colony.

Well this one was inside a a square tube about 8 inches high. Some ways in there. He didn't have a tape measure but I told him it looked about as much and he took a picture of my hand near it to get an estimate of the case or board he would fashion to slide some ways down it. Then he explained he would simply scrape it off with a long scraper and pull it out.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

We haven't covered the possibility that humans are, in fact, so superior to the rest of the animal kingdom that we need not really bother ourselves about their ethical treatment.

[JohnDonne]

Superior in what way, by what criteria, to what relation to what value?

[Hastur]

We haven't covered the possibility that humans are, in fact, so superior to the rest of the animal kingdom that we need not really bother ourselves about their ethical treatment.

That is the old rationale and it is to some extent still valid. As far as we know we are the only conscious creatures in the universe. We still don't really understand what consciousness is, how it works or where it came from. It's a mystery.
The reason people like JD is so dangerous is that their base premises look good on the surface. "Be nice to animals. Live and let live. etc" The problem is that it comes from a fundamental view of the world that is divorced from reality. He thinks the world comprised of oppressors and oppressed. Just like the cultural Marxists that JP is talking about. His path leads to tyranny and oppression. He doesn't even try to hide it. He is pretty straightforward and sees no problem in letting us partake in his revenge fantasies.
Like the Marxists of old, he is utopian. He thinks we have evolved to a point where we can change the fabric of reality, just like the communists 100 years ago. But humans are still humans and animals are animals and we all live in nature. Suffering is the only thing guaranteed in life. All else is a bonus.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Superior in what way, by what criteria, to what relation to what value?

Any criteria you like. We can list them out, do pros and cons for any given animal and see how homo sapien sapien adds up.

As far as values, I suppose it makes sense for humans to over-value human health and happiness when it comes to morality. But I am not entirely certain what values rubric is being used to make humans, cows, fish, chickens, and insects all morally equivalent, so I can't judge if it is right or wrong. Smells a little wrong though.

I would expect cows to over-value cow happiness and health too, but not being a cow, I am not privy to cow ethics.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

We haven't covered the possibility that humans are, in fact, so superior to the rest of the animal kingdom that we need not really bother ourselves about their ethical treatment.

That is the old rationale and it is to some extent still valid. As far as we know we are the only conscious creatures in the universe. We still don't really understand what consciousness is, how it works or where it came from. It's a mystery.
The reason people like JD is so dangerous is that their base premises look good on the surface. "Be nice to animals. Live and let live. etc" The problem is that it comes from a fundamental view of the world that is divorced from reality. He thinks the world comprised of oppressors and oppressed. Just like the cultural Marxists that JP is talking about. His path leads to tyranny and oppression. He doesn't even try to hide it. He is pretty straightforward and sees no problem in letting us partake in his revenge fantasies.
Like the Marxists of old, he is utopian. He thinks we have evolved to a point where we can change the fabric of reality, just like the communists 100 years ago. But humans are still humans and animals are animals and we all live in nature. Suffering is the only thing guaranteed in life. All else is a bonus.

Being 'nice' to animals sounds ethical to me. I don't know if that means I can't still eat'm. I wouldn't accuse a pack of wolves of cruelty or unkindness for killing and devouring me. Turnabout is fair play... what I am recommending is we eat more dog meat.

[Hastur]

We haven't covered the possibility that humans are, in fact, so superior to the rest of the animal kingdom that we need not really bother ourselves about their ethical treatment.

That is the old rationale and it is to some extent still valid. As far as we know we are the only conscious creatures in the universe. We still don't really understand what consciousness is, how it works or where it came from. It's a mystery.
The reason people like JD is so dangerous is that their base premises look good on the surface. "Be nice to animals. Live and let live. etc" The problem is that it comes from a fundamental view of the world that is divorced from reality. He thinks the world comprised of oppressors and oppressed. Just like the cultural Marxists that JP is talking about. His path leads to tyranny and oppression. He doesn't even try to hide it. He is pretty straightforward and sees no problem in letting us partake in his revenge fantasies.
Like the Marxists of old, he is utopian. He thinks we have evolved to a point where we can change the fabric of reality, just like the communists 100 years ago. But humans are still humans and animals are animals and we all live in nature. Suffering is the only thing guaranteed in life. All else is a bonus.

Being 'nice' to animals sounds ethical to me. I don't know if that means I can't still eat'm. I wouldn't accuse a pack of wolves of cruelty or unkindness for killing and devouring me. Turnabout is fair play... what I am recommending is we eat more dog meat.

I have no problem with being nice to animals either. But the reason isn't that the animal is my equal in any sense, it is for what I become if I choose to do cruel things. I don't choose that path.