The argument is that bees overproduce naturally and you barely disturb them to take the combs that are done before they rot (the combs not the honey, honey basically never rots), so you are not harming them in any meaningful way.
Bees found in nature still overproduce, so bees in “captivity” are just given free range in a field of flowers. Technically the queen bee and all the colony could fly away but they don’t because why would they.
That sounds like a rational take. I could accept it, for what that’s worth.
I do like to ask if artificial selection is harmful. Is it possible that generations of queens/hives adapt and evolve to conform to human demands while becoming increasingly dependent on human support?
I don’t think so, artificial beehives are barely a protected box with compartments queen bees are put in, but there’s plenty beehives in the widl too. The reason I quoted captivity in that comment is that those bees go out as far as several kilometres to gather and polinize the flora around them. They could very much find some tree to use as a beehive and keep going out as much.
The reason against the veganism of honey is that it’s technically not consensual, and that the smoke they are thrown to calm themselves so that the humans can take the combs is mistreatment. I mean, I guess? But that’s such a low bar that I don’t subscribe to that, you do you.
In any case I’m not expert, you should do your research to get the most accurate info.
the definition from the vegan society makes no mention of consent, only exploitation. the barest definition of exploitation is “use”. wherever you heard breast milk is vegan, it’s not consistent with the vegan society definition.
I highly doubt that they are using the “use” meaning of exploitation. Pretty sure they mean the “abuse” meaning, where consent takes a big part. In any case, I’m not that invested in the topic so if you think otherwise let’s agree to disagree.
it would be easy enough to clear up this ambiguity, by choosing a clearer word. they have chosen not to do so. the more expansive definition is the simplest one. but believe whatever you want
The argument is that bees overproduce naturally and you barely disturb them to take the combs that are done before they rot (the combs not the honey, honey basically never rots), so you are not harming them in any meaningful way.
Bees found in nature still overproduce, so bees in “captivity” are just given free range in a field of flowers. Technically the queen bee and all the colony could fly away but they don’t because why would they.
That sounds like a rational take. I could accept it, for what that’s worth.
I do like to ask if artificial selection is harmful. Is it possible that generations of queens/hives adapt and evolve to conform to human demands while becoming increasingly dependent on human support?
I don’t think so, artificial beehives are barely a protected box with compartments queen bees are put in, but there’s plenty beehives in the widl too. The reason I quoted captivity in that comment is that those bees go out as far as several kilometres to gather and polinize the flora around them. They could very much find some tree to use as a beehive and keep going out as much.
The reason against the veganism of honey is that it’s technically not consensual, and that the smoke they are thrown to calm themselves so that the humans can take the combs is mistreatment. I mean, I guess? But that’s such a low bar that I don’t subscribe to that, you do you.
In any case I’m not expert, you should do your research to get the most accurate info.
it’s an animal product
And humans are animals yet human breast milk is considered vegan. It’s about consent and exploitation tbh.
the definition from the vegan society makes no mention of consent, only exploitation. the barest definition of exploitation is “use”. wherever you heard breast milk is vegan, it’s not consistent with the vegan society definition.
I highly doubt that they are using the “use” meaning of exploitation. Pretty sure they mean the “abuse” meaning, where consent takes a big part. In any case, I’m not that invested in the topic so if you think otherwise let’s agree to disagree.
it would be easy enough to clear up this ambiguity, by choosing a clearer word. they have chosen not to do so. the more expansive definition is the simplest one. but believe whatever you want