>The problem with "sustainability" is who defines what it is you are >trying to achieve, and who determines how you get there. ... >So we have a term that means what we want >it to mean. That is dangerous. I really don't see that the term is so ambiguous. Have any contradictory definitions even been offered in this whole discussion so far? What's this danger that you fear, Bill? The way I see it, what this is about is simply considering the impacts of our actions (especially what we do in and through our beekeeping operations) on our neighbors, near and far, and on posterity. Living as if considering other people's welfare were taboo is what I see as dangerous. I'm sure that's not what you would suggest, but you're not clearly differentiating your position. Failing to consider the wider impact of our actions as beekeepers could be compared to neglecting our roles as parents of children just because "who defines what it is you are trying to achieve, and who determines how you get there." I think the answer (to the question of who) is obvious in both cases, although defining broad goals and determining how to get there (i.e. raising children and managing a farm) will always be complicated. Certainly, calling for individual beekeepers to take responsibility for the broader consequences of their business decisions is anything but communist. A broad dispersal of responsibility and decision-making is practically the definition of democracy, and that's what I and most every proponent of sustainability would advocate in contrast to modern consolidation and institutionalization of farms. It's also worth noting that sustainable "technologies" (e.g. drone brood trapping or locally raised queens) are much more "democratic" than the technologies that proponents of sustainability most commonly object to (e.g. patented genes or heavily regulated chemicals). As beekeepers, I think we have two big advantages over other "farmers" when it comes to sustainability. First, the machinery can be scaled down (i.e. beekeepers can profitably operate with inexpensive equipment on a relatively small scale). Second, we don't have to control incredibly expensive acreages in order to do what we do. This means that many of us on this list didn't have to inherit a beekeeping operation in order to keep bees for profit. And it means a fairly healthy segment of uninstitutionalized beekeepers have been able to continue to operate and influence the industry as a whole. Another big advantage is the special demand for "local" honey compared to local wheat, milk, meat, etc. Selling locally gives us opportunities to differentiate our product and our processes. I think mass-marketing makes it very difficult to sell the value of how we operate, and ultimately, if we can't sell the value of how we operate, we're going to be hard pressed to pay for sustainable operation. Sustainable operation demands that we don't sacrifice everything else for the sake of profit maximization, but commodity prices leave little to no margin for compromising profit. Eric "capitalism against communism...If one must spend one's life as an employee, what difference does it make whether one's employer is a government or a corporation?" --Berry ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ******************************************************