4 ms·
In highly litigious cultures like the USA, wouldn’t a city be wary of attracting lawsuits from people with bee-sting allergies for putting them at supposed risk
by Mediterraneo10 5y ago
In highly litigious cultures like the USA, wouldn’t a city be wary of attracting lawsuits from people with bee-sting allergies for putting them at supposed risk?
- dan-robertson 5y agoThe US may be litigious but judges and lawyers aren’t stupid. The key issue is that it would generally be pretty hard to find someone sufficiently culpable. Many cities plant lots of male dioecious trees (ie some individuals of the species only have staminate (“male”) flowers and others individuals only have pistillate (“female”) flowers, the city plants only the trees that produce staminate flowers) which produce twice as much pollen as they would if trees were selected more randomly. This is because they drop less litter. But it is bad for people with allergies. I don’t think any such people have had success suing their cities for this practice.
- nullc 5y ago> which produce twice as much pollen as they would if trees were selected more randomly. My understanding is that it's even worse than twice, because the female flowers of some species actually filter the pollen out of the air.
- croon 5y agoI know I'm not arguing the merits of this specific case, but a world with no bees is a world where basically everyone is dead. Living can be hazardous, but some (very slight) dangers are necessary in a world that makes living possible.