Comments on: Global pollinator declines

By: Buzzing to the plate « ConservationBytes.com

Buzzing to the plate « ConservationBytes.com — Sun, 03 Apr 2011 17:32:34 +0000

[...] pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25, 345-353, doi:10.1016/j.tree.2010.01.007 [...]

By: More to bees than queens and honey « ConservationBytes.com

More to bees than queens and honey « ConservationBytes.com — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 22:49:56 +0000

[...] frequently reported, gloomy news about bee declines is hard not to notice. Bees are in dire trouble around the world, and this trend has worrying implications for both ecosystems and human food production. As a [...]

By: A wee ditty about the bee « ConservationBytes.com

A wee ditty about the bee « ConservationBytes.com — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 21:16:28 +0000

[...] 29 01 2011 I liked this. Another quick and entertaining look at why bees are important, why they’re crashing, and what people can do about it (at least, on a very fine scale). And it’s all done in [...]

By: CJAB

CJAB — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:37:52 +0000

TeeKay – My apologies – didn’t quite clue in to the fact that you were commenting on another. I see we are of like mind

By: TeeKay

TeeKay — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:09:46 +0000

Corey (can’t reply directly to your reply),

Try reading what I wrote again, or perhaps I was unclear – sorry. What I meant is that any mitigation of these problems is at most a “slight inconvenience”.

i.e. “not cutting those trees, not releasing those CO2 molecules and not “wasting” those drops of water…might slightly inconvenience (some of) us for a short period, but ultimately greatly benefit us for generations to come.”

The answer to biopolitical’s question IS self-evident – the benefits of taking care of these things outweigh the costs of mitigation by many orders of magnitude.

By: CJAB

CJAB — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 03:07:48 +0000

Rubbish to your rubbish. “Slightly inconvenience” won’t even begin to describe the food crises and natural disasters that are already occurring because of our modification of the biosphere. You cannot consume indefinitely without reaping the consequences of breaking the machine.

By: TeeKay

TeeKay — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 02:48:07 +0000

“not cutting those trees, not releasing those CO2 molecules and not “wasting” those drops of water would also punish us for generations to come.”

Rubbish. A fallacious use of a cost-benefit analysis. Try replacing “would also punish us for generations to come” with “might slightly inconvenience (some of) us for a short period, but ultimately greatly benefit us for generations to come.”

By: Biopolitical

Biopolitical — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:05:36 +0000

Hostergaard and CJAB, how much sacrifice would be enough for us to count as sane and sentient? Any practical suggestions?

If you have a good recipe to calculate such thing you may also be of help to Christians, Muslims or patriots that want to know just how much they must sacrifice to be good Christians, Muslims or patriots.

By: CJAB

CJAB — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 11:38:56 +0000

Too true, too true.

By: hostergaard

hostergaard — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:23:22 +0000

I think it’s insane that everytime I argue with people about preserving biodiversity (or a given spieces) I have to do it by arguing about how it will benefit humanity.

Where humans, where sentient, we should be able to do thinks and make sacrefises not only for our own good but also for the good of everything else even when it does not benefits us.