> >    So, while we cannot credit ALL the crop's value to the bees in your
> >sense, there is another sense in which that crop would not exist without
the
> >bees.

As with many of these simplifications, I get lost if I try to contemplate
the whole picture.  How many miles do bees fly to get a tablespoon of honey?
Do bees use tablespoons?  Do they fly in kilometres?  Do all bees gather
exactly the same amount of honey?  Would we starve if the bees went on
strike?  as a wise friend told me once, not all questions that can be asked
using sensible-sounding English can -- or even should -- be given an answer.

Nonetheless these apparently shallow and unsupportable pronouncements do
serve to make difficult subjects somewhat approachable for children and
others with no experience in the matter, and provide a starting point for
learning more.  If we understand that, then we can have some fun and learn
something about the subject, even if we never get anywhere close to a
definitive answer.

In the case of trying to ascribe a value to the work bees do pollinating,
many assumptions must be stated, and they seldom are revealed fully.  No one
can predict the alternatives.  Consequently results of such speculation
often appear very inflated or self-serving and can be countered with other
stats that disprove them, ridicule them or even prove the opposite -- due to
using other hidden assumptions or placing different weights on factors used
in calculations.

Differences in assumptions will necessarily result in wide variations in
projections of value.  Are we considering the gross value of all crops
pollinated without considering possible substitutes that would appear in the
absence of pollination, and the possible value of alternate crops currently
displaced due to the increased competitiveness of the pollinated crop?  Are
we considering how pollination drives down the price of food commodities by
increasing production, thus destroying value?  Are we considering the gross
contribution to the economy without considering both current and possible
deferred direct and indirect costs?  Are we including the downstream
benefits of the pollination and the multiplier effect of spending?  Are we
considering the damage to our work ethic by providing food too cheaply?  Are
we speaking comparatively or are we speaking absolutely?  Are we considering
marginal value added or the entire value of crops?  Net increase in value or
gross increase in value?

Obviously, if we were to state all the considerations in what we say, we
would not be able to say anything.  I consider these types of pronouncements
as gambits to start people thinking, but anyone who seriously believes these
types of conversational openers should email me -- I have a nice bridge for
sale on eBay.

allen
http://www.internode.net/honeybee/diary/