> The unfortunate truth about nature, is that it is not sustainable and 
> never has been. Plants and animals became extinct long before mankind 
> was present. [...]
> If we went by today's definition of sustainability, we would all be
> beelining and getting honey from trees- until someone wrote a book 
> declaring that technique was not sustainable.

Back to the definition of sustainability 
the classic definition extracted from the 1987 Brundtland'report (and
reproduced in any basics on Environment)  is :
" development that meets the needs of the present without compromising 
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. "

In fact the report was quite more consistent and the definition also
contained a serie of conditions to sustainable development (but one has
to turn the report's next page, which seems very tiring):
- at the strict minimum, natural systems must not be endangered by
development
- sustainabe development requires to establish the maximum rate
ressources form ecosystems can be exploited by human development (in
order to respect to concept has defined previously).
But one tend to forget those conditions to manipulate words in discours.

That definition, linked to human activity, IMHO can not lead us to
conclude that "nature [...] is not sustainable and 
 never has been". The concept is just not relevent for nature. 

That said, the concept is so large that it can be and has been being so
largely distorted and manipulated to any agenda you wish, in the very
same way that good, bad and other moral concepts have been. Most of the
time, you know when make good actions and when you make bad actions. But
if you want to define the exact limit, you can spent thousands of years
in debates, you can distorse the words to push people in wars, slavering
or in negating others souls.

By the way, the assertion infered a syllogism:
species became extinct long before mankind was present
so species extinction due to mankind activites is included in the
natural process of species extinction rythm...

Neverteless, I appreciate most of posts from the author of that
syllogism. There is nothing personnal in my intervention.

> If farms in general were comparably dispersed and diversified, the need for migratory 
> pollinators would practically disappear.  I think that model is clear; how 
> to get there, both individually and collectively, is the challenge.


Back to sustainable beekeeping
As defined academically, it would be the subtil balance between social,
environmental and economic dimensions of beekeeping. Easy said...I
agree. What is it in practice, I don't know exactly (if so, I would have
already done it !).
But it doesn't mean (and never meant) you have to go back to small
familly beekeeping and gather honey in trees... naked in your banana
skirt. 

When you use remanent chemical that bring up pests resistance you know
you are out of the way.
When you treat systematically and massively bees because your management
weaken your bees, you know you are out of the way.
When you move infested ill bees all over the country, you know you are
out of the way.
When you are bank rupted with all your familly because you wanted to
keep bees as in the 1700's, you know you are no way.

In that field again, I guess we have to let apart extreme religious
ideologies, were they environmentaly pure green or economicaly pure blue
or socialy pure red, we have to let apart also easy cynisme and
confortable stoicism in order do our best to keep bees (and live from
beekeeping for some) in way we are proud of.

Hervé













On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:51:05 -0500, "Bill Truesdell"
<[log in to unmask]> said:
> Anyone else notice that the model for sustainability is what existed 
> with family farms in the past and they were not sustainable? The market 
> decided that. So the move toward sustainable farms is toward 
> unsustainable farms.
> 
> Same with beekeeping. The desire of some is a move from cheap and 
> sustainable to expensive and unsustainable. Doubt that? There are many 
> substitutes for honey and the market will quickly choose between honey 
> and a cheap alternative. There is a big difference between a farmer's 
> market and the local superstore. There is a big difference between 55gal 
> cans to supply the market and a 3lb bottle to supply a niche.
> 
> Bill Truesdell
> Bath, Maine
> 
> ******************************************************
> * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at:          *
> * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm  *
> ******************************************************
-- 
  Hervé
  www.emelys.com

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - I mean, what is it about a decent email service?

******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at:          *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm  *
******************************************************