Jump to content
julia C

Documentary on bees

Recommended Posts

Quote

"It's ironic that one of Jupiter's current themes is the use of the market to produce good (or bad)environmental outcomes."

Yes, if Kiwi was worth $50/kg as meat, we would have as many Kiwi as Beehives

 

...have a look at pheasant preserves. no shortage of pheasants in those aeras.

where you have farming you also get escapees into the wild.

This ‘principle’, that of farming endangered species to conserve them, is not quite what my criticism of Juniper’s position was about, but I’ll examine it anyway.

 

It might be popular, but I think it’s fundamentally misguided on all sorts of levels. We do not of course conserve only a species; the point is to conserve it and its habitat. To remove the chosen one from the ecosystem is a lose-lose, diminishing the ecosystem and the species. The species exists as a domesticated one, devoid of conservation value, different by all sorts of measures from the parent stock and separate from its ecological and evolutionary context.

 

Suppose we do farm. When we attach value in this way we don’t change the fact of the ecosystem’s exploitation we simply change how it’s done, and that brings a whole raft of problems (economists call them ‘externalities’) that usually sink this type of farming scheme. By placing a monetary value on the species we make it useful to both legitimate and illegitimate exploitation. We have seen (for example) farmed crocodiles, vacuna, rhino, snakes, bears, and turtles subjected to increased poaching as their ‘value’ went up. Poachers took advantage of the investment made by others and simply stole the stock from ‘farmed’ preserves. Disease pressure shot up as a result of the physical concentration, degradation of habitat, and loss of genetic diversity. The availability of farmed stock paradoxically increased the value of the wild item; who wants farmed salmon when you can have the real thing, even when it’s more expensive. At the same time as ‘owners’ of the resource, there was a distinct commercial imperative to make sure competition from natural (and ‘free’) sources was removed. Farmers naturally wanted to ‘improve’ their stock, they brought in new (wild) bloodstock to improve their stock lines, effectively poaching still more. They cross-bred with related species, and even imported non-native stock, importing alien species as they expanded their business. We created situations in which rare species existed at the whim of a flimsy financial market, easily broken by quite unrelated events. Without dragging this out, we know farming, far from saving anything, creates the conditions that sooner or later has hastened the demise of a multitude of species.

 

There are other deeply complicated and mostly unresolved problems with this kind of approach. In the case of the pheasants they have very little intrinsic value; their value lies in the activity of shooting them, rather like the rhino I guess. How do we figure out what values to use? How do we make a market that values something now, in the way that we want, and when it must have a different value that will depend on the situation 50 or 500 years hence. It may have no value now. A market is a social and cultural institution, something that is contingent on temporary circumstances. There is no basis for a ‘futures market’ in endangered species. How do we create a sustainable market that values things that don’t taste good? That aren’t feathery or furry, or useful. How do we create demand? Do we only value ecosystems for the extent to which they can be exploited? To whom does the value accrue? A mechanism using a value of a trade-able commodity in a market creates issues about the appropriation of communal property. We don’t even understand and cannot predict the outcomes of markets for the simple products we already have

 

The film we have just been watching has a few lessons in undesirable outcomes, depending on where you sit. Have honey bees been ‘saved’ by having a value in a market, by farming them? Surely they experience the same kind of problems I have outlined. There are many of them certainly, all over the world, but a change in the market conditions would soon change that. The environments they now inhabit must be rather different to their original habitats. Arguably they are now not very different from cattle, sheep, and dogs, forever captive in a human ecosystem. That's hardly conservation.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There was a guy trying to farm Weka's but he was also stopped.

If you have ever eaten weka you would understand why

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you have ever eaten weka you would understand why

It's good Cook it slow

Chatam island chicken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The weka might be no good but there's always the kereru... could start a loft with Sonny Tau? :mask:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's good Cook it slow

Chatam island chicken

I do not know how they make it edible no matter how slow they cook it.

Kereru look like they would be pretty tough too

And don't get me started on mutton birds, they are not tough but you would have to be pretty desperate to eat one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This ‘principle’, that of farming endangered species to conserve them, is not quite what my criticism of Juniper’s position was about, but I’ll examine it anyway.

 

It might be popular, but I think it’s fundamentally misguided on all sorts of levels. We do not of course conserve only a species; the point is to conserve it and its habitat. To remove the chosen one from the ecosystem is a lose-lose, diminishing the ecosystem and the species. The species exists as a domesticated one, devoid of conservation value, different by all sorts of measures from the parent stock and separate from its ecological and evolutionary context.

 

Suppose we do farm. When we attach value in this way we don’t change the fact of the ecosystem’s exploitation we simply change how it’s done, and that brings a whole raft of problems (economists call them ‘externalities’) that usually sink this type of farming scheme. By placing a monetary value on the species we make it useful to both legitimate and illegitimate exploitation. We have seen (for example) farmed crocodiles, vacuna, rhino, snakes, bears, and turtles subjected to increased poaching as their ‘value’ went up. Poachers took advantage of the investment made by others and simply stole the stock from ‘farmed’ preserves. Disease pressure shot up as a result of the physical concentration, degradation of habitat, and loss of genetic diversity. The availability of farmed stock paradoxically increased the value of the wild item; who wants farmed salmon when you can have the real thing, even when it’s more expensive. At the same time as ‘owners’ of the resource, there was a distinct commercial imperative to make sure competition from natural (and ‘free’) sources was removed. Farmers naturally wanted to ‘improve’ their stock, they brought in new (wild) bloodstock to improve their stock lines, effectively poaching still more. They cross-bred with related species, and even imported non-native stock, importing alien species as they expanded their business. We created situations in which rare species existed at the whim of a flimsy financial market, easily broken by quite unrelated events. Without dragging this out, we know farming, far from saving anything, creates the conditions that sooner or later has hastened the demise of a multitude of species.

 

There are other deeply complicated and mostly unresolved problems with this kind of approach. In the case of the pheasants they have very little intrinsic value; their value lies in the activity of shooting them, rather like the rhino I guess. How do we figure out what values to use? How do we make a market that values something now, in the way that we want, and when it must have a different value that will depend on the situation 50 or 500 years hence. It may have no value now. A market is a social and cultural institution, something that is contingent on temporary circumstances. There is no basis for a ‘futures market’ in endangered species. How do we create a sustainable market that values things that don’t taste good? That aren’t feathery or furry, or useful. How do we create demand? Do we only value ecosystems for the extent to which they can be exploited? To whom does the value accrue? A mechanism using a value of a trade-able commodity in a market creates issues about the appropriation of communal property. We don’t even understand and cannot predict the outcomes of markets for the simple products we already have

 

The film we have just been watching has a few lessons in undesirable outcomes, depending on where you sit. Have honey bees been ‘saved’ by having a value in a market, by farming them? Surely they experience the same kind of problems I have outlined. There are many of them certainly, all over the world, but a change in the market conditions would soon change that. The environments they now inhabit must be rather different to their original habitats. Arguably they are now not very different from cattle, sheep, and dogs, forever captive in a human ecosystem. That's hardly conservation.

Well put Dave

Unfortunately we cannot and will not change.

The world is bound to become more and more hostile.

So in light of this fact, what shall we do to buy some of these struggling species some time?

You may be surprised how many of the Bros tell me they dont dive for their mussels anymore.

Pak N Save bro, 3 bucks a Kilo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The mind boggles at what quantity of water is required to keep a human over a lifetime.

I take these figures with more than a grain of salt. I once read a silly figure about how much water it takes to make a cotton T-shirt. I asked the reporter where it came from and they quoted a government report. I asked the govt department and they got it from a company report from Britain. I asked them and they got it from a green lobby group in London. So I asked them. That was years ago, and they never gave me any reply or quoted any research.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good info, @Janice it would be good if a disclaimer was attached to much of the pontification we see, such as "this is my opinion without any scientific or logical basis" or "I am really just making this up" or a bull grading figure be added.

And this is just my opinion ...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well put Dave

Unfortunately we cannot and will not change.

The world is bound to become more and more hostile.

So in light of this fact, what shall we do to buy some of these struggling species some time?

You may be surprised how many of the Bros tell me they dont dive for their mussels anymore.

Pak N Save bro, 3 bucks a Kilo.

 

Yeah not many places left worth diving for muscles... Only good spots seem to be where they grow on those funny floating black rocks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also read somewhere many years ago that a Pine Tree uses 500,000 lt of water in it's life. My thoughts were that if we killed all the trees on the planet we would drown in a matter of hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ja das isch e richtige Baerner Oberlaender gsie mit eme stumpe. E Brissago tueds ai.;)

Yes the old beekeeper was from a valley up in the Bernice mountain. No Bee vail just a Havanna(y).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ja das isch e richtige Baerner Oberlaender gsie mit eme stumpe. E Brissago tueds ai.;)

Yes the old beekeeper was from a valley up in the Bernice mountain. No Bee vail just a Havanna(y).

 

Haiber Schluffy ! :rofl:

This translates to something like 'bloody swiss'!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Haiber Schluffy ! :rofl:

This translates to something like 'bloody swiss'!

Du Mainsch Chaibe schluffy. That means slopy, not very acurate:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of these days I am going to work out exactly how much water a kiwifruit uses... I am picking it is going to be stuff all compared to the figures quoted....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Du Mainsch Chaibe schluffy. That means slopy, not very acurate:rolleyes:

I did say 'something like'...and many many moons ago when we were kids...:rofl:

Are you a sloppy Swiss?:whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I did say 'something like'...and many many moons ago when we were kids...:rofl:

Are you a sloppy Swiss?:whistle:

Hi Pbee.

Nooooo not at all. To be honest I havent

 

I did say 'something like'...and many many moons ago when we were kids...:rofl:

Are you a sloppy Swiss?:whistle:

Hi Pbee.

 

Noooo not at all. I haven’t come across many sloppy Swiss. We get thought the other way, as you know the trains and buses are leafing on time etc. Which part of Switzerland is your family from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Pbee.

Nooooo not at all. To be honest I havent

 

Hi Pbee.

 

Noooo not at all. I haven’t come across many sloppy Swiss. We get thought the other way, as you know the trains and buses are leafing on time etc. Which part of Switzerland is your family from?

Me not from Der Schwiez, but I had many friends in an Austrian Boarding School, some of which I am still in touch today from Luzern and Basel.

And it is true, Swiss are not 'sloppy' more the opposite. Almost 'German', like me! :D:P(y)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Me not from Der Schwiez, but I had many friends in an Austrian Boarding School, some of which I am still in touch today from Luzern and Basel.

And it is true, Swiss are not 'sloppy' more the opposite. Almost 'German', like me! :D:P(y)

The Swiss are more German than the Germans from what I've seen

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Swiss are more German than the Germans from what I've seen

 

Me not from Der Schwiez, but I had many friends in an Austrian Boarding School, some of which I am still in touch today from Luzern and Basel.

And it is true, Swiss are not 'sloppy' more the opposite. Almost 'German', like me! :D:P(y)

So, so einer vom grossen Kanton wie wir in der Schweiz sagen.:rolleyes:

 

 

The Swiss are more German than the Germans from what I've seen

 

The Swiss are more German than the Germans from what I've seen

Sorry mate.

 

You are on the wrong track; there is a quantum leap of difference. For instance the dialect is different from one Valley to the other. Don’t forget Switzerland was founded in the year of 1291. :)(y)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, so einer vom grossen Kanton wie wir in der Schweiz sagen.:rolleyes:

 

 

 

Sorry mate.

 

You are on the wrong track; there is a quantum leap of difference. For instance the dialect is different from one Valley to the other. Don’t forget Switzerland was founded in the year of 1291. :)(y)

I wasnt referring to their regions and language differences.

 

I was taking a poke at their combined love of rules and regulations, dry sense of humour and absolute focus on everything being on time.

 

Nothing like a bit of generalisation - like NZ being full of beer drinking, rugby loving farmers :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wasnt referring to their regions and language differences.

 

I was taking a poke at their combined love of rules and regulations, dry sense of humour and absolute focus on everything being on time.

 

Nothing like a bit of generalisation - like NZ being full of beer drinking, rugby loving farmers :P

You forgot fishing, hunting, cricket and smoking tomatoe plants. ;) :censored: :whistle:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wasnt referring to their regions and language differences.

 

I was taking a poke at their combined love of rules and regulations, dry sense of humour and absolute focus on everything being on time.

 

Nothing like a bit of generalisation - like NZ being full of beer drinking, rugby loving farmers :P

 

I know.;).

That’s exactly sometimes the problem when you have been brought up so strictly.

 

Trying to loosen up and just go with the flow. Still NZ one of the best places to live, enjoying it.(y)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...