A society of advanced apes with a penchant for destroying their environment decides that a species that is necessary for their survival is better off dead because they don't care for a weird thing called science.
Smugly declaring that your side is based in the "science" and the other side isn't doesn't automatically make it true. The question of whether to allow a pesticide that kills bees is a public policy question, not one of science, though science can certainly be used to inform decisions.
Of course, but you don't seem to have picked up or entertain my implied sentiment and position that public policy is great at best and deception at worse and people often vote against their own interests due to lack of educated individuals, with agreed upon facts and goals, as well as critical thinking being a cultural, societal, worldwide human "common".
For a successful civillization reality must take precedence over public relations for Nature cannot be fooled.
People are just fing resistant to change and we've really made a mess in a lot of ways not good for the hive or the bess and unbound externality called willful ignorance is burning away at the roots of society, jeopardizing the tree of consciouness.
We'd rather have cheap sweet things than expensive sweet things. Then we'll come up with a cheap solution for the consequences that causes even more problems, and on and on.
It seems like most of the problems we have as a society are because we choose expedient solutions rather than careful solutions to problems.
We're only about 200 years into such decision making having the ability to effect things so quickly on a macroscopic scale. Your statement amounts to standing on the crest of the wave and saying "see we're fine!" Unaware of the potential fall and disregarding the harm that short term solutions have already caused.
Honey bee's are not native to Britain, and are not in any danger of disappearing because, like chickens, sheep, cows, and other livestock, we control their population; when demand or price of honey bee's is high beekeepers produce more, when it is low they produce less: https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/04/17/bee-apocalypse-was-neve...
Not sure how you came to that conclusion after reading that article. It states that honeybees (Apis mellifera) possibly originated in Asia and spread to Africa and Europe about 300,000 years ago.
The greater issue here though is that if honeybees are affected, there are likely many other bee species and insects that are affected that we _aren't_ protecting.
I don't know specifically about Britain, but most bee species are solitary, and without a hive, they're not as vulnerable to disease, or poison transferred back to their home. Other types of bees accidentally exposed would likely only die themselves, not quickly spread it to and kill other populations.
2nd sentence of 2nd paragraph says: "honeybees, which are actually not even native to North America, Europe or Australia"
guess it depends on how you define "native"
We had lots of leverage over nature in the middle ages. By that point Britain had little woodland left, and what remained was often managed. People were digging ditches and creating hedgerow as a boundary.
Larger mammals like bear, lynx, and wolf were extinct or on their way out. Large birds of prey were aggressively persecuted. There was even land reclamation as far back as Roman times.
Humans have been dominant over wildlife in Britain for a long time. There are probably American zip codes areas that have more untouched landscape than the whole of britain.