Activism and honey consumption

If you look at the animal information pages you will see that they often talk about meat and skins, occasionally about milk and eggs, and occasionally about wool, and circuses and zoos and other exploitation centers animal for entertainment. However, it is very rare to find a section in which they talk about honey. In general, exploitation of insects seems to be widely ignored. In fact, in various debates I have found that many activists defend that we should deliberately not talk about the consumption of honey, even though this consumption is based on the exploitation of animals, as well as the consumption of meat, dairy products, eggs, skins, wool, and other products of animal origin.

The position of these animalists is usually based on three points: [1] that people will take us for "crazy" if we speak in favor of bees, since they are insects and people totally despise insects; [2] that the activity of agriculture already kills many insects equally; and [3] that the rejection of honey is motivated by a desire to be "purists" with our convictions instead of being more concerned with helping to stop the abuse of animals, because when we talk about honey we supposedly "move away" the people of veganism. If people already find it difficult to empathize with cows and chickens, trying to empathize with bees, or insects in general, would cause the opposite effect to that desired.
That third point is derived directly from the first, so perhaps two arguments would be exposed. In any case, I consider that all those arguments are inconsistent.

First; It happens that many people believe that it is a "madness" to empathize with cows or chickens and, even more, to think that they deserve the same basic respect as humans. Therefore, that does not differentiate it from insects. In addition, if you can empathize with cows and chickens, you can also empathize with insects. Does our empathy for other humans depend on their size or appearance? In any case, moral consideration does not depend on empathy but on understanding that other animals are individuals with interests that have an inherent value that we must respect. That understanding does not depend on the size or appearance of the animal in question. We have evidence that supports the thesis that insects are beings endowed with sensations; we have strong evidence that bees experience emotions and have intentions. If someone thinks that we cannot empathize with insects, or that insects do not deserve to be recognized as members of the moral community, I think they are in error.

Secondly; To claim that many insects die from agriculture does not justify ignoring the fact that insects are victims of animal exploitation. This argument is as absurd as to pretend that we ignore the exploitation of cows and chickens, arguing that mammals and birds are run over daily or exterminated by the exponential increase of the human population. It is as absurd as to pretend that we ignore that thousands of mice are used and killed in experiments claiming that thousands of them also die due to agriculture. Moreover, it is as absurd as to pretend that we ignore the exploitation of human beings claiming that many of them die daily because of the pollution we generate or due to accidents. This argument I already analyzed in my essay in response to Claudio Bertonatti.

Finally, the rejection of honey is not motivated by a desire to be "purist" but by not wanting to participate in the exploitation of bees. To accuse that one is "purist" for rejecting honey is no less inappropriate than to say that one rejects the consumption of meat for being "purist". The same is true when it comes to activism. In my opinion, activism should not exclude any animal because of its species -which would be the arbitrary nature of speciesism- nor should it exclude any form of animal exploitation. All sentient beings deserve the same basic respect, and all forms of animal exploitation reify them as resources, which is why they are equally unjust.

Does talking about insect’s "drive" people away? I do not realize that talking about honey and bees, or insects in general, is a reason why nobody moves away from veganism. Of course, one can invent all kinds of excuses to try to justify their rejection of veganism, but that is not caused by activists talking about the exploitation of bees, or insects in general. Some people may feel an initial rejection while they are not used to even think that insects deserve moral consideration, but that reaction is only the logical consequence of a prejudice and, furthermore, it is not an immovable attitude. This is something that can be modified through education.

In my point of view, the meaning of an activist movement is to change the beliefs, attitudes and behaviors of people who do not conform to ethics. Therefore, the fact that many people in general have no moral consideration for insects is not a reason to accept it but precisely a reason to change it.
I must add that there is an additional argument that some argue in favor of ignoring the consumption of honey that states that bees, and insects in general, are "inferior" to other animals, such as mammals and birds, because their sensitive development supposedly it is less complex than that of those other animals considered "superior", and, therefore, deserve less consideration; but all this presumption lacks a logical and empirical foundation. In the first place, there is no evidence to show that bees are inferior to other animals in their sensory development but, on the contrary, scientific research shows that bees are mentally complex beings that experience a diversity of emotions and feelings. Second, a different sensory or cognitive complexity does not equate to a difference in moral status. All beings endowed with sensation are equally subject and, all of them, equally possess the same inherent value and have basic interests related to their own conservation, autonomy and well-being.

For all these reasons, I think that the arguments used against talking about honey do not hold more than the arguments used to try to justify ignoring the exploitation of mammals and birds and other animals, apart from insects. It is the same criterion used to try to justify vegetarianism, arguing that talking about milk and eggs "takes away" people. Thus, my conclusion is that the decision to refuse to talk about the exploitation of bees - and of insects in general - would be conditioned or influenced by speciesism prejudices and not by rational criteria.

I think the same thing that can be applied to the exploitation of worms for silk or cochineal for carminic acid [e120] or any other form of exploitation on insects. And what I have argued about insects can also be applied to other groups of sentient animals that are also totally underestimated, such as mollusk’s or crustaceans.

In my view, all victims of animal exploitation deserve the same attention and all forms of animal exploitation are equally reprehensible. This is veganism. Unfortunately, at present, animal activism for the most part does not assume veganism as a moral basis and is not exempt from the same defects that it claims to denounce in society.