>In a world with an ever increasing population, there are not a lot of
other good choices.

I'm in complete agreement with you Charlie.  I was simply stating the fact
that for one species to benefit, another species typically loses.

To me, the most important issue is species extinction--a natural process,
but vastly accelerated in recent years due to habitat conversion and
overharvesting by humans.

Eventually, we will likely strike a more sustainable balance, but until
then, I strongly suggest that we focus our efforts upon maintaining the
Earth as an ark for its extant species (all of which will continue to
evolve, and some to "naturally" go extinct).

To do so, I suggest that we continue to farm some of the most productive
land in the most intense and efficient manner (as you suggest).  And at the
same time, set aside enough natural habitat to allow for reserves that can
sustain populations of threatened species.  There is plenty of evidence
that we can fine win-win solutions, especially if we are willing to spend a
few dollars more for our food.

It just so happens that pollinators are functioning as canaries in the coal
mine.  I don't expect farmers to interplant weedy pollinator-friendly
plants in their fields.  But setting aside a little "waste" land as
preserves can allow for native species to survive until our great
grandchildren can see them.
-- 
Randy Oliver
Grass Valley, CA
www.ScientificBeekeeping.com

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html