"Since I can't prove to myself that they feel pain, I should treat them as if they don't feel pain."

This is a selfish, oppressor-centric viewpoint. The more moral stance is:

"If there is more than a remote chance that they feel pain, I should treat them as if they feel pain."

As pointed out in the comments in the previous post, the argument shown in this post's title is sometimes used by people who want to exploit bees for their honey.

Since bees are sentient, avoid danger, possess memories, make choices, learn about their environment, communicate with each other in fairly sophisticated ways, and appear to have interests that they pursue, there is more than a remote chance that they feel pain. They may also derive pleasure from gathering nectar, or from discovering a meadow of newly-opened blooms and leading their hive members to it. They may have a will to live; they certainly take measures to escape from harm.

When considering whether our non-essential, easily avoidable actions may cause pain to other beings, the benefit of the doubt should go to the most vulnerable, the ones who have the most to lose, the ones who would be forced to make deep sacrifices because of our demands.

Consider that:

- Most marine biologists now agree that fish feel pain; 50 years ago that was not the case. (Recent studies also show that fish have individual personalities, use tools, play games, and have long-term memories.)

- Two or three generations ago, a majority of scientists thought that non-humans were incapable of emotion; that position has been completely overturned.

- In the 19th century, when the animal experimentation industry started, researchers claimed that animals were automatons; the animals' screams in response to being tortured were merely mechanical sounds.

- Only in the last 10-15 years have scientists in any number concluded that chickens, with far smaller and simpler brains than humans, not only have impressive cognitive skills and a sense of the past and future, but a rich emotional life.

- Recent scientific research supports suspicions that lobsters, crabs, and other crustaceans feel pain.

We have consistently underestimated animals' sentience and, particularly, their capacity for suffering and experiencing emotional states.

Some humility would be in order.

(Actually, I suspect that our intuition about animal sentience has been fairly on target throughout the ages; it's our science and reasoning on this matter that has been deficient, or blatantly self-serving.)

Suppose we assume that bees feel pain and we're wrong. What is the cost? Honey in our tea and on our toast. An indulgence. A pleasantry. Agave nectar and other sweeteners are excellent substitutes. In other words, the cost is trivial.

Suppose, on the other hand, we assume that bees don't feel pain (perhaps because the notion suits us) and we're wrong. What's the cost? Widespread infliction of pain on helpless beings, for no good reason. And possibly an irrecoverable deficit in our moral obligations to fellow sentients.

But our relationships with animals, and with other beings who are less powerful than us, are more than utilitarian equations. By developing compassion and empathy for individuals across a vast spectrum of species, we foster peace - both inner and outer. We cultivate harmony and goodwill. We rejoice in our kinship with the sentient creatures with whom we share the earth. We become allies, partners, and friends with animals, not oppressors and dominators. Our hearts are gladdened not by extracting resources from them, but by seeing them thrive, and helping them fulfill their goals. Their satisfaction is our happiness. We have no desire to exploit them or steal from them, or to look for excuses for doing so.

Living in peace with our nonhuman neighbors provides benefits that are profound, mutual, and non-violent. Enslaving nonhumans for their flesh, reproductive capabilities, or bodily functions provides superficial, fleeting benefits that are extracted at the expense of the enslaved, and that produce inner turmoil and less-than-honest self-dialog in the enslavers.

The assertion that victims of our exploitation do not feel pain is a defense mechanism. It is a self-protective, weak rationalization to control and plunder for pleasure. Spreading our compassion as widely as possible, following the golden rule to the best of our ability - basically, living according to our deepest morals - rids us of exploitative desires and the need to conjure up justifications for morally questionable behaviors.

Thoughts on Honey

Farming bees for honey is essentially an act of domination. You can have bees, just as people running farm sanctuaries can take care of chickens, but things get... hm... 'sketchy' once you begin to take the things that they make. And bees make honey for themselves - namely, for their pupae. If you're taking that honey, they may not have enough to sustain the hive - that's one reason for CCS. Another is the idea that, because commercial bee farmers often take all the honey and give back only sugar water, the bees have been physically and psychologically susceptible to diseases because of that deficiency.

Taking honey from bees is an act of violence... It is an act that says, 'because I can, and because I 'own' you, I will do this.' It is might makes right all over again. Is veganism not against that? Is veganism not against all exploitation of animals - be they cows, mollusks or even bees? Why call yourself vegan if you do not subscribe to its implicit ethics - that animals are not ours to exploit? That animals are not ours to brutalise? That animals are not ours to steal from, however 'nicely' we may do it?

If I am correct, and eating/taking honey is an act of violence against bees just as is taking an egg from a chicken - for, by taking the egg from the chicken, you doom her to a short life of osteoporosis and nutritional deficiencies - then eating/taking honey is morally unacceptable.

It is acceptable, however, to begin colonies on your land to support your land without taking the honey. In this way you become symbiotes. In this way you become, not necessarily friends - which cannot happen when two live in such different worlds - but allies nevertheless. Just as it would be acceptable to put up birdhouses, it is acceptable to take care of bees - because you do not steal from them...

If they pollinate your fruit trees and plants, and if you eat those fruits and plants but do not take their honey, then you are truly symbiotic. You need each other, and you live in peace with each other, rather than either of you taking what was not made for you, but for someone else.

It boils down to this: you are an exploiter even if you exploit 'nicely' - so why not just not do it?

The Environmental Problem With Honey

The problem with honey is not that it's not raw. The problem with honey is not that it's not organic. The problem with honey is not that it's fair trade.

The problem with honey is not that we're doing it wrong. The problem with honey is that it's honey.

See, a lot of so-called raw "vegans" don't know this, but the problem is honey itself. The problem with Colony Collapse Disorder is just one in a long string of problems with the honey industry, starting with the idea that other creatures on Earth are ours to do with as we wish. (That's speciesism, dear, and real vegans are against that shit, sorry to pull the Real Vegan stuff with you - but it's not just a diet. It's ethics.) The next problem came when we started domesticating bees, historically a sign that things are gonna go real bad real soon. And once we started domesticating bees, like farmed salmon, we began crowding out - environmentally, food-wise or just in terms of space - the native bees. This is always a dangerous precedent: once you have a breed of "good ____ producers", you tend to use that exclusively, and so do all your neighbors, until finally you have very little diversity.

You can see where this is going, right? Listen to me: the reason that CCD is happening at all is because humans commercialised bees in the first place, and then continued doing it. To me, it's perfectly natural that CCD would occur, given that commercial beekeepers usually take all the honey, or most of it, and then feed the bees on sugar water over the winter. (They also tend to kill off most of the bees during this time, too. And we were saying that honey was vegan how... ?) See, if humans are take this supposedly "life-giving" honey, then the bees are not getting it, they're getting an inferior substance to the stuff that they have been "designed" to produce for themselves throughout millions and millions of years. I honestly wonder how we could have done a better job of precipitating CCD.

So yeah, dudes. It's your fault that we have CCD. Stop eating honey, because eating "raw, organic, fair trade" honey is NOT going to make the problem go away - it'll only make it worse!

And a note for the health nuts (and by "nuts" I mean actually insane, because their logical faculties clearly have been bamboozled by the nutzoid but highly charismatic David Wolfe):

Yes, honey is full of digestive enzymes. They're bee enzymes, not human enzymes. Cow enzymes would probably be as useful to us as bee enzymes, you know. (Yeah, I'm not actually promoting eating cow vomit, I'm just pointing out that little logical fallacy, there.)

So, short answer: when you eat honey, you destroy the environment as well as bees' lives and humans' claim to being a species that can make moral decisions.