path’s review of The Life of the Bee > Likes and Comments

I've spent a lot of time thinking about how we're so separate from nature in how we live, that we make decisions without thinking what might happen to the physical space that surrounds us. I guess it's the end point of the view that people have dominion over nature. That would imply that nature had the characteristics of subservience, timidity, weakness, passivity etc. Rather than think it operates by physical laws. Those ideas of dominance stop us thinking, whether ethically or even to understand. It's the one element of our stupid natures I've never understood.

Anyway, this book has been on my mind for a while and your review pushed me closer to it.

This sounds wonderful. Thanks for bringing my attention to it.

Nick wrote: "I guess it's the end point of the view that people have dominion over nature. That would imply that nature had the characteristics of subservience, timidity, weakness, passivity etc."

I think you're right to point to the notion that humans have dominion over nature, especially in that dominion implies control and use. That mindset does lend itself to overlooking that other creatures have their own motives. That seems obvious with creatures like livestock. Bees, though, are interesting border case in that they are often raised (or tended) but their wild behavior has a complementary positive effect for humans.

I'll look forward to reading your review when you get to this one, Nick.

Ah, i realise that Maeterlinck must be writing more about our relationship to other animals. I was thinking of another tangential matter whereby we increasingly live outside the parameters of nature and the physical world. So we can't understand it and the limits it imposes on us. Clearly nature doesn't have a mind, but it's subject to forces, but i look at how we raise food with less and less reference to nature. Soil is just a medium, rather than a cluster of organic systems working together to provide nutrients to plants. Because of large scale input/output agriculture, we operate as though the very soil doesn't exist. Water is drawn from ancient aquifers and in the short term it looks like we conquer nature. Except that's not how soil and aquifers work. Consumers mostly just choose off the shelf based on a criteria of personal and social likes and desires, rather than thinking of their bodies and its relationship to nature where supposedly the food is grown. I think this means we are largely blind to our environment and how it responds. (not everyone of course).

The growth of non dairy 'milks' is another case. Vegan and 'healthy living/wellness consciousness consumers demand almond milk. But growing that many almonds, a tree with great drought tolerance, as though it's tropical places great stresses on water resources. And the poor bees get shipped around the country in trucks and worked to death. There's a lack of focus on what can and can't be done within nature, so everything is turbo charged until it comes close to breaking. And most of us don't really know its going on - we just respond to our desires.

The symbiotic relationship between a food animal and us is a fascinating ethical area. A herd of cows does not exist in nature the same way as it does in agriculture. It only exists because we raise them. Have they adapted to being a food species and is this then morally OK?

Lisa wrote: "This sounds wonderful. Thanks for bringing my attention to it."

Thanks for the comment, Lisa. Glad that this review stirred your interest in the book. I started off interested in the book for one reason and then ended up really liking it for a reason I hadn't anticipated.

Nick wrote: "The symbiotic relationship between a food animal and us is a fascinating ethical area. A herd of cows does not exist in nature the same way as it does in agriculture. It only exists because we raise them. Have they adapted to being a food species and is this then morally OK?"

Your initial comment got me thinking along these lines, and I like how you are putting it here. Like you, I was sensing a difference between herds of livestock and bees in the sense that they are "in nature" and "of nature."

That sense of one's relationship to nature (e.g., subject to or having dominion over) is implicit in this book, but not really developed.

Wow, your review sparked an interesting thought!

I couldn't help thinking that perhaps every civilization has needed a different creature through which to explain itself. The Romans had bees, Hobbes imagined wolves, Orwell chose pigs. Maybe animals tell us less about nature than about the questions a particular age is trying to answer.

Oh wow. I appreciate your reflections on what sounds like a profound book, Path.

Pia G. wrote: "I couldn't help thinking that perhaps every civilization has needed a different creature through which to explain itself."

That is an interesting thought, Pia! If we are talking about a civilization identifying with a creature, it would seem to argue for it being a creature that is social and lives in groups. Then I suppose that other salient characteristics might be whether the creature forages or hunts. Bees make sense, it seems, for agrarian societies.

Nat wrote: "Oh wow. I appreciate your reflections on what sounds like a profound book, Path."

Thanks, Nat. I appreciate the comment. The book ended up being more profound than I expected it to be.

Umm path: I've heard this story before in FABLE OF THE BEES. And, E.O. Wilson did a fine job illustrating how ANTS mirror human communities; according to E.O. they can only think collectively.

Great review path and very interesting. Will have to look for this one!

Julio wrote: "Umm path: I've heard this story before in FABLE OF THE BEES. And, E.O. Wilson did a fine job illustrating how ANTS mirror human communities; according to E.O. they can only think collectively."

Another bee book to add to the pile. I'm not sure why I'm interested in bees, but I am.

The family has already informed that we are absolutely not getting bee boxes for the backyard. I didn't even have a chance to ask before they volunteered that position.

Lesle wrote: "Great review path and very interesting. Will have to look for this one!"

Thanks, Lesle. I appreciate the comment. I hope you run across a copy. It's definitely worthwhile to read.

Bees are most interesting, as are the equally gentle bumblebees. Wasps serve a key ecological role as well but damn are they ornery. As for our role in the scheme of things, Covid offered a great example that was a bit unexpected. The more humans pulled back and withdrew, leaving select vacuums where previously none existed, the more nature stepped forward seamlessly. Now that was a poetic moment.

Ken wrote: "The more humans pulled back and withdrew, leaving select vacuums where previously none existed, the more nature stepped forward seamlessly. Now that was a poetic moment."

There is an aspect of human/bee symbiosis hinted at in the book, but it's hard not to see this as decidedly one-sided in a more modern context. Our dependence on bees appears to be far greater than bees dependence on us. As your example shows, the more we get out of the way, the more room bees might find to take care of themselves.

Thanks for the comment.