3 ms·
Sure, but it's not really nature when you essentially have one keeper constantly raising and introducing extra disease and mites into the environment. It'd be l
by Suppafly 3y ago
Sure, but it's not really nature when you essentially have one keeper constantly raising and introducing extra disease and mites into the environment. It'd be like if you had an infectious disease and constantly went out into public instead of staying home to recover. Sure all the other people getting sick from your infection could be handwaved as being natural, but ultimately it's because you hung around them.
- giantg2 3y agoThis is great explaination for why commercial beekeepers should not be migrating hives - turning epidemics into pandemics.
- gorjusborg 3y ago> Sure, but it's not really nature Yeah, bee keeping isn't really nature, it's agriculture (humans harnessing nature). That doesn't mean we have to go 'hardcore' because it isn't nature. We can try to keep it close if we want, and I think we should bias that way, where feasible.
- Terr_ 3y agoExactly, and even worse because the analogous disease would have no easy vaccine everyone else can use to ignore it. In other words, less like measles and more like drug resistant tuberculosis.