A new survey says America's honeybee hives just staggered through the second highest death rate on record, with beekeepers losing nearly half of their managed colonies. But using costly measures to create new colonies, beekeepers are somehow keeping afloat. Thursday’s University of Maryland and Auburn University survey says that even though 48% of colonies were lost in the year that ended April 1, the number of United States honeybee colonies remained relatively stable. Honeybees are crucial to the food supply, pollinating more than 100 of the crops we eat, including nuts, vegetables and fruits. Scientists blame parasites, pesticides, starvation and climate change for large die-offs.
  • Colombo@kbin.social
    1·
    1 year ago

    This is “don’t have kids” taken to its logical conclusion. Nothing absurd about this.

    Pains me that more people are unable to follow the chain of thoughts and reach this conclusion.

    Let me entertain a hypothetical solution. Would you suggest to Palestinians to “not have kids” to solve the ethnic conflict in that area?

    what is with kbin posters and takes like this man

    If anything, this is a non-sequitur.

    But maybe there is a grain of truth in there. People who were horrified that the lemmy dev and main mod of lemmy.ml was a proponent of hard left stayed away of lemmy (both SW and instances) and went to kbin instead. And since “don’t have kids” is mostly popular on the more extreme left… you get self-selected opinions.

    (honestly, I had no clue that I was not beehaw, just saw a braindead post and replied)

    • ffmike@beehaw.org
      6·
      1 year ago

      Telling one person that they can help out by not having kids is rather different from, as the dictionary says

      the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group

      Even suggesting to a whole group of people not to have kids is not the same as killing them.

      So no, it’s not a logical conclusion. It’s illogical rhetoric. But you do you, I guess.

      • Colombo@kbin.social
        1·
        1 year ago

        Telling one person that they can help out by not having kids is rather different from, as the dictionary says

        Your definition seems to be quite limited. Many acknowledged genocides would not be treated as such. According to Wikipedia, the UN Genocide Convention is much broader:

        Genocide is the intentional destruction of a people[a] in whole or in part. In 1948, the United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as any of five “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” These five acts were: killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group. Victims are targeted because of their real or perceived membership of a group, not randomly.[1][2]

        Spreading an ideology according to which one shouldn’t have kids, thus preventing births, would fall into this definition.

        Even suggesting to a whole group of people not to have kids is not the same as killing them.

        You are correct, it is not the same as killing them, but no one was arguing that. Again, limiting genocide to the deliberate killing of individuals would be quite a lenient definition, and various laws that targeted various ethnic minorities would not be considered genocides, despite them being considered as ones and having the same exact effect. Consider forced sterilization. You don’t have to forcibly kill anyone, yet probably everyone here would agree that it is a genocide.

        • ffmike@beehaw.org
          5·
          1 year ago

          You appear to be unable or unwilling to distinguish between “preventing births” and “voluntarily choosing not to have children.”

          Not sure why you’re quite so interested in escalating the rhetoric here (forced sterilization? in a thread that started with individual action to save honeybees? really?) but in view of the first rule of Beehaw (“Be(e) nice”) I’m not interested in joining you.

          • Colombo@kbin.social
            1·
            1 year ago

            You appear to be unable or unwilling to distinguish between “preventing births” and “voluntarily choosing not to have children.”

            I would be happy to further discuss the distinction and show you my willingness. But since you are not willing to engage in discussion.

            Not sure why you’re quite so interested in escalating the rhetoric here (forced sterilization? in a thread that started with individual action to save honeybees? really?

            I am not “escalating the rhetoric”. And I didn’t suggest either that the way to not have honeybees is to “not have kids”. If you want to talk about absurd statements, talk to that guy.

        • Lionir [he/him]@beehaw.org
          3·
          1 year ago

          Genocide is the intentional destruction of a people[a] in whole or in part. In 1948, the United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as any of five “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” These five acts were: killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group. Victims are targeted because of their real or perceived membership of a group, not randomly.[1][2]

          Spreading an ideology according to which one shouldn’t have kids, thus preventing births, would fall into this definition.

          Even with this extended definition, your argument fails the most important criteria for genocide wtih the UN definition which is:

          intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.

          And it also fails to mention that the argument being made is voluntary and so it wouldn’t fall under the act of :

          preventing births

          • Colombo@kbin.social
            1·
            1 year ago

            Even with this extended definition, your argument fails the most important criteria for genocide with the UN definition which is:

            The intent is always hard to prove. But I am glad that you agree that the only difference would be the intent ;)

            Yet, if you read about some cases, you might see that the intent was not always proven or obvious, and some cases are considered genocide even without intent. For instance, take Holodomor, which is being more and more recognized as a genocide, even though unintentional. But I am happy to talk about other cases.

            • Lionir [he/him]@beehaw.org
              4·
              1 year ago

              Let’s remind ourselves that this is one person suggesting to not have kids on an online forum. Unless you’re actually saying they have the intent or even a reason to believe they are targeting a specific demographic, this does not qualify nor is it close to qualifying to the definition of genocidee you gave.