>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  *
******************************************************