Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Breeding Super Bees

Elliot Chang writes "Over the last five years the world's honey bee population has been steadily dwindling, with many beekeepers citing 2010 as the worst year yet. In order to save these extremely important insects, scientists are working on breeding a new super honey bee that they hope will be resistant to cold, disease, mites and pesticides. If all goes well, the new and improved insect will continue to pollinate our crops for years to come."

164 of 248 comments (clear)

  1. They tried this already. by Lilith's+Heart-shape · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Isn't this how we got "killer bees" in the first place?

    1. Re:They tried this already. by myurr · · Score: 1

      What could possibly go wrong?

    2. Re:They tried this already. by GeekBoy · · Score: 1

      Something like that. They cross bred a very docile bee with a very aggressive african bee which produced lots of very good honey. They though that by doing so they could get a docile bee which produced lots of top quality honey. Unfortunately they ended up with a bee that would kick your a$$ if you even looked at it funny, never mind trying to get the honey.

    3. Re:They tried this already. by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Worst case scenario would be that they fail. From TFA:

      bees pollinate 90% of the world’s food crops

      This is not like tinkering around with a ton of fissile material for a lawn ornament, this is breeding bees to ensure we have food. Creating a second breed of killer bees is not a nightmare scenario. There have been 11 deaths in the US due to killer bees since the 90's. Imagine we create a killer bee variety that's worse, and that number rises a thousandfold. Compare that nightmare scenario to 90% of the crops worldwide failing to be pollinated.

      Which would you rather risk?

      If you're that paranoid that every article about biological research makes you worry about "I am legend" scenarios or clouds of murderous insects, I don't know what you're doing typing on a computer. Skynet and the matrix people! What could possibly go wrong?!?

    4. Re:They tried this already. by hal2814 · · Score: 1

      I thought Lorne Michaels was how we got the Killer Bees?

    5. Re:They tried this already. by 246o1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Mod Parent Up!

      Not only is the killer bee problem much less of a problem than people think it is, but the potential loss of the world's honeybees is a much WORSE problem than people think it is. It's another case of the less-sexy story being more important by orders of magnitude.

      --
      Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
    6. Re:They tried this already. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'd rather not risk either.

      You're offering up a false dichotomy, that it is "either this, or that". Nothing is further from the truth. SOMETHING is going on with the bees, and we had better find out what it is. If it is really THAT dire, then this is an "all hands on deck" moment for science. Trying to fix the bees when it is not their fault is stupid.

      Thinking we know better than nature is just plain arrogance, which might just kill us all, and may be why we're in this boat to start with.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    7. Re:They tried this already. by rbrausse · · Score: 1

      Nietzsche is dead.

      but if he was right he died after god...

    8. Re:They tried this already. by black+soap · · Score: 2

      Worst case scenario would be they work for a while, long enough that we become dependent solely on them, and then they fail. Imagine a scenario where they survive, but find it easier to pollinate non-crop foods. They discover a niche that doesn't benefit us.

    9. Re:They tried this already. by easyTree · · Score: 1

      If you're that paranoid that every article about biological research makes you worry about "I am legend" scenarios or clouds of murderous insects, I don't know what you're doing typing on a computer. Skynet and the matrix people! What could possibly go wrong?!?

      Congratulations fellow earthling! I'm here to tell you that we have selected your post as "that most likely to have saved the world."

      I come from your future - a future so bleak it makes idiocracy look like a summer camp. There is one bee left and it's getting really tired. If only you had tried harder! :-(

    10. Re:They tried this already. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Thinking we know better than nature is just plain arrogance, which might just kill us all, and may be why we're in this boat to start with.

      Thinking that nature knows anything is just as arrogant.
      What makes you think that nature won't kill us all if left alone?

    11. Re:They tried this already. by operagost · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, we'll just unleash the needle snakes.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    12. Re:They tried this already. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think it should be worth noting that these stories are specifically about honey bees and not bees in general. Honey bees make up only ~10 out of ~20,000 species of bees.

      If all honey bees disappeared it seems like there would be several other bees left to pollinate crops. It would be nice to find out what is happening with these bees but these stories should not be read as a "sky is falling" story as they are often presented.

    13. Re:They tried this already. by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're offering up a false dichotomy, that it is "either this, or that". Nothing is further from the truth. SOMETHING is going on with the bees, and we had better find out what it is. If it is really THAT dire, then this is an "all hands on deck" moment for science. Trying to fix the bees when it is not their fault is stupid.

      And you're offering up another false dichotomy. We try to make resistant bees AND we try to solve the problem with the mites. There are other scientists working on the problem with the existing bees. We have enough scientists to work on both. Hopefully we'll solve the problem without breeding new bees. If that fails, hopefully we can fix the bees.

      Not trying to make resistant bees because "it's not their fault" is stupid. Plus, that's not really what we do. Aside from fish, we domesticate (read: fiddle with the genetics of) everything we eat or use in the production of food. Why would bees be any different?

    14. Re:They tried this already. by Antidamage · · Score: 1

      Not only been tried, it's unnecessary.

      Commercial crops aren't pollinated by honeybees alone. There are many insects responsible for insect pollination. Not to mention that most crops are pollinated manually by pureeing male plants and spraying them on the others.

      This situation is a typical example of so-called in-the-know bloggers making completely false claims due to ignorance. Slashdot: so very, very average.

    15. Re:They tried this already. by Antidamage · · Score: 1

      The article is talking rubbish. That factoid about bees pollinating 90% of the world's food crops is extremely inaccurate.

    16. Re:They tried this already. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      Ghhhhaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    17. Re:They tried this already. by butchersong · · Score: 1

      Yes but 'honey bees' do not account for pollination of 90% of the world's food crops. There are all sorts of bees. If honey bees go away it would really suck but it's not the end of the world.

    18. Re:They tried this already. by elsurexiste · · Score: 1

      Offtopic, but in "I am legend", the monster was in fact the last human, in a weird reversal of the vampire's legend (a monster that kills at daytime, just because).

      --
      I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
    19. Re:They tried this already. by h5inz · · Score: 1

      Technological singularity (the Skynet thing you mentioned) would be actually a cool thing, if it was somehow in my benefit. The killer bees would be a cool thing too, if it was somehow in my benefit. How about a Rage virus that kills everyone else but me? It would solve all my (The Worlds) food problems, I think. Then I could eat a divinity fudge on a roof of a supermarket and crap on a dying zombie and that would be fun I think. And uh, that is it my diary. No no sarcasm here, I am just being in this happy mode again. I wish I had the Nuclear football thingy.

    20. Re:They tried this already. by carpenoctem63141 · · Score: 1

      Are there any birds left? I hear there's this thing you can do with the two.

    21. Re:They tried this already. by IICV · · Score: 4, Informative

      Thinking that nature thinks, and that if it does it cares at all about our survival, is pretty much the stupidest thing I can imagine.

      Nature doesn't give a shit about us, or about anything. It just is - and if, in the process of nature taking its course, humanity is wiped out in the most horrific way possible, then nature doesn't care at all.

      So yes, we can know better than nature - because nature doesn't know anything at all.

    22. Re:They tried this already. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's also how we got all our modern domestic animals and plants.

    23. Re:They tried this already. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      We already know what it is killing the bees.

      A Germany company called Bayer developed a widely-used insecticide called imidacloprid destroys a bee's immune system at extremely low doses. Bees pick it up in large amounts when they visit plants that were sprayed with the insecticide, carry it back to their hive, and it spreads around rapidly. Then the bees die from any normal illness they would otherwise be able to fight off.

      One of the earliest trials in Germany resulted in all bees within the test site dying in a matter of months. For whatever reason, Bayer decided not to stop and continued to develop the insecticide. They've always known from the earliest steps about its lethality.

      Bayer has been actively trying to withhold scrutiny of their product and are suing/threatening everyone that implies they are responsible. At least in the US, the EPA isn't doing anything so it may be up to other countries to investigate and find Bayer accountable for this mess.

      So to be absolutely clear, this entire bee problem is due to Bayer selling an insecticide that adversely affects bees as a side-effect worldwide. I really wish the media would make a bigger stink about it. It's not a mystery fungus or global warming.

    24. Re:They tried this already. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      First off, I didn't offer another "false dichotomy" as you claim. I didn't give "either one or another" I said "IF / THEN" There is no "ELSE".

      Secondly if the condition exists, then it requires us to use an "all hands on deck" meaning looking at everything.

      Third, if we try to fix the bees, and the problem isn't the bees, what are we "fixing" in the bees?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    25. Re:They tried this already. by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      Thinking we know better than nature is just plain arrogance

      We do know better than nature. For evidence I offer up such artifical marvels as: the wheel, the screw, trans-pacific planes and boats, the transcontinental railroad in the U.S., micro SD cards, macro SD cards, buildings, seismographs, and submarines.

      If nature knows better than us, please show me where she invented anything comparable to those manmade items above that isn't completely inefficient or didn't take multiple thousands of years to develop. Go ahead, I'm waiting.

    26. Re:They tried this already. by leenks · · Score: 2

      If this is true, the parent should be modded up (there are plenty of articles suggesting it needs more research - eg http://www.fastcompany.com/1710746/bayer-our-bee-toxic-pesticide-is-actually-safe-for-bees)

    27. Re:They tried this already. by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      No that is not at all the worst case scenario.

      The worst case scenario is them making all other bees extinct and then either turning out to not be a viable alternative to crop pollination of all dying themselves because that is what a mono-culture does.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    28. Re:They tried this already. by leenks · · Score: 2

      Yes, it is more like 70-80% of crops (http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0703-honeybee_decline.htm). The World is still fucked without them.

      Oh, you meant in the USA, where most of the food (as here in the UK) eaten is manufactured crap - so yeah, optimistically 30% of the food the USA consumes (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1005_041005_honeybees.html).

      Clearly this isn't a problem at all.

    29. Re:They tried this already. by leenks · · Score: 1

      Other than the africanized honey bee fiasco, bees tend not to sting. Most species of bee die soon after stinging and they are reluctant to do so. This doesn't apply to wasps, hornets and most other stinging insects. By breeding out the stinger we might totally change the behaviour and properties of the insect.

    30. Re:They tried this already. by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      Imagine the delicious honey we could get if we cross breed that with a grizzly bear, and a Puma.

      And that creature from Aliens.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    31. Re:They tried this already. by sjames · · Score: 1

      The part the media doesn't hype so much is that south and central american bee keepers have been quite successful keeping "killer" bees and like them for their high honey productivity.

    32. Re:They tried this already. by DJRumpy · · Score: 1

      Well I for one welcome our new Apoidea Overlords.

      Long live the queen...

    33. Re:They tried this already. by Lilith's+Heart-shape · · Score: 1

      Thinking that nature thinks, and that if it does it cares at all about our survival, is pretty much the stupidest thing I can imagine.

      IMO, reification is generally pretty stupid, and has no legitimate place outside of literature and poetry, where it's called "personification". It doesn't make sense to treat nature, society, government, or any abstraction as if it has a concrete existence and can think, plan, know, desire, or do anything on its own.

    34. Re:They tried this already. by Lilith's+Heart-shape · · Score: 1

      Aside from a joke being modded (Score: 5, Insightful)?

    35. Re:They tried this already. by Dr+Herbert+West · · Score: 1

      I don't think-- I KNOW.

      Nature is already killing us all. We are built to die.

      It's only natural.

    36. Re:They tried this already. by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      The most important scientists work in high paying, high profile jobs like breast and penis enlargement, hair growth and other valuable things.

      No they don't. You're a moron.

    37. Re:They tried this already. by ladoga · · Score: 1

      Problem is that these super bees could potentially outcompete all other pollinating insects creating sort of a monoculture. Then species dependant on these other pollinators would suffer or even go extinct (birds, parasites etc.). It would damage the ecosystem in unpredictable ways.

      It's much safer to have 100 different species pollinating our plants than one. Imagine if there is only one species that does all pollination for our plants and for example a new disease wipes out all it's population.

    38. Re:They tried this already. by ZackSchil · · Score: 1

      You should probably be able to spot this pop-culture reference even if you've never seen the movie.

    39. Re:They tried this already. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      You're biased by your short lived nature. And it is clearly evident. Wait for 80 years and then I'll tell you the answer you desire.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    40. Re:They tried this already. by jgrahn · · Score: 1

      Worst case scenario would be that they fail. From TFA:

      bees pollinate 90% of the world’s food crops

      This is not like tinkering around with a ton of fissile material for a lawn ornament, this is breeding bees to ensure we have food.

      The "90% of the world's food crops" surely refers to 90% of the kinds of food crops -- not 90% of the biomass we eat. Wheat, corn, rice are all wind-pollinated ... the only ones I can think of which need pollination by bees are fruit trees like apples, and maybe oil-producing crops like rape.

    41. Re:They tried this already. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Without resorting to he Gaia personification of nature, it is nonetheless a fact that the natural world is a complex self-regulating system that human beings are quite comfortable with. And interfering with any extremely complex system can cause totally unforeseen consequences before it settles back into equilibrium.

      Human experiments such as introducing cane toads in Australia or myxomatosis in the UK show that we do not necessarily know better than nature.

      Sneering at this as a superstitious Jurassic Park or Frankenstein style "we are meddling with the forces of nature/God's work" is missing the point.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    42. Re:They tried this already. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      That is surely an easily testable or provable hypothesis. Some Geman drug company can't buy off all the governments in the world.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    43. Re:They tried this already. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point. A large meteorite has no intelligence but it could still wipe out humanity. At that point, it really is irrelevant how many clever toys we've invented, the universe wins.

      And we'd be fucking stupid to say to ourselves "oh, let's construct an artificial meteorite and test what effect it would have if we crashed it into the Earth."

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    44. Re:They tried this already. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Technological singularity (the Skynet thing you mentioned) would be actually a cool thing, if it was somehow in my benefit. The killer bees would be a cool thing too, if it was somehow in my benefit. How about a Rage virus that kills everyone else but me? It would solve all my (The Worlds) food problems, I think. Then I could eat a divinity fudge on a roof of a supermarket and crap on a dying zombie and that would be fun I think. And uh, that is it my diary. No no sarcasm here, I am just being in this happy mode again. I wish I had the Nuclear football thingy.

      It's always useful to hear from an Ayn Rand disciple for a logical and incisive post that thrusts right to the truth of a situation.

      And as you're obviously such a fucktard, yes that was sarcastic..

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    45. Re:They tried this already. by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Why would you expect a self-confessed nerd (see page's tag line) to give a shit about the shit that is "pop culture"?

      (I'm guessing this is a reference to Idiocracy, but it's a couple of years since I saw it. And it's hardly "popular", and barely of "cultural" significance.)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    46. Re:They tried this already. by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      That is surely an easily testable or provable hypothesis. Some Geman drug company can't buy off all the governments in the world.

      Epidemiology should be able to give a pretty quick answer. It's unlikely that the pesticide in claim was sold in all countries. so, if there are countries where the insecticide hasn't been sold AND where there is a bee decline, then the finger doesn't point directly at the insecticide.

      There are no doubt lab studies under way. But some desktop epidemiology could yeild a very fast answer. And I'm sure it's been done already. The original AC has the whiff of "crank" about him (starting with being an AC).

      Why finger Bayer as a German company? AFAIK, they're a multinational, though German roots are undoubted. And why are a lot of drug and chemical companies of German origin? Because the German government invested a lot in chemical education, training and research. And they're still reaping the benefits over a century later. I'm trying to remember what got Bayer started? Ah yes, Aspirin, of the famous copyright theft case by the Allies during World Massacre 1.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    47. Re:They tried this already. by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      Thinking we know better than nature is just plain arrogance, which might just kill us all, and may be why we're in this boat to start with.

      That's a glib movie line, but "thinking we know better than nature" is fundamental to every tool and every component of civilization. It does cause some problems, yes, but throwing it all out would be much worse.

    48. Re:They tried this already. by fritish · · Score: 1

      Obviously we get Space Bees with delicious royal jelly made by the queen bee.

      Don't worry, Bender can speak bee. Nothing can go wrong.

      --
      "Coffee is for closers."
    49. Re:They tried this already. by kryliss · · Score: 1

      I think by definition that humans are a virus upon the earth.

      --
      --- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
    50. Re:They tried this already. by kryliss · · Score: 1

      None of which would be able to be created without nature making all the materials and humans by default are part of nature so yes, nature made all of those things too.

      --
      --- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
    51. Re:They tried this already. by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      Nature made the raw materials. Humans made them better. Similarly, nature made bees. Humans are trying to make them better. So, once again, I assert that humans know better than nature, especially considering that nature is nothing more than a phenomenon lacking any ability to, "know," whatsoever.

    52. Re:They tried this already. by Antidamage · · Score: 1

      No, it's far less than that. Most crops are pollinated manually by people before the insects have time to take care of it.

  2. Haven't I heard this story before? by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

    Wasn't that how Africanized Bee's were created? Wikipedia thinks so.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Haven't I heard this story before? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is a bit different, they're trying to selectively breed everyday honey bees here, not cram in some new DNA that comes with increased aggression.

    2. Re:Haven't I heard this story before? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not to recognise the seriousness of the problem and the need to get new bies and to be frivolous is to be ignorant that the entire question of the existence of most plants, and so most of humanity, is to be or not to be.

  3. Cell Phones by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

    I thought the problem was that they had to be resistant to cell phone signals? Has anyone considered tinfoil hats for bees? (because tinfoil bee hats, of course, would be ambiguous grammar.)

    --
    -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    1. Re:Cell Phones by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      I thought the problem was that they had to be resistant to cell phone signals? Has anyone considered tinfoil hats for bees? (because tinfoil bee hats, of course, would be ambiguous grammar.)

      Only because you've not yet discovered the hyphen: tinfoil-bee hats vs tinfoil bee-hats.
      The hyphen: Incapable of disambiguation since the rise of the Nazi Grammarians.

    2. Re:Cell Phones by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

      I thought the problem was that they had to be resistant to cell phone signals? Has anyone considered tinfoil hats for bees? (because tinfoil bee hats, of course, would be ambiguous grammar.)

      Only because you've not yet discovered the hyphen: tinfoil-bee hats vs tinfoil bee-hats.

      The hyphen: Incapable of disambiguation since the rise of the Nazi Grammarians.

      Yes, that use of the hypen seems quite wrong, although it would take me several minutes to figure out exactly why, so it is not worth my time until I encounter it professionally, at which point I will consult the appropriate Nazis.

      --
      -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
  4. NOT THE BEES by Hsien-Ko · · Score: 1

    As long as they don't sound like a mass of Jerry Seinfeld we should be OK.

  5. What's the problem? by Normal+Dan · · Score: 2

    Have they figured out exactly why bee population is dwindling? It seems like they are just fixing the symptoms instead of the actual problem.

    --
    A unique way to learn a language: http://languageloom.com
    1. Re:What's the problem? by AutumnLeaf · · Score: 1

      The most likely culprit seems to be some insecticides that were approved for the market shortly before this problem really became visible. I believe two separate studies have pointed in this direction. Sorry - I don't have references handy.

    2. Re:What's the problem? by JordanL · · Score: 1

      I can't find the article, but I believe the scientific community concluded that among many factors, the most important was a newer, stronger form of disease that was infecting wild honey bees and domesticated honey bees, but was much more destructive to wild bees.

    3. Re:What's the problem? by AutumnLeaf · · Score: 3, Informative

      There is a fair bit of info on the wikipedia page for Colony Collapse Disorder...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_collapse_disorder

    4. Re:What's the problem? by AutumnLeaf · · Score: 2

      And.... http://www.organicgardening.com/learn-and-grow/poisoned-pollen

      Which points to an insecticide weakening the bees enough for a parasite to finish them off.

    5. Re:What's the problem? by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 1

      Not really. Evolution is a funny thing. You can either become resistant to your worst predator, or out populate it. Sure, it will kill X, but if you raise the ratio, you survive more by populating faster than by growing giant fangs to bite it back.

      Make bees more tolerant to any other factor that inhibits its propogation, and they can outgrow anything, even infection. And, by increasing the numbers, you raise the chance for them to naturally evolve to resist infection or fungus or whatever it is that's killing them now.

      --
      I8-D
    6. Re:What's the problem? by Kippesoep · · Score: 1

      I'm sure somebody will figure a way to blame it on gay marriage.

    7. Re:What's the problem? by drbunny · · Score: 2

      In addition to the pesticide Imidacloprid linked below in organic gardening, leaked documents pretty clearly show a known link between ANOTHER BAYER PESTICIDE, clothianidin being a contributor to CCD.

    8. Re:What's the problem? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      They're not actually dying, they've all migrated to my garden. Well, maybe not all - just most of them...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    9. Re:What's the problem? by willpb · · Score: 1
    10. Re:What's the problem? by dragisha · · Score: 1

      As a part-time beekeper (for 40yrs) I have my opinion here.

      First reason for numbers dwindling is less beekepers.

      Second reason is pollution - more pollution -> less "food smells" for bees -> less food for bees - smaller number of smaller colonies. Usual food range for bees is 3 kilometers. In polluted environment it's 0.8 kilometers. Food area is r^2*pi. Go calculate.

      Lots of talk around is sensationalistic, as in every other human activity. Knowledge is hidden under piles of disinformation, covering various interests. Industry, beekepers, governments... Most beekepeers, for example, would like to be paid for pollinating crops, and smaller number of colonies/beekepers means more money for existing ones... Complex game.

      --
      http://opencm3.net, http://www.nongnu.org/gm2/
    11. Re:What's the problem? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      OrganicGardening.com eh? Sounds like a nice, unbiased source. Tellingly, they don't provide links (or even the names) to the actual studies.

      Yes, I think you need to visit InsecticidesRUs.com for truly unbiased reporting on this subject.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  6. This had a bad end the last time this was tried by smoothnorman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Lest we forget the "Brazilian killer bee" problem, (which, I believe is still an issue), was the result of a good intention to improve the bee breed by increasing their active response via cross-breeding with more aggressive African strains. Then (as the story goes) someone (c1957) left off the queen excluder (grill that prevents from the queen from becoming a "free agent") and as a result dangerous bees escaped into the wild and several terrible horror films were born. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africanized_bee

    1. Re:This had a bad end the last time this was tried by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 1

      Several horror films, but not much else except a story here or there by someone who get's a bee hive in/on/near their house (in which case, it really doesn't matter what kind of bee it is, they'll all want you to go far far away from them). But they've yet to terrorize and drive us into the oceans yet.

      Doesn't worry me. I can think of more dangerous creatures, like the Philosorapture.

      --
      I8-D
    2. Re:This had a bad end the last time this was tried by jgrahn · · Score: 1

      Lest we forget the "Brazilian killer bee" problem, (which, I believe is still an issue), was the result of a good intention to improve the bee breed by increasing their active response via cross-breeding with more aggressive African strains.

      You (and several other posters) make it sound as if breeding and bees implies killer bees.

      In reality, bees (like pretty much everything else we use for food) are subject to careful selective breeding, and have been for hundreds of years. Buy bees and you get to choose between Buckfast, Italians, and whatever they are called. Clearly this selective breeding has to continue, or we're stuck with bees optimized for conditions which no longer exist.

      Here in Sweden, the problems that need to be dealt with are:

      • Beekeepers are dwindling. Most of the ones I know are aged 70--90 and about to retire. It's a dirty job, doesn't pay and you need a lot of equipment. My dad spent virtually all of his spare time tending to his bees.
      • The varroa mite reached .se in the 1990s, and kills hives and/or forces the beekeepers to use pesticides and labor-intensive methods (causing more of them to quit.)
      • People tend to buy cheap foreign honey rather than local, even though the foreign bees don't pollinate their fruit trees. The apparent value is in the honey; the real value is in the pollination.
      • Loss of flowering plants due to the destruction of the landscape.

      (Not the official position of the SBF, just my interpretation.)

  7. Hey, Morons, +5, Wikileaked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You forgot:

    the Military-Industrial-Agricultural-Pharmaceutical Applications.

    Yours In Novosibirsk,
    K. Trout, C.I.O.

  8. Awesome. by God'sDuck · · Score: 2

    I'm hoping they aren't stingy with the modifications.

    Hone your puns, folks. Fi hive.

    1. Re:Awesome. by hellkyng · · Score: 2

      Good point, exciting new mods will create quite the buzz.

    2. Re:Awesome. by Captain+Sarcastic · · Score: 3, Informative

      I couldn't think of a good response to this. I guess I'll have to wing it.

      --
      Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
    3. Re:Awesome. by Columcille · · Score: 1

      Bees with lasers FTW!

      --
      I love my sig.
    4. Re:Awesome. by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Comb on, let's swarm up our pun generators

    5. Re:Awesome. by Abstrackt · · Score: 2

      Watch this thread get swarmed by nerds with bee puns.

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    6. Re:Awesome. by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      that's a-pollen to hear

    7. Re:Awesome. by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      mind your drone beeswax

    8. Re:Awesome. by hellkyng · · Score: 1

      That stings, don't be such a queen :'(

    9. Re:Awesome. by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      no one died, but it was the raw agility that promoted me to queen

  9. Look for the cause by twsobey · · Score: 1

    Since we don't know what's killing them, shouldn't we spend more resources figuring that out before trying to cure the symptom? If it eventually affects people, wouldn't more research on the cause be better than a band-aid fix for this one?

  10. Scientist #1: The bee population is falling! by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 4, Funny

    Scientist #2: Well, let's figure out why, and attempt to correct the cause...

    Scientist #1: No, wait! We can use our powers of scientifity to create a new, ultraimpervious, megastrong bee...that way it'll survive anything we do to make it's natural habitat inhospitable...

    Scientist #2: Hmmm, you might be on to something...but what if it's not just the environment? What if it's some other natural evolution of another species that is now a predator to the bee?

    Scientist #1: Fuck that shit. It's gonna die up against our new SuperBee(R).

    Scientist #2: I'm almost convinced. What if this strikes an unnatural balance across the continent? How can we be sure that we don't fuck shit up for everything else?

    Scientist #1: Think of the money we're going to make once we patent the gene!

    Scientist #2: Holy shit, your solution is perfect! Let's get our friends to write some endorsements, and we'll be golden.

    Scientist #1: I'm glad we've come to an understanding.

    1. Re:Scientist #1: The bee population is falling! by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Scientist #2: Hmmm, you might be on to something...but what if it's not just the environment? What if it's some other natural evolution of another species that is now a predator to the bee?

      Scientist #3: You idiot, that IS a factor of the environment! I agree with Scientist #1, fuck that shit. We want honey and our honey source is dwindling. So we're going to make a better honey source.

    2. Re:Scientist #1: The bee population is falling! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Scientist #4: Let's insert bee DNA into cows and make honey-producing cows!

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  11. Why can't we figure out what's killing the bees? by iONiUM · · Score: 1

    I'm not a scientist in this field, but I'm curious (if anyone knows the actual reason) why we can't just figure out what is actually killing the bees?

    I know they've been trying to figure it out for sometime now with no luck.. what the heck could it bee? (yes.... yes that was intentional... I'm sorry).

  12. The real question is: by SMoynihan · · Score: 1

    The real question is: have they also inhibited their ability to migrate to other planets using the Tandoka Scale?

  13. Mix these super bees with Africanized honey bees by Iphtashu+Fitz · · Score: 1

    and pretty soon you'll have Planet of the Bees instead of Planet of the Apes...

  14. Already been done by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

    Didn't they do this a few years ago, when they created the Africanized bee or "killer bees"? Well, by all means keep it up, what could possibly go wrong?

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:Already been done by perbert · · Score: 1

      Didn't they do this a few years ago, when they created the Africanized bee or "killer bees"? Well, by all means keep it up, what could possibly go wrong?

      According to the article, they're working with Canadian bees. So---so long as the bees are kept away from the hockey games and alcohol---nothing will go wrong!

  15. Super Bees = ??? by pezjono · · Score: 1

    Super Honey!!!

    1. Re:Super Bees = ??? by Matt.Battey · · Score: 1

      Super deliciously sweet honey, and lots of it!

  16. Digital Dog and the DNA monster by scharkalvin · · Score: 2

    This reminds me of a cartoon that was circulating around Digital Equipment Co. in the 1970's. Written by a DEC employee the strip's hero was Digital Dog, a super K9 whose owner had feed him LSD to make him smart. Anyway it seems some scientists wanted to create a cure for some disease so they combined the DNA from Killer Bees with the DNA of "Tricky Dick" (don't ask!). Anyway they ended up with a huge bee with Nixon's face and appetite for cottage cheese and ketchup.
    Digital Dog had to trap him so NASA could get him strapped to rockets to blast him into space.

    The same cartoonist latter wrote for Creative computing and a few other magazines a strip called "bit pit" which starred a VAX computer.

    1. Re:Digital Dog and the DNA monster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That was a dream you had.

  17. sounds like the next scifi channel moive! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    It's super KIller Bees!

    1. Re:sounds like the next scifi channel moive! by kowala · · Score: 1

      This is the MOVIE of which you speak!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsVL22dIdKw

  18. Hey! while you're at it, lose the stinger! by blair1q · · Score: 1

    No reason they can't get rid of the stinger and the hyperaggressive behaviors.

    1. Re:Hey! while you're at it, lose the stinger! by vlm · · Score: 2

      No reason they can't get rid of the stinger

      Then the bears (etc) will eat them all and we'll have no wild population left. Probably not a good idea, long term.

      For safetys sake, I advise experimenting by killing all the mosquitos first, then once you know what made mosquitos extinct, try not doing that to the bees.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:Hey! while you're at it, lose the stinger! by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is,"Not only is the stinger a good idea, maybe it needs to be improved and hurt more."

    3. Re:Hey! while you're at it, lose the stinger! by blair1q · · Score: 1

      The fungi and virera are killing the wild hives. We will have to keep bees if we want bees. And the bears won't be an issue.

  19. This can't possibly go wrong... by Faw · · Score: 1

    ... I've seen enough movies to know lab created entities *never* turn on their creator.

  20. Hunney? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    This long after lunch stories like this give me a rumbly in my tumbly. Time for something sweet!

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  21. Re:Why can't we figure out what's killing the bees by GeekBoy · · Score: 2
  22. Ever Hear of Africanized Bees? by erilane · · Score: 1
  23. Oh, and we don't need the honey by blair1q · · Score: 1

    what we need is our crops pollinated.

    Got that? Honey=optional. Food=required.

  24. Why Stop There? by jimmerz28 · · Score: 1

    Can we start breeding "super" humans that are immune to cancer, disease, cold, mites and pesticides?

    That way we don't have to worry about what we put in our air, water and soil since we'll just be immune to it!

  25. Super Dogs by necro81 · · Score: 1

    But they'll also need to create a breed of super dogs: the super dogs with super bees in their mouths, so that when they bark they shoot bees at you.

    [obscure?]

    1. Re:Super Dogs by HarvardAce · · Score: 1

      [obscure?]

      Not to even a casual Simpsons fan...or at least it shouldn't be!

      --
      Note to self: Stop putting jokes in my insightful comments so I can get something other than +1 Funny!
    2. Re:Super Dogs by goldspider · · Score: 1

      Indeed, nothing says "obscure" like a 20+ year old pop culture icon.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
  26. Re:Why can't we figure out what's killing the bees by GeekBoy · · Score: 1

    Here some information from that article I posted:

    Shan Bilimoria, a professor and molecular virologist, said the bees may be taking a one-two punch from both an insect virus and a fungus, which may be causing bees to die off by the billions...

    "researchers discovered through spectroscopic analysis evidence of a moth virus called insect iridescent virus (IIV) 6 and a fungal parasite called Nosema."

  27. Re:Mix these super bees with Africanized honey bee by es330td · · Score: 1

    Calling Andrew Wiggen...

  28. Re:Buzz by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    Google Bee! Social Networking in a Hive!

    Tao Pollinates this.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  29. Monsanto Bees by HardCaliber · · Score: 1

    Would anyone be surprised if Monsanto created genetically modified bees, then sued farmers into oblivion because their fields were pollinated by them?

  30. Oblig Simpsons by Grizzley9 · · Score: 1

    Bee Keeper #1:: "Sure is quiet here today."
    Bee Keeper #2: "Yes, a little TOO quiet, if you know what I mean."
    Bee Keeper #1:: "No, I'm afraid I don't."
    Bee Keeper #2:"You see, bees usually make a lot of noise, NO NOISE, suggests no bees."
    Bee Keeper #1::: "Oh, I understand now. Oh look, there goes one."
    Bee Keeper #2: "To the bee-mobile!"
    Bee Keeper #1: "You mean your Chevy?"
    Bee Keeper #2: "Yes."

  31. I'm a Bee Keeper. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Not exactly.

    Over in parts of Brazil, someone imported African honey bees to raise in CLOSED enclosures, and like all pets they escaped into the surrounding terrain when the colonies became large and their containment was challenged.

    What I find odd is how quickly the African honey bees inter-bred with the native wild bee populations, and it didn't take long for the native bees to show traits that not even the original parent strains had shown. In my experience of managing several 40K hives with a single queen in them, the difference between a Africanized hive and a normal hive is 9 of 10 bees will attack you from an Africanized hive as opposed to a normal hive where 1 of 10 will only "investigate" and then 1 of 20 will actually try to sting you.

    In contrast, Africanized honey bees produce less honey and are over-active in a schizzophrenic way, where when disturbed they will actually survey upto 2 miles around their hive to aggressively attack anything that moves and will remain this way notably longer than non-Africanized populations. In reality, all bees that have stingers are the females and they die after stinging once because they have a barbed stinger that rips their intestines and poison gland out of their abdomen (except the queen, she is barb-less). Why have Africanized bees not simply died-off from their suicidal attacks then? They key is cross-breeding, where only a fraction of thier genetics remains after a 50/50 mating of the original strain gets reduced to verry low genetic footprint after successive mating with other bees. Also of note, because the queen mates only once are rarely more in her life, her collection of male reproductive matterial is stored for her life inside her and it's as though it is preserved, and with successive matings that queen might lay eggs that hatch either pure non-Africanized bees or native bees: there is her genetic footprint, and then there is the share of potential offspring that are fertilized with a pre-stored African contribution.

    In my opinion, scientists realy are the ones to blame: they are introducing unnatural successive genetic statistic into a genome that wasn't aquired through natural selection. With all the corruption of Monsanto Corporation, and the corruption of prior US Army partnerships to USDA to enrich and cross-breed dangerous animals and bacteria and fungus for warfare, you simply can't trust the scientists to ever having any wholesome ethics: the scientists themselves should be given the same suspicion as would when approaching a bee hive you suspect has lost it's native queen and could be turning into African bees with a new queen.

    In reality, there are higher-quality bees that produce more honey, not as destructive when agitated, have better social customs, and are more patient in their lifestyle. The average European Honey Bee lives anywhere from 2 to 4 months, but a Africanized bee lives less than 3 weeks. That alone is proof that the Africanized strain is destructive to itself if not just a bastard to it's surroundings. By far in yield and quality of honey, the greatest replacement to the Africanized bees, as well as to phase-out all Honey Bees due to the recent contamination, I would choose the Denmark Black Bee. Like the Denmark red cow, the Black Bee is endangered. I find that quite saddening how such a higher-quality animal is always the one on the bench.

    1. Re:I'm a Bee Keeper. by steelfood · · Score: 1

      I find that quite saddening how such a higher-quality animal is always the one on the bench.

      The priority of every single living organism is to survive long enough to propagate. It doesn't matter if it's 3 weeks or 3 years or 300 years, as long as it happens within the time it is alive.

      The bees who live longer and produce more honey probably have too much genetic makeup dedicated to doing those two things than to actually surviving long enough to propagate. It's not like we have an infinite amount of room for genetic material. There's a limit, and beyond that certain limit, an entirely more sophisticated system is needed to sustain it.

      Which is why scavengers like rats and cockroaches are probably the most abundant animals out there.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    2. Re:I'm a Bee Keeper. by jgrahn · · Score: 1

      In my opinion, scientists realy are the ones to blame [snip conspiracy theory stuff]

      By far in yield and quality of honey, the greatest replacement to the Africanized bees, as well as to phase-out all Honey Bees due to the recent contamination, I would choose the Denmark Black Bee. Like the Denmark red cow, the Black Bee is endangered. I find that quite saddening how such a higher-quality animal is always the one on the bench.

      That's the same race as the Nordic Bee, right? My dad (who was a beekeeper from 1940 to 2005) used to keep those and took part in the preservation project. They're not perfect either. The ones he kept were aggressive little bastards. More than once I heard beekeepers claim they were as bad as killer bees.

      It's still important to preserve this race of course -- for example for breeding more tolerant races.

    3. Re:I'm a Bee Keeper. by kowala · · Score: 1

      We have ferel bees in our wall, how can i tell if they are Africanized? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=908rhoTqpAE

  32. Just one? by Tenebrious1 · · Score: 2

    "If all goes well, the new and improved insect will continue to pollinate our crops for years to come."

    Wow, that's going to be one super busy bee.

    But isn't that putting all our gets in one basket? I mean, maybe we want *two* of them just in case one dies?

    --
    -- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
    1. Re:Just one? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Hey, if Superman can be put to work as a clean energy source, then SuperBee can be put to work pollinating our crops.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  33. They're being bred in Winnipeg by Reed+Solomon · · Score: 1

    Bee colony confirmed as first round pick in next years NHL draft by Chicago Blackhawks.

  34. The widely-cited "90%" is wrong. by sirwired · · Score: 4, Informative

    The widely-quoted "90% of the world's crops depend on bees" is simply wrong.

    The vast majority of the world's caloric intake comes from grains, legumes, and tubers, the vast majority of which require do not bee pollination.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_crop_plants_pollinated_by_bees

    1. Re:The widely-cited "90%" is wrong. by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      Clearly people are not drinking enough Mead. Think of the Vikings!

    2. Re:The widely-cited "90%" is wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yep. Corn, wheat, rice, sorghum, cassava, and potatoes, among others, can get by just fine without bees. Notice anything about those crops? They're the most important staples. A world without bees would certainty suck, it would limit the ability to produce certain fruits (like apples) and increase the cost of seed production for non-fruit vegetables (like onions), but I doubt it would be the apocalypse that it is made out to be. Worst case scenario is an increased need for parthenocarpic & self fertilizing crops and an increased cost for those that don't. Again, not an ideal situation, but it is those staple crops that are the most important, not the tasty produce ones..granted, they are the nutrient dense ones, but still.

    3. Re:The widely-cited "90%" is wrong. by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      and as someone who has been investigating getting some apple trees... apples need for a pollinator can be diminished by grafting different/compatible varieties to the same tree... physically reducing the distance that pollen needs to travel.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    4. Re:The widely-cited "90%" is wrong. by MoldySpore · · Score: 1

      Don't see Hot Pockets on that list. Winning!

      --

      "I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."

    5. Re:The widely-cited "90%" is wrong. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      and as someone who has been investigating getting some apple trees... apples need for a pollinator can be diminished by grafting different/compatible varieties to the same tree... physically reducing the distance that pollen needs to travel.

      That's OK then. Obviously mankind can hack its way round every conceivable side effect of bees dying out because your apple trees are all right.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    6. Re:The widely-cited "90%" is wrong. by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Yes...thats exactly what I said, way to read between the lines....as they head right off the page and out into space. Clearly any notion that there is anything that could be worked around is nothing less than a total dismissal of the entire problem! How could i tbe any other way.... certainly not an interesting side note on the discussion. That would be just...silly.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  35. Patented Bees by liquidweaver · · Score: 1

    Hey, Monsanto effectively owns the US soy industry by patenting soy DNA; couldn't these bees' get DNA get patented, in turn making their breeding (even unintentional) a licensing violation?

    --
    mov ah, 4ch
    int 21h
  36. Re:Stung? Sue Monsanto .... by rubycodez · · Score: 2

    That's not how the New World Order works, citizen 1327877: get stung by engineered bee and Monsanto sues your ass for having their patented bee DNA stuck in your skin

  37. Already been done (by Chrysler) by Anonymous+Codger · · Score: 1
    --
    No sig? Sigh...
  38. Gratuitous Post by krgallagher · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome our new Super Bee overlords!

    --

    Insert Generic Sig Here:

  39. I for one Welcome our new Insect Masters by Matt.Battey · · Score: 1

    Especially if they pay us in sweet sweet honey!

  40. Re:Why can't we figure out what's killing the bees by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

    Probably for the same reason we can't figure out what is causing the rise in Autism: $$$

    --
    We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
  41. Re:Why can't we figure out what's killing the bees by iONiUM · · Score: 1

    Yea but if we don't figure out Autism, it sucks, but only for the Autistic.

    If we don't figure out this, millions of people may die from lack of crops. So it sucks for everyone.

  42. Great Idea, until... by confused+one · · Score: 1

    This is a Great idea! That is, until the new super bees decide humans taste better than pollen and nectar.

  43. Rumor has it... by goonsquizzle · · Score: 1

    ...they're huge and they're sting crazy. Your firearms are useless against them.

  44. Remove the sting too! by wall0645 · · Score: 1

    As someone who is allergic to bees, I'd greatly appreciate it if they could also remove the ability of these bees to sting, or perhaps remove the venom/poison. Then I wouldn't care if they made the things indestructible and faster than a cheetah.

  45. Re:Why can't we figure out what's killing the bees by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    Yes, but most of them are poor people. Look how much everyone cared when Goldman Sachs speculation on food futures caused them to starve and see how much they'll care when lack of bees makes the same demographic starve for another reason. Turns out, you don't get to control a lot of capital as a result of empathy or compassion (well, except by exploiting them in the non-sociopath segment of the population).

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  46. Didn't they do this in the '80s? by Squirmy+McPhee · · Score: 1

    Only the '80s version had loud guitars and were called Stryper. They pollinated with Bibles, which might have helped churches but didn't do much for crops....

  47. Direct link to the article. by antdude · · Score: 1
    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  48. can by blackbeak · · Score: 1

    Just feed some bee colonies with straight Roundup and house them in giant cell phones. The survivors will be Super Bees for sure.

    --
    Everything and its opposite is true. Get used to it.
  49. Stop using pesticides by ubergeek65536 · · Score: 1, Informative

    Hmm. Maybe if you stop spraying all that shit on out food we (and the bees) wouldn't be in such a mess.

  50. 90% figure is bollocks. by AC-x · · Score: 1

    bees pollinate 90% of the world’s food crops

    Bullshit. The most important staple crops like rice and wheat are wind pollinated, at most 30% of world food output depends on bees (the highest figure I could find, the lowest was 6%)

    The main effect that losing bees would have is that a lot of fruits, such as apples, would die out.

    If you're that paranoid that every article about biological research makes you worry about "I am legend" scenarios or clouds of murderous insects, I don't know what you're doing typing on a computer. Skynet and the matrix people! What could possibly go wrong?!?

    Yes what could go wrong if you create a new bee strain that out competes all natural bees, becomes a monoculture and then becomes susceptible to a newly evolved disease that it has no resistance to?

  51. What could go wrong? by oDDmON+oUT · · Score: 2

    NEWS FLASH!

    Transgenic bees found able to crossbreed with dragonflies!

    The resulting insects have five to six inch wingspans, stingers able to pierce Kevlar and really nasty dispositions.

    Scientists have dubbed them "dragonbees" and are said to be feverishly at work on a transgenic predator to combat the problem.

    More at 6:00PM

    --
    Some days it's just not worth
    chewing through my restraints.
    1. Re:What could go wrong? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      Don't worry. The LizardFrogs will eat the DragonBees. And the BirdSnakes will eat the LizardFrogs. The GorillaBears will eat the BirdSnakes and then will die when winter rolls around.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  52. So this is the way the world ends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Not with a bang but a BZZZZZZZ.

  53. Our Flower Overlords. by badass+fish · · Score: 1

    Let's face it we as primates are in a symbiotic relationship with our food crops and well the bees too. We have evolved together in a symbiotic triangle. To the point that to insure future generation of species of plants that ensure life as we know it; we will go to almost godlike lengths to preserve the bees that insure the next generation of flowering food plants. This means that we cant get along without them;but if we did not pollute the environment,and put bees in numbers to insure cross-infections of hives the plants would get along fine without us. Making them the top of the triangle.

  54. Death to Bees by yokljo · · Score: 1

    KILL THEM WITH FIRE O.O

  55. Natural selection by Chicken_Kickers · · Score: 2

    I don't understand this fetishism with "natural selection" by salt of the earth types every time genetic engineering comes up. Natural selection is random, meaning you can equally get "desirable" traits as well as "undesirable" traits (from the point of view of humans). Genetic engineering increases the chances that you can produce "desirable" traits and with proper precautions, reduce the chances of undesirable traits. With Africanised bees, it is not even the fault of modern genetic engineering. It was the fault of "traditional" breeding of two bee strains. That's right. The same acceptable and ancient method used to breed modern cows,bananas, carrots etc. is also capable of creating Frankensteins. The fear of genetic engineering has been drummed into the public by certain Greenie groups with their own agenda. It is unwarranted. When you put safeties in place to prevent accidental cross breeding of GM animals/plants and wild animals/plants by making them infertile, you are accused of money grabbing and playing God. If you don't do it, then you are accused of endangering "natural" genetic populations.

    1. Re:Natural selection by advocate_one · · Score: 1
      with "natural" selection, when selecting for desired traits, you kill/destroy/neuter those with undesired traits before they can pass them on...

      When you put safeties in place to prevent accidental cross breeding of GM animals/plants and wild animals/plants by making them infertile, you are accused of money grabbing and playing God. If you don't do it, then you are accused of endangering "natural" genetic populations.

      and rightly fucking so...

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  56. Hey yeah by OnePumpChump · · Score: 1

    I'm the one that you wanted. Hey yeah, I'm your super bees.

  57. a worthless band aid on a systemic problem by australopithecus · · Score: 2

    most of the issues with honeybee susceptibility to mites, etc. comes from the desire to turn beehives into reproducible factories. much like antibiotic resistant bacteria, we are developing insecticide resistant mites. how about a return to more traditional beekeeping methods, which would result in jobs being created as more care is needed to manage the hives?

  58. Re:I know what you mean, and am already there. by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

    I grow natural organic heirloom tomato TREES, they are 5 years old and each 20-feet tall and bare 50lbs of tomatoes 4 times per year

    I would love to see such a plant... alas, google has no images of anything quite like that.

  59. Invasive species from europe by ron-l-j · · Score: 2

    The honey bee is invasive it originated in Europe and has been spread around the world by man. I did a report on this in my environmental science class in college last year. Where I live we have natural bees that do more pollination than any small collection of honey bees in hives. SCCD or Sudden colony collapse disorder when the queen leave the nest for no apparent reason is not going to affect us at all. Maybe the American Indians couldn't grow corn before the European honey bee was introduced in america. There are plenty of healthy native bees out there doing the job. But I would lie about some garbage to get scientific funding too..... The whole Idea is insane.

  60. Re:I know what you mean, and am already there. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    I grow natural organic heirloom tomato TREES, they are 5 years old and each 20-feet tall and bare 50lbs of tomatoes 4 times per year

    I would love to see such a plant... alas, google has no images of anything quite like that.

    Seven or eight feet is about the maximum height for normal tomato plants, and even supported on canes they're basically falling down under their own weight, their stems aren't that strong.

    I have never heard of a tomato tree 20 feet tall, pics or it didn't happen.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  61. Humans greed is the bee killer by lsatenstein · · Score: 2

    When you start doing biological gene modification to the plants that bees go to pollinate, so that farmers will have to purchase seed, because the one they have is sterile, or genetically modified to be toxic to insects and bees, then this is the price we pay. In other words, get back to regular seeds that were in use before the modified ones were forced on the cultivators of flowers, grain, vegetables, fruits.

    --
    Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
  62. I for one... by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    welcome our super bee overlords!