You have a village that is pested by bees but also farms crops. Lets hypothetically blow it out of proprotino and say that a certain number of people die from bee-sting and a certain number die from starvation.
And lets say that bees poolinate plants and there are also non-poisonous pollinators around (such as maybe butterflies).
Somebody see a small flying insect that has yellow and black stripes in it. He argues that because it looks like a bee and bees frigging kill people we should swat it immidetly. Now considred the counterargument of someone that knows that a non-poisonouns bee mimic also lives nearby. And then let is be clear that if they swatted eveything that looked like a bee there would be singficantly less pollinators left to make the harvest yield good and related starvation deaths.
When someone is swatting a bee lookalike they are not probably thinking about the starvation deaths they are causing.
I think I left the matter in the state that just because a grouping gives information given no new information it doesn’t lessen the amoutn of information that you do need. Even after not getting poisoned you need to find food. Thus everybody agrees that people should bother checking on what they are about to swat and should be about dilligent about swatting bees and should be dilligent about not swatting butterflies.
But what does not really stand for long is that somebody who summarily just swats all beelikes is being dilligent. ALL WHILE everybody agrees taht swattting is more right than not swatting. But coloration is not the only info you can deduce from bugs. But mimicry works because ti takes signficantly more cognitive effort to make those distinctions. Thus how right you use the easily avaible information doesn’ tsave you from not gathering the hard to get infromation or how poorly you performed on it.
Thus the vilalge is better off educating people about the tellsigns of the mimics and that does not detract from the villages need to keep remembering that bees are poisonous
Repeating a scenario from long ago.
You have a village that is pested by bees but also farms crops. Lets hypothetically blow it out of proprotino and say that a certain number of people die from bee-sting and a certain number die from starvation.
And lets say that bees poolinate plants and there are also non-poisonous pollinators around (such as maybe butterflies).
Somebody see a small flying insect that has yellow and black stripes in it. He argues that because it looks like a bee and bees frigging kill people we should swat it immidetly. Now considred the counterargument of someone that knows that a non-poisonouns bee mimic also lives nearby. And then let is be clear that if they swatted eveything that looked like a bee there would be singficantly less pollinators left to make the harvest yield good and related starvation deaths.
When someone is swatting a bee lookalike they are not probably thinking about the starvation deaths they are causing.
I think I left the matter in the state that just because a grouping gives information given no new information it doesn’t lessen the amoutn of information that you do need. Even after not getting poisoned you need to find food. Thus everybody agrees that people should bother checking on what they are about to swat and should be about dilligent about swatting bees and should be dilligent about not swatting butterflies.
But what does not really stand for long is that somebody who summarily just swats all beelikes is being dilligent. ALL WHILE everybody agrees taht swattting is more right than not swatting. But coloration is not the only info you can deduce from bugs. But mimicry works because ti takes signficantly more cognitive effort to make those distinctions. Thus how right you use the easily avaible information doesn’ tsave you from not gathering the hard to get infromation or how poorly you performed on it.
Thus the vilalge is better off educating people about the tellsigns of the mimics and that does not detract from the villages need to keep remembering that bees are poisonous