That's reasonable, Ecstatic.  But you also said that consistency required you not to weigh bees' interests, since you kill mosquitos and roaches.  At the time it seemed that consistency did require that.  But by your latest post you say you kill mosquitos and roaches not for convenience or pleasure, but only to protect yourself.  Since you don't require honey to protect yourself (or your mother) there is a moral asymmetry there, and consistency no longer requires you to exploit bees just because you kill roaches.

This is a good point.

I think my main thing is that the research I've done shows that organic, local honey helps more than harms bee populations. I think someone posted an article about that a while back in this thread. I'd rather buy the local, organic honey than the unknown origin Agave syrup. Where did it come from? Who made it? How much did the workers get paid? What are their environmental practices?

Like I said (and if this doesn't make me a vegan - it's fine, I'm not attached to that label), as an ecologist, I like to look at the WHOLE picture and make the choice which harms least, exploits least, and is most helpful to the environment, is most ethical. Most of the time, it means choosing the vegan option. As a lot of vegan companies are also eco-friendly. Sometimes, unfortunately, the vegan option exploits the environment in extremely destructive ways, i.e. shoes in Payless. And, without earth, we will have no life - homo sapien, or any other animal.

For me, as I said, it's a balancing act. I try to choose those products and companies who are ethical on all 3 fronts - animal, environmental, people. Sometimes, that option is not there. So, I have to choose what I think will harm least. Because the bottom line for me is that without an earth, we will have zero life, I will choose the eco-friendly option over any other. (Assuming the choice is between eco-friendly and non-vegan or vegan and environmentally destructive.)

For me, organic honey is eco-friendly. And it's better than allowing the bee populations to die out. Because if you allow that, a whole host of flowers will die out. Which will lead to a whole host of organisms dying out. Which in turn will cause ripples in the entire eco-system.

Anyway, I didn't really mean to debate this. I was just curious for everyone's reasons behind their choices.  :) I posted mine, from the point of view of someone who is deeply committed to ecology and earth friendly choices. And I was curious to the reasons of others, who come from different perspectives.

This reasoning seems good to me.  I agree that veganism is a good guide but not an infallible one when choosing amongst options, and the fallibility of blind veganism isn't often enough appreciated by vegans.  I'm not at all sure that this means we should buy local organic honey rather than agave -- as you say, we'd have to find out more about the agave, and the honey -- but I agree with the ethical principles you refer to.

EDIT: I do want to add, though, that this reasoning is better in the case of, e.g., shoes -- since we need those -- than in the case of honey/agave, since, if both those options are bad, we could choose simply to buy neither.

This is a good point. We could avoid both. I guess in my case, for health reasons, I avoid processed sugar. I think it has negative nutritional value. So, then the alternative option is maple syrup. Which I, personally, don't like. But, I suppose could get used to if it came down to it.

You know, actually, I was. And I think it's because all the vegans I know are also fellow biology masters, with a concentration in ecology. So, all of us are looking at the whole picture. And most of us eat honey. The only other vegans I know are a married couple, who aren't ecologists but real estate agents - and they also eat honey.

So, I didn't really realize that eating honey is such a controversial issue. I thought it was more "optional." Guess I was wrong there! 

when logic fails I just laugh.

Actually, it's very logical if you do your research. It's pretty simple too. And documented over and over in every region, in all parts of the world. It goes like this: the development of our world is encroaching on the territory of other animals, including bees. When we come in, animals die out or disperse and attempt to try their living in other regions. Because of this, we have wildlife habitats and national parks.  Beekeepers play their part as well. All these things are a way to counterbalance the ever increasing development. Bees happen to give us honey in the bargain.

Now, whether or not we agree if species should be left to die out due to our development is a whole other story.

Here again I think the answer is to reject both options -- we should neither accept a world in which animals live only in captivity, nor a world in which there are no animals.

You're right. But, then, we'd have to stop all development right now. And, somehow, even the idealist in me can't see that happening.

This is what people thought of the wolves and coyotes as well. So, they killed them without mercy to eradicate them. They thought there were so many of them that mass killings wouldn't make much of a difference. In less than a few dacades, they managed to eliminate most of them. Certainly, they elminated them completely in one area.

This is different in that bees are not persecuted as wolves. But, the same thing has happened in other species that also weren't persecuted. Their lands were simply encorached on by development, and eventually the species died out. Happens in the rainforest everyday.

I am VERY concerned about the distant future. Because its the distant future which is in trouble. It is that future which needs to be saved and preserved. As an ecologist, when I think in the longterm ... I mean the loooooongterm. As in hundreds of years from now. I want earth to be healthy, whole, and able to sustain life humanely for everyone. Forever, if possible. The decisions we make today will impact that future, hundreds of years from now.

No, not at all! I merely meant that we're coming from different reasons. Vegans come from the perspective of avoiding all animal products so as to not exploit them and allow them to live, naturally, humanely, etc. Ecologists (me, and at least the ones I know who do choose a vegan diet) come from the perspective of also trying to allow all of life to flourish humanely, without exploitation, but ALSO without extinction in the very loooooongterm. Because the loss of one species creates ripples - often negative - in the ecosystem. Continual extinction will lead to a loss of biodiversity. Biodiversity is the stuff of life! So, while we may be surrounded by millions of bees now - that can change fast. It's surprising and scary how quickly and easily one species just disappears.

I merely want to preserve life in a humane way. So, it comes down to the question: do I think bees are exploited? I don't think organic beekeepers exploit their bees. First, because beekeepers are quite respectful of life. Second, because I don't think bees have a notion of exploitation, pain, or suffering. Others, obviously, will disagree with me on that. And I respect that opinion. It's a diverse world, after all.

But, I definitely did not mean vegans don't see the whole picture! Most vegans I meet are very conscious and aware of the world around them.