[gerbilly]

>American honey bees are livestock, not wildlife.

Then if it's harming European honeybees, which are livestock as you say, do you not think it might be plausible that native pollinators and others insects might also be affected?

The "livestock" line is just a talking point, and the pesticide industry is pleased as punch every time we repeat it for them.

[tptacek]

I think if we were serious about native wildlife we'd address habitat loss instead of fixating on comic book opponents like "the pesticide industry". Either way: reports of the impending bee-pocalypse are extraordinarily overrated.

[kaitai]

Can't agree; know too many hobbyist beekeepers who've had 20-40 years beekeeping who can't keep a hive alive through a winter now. When I was a kid peoples' hives survived a harsh Minnesota winter. Now they all die even though we don't have enough snow to ski.

[tptacek]

We don't have to guess or extrapolate from anecdotes; the price of pollination services are tracked, and have grown low single-digit percentages over the last several years, just like prices in general.

[elago]

Referring to "price of pollination services" means the natural ecosystem has failed.

[tptacek]

There is no natural ecosystem of honey bee pollination in the United States.

[elago]

In my strange corner of the world that hasn't been "agronomically optimized", there aren't giant monoculture farms spraying insecticides, and there are dozens of species acting as pollinators.

No one pays for "pollinator services".

I suppose there's a business opportunity for someone to capture all the rainfall, dam the rivers, and sell it back to me as well.

Herbicides and pesticides aren't necessary for agriculture. They are necessary for a very specific type of agriculture that has been lobbied for and subsidized, starting with the Nixon administration's "get big or get out out" message to farmers. It's been successful by metrics like 'food produced per man-hour of human labor', and appears cheap because we are all forced to partially pre-pay under threat of violence (overly dramatic way of saying its subsidized through taxes), and ignoring massive externalities of ecosystem destruction.

[nothrabannosir]

Complete outsider to this: any chance that is due to external factors, such as increase in number of competitors (perhaps foreign), or reduced demand (e.g. new alternatives)?

[mudil]

It could be varoa mites, for example, that's causing the die off. It could be the result of artificial insemination of queens by distributors, creating a cheap stock and poorly survivable colonies. Just a some alternative ideas to consider...

[mudil]

Here's a link to WaPo article that bees are doing just fine https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/10/10/belie...

[headsoup]

Another fallacy: relative privation. Let's not worry about the bees and pesticides because of bigger problems.

I think the problem here is that over-emphasis, bluster and hyperbole are so normalised and frequent now that the use of emphasis to try and draw attention to an issue is now practically useless (maybe it was never useful...).

Perhaps we shouldn't worry about any of these 'small problems' because we're working hard to destroy the Earth anyway...

[tptacek]

No, once again, the glossary of logical fallacies you're working from isn't serving you well. I would be arguing relative privation if I was saying "things are so bad elsewhere it doesn't matter if the bees were dying", or "the bees are dying and that's all that really matters".

In fact, what I'm saying is that the bees are pretty much fine, and not an issue at all.

[gerbilly]

>what I'm saying is that the bees are pretty much fine, and not an issue at all.

You have stated this opinion many times, I think we are all clear on that.

Do we have more than your authority to go on in evaluating your claim?

I think HN would become a very uninteresting place to debate if every discussion devolved into unsupported arguments from authority, which seems to be the logical fallacy you are relying on in your 'argument.'

[headsoup]

A matter of differences between intent and actions I guess, you suggested the concern should be redirected to habitat.

How fine is 'pretty much?' How not-fine should we let it get before we show concern?

This seems to be general sentiment in that we are not overly concerned about the impact to wildlife until it becomes 'endangered,' at which point we need to act...