Can We Pollinate Flowers With Tiny Flying Drones? (economist.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Can We Pollinate Flowers With Tiny Flying Drones? (economist.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday February 12, 2017 @05:34AM from the robo-bees dept.

An anonymous reader writes: An engineer in Japan has built a 1.6-inch "pollinator-bot" and successfully tested it in his lab. The drone's creator "has armed it with paintbrush hairs that are covered in a special gel sticky enough to pick pollen up, but not so sticky that it holds on to that pollen when it brushes up against something else," reports The Economist. They write that his experiments with the tiny drone "show that the drone can indeed carry pollen from flower to flower in the way an insect would -- though he has yet to confirm that seeds result from this pollination." While flown by a human pilot, next he hopes to equip the drones with their own flower-recognizing technology.

The Christian Science Monitor followed up with four experts, asking "Could a fleet of robo-pollinators replace, or at least supplement, the bees?" One said "There is no substitute for bees." Another pointed out that even if robo-bees are developed, some flowers will prove harder to pollinate than others. A third expert thought the technology could scale, though it would need to be mass-produced, and the engineers would need to develop a reusable pollen-collecting gel. But a fourth expert remained worried that it just couldn't scale without becoming too expensive. "I'm not sure that's going to be cheap enough to not make blueberries hundreds of dollars a pint."
Three of those experts also agreed that the best solution is just wild bees, because domesticated or not, "All they have to do is make sure to set aside enough land conducive to the bees' habitat."

130 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Disturbing implications by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 05:37 · Score: -1

Three of those experts also agreed that the best solution is just wild bees
I presume the rest simply agreed that money was the best solution to all problems, but worrying about those were above their pay grade. Also that their engineering ideas were just so clever that the rest of the world was wasting its time discussing anything except how to pay them more money to invent more "things"
1. Re:Disturbing implications by ShanghaiBill · 2017-02-12 06:38 · Score: 2
  
  These drones would not replace bees. Bees pollinate randomly, and that can be a problem when you need targeted pollination to produce hybrid seeds. Hybrid seeds are often expensive because hand pollination is used. These drones could automate that, and may be cheap enough that individual farmers could produce their own hybrids.
  Anyway, the engineer who said, that in order to scale, these may have to be mass-produced, certainly has an incisive intellect. That guy should be promoted immediately, since nothing is more important than a firm grip on the obvious.
2. Re:Disturbing implications by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2017-02-12 06:49 · Score: 2
  
  These drones could prove useful in hydroponic and other greenhouse-based agriculture where bees are generally not present. The current solutions mostly involve humans walking around with either paintbrushes (for plants which cross-pollinate, like cucumbers) or portable blowers (for plants with flowers that self-pollinate, like tomatoes).
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
3. Re:Disturbing implications by TWX · 2017-02-12 06:54 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Depending on the facility it would probably just be cheaper to construct a building with an integral bridge-crane, with the 'tooling' to collect pollen and redistribute it on the end of a shaft hanging from that bridge crane. The shaft could be repositioned in all three axes, swiveled, and possibly angled depending on what's needed to reach the various flowers.
  
  I can see several other advantages to this too. First, a large production floor could benefit from having a bridge crane anyway, as it allows whole rows of product to be moved around without having to maintain large aisles, so that more product can be present in a given square footage, so the bridge crane does double-duty, sometimes acting for pollination, sometimes acting for materiel handling. Second, it may be possible to use tubing and vacuum to collect pollen to a central point before redistributing, without requiring flying bots to constantly return to their docks. Third, if any other plant maintenance tasks are required, such as soil sample collection or other monitoring, not being limited to the capabilities of a quadcopter or other drone would probably make those tasks easier.
  
  Granted this is assuming that hybridization is taking place out of the elements where the environment is controlled, both to increase yields and to ensure that no cross-contamination from natural or semi-natural pollination happens. If this is being done out in farm fields then that changes the equation.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
4. Re:Disturbing implications by ShanghaiBill · 2017-02-12 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  Depending on the facility it would probably just be cheaper to construct a building with an integral bridge-crane
  Are you serious? You really believe that a building size industrial gantry system would "probably" be cheaper than a 2 gram drone?
  
  Second, it may be possible to use tubing and vacuum to collect pollen to a central point before redistributing, without requiring flying bots to constantly return to their docks.
  Bees don't return to their hive after each flower, so there is no reason for drones to do that either.
5. Re: Disturbing implications by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 07:24 · Score: 0
  
  Of course it could be smaller and special purpose. Or many ceiling mounted arms. Or just smarter moving robots.
  The flying drone bee is a novel idea for sure. It yes. It is not a product. Its not even a prototype. Its just an idea. So how much will it costs?
  - randd costs
  - miniature anything costs
  - the payload and wind created by the props will surely put this idea down
  This is just a fantasy moreso then a large drone.
  Even for it to see something far enough away and a lens to see close up to pollinate and identify. Arg. Just think it through if you have the cognitive ability. It will be expensive. More expensive than simple already existing robot arms.
6. Re:Disturbing implications by mikael · 2017-02-12 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  From what i've seen of the bees in our garden, they would have a specific preference for a flower of a particular species and even then only pick those flowerheads that were the highest first (maybe they have more sunlight/pollen).
  
  --
  Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
7. Re: Disturbing implications by ShanghaiBill · 2017-02-12 12:31 · Score: 1
  
  It is not a product. Its not even a prototype. Its just an idea.
  No. RTFA. There is working prototype.
  We can ignore your list of reasons why it can't possibly work, since it already does.
8. Re:Disturbing implications by JoeMerchant · 2017-02-12 17:34 · Score: 1
  
  The drones could absolutely replace bees, the question is: at what cost?
  Or, put another way, how many trillions of dollars is it worth to keep bees healthy and working?
  Anybody with a little spare time can read up and start keeping a colony of bees, it will take a team of engineers decades to design the pollinating drone to a point where it could be produced at scale at any cost, and far more people producing the drones, producing the components the drones are made from, maintaining the fleets, recycling "dead" drones, etc.
  Ignore a colony of bees and they might naturalize and just take care of themselves. Ignore a colony of pollinating drones and they'll decay into toxic waste.
9. Re:Disturbing implications by JoeMerchant · 2017-02-12 17:36 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, picturing a 1.6" drone flying in a stiff breeze - not.
10. Re:Disturbing implications by JoeMerchant · 2017-02-12 17:39 · Score: 1
  
  It's in vogue now to believe that vertical farming will solve the problem of too many people for the usable crop lands.
  I'd like to see an almond grove in an enclosed farm structure... can you say: $300 per ounce of almonds produced? Put another way: 4 hours of skilled labor involved in the construction, operation and maintenance of the almond grove structure for every ounce of almonds produced.
11. Re: Disturbing implications by JoeMerchant · 2017-02-12 17:41 · Score: 1
  
  Does TFA imply that these things will be flying outdoors? That would be most entertaining to watch when a stiff breeze comes along.
Black Mirror by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 05:37 · Score: 3, Interesting

Apparently after getting a laughing face for a president (orange instead of blue), more Black Mirror episodes are coming true.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hated_in_the_Nation_(Black_Mirror)
1. Re: Black Mirror by fermion · 2017-02-12 08:26 · Score: 2
  
  And read the story reported here of the university that was attacked by its own IoT.
  Also, these things take energy and our ability to control is limited. We fantasizes 50 years ago that we could have a grid of sensors to predict the weather. We fantasizes we could replace tree with machines to clean our atmosphere. There is some stuff we are just going to have to accept that nature does better and if we don't comply we will lose.
  
  --
  "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
2. Re:Black Mirror by x_t0ken_407 · 2017-02-13 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  Came here to make this reply -- though I'd discount the impact of whoever tf ended up being president. These would be coming true regardless.
Might be easier to fix bees by ShooterNeo · 2017-02-12 05:38 · Score: 4, Interesting

Sure would take a lot of drones. It might be easier to genetically engineer the bees to have genes to resist whatever is killing them - insecticide or parasites - by splicing in genes from bee species that are resistant but suboptimal for pollination. Bees are basically self replicating drones that can refuel and rebuild themselves from products supplied by the very flowers they are pollinating.
But worst case scenario - if the bees all become extinct - we could use drones instead.
1. Re:Might be easier to fix bees by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  Tell me about the honey we'd get from drones. Might be kind of metallic.
2. Re:Might be easier to fix bees by Rick+Schumann · 2017-02-12 05:58 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It might be easier to stop using the chemicals that are killing the bees before we wreck the ecosystem to the point where we can't grow anything anymore!
3. Re:Might be easier to fix bees by ShooterNeo · 2017-02-12 06:10 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  If we can even figure out what they are, and if there are replacements, and if chemicals still in the environment don't keep killing bees or assholes breaking the laws don't keep using the chemicals after they are banned. Or if the government just refuses to ban the chemicals because the regulators are bribed by big business. Genetic engineering might just be easier.
4. Re:Might be easier to fix bees by ShanghaiBill · 2017-02-12 06:45 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  If we can even figure out what they are
  We know what they are: Neoniotinoids.
  
  and if there are replacements
  There are plenty of good replacements.
  
  and if chemicals still in the environment
  Neonicotinoids are not particularly persistent. They are already banned in much of Europe. The are not banned in America mainly because of bureaucratic inertia. They don't need to be banned for all crops. For instance, it should be okay to use them on crops that don't attract bees, like corn. But for crops like alfalfa, they should not be used, and there should be penalties for misapplication.
5. Re:Might be easier to fix bees by TWX · 2017-02-12 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  Tastes a lot like AW-32...
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
6. Re:Might be easier to fix bees by LiENUS · 2017-02-12 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  Sure would take a lot of drones. It might be easier to genetically engineer the bees to have genes to resist whatever is killing them
  
  They're not on the splicing genes yet but for $300 you can buy a queen specially engineered (through selective breeding an AI) to resist the stuff killing them, best yet her offspring queens actually do better than she does about resisting, though the generation after falls off.
7. Re: Might be easier to fix bees by PoopJuggler · 2017-02-12 07:05 · Score: 0
  
  We shouldn't be using that shit at all. Contrary to what big agribusiness preaches, it is possible to grow food without chemical fertilizers or -icides.
8. Re:Might be easier to fix bees by angel'o'sphere · 2017-02-12 09:50 · Score: 2
  
  You can not 'msplice in' a gene causing resistance to a random poison.
  If that was the case we woukd bio engineere ourselves to be resistant to lead or plutonium poisoning etc.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
9. Re:Might be easier to fix bees by mikael · 2017-02-12 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  In the UK, they were used for rape seed fields - giant fields full of bright yellow flowers. Just driving along the road, and the air would smell oily/greasy. Even back in the 1990's, farmers noticed that these fields would make the large bees slow and dozy as they flew along. On a double decker bus, I would seen them being squished on the windows. Sometimes I see them crawling along the ground. Never sure whether it was just old age, exhaustion or something parasitic - their wings would seem to be dark brown rather than clear transparent.
  
  --
  Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
10. Re: Might be easier to fix bees by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 10:26 · Score: 0
  
  Big agriculture agrees: that is why they genetically engineer pest resistant crops that don't require chemicals. Stupid.
11. Re:Might be easier to fix bees by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 10:45 · Score: 0
  
  It might be easier to stop using the chemicals that are killing the bees
  Naaa, fuck the bees. Lets use robots to have sex with flowers instead!
12. Re: Might be easier to fix bees by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 10:52 · Score: 0
  
  The real money is in making chemical resistant crops, not pest resistant crops. Then you get to sell the seeds *and* the chemicals. Big agro business figured that out a long time ago. Who's stupid now?
13. Re: Might be easier to fix bees by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 11:17 · Score: 0
  
  What's stupid is having an arms race with nature, GMOs included.
14. Re:Might be easier to fix bees by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 12:30 · Score: 0
  
  This article is proof positive that there is
  a) something wrong with the bees and more importantly
  b) fixing it would cost someone money
  So as usual, representing the essence of neo-liberal thought, the Economist proposes a solution which, at its heart, involves spending more money to finance "opportunities" which have been created by lack of regulations or market dysfunctions that have allowed mass insecticide or RF use to put bees on the endagered species list, while providing dubious value to the economyor society at large.
  Make no mistake. Someone has figured out, without a doubt, what is wrong with the bees. The Economist is on a shilling operation to lay the ground for a solution that above all else, does not involve fixing the actual problem. That would cost someone important too much money.
15. Re:Might be easier to fix bees by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 13:49 · Score: 0
  
  wait, what's the rush in automation? we haven't tried outsourcing pollination to hummingbirds or dragonflies yet, nor have we tried the h1b route and bring foreign bees at a lower wage.
16. Re:Might be easier to fix bees by LiENUS · 2017-02-12 14:34 · Score: 1
  
  Never sure whether it was just old age, exhaustion or something parasitic - their wings would seem to be dark brown rather than clear transparent.
  Sounds like deformed wing virus, varroa destructor is a carrier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deformed_wing_virus
17. Re: Might be easier to fix bees by ranton · 2017-02-12 14:53 · Score: 1
  
  What's stupid is having an arms race with nature, GMOs included.
  We have been having an arms race with nature since the agricultural revolution. Considering we have 1000x more people than the Earth was able to naturally sustain before then, I'd say we are winning that arms race. Although I guess past results are not a perfect predictor of future results.
  
  --
  -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
18. Re:Might be easier to fix bees by Aighearach · 2017-02-12 17:12 · Score: 1
  
  You'd have to genetically engineer the beekeepers to be less greedy and leave the bees enough honey to survive the winter.
  They can't do it; greed leads them to replace the honey with sugar water, or corn syrup, and the bees survive but their infection rate goes up. Since it doesn't kill them right away the first year you do it, and you won't lose all the colonies at once, the rural boneheads can't comprehend that it is their own fault.
  You can engineer the bee, but they'll just feed it less. And since there are a variety of infections involved, engineering it to have a stronger immune system would increase their energy requirements, and it would actually exacerbate the problem. It would really be more effective to engineer better beekeepers.
  Or just, switch to drones because then the fuel is separate from product and so they don't feel psychological pressure to use less fuel.
19. Re:Might be easier to fix bees by ShooterNeo · 2017-02-12 17:54 · Score: 1
  
  This is a case of the free market working correctly, though. Beekeepers who do as you say eventually go out of business because their hives die. There are enough beekeepers and they are all independent from each other that so long as some beekeepers do it correctly, they'll still be in business in 5 years. Those beekeepers would expand, since their competition would be out of business, and eventually we live in a world where the only beekeepers in business for long do it right. Business Darwinism in action.
  This doesn't always work - monopolies, "too big to fail", and other effects prevent the system from working in many cases. I'm not a libertarian, but this is an example where the invisible hand works correctly.
20. Re:Might be easier to fix bees by evilviper · 2017-02-12 18:13 · Score: 0
  
  Neonicotinoids are not particularly persistent. They are already banned in much of Europe.
  Right. And yet Europe is experiencing colony collapse disorder as well. The evidence that neonicotinoids have any contributing effect to CCD is... very weak, at best.
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
21. Re:Might be easier to fix bees by Rick+Schumann · 2017-02-13 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  It's the same old story, really: People and corporations with money and power will do anything to maintain their wealth and influence, and they really don't care what happens after they're dead and gone; who cares if all the bees die, no pollination occurs anymore, and the entire chain of life collapses because one vital link in it is irrepairably broken? They get theirs, and that's all that matters to them.
Another Black Mirror episode by kencurry · 2017-02-12 05:41 · Score: 3, Interesting

This is about the third or forth slashdot story I've seen that was covered in a "Black Mirror" episode. Now I am really worried about the one with the politician and the pig ...

--
sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
1. Re:Another Black Mirror episode by djinn6 · 2017-02-12 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  And it looks like this engineer missed the entire point of the episode, which tells you, loudly and clearly, exactly why you shouldn't build such a drone.
  
  Also, why the heck didn't they just cover up the woman's face while she was in the bathroom? The bees rely on facial recognition so they're not going to see past a piece of clothing and know she was the target.
2. Re: Another Black Mirror episode by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 06:18 · Score: 0
  
  You know the one with the Prime Minister and the pig already came true, right? Google "David Cameron pig head".
3. Re: Another Black Mirror episode by TWX · 2017-02-12 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  Given the timing of the series and the public disclosure of the allegations, I suspect that the episode writer knew of the Pig-gate incident and based the episode on an imagined scenario of it prior to the allegations becoming general knowledge. So this would be art imitating life, not the other way around.
  
  Kind of like the TIna Fey comments in an awards show setting against Bill Cosby years before serious accusations became public and widespread.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
4. Re:Another Black Mirror episode by lister+king+of+smeg · 2017-02-12 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  To late
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  Prime Minister David Cameron "Allegedly" was willingly orally stimulated by a deceased pigs head during a fraternity hazing.
  
  --
  ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
5. Re: Another Black Mirror episode by AthanasiusKircher · 2017-02-12 13:04 · Score: 1
  
  Kind of like the TIna Fey comments in an awards show setting against Bill Cosby years before serious accusations became public and widespread.
  Just to note, the accusations WERE public and widespread back in 2004-2006 or so. It's just few people took them seriously... the "Cosby Show dad" mystique and years promoting kids Jell-O etc. seem to have protected him back then though. Tina Fey was one of many back then who DID pick up on it, but most of the media just forgot about it.
  I don't remember that stuff in 2005 or whatever, but I distinctly remember when I myself discovered this stuff about Cosby when I somehow happened upon a story entitled something like, "How we all forgot out about how Bill Cosby is a rapist" -- and that was back in 2012, I think. And that was a couple years before it was plastered all over the news again -- but once I read about it somewhere, it was easy to find all sorts of stuff on it, even prior to when I was reading in 2012.
  Tina Fey was reacting to something that was actually public knowledge and had been the subject of news stories at major media sites... it's just that the rest of the media didn't pick up on the "drumbeat" until a decade later.
The ultimate pollinator robot by Atmchicago · 2017-02-12 05:43 · Score: 5, Insightful
Let's come up with the ultimate pollinator robot:
1. It can pollinate flowers
2. It is automated
3. It sources its own power
4. It can reproduce, but without disturbing the environment
5. It won't be owned by a corporation who uses them to exploit society
Wait -- that sounds exactly like bees. How about we promote the bees, rather than replace them with robots?
--
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.
1. Re:The ultimate pollinator robot by Rick+Schumann · 2017-02-12 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  How about we promote the bees, rather than replace them with robots?
  Gee, I dunno Mister Wizard.. it's a crazy idea, I know, but maybe, just maybe we could stop using the chemicals that are killing the bees?
2. Re:The ultimate pollinator robot by roman_mir · 2017-02-12 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  So in your mind when a business (a company, a person) come up with a product that people want/need they are 'exploiting the society'? The current state of economics is tightly related to the current state of education and the current state of education is tightly related to the current desires of the dominant ruling class to keep their rule. Thus we have people whobthibk that somebody trying to make money by building useful products is exploiting them and the society.
  Personally I hope we build the electronic bee and it works when we need it to work and does what we need it to do. Then again, I didn't think that the guy who first used the fire to Cook food, to keep warm and to win battles was 'exploiting the society'. Nor was the society exploited with the invention of a wheel.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
3. Re:The ultimate pollinator robot by Archtech · 2017-02-12 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly so. Thank you for pointing out this obvious - but apparently incomprehensible - fact.
  
  --
  I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
4. Re:The ultimate pollinator robot by vell0cet · 2017-02-12 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  There is a middle ground between creating a product that people want/need and "exploiting society"... I believe that in SOME situations (and this may be one of them) this kind of behaviour is indeed exploitation.
  
  An extreme example would be if a water company started poisoning the water supply so that they could sell their bottled water. And while I understand that companies are not intentionally killing bees, it doesn't seem like they have any interest in stopping it.
  
  Going back to the water example, if Nestle were poisoning the water so that they could sell bottled water, that would be evil/exploitation, but if Dow Chemical were the ones doing the poisoning and it just happened to help Nestle's bottom line, that would benefit the free market, yes?
5. Re:The ultimate pollinator robot by roman_mir · 2017-02-12 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  OK, stop the presses, apparently the companies are creating the problems they are then solving and seeking you the solution. Those food companies make you hungry, those airlines first take you places and leave you no way out but yo buy their tickets. You have built a nice strawman there, I guess you are here to burn it.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
6. Re:The ultimate pollinator robot by LiENUS · 2017-02-12 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  stop using the chemicals that are killing the bees?
  Which ones are those? Because so far studies show that it's not chemicals killing them, varroa destructor seems to be the main factor. Granted not all of those chemical studies are public yet, the most recent one was discussed at our club and it shows pretty conclusively that its not chemicals.
7. Re:The ultimate pollinator robot by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 07:34 · Score: 0
  
  What a crock. Next thing you'll be wanting them to shit sweet yellow nectar that we can spread on our toast at breakfast! Crazy talk!
8. Re:The ultimate pollinator robot by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 07:46 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  All the public studies shows IT IS neoniotinoids that's killing them. And you think writing your post about how ONE secret study discussed a your secret club says otherwise?
  Fuck you, Bayer shill.
9. Re:The ultimate pollinator robot by DontBeAMoran · 2017-02-12 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  Burning Strawman? Is that a new type of social event I haven't heard about?
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
10. Re:The ultimate pollinator robot by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 07:52 · Score: 0
  
  Well, the most recent two discussed in my club say it is conclusively is, so I guess that's settled,2:1 to our club.
11. Re:The ultimate pollinator robot by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  Neonicotinoids.
12. Re:The ultimate pollinator robot by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 10:11 · Score: 0
  
  And on top of that, the collapsing bee population thing has already stopped, and bee numbers are now higher than they were before collapse, despite claims by various environment advocacy groups claiming there is still a major problem.
13. Re:The ultimate pollinator robot by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 11:10 · Score: 0
  
  Horses were better than the original cars in every way. Tech can be improved and eventually be much better than the thing it replaced.
14. Re:The ultimate pollinator robot by LiENUS · 2017-02-12 11:49 · Score: 1
  
  The study is probably out now, was published by a LSU professor using samples from our bee club. None of the peer reviewed public studies show neonics are kiling bee colonies, they have a negative effect on the individuals but not the whole colony.
15. Re:The ultimate pollinator robot by LiENUS · 2017-02-12 11:50 · Score: 1
  
  The study is probably out now, was published by a LSU professor using samples from our bee club. None of the peer reviewed public studies show neonics are kiling bee colonies, they have a negative effect on the individuals but not the whole colony.
  So its selled 1:0 I have an infinite advantage over your anonymous club.
16. Re: The ultimate pollinator robot by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 12:16 · Score: 0
  
  I own a large number of blueberry producing acres. Bee prices have pretty much stayed the same, for years. Take from that what you will.
17. Re:The ultimate pollinator robot by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 13:00 · Score: 0
  
  Wait -- that sounds exactly like bees. How about we promote the bees, rather than replace them with robots?
  Apparently because fuck you bees, that is why.
18. Re:The ultimate pollinator robot by Aighearach · 2017-02-12 17:21 · Score: 1
  
  OK, how about a giant cluster of space farms, that will need the robot pollinators right?
19. Re:The ultimate pollinator robot by Aighearach · 2017-02-12 17:24 · Score: 1
  
  Well, or at least puke up some sweet yellow nectar, that would be good enough.
20. Re:The ultimate pollinator robot by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-13 01:11 · Score: 0
  
  Until a link to that study can be produced, or even a title, or the name of the professor, I think you will find there is no such advantage, ball's in your court.
21. Re:The ultimate pollinator robot by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-13 01:17 · Score: 0
  
  Until a link to that study can be produced, or even a title, or the name of the professor, I think you will find there is no such advantage, ball's in your court. I look forward to see it.
22. Re:The ultimate pollinator robot by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-13 02:28 · Score: 0
  
  Destruction of valuable commodities does not benefit the free market. That's just a version of the broken window fallacy where Dow(in the course of doing business) breaks the window and Nestle repairs it. Sure, it helps those companies short term, but in the macroeconomic sense, there's no gain because a resource has been destroyed. Everyone is now spending more for water, using wealth that would otherwise be allocated more optimally. It also distorts demand because the Dow products are now "artificially" cheap since the price does not reflect the true cost of the product. Part of that cost is foisted on others in terms of the more expensive water.
  You don't need to tether the fulfillment of demand with intentional destruction to make the case for exploitation. A better argument would be the situation where Nestle deprives a local population of its water supply to fill demand in markets far distant from the source. Or in the case where Nestle sucks water out of the ground, creating local scarcity and then sells the product back to the local population.
23. Re:The ultimate pollinator robot by Rick+Schumann · 2017-02-13 05:28 · Score: 2
  
  I don't know if you're a Bayer shill or not, but I will tell you this: There's enough money at stake in this that corporations (Bayer, or whoever) whose products might be responsible, would be willing to lie, cheat, steal, and let the bees die rather than lose their profits and/or be driven out of business. It's the same old story that keeps happening throughout human history: To Hell with 'tomorrow' so long as you get what you want right now; no bees to pollinate crops, essentially breaking a vital link in the chain of life is someone else's problem, and they'll all be dead before it even becomes a problem so why should they even care?
24. Re:The ultimate pollinator robot by LiENUS · 2017-02-13 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  I was just talking to a beekeper at the social last week who's been keeping bees since before I was born. He laughed at the loss rates people were talking about with colony collapse disorder. The rates beekeepers see has historically always been 2-3x higher than claimed loss rates for ccd. It's varroa destructor killing the bees not pesticides. The loss rate now is the lowest its ever been. Hell even with the flooding his loss this year is historically better than the commercial guys have seen in the past.
Should be obvious by quonset · 2017-02-12 05:44 · Score: 1

"All they have to do is make sure to set aside enough land conducive to the bees' habitat."
When one looks at all the dense pack housing going up, destroying entire forests and paving over every blade of grass, it's not surprising the bees are dying out. What do you expect when all one sees is acre upon acre of asphalt and concrete?
I drive by developments which have been up for years and all I see are scraggily trees and, if very lucky, a single, solitary bed of flowers at someone's house. The rest are simply plots of grass with a house on them.
Humans have done this repeatedly over the centuries, destroy habitat, then wonder why animals die off. Considering we're supposed to be the smartest animal on the planet you'd think we would have learned by now.
1. Re:Should be obvious by Archtech · 2017-02-12 06:14 · Score: 2
  
  Considering we're supposed to be the smartest animal on the planet you'd think we would have learned by now.
  A few individuals - a very few - are intelligent, and of those some are creatively intelligent. The species homo sapiens is not intelligent. How can you argue otherwise, when other social animals such as wasps, ants, bees and termites have thriven for over 100 million years, whereas we have existed as a distinct species for maybe 2 million years and in our present, grotesquely mutated, "civilized" form for 10,000 years - and we are on the very brink of self-extermination?
  There is no call for anything drastic or spectacular like thermonuclear war. All it will take is another century of "progress".
  'Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded--here and there, now and then--are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as “bad luck.”'
  - Notebooks of Lazarus Long, from "Time Enough For Love" by R. A. Heinlein
  
  --
  I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
2. Re:Should be obvious by ShanghaiBill · 2017-02-12 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  When one looks at all the dense pack housing going up ...
  Nonsense. The problem is exactly the opposite. The NIMBYs have used zoning laws and permit restrictions to effectively ban dense housing, so we get low density sprawl instead.
3. Re:Should be obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 07:02 · Score: 0
  
  No wonder this drone was developed in Japan, land of very expensive land which is much too expensive to remain vagrant for the use of bee colonies. Humans are prone to getting stuck in loops leading to ecological catastrophes for themselves or others due to ideologies, religions and cultural norms. Events in Khmer empire, Easter Island, Crete and Ireland come straight to mind.
4. Re:Should be obvious by quonset · 2017-02-12 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  Because New York, LA, Dallas, Chicago and all other cities have NIMBY syndrome.
  Low density sprawl is better since there is at least some land left to plant trees and/or flowers. Even on a 1/10 acre lot there could be numerous shrubs and plants for bees to pollinate.
  Instead, we get blocks of rowhomes on a plot of land just big enough to put a swingset on.
  This doesn't even get into the thousands of acres of farmland, and I'm not talking just corn or wheat, being paved over.
5. Re: Should be obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 07:34 · Score: 0
  
  Learned what exactly. Be specific. You have the answers to many complicated issues and are not sharing. Or maybe you have no solutions like the rest of us. Pointing out obvious problems anyone can do does not make you clever or smarter.
  It makes you average.
6. Re:Should be obvious by fph+il+quozientatore · 2017-02-12 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  If you judge the intelligence of a species based on how long they have survived, algae and amoebas must be the closest thing to Einstein we have.
  
  --
  My first program:
  Hell Segmentation fault
7. Re:Should be obvious by angel'o'sphere · 2017-02-12 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  Just because Heinlein said this in a novel does not make it right! Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Over most part of history people were 'relatively rich'. Having their own 'houses' where ever they traveled, living from the land, which they did not need to own.
  Poverty emerged when aristrocaty emerged and started to device people into people 'who have' and 'have nots' and even demanded tribute or taxes from the 'have nots'.
  Still today as populated as the planet is, there is no reason that not everybody is rich ... it is just greed and politics keeping homelss and poor people around, see UBI etc.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
8. Re:Should be obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 10:38 · Score: 0
  
  You are stupid. Low density sprawl is better? Think about it: what low "low density" mean?
9. Re:Should be obvious by Aighearach · 2017-02-12 17:27 · Score: 1
  
  Just because we looked different when we were tetrapods doesn't mean we didn't survive the whole time from then to now.
  Or like my wife said, "I'd rather be a lemur than a tetrapod. We're doing good."
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
10. Re:Should be obvious by Aighearach · 2017-02-12 17:35 · Score: 1
  
  As much as I enjoyed the books, as an adult I can't really think I'd want to live the way his characters do even if it did work.
  A better model for the world we're moving towards is Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson.
11. Re:Should be obvious by Archtech · 2017-02-13 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  Just because Heinlein said this in a novel does not make it right!
  True. The fact that it's right makes it right.
  
  --
  I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
12. Re:Should be obvious by angel'o'sphere · 2017-02-14 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  Actually it is not right :D
  That was my point. But seems you did not get it.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
13. Re:Should be obvious by angel'o'sphere · 2017-02-14 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  Actually I'm more thinking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... when you mention him.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Automation is inevitable by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 05:44 · Score: 0

If we can replace McDonald's workers with robots, why not bees? Someday we'll achieve a perfect world that is made up of only a few hundred thousand very happy humans, and trillions of robots.
1. Re:Automation is inevitable by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 06:01 · Score: -1
  
  Shut up, faggot, you're destroying the Earth.
2. Re:Automation is inevitable by Archtech · 2017-02-12 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  For a start, bees require more skills and greater intelligence. And there is a lot less room to pack it into.
  
  --
  I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
All that wasted energy by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 05:47 · Score: 0

Thing of all the carbon emissions this would cause...
Let's Fall In Love (2017 remake) by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 05:51 · Score: 2

Bots do it... drones do it
Even educated phones do it!
Let's do it ...
1. Re:Let's Fall In Love (2017 remake) by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 05:53 · Score: 0
  
  Weird Al needs to make this into a real song!
2. Re:Let's Fall In Love (2017 remake) by TWX · 2017-02-12 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  Bots do it... drones do it
  Even educated phones do it!
  Let's do it ...
  
  Let's bathe them in bloooOOOOoood!
  
  With apologies to the overlords of the robot uprising...
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
wow fuck the bees by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 05:52 · Score: 0

Wow humans.. fuck the bees, forget trying to save them.,. forget the "right thing".
Humans: fuck the right thinking, .lets just build new ones or more of them.
Ha ha bees! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 06:00 · Score: 0

Finally, we can wipe out the bee population!
Now we just need little robots that suck people's blood so we can get rid of mosquitoes!
Is this the new definition of insanity? by Archtech · 2017-02-12 06:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

“Every year, in late winter or early spring, some 3,000 trucks drive across the United States carrying around 40 billion bees to California’s Central Valley, which houses more than 60 million almond trees... Californian growers now spend $250 million a year on bees”.
"Farmageddon", Philip Lymbery with Isabel Oakeshott, p 63.
Californian growers do not spend that money for fun. They do it because otherwise they will have no crop. Good luck producing 40 billion tiny artificial bees. (Although if the idea goes forward I would buy shares in the manufacturer - just as you will notice that there has never been a massive government IT project that Oracle didn't love).
A simpler and more practical idea would be to stop killing off the bees, which do a great job entirely free of charge.

--
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
1. Re:Is this the new definition of insanity? by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2017-02-12 06:56 · Score: 2
  
  A simpler and more practical idea would be to stop killing off the bees, which do a great job entirely free of charge.
  I agree that we should be saving the bees - although I will point out that the pollinator all those California growers depend on is the European Honey Bee, a non-native species. Also while the bees work for free, the companies trucking them around most assuredly do not - and, without them, there would not be nearly enough local bees to support California's densely-planted monoculture farms.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
2. Re:Is this the new definition of insanity? by Archtech · 2017-02-13 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  I will point out that the pollinator all those California growers depend on is the European Honey Bee, a non-native species.
  Thanks! I did not know that.
  
  --
  I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
3. Re:Is this the new definition of insanity? by apoc.famine · 2017-02-13 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  Bees need habitat to live in. It turns out, massive fields of mono-culture crops are not bee-friendly habitat. So the farmers created this problem by designing their fields to be as productive as possible. Now, maybe they could remove plots of crops and make bee habitat there, allowing bees to flourish. But if that was a better financial idea, I'd guess that they'd have done that already.
  
  I bet trucking bees in is the cheapest way to do it. So they'll keep doing it.
  
  --
  Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
Can We Pollinate Flowers With Tiny Flying Drones? by Freischutz · 2017-02-12 06:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

Can We Pollinate Flowers With Tiny Flying Drones?
Probably yes, but why not just spend the money on fixing colony collapse disorder? It seems much more efficient to just breed bees that are resistant to the varroa mite and the various viruses causing CCD and cutting down on pesticide use. If necessary it must be possible to introduce genes from resistant species of bees into vulnerable bee species elsewhere.
"Can we fix a destroyed planet with 2020 tech?" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 06:32 · Score: 1

The economics that drive the planet's destruction are far, far outpacing our technology to do anything about it.
It's going to be some fucking expensive produce to warrant swarms of nano pollenator bots where bees used to do these things for free... fresh fruit will be a technological wonder where once it literally grew on trees.
It's shameful that we invest in this idea while we collectively ignore the massive loss of species/habitat to fuel our economic paradigms. Perhaps our extinction is earned more than any other.
1. Re:"Can we fix a destroyed planet with 2020 tech?" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  We can't solve social problems with technology.
  You're right on the money. It is the economy that is destroying the environment. So how can we change that?
2. Re:"Can we fix a destroyed planet with 2020 tech?" by TWX · 2017-02-12 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  We can't solve social problems with technology.
  That is not entirely true.
  
  Various forms of birth control like the diaphragm, condoms, the pill, and Anime have already been shown to reduce overpopulation problems.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
or... by JustNiz · 2017-02-12 06:53 · Score: 1

...we could just stop killing all the bees.
... or use cheap chinese labour by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 07:01 · Score: 0

... it's been done before.
H1-Bee by lordfoul · 2017-02-12 07:03 · Score: 2

Perhaps we should just bring in some cheap H1-Bees to take care of the pollination problem.
1. Re:H1-Bee by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2017-02-12 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps we should just bring in some cheap H1-Bees to take care of the pollination problem.
  We tried that already, by importing Africanized Killer Bees. Things didn't work out very well.
  But it was the inspiration for a slew of cheap and sleazy Sci-Fi flicks:
  "If you like the A-Team, you'll love the Bee-Team!"
  Bee-Movies, indeed.
  
  --
  Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Apis Destructor by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 07:08 · Score: 0

Oh boy, now we can murder ALL of the honeybees and the drone makers can get rich.
They're only going to be used for future spying by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 07:41 · Score: 0

Do you really think no one will fly around something that small and inconspicuous and not use it to spy on people. It'll technically be an IoT device which we all know has awful security. One of those things gets hacked and that tiny drone is a different kind of "bug." Better off researching how to save bees than to give up and build something this potentially devastating.
Nothing wrong with a back up plan by rsilvergun · 2017-02-12 08:13 · Score: 1

so why not both? Here in the States though it's hard convincing the population that this kind of science (the kind that doesn't pay off _right_now_) is worth doing. It was all well and good when we were fighting commies but we don't need science to fight terrorists. So NASA's budget gets cut for another round of tax cuts & shelters and we just elected an Administration that doesn't believe in governing...

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
This by s.petry · 2017-02-12 08:15 · Score: 1

It's amazing how quickly forget that messing with nature usually has dire consequences. Imported species (intentional or otherwise) have caused a tremendous amount of extinction events. Messing with bees gave us the Killer bee. Replace bees with flying drones, and kill off all the remaining bees.
Ideas are not always meant to be implemented, but are best served as ideas on the drawing board that we can say "glad we didn't do that one" about.

--
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
fake bees ... we're doomed by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 08:16 · Score: 0

sure let's wreck the biosphere, don't worry some corporation will produce a product that will save us all
what a crock ... greedy, irresponsible rich people will be the death of us all :-(
Humming Birds by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 08:19 · Score: 0

It would be wiser to genetically manipulate hummingbirds to do the pollinating. They seem to work in my orchard. Then you could willynilly kill all the insects you want. It will give us time, before big ag finds a way to kill the hummingbirds.
1. Re:Humming Birds by lazy+genes · 2017-02-12 08:21 · Score: 0
  
  Why didn't I think of that.
Grey goo by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 08:22 · Score: 0

Did anyone else think that these drones could turn into a grey goo doomsday scenario?
Maybe beers don't even need fixing by SuperKendall · 2017-02-12 08:44 · Score: 1

That stuff you have been told about bee populations "collapsing"? More fake news.
Who was losing bees s reality? Some corporate bee providers had a bit too much of a monoculture going and had some issues. Wild bees never had a problem.
Everything generally you are being told to fear is a lie. Remember that carefully and apply it going forward.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:Maybe beers don't even need fixing by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 10:08 · Score: 0
  
  A source that explains it quite a lot better: https://www.geneticliteracypro...
2. Re:Maybe beers don't even need fixing by Cochonou · 2017-02-12 11:03 · Score: 1
  
  I am by far not an expert on bees, but I can at least check the references.
  The linked article says...
  
  Statistics compiled by France’s Ministry of Agriculture underscore the multi-factorial sources of bee health problems. The most frequent causes of bee loss reports received were found to be: ‘pathogenic infections’ (diseases)–by far the largest source of which was varroa mites; bad beekeeping practices; starvation; and phytosanitary products. Probable or definite pesticide ‘intoxication’ were among the least frequent loss report causes–and, of course, neonics are only one of many classes of pesticides to which such losses can be attributed.
  
  So let us check the original source. Curiously absent from the article synthesis, is the colony collapse disorder (referenced as "Phénomène de désertion"), ranking as the second most frequent cause of bee loss - which is precisely the subject the source is discussing (and playing down). If the other parts of the article are as well referenced as this one, this does not bode well for the credibility of this source.
3. Re:Maybe beers don't even need fixing by Aighearach · 2017-02-12 17:19 · Score: 2
  
  Here locally a lot of medium sized beekeepers serving the factory farms have had ongoing problems, not just monoculture but generally with their very new formulas for winter feeding. This is true even for beekeepers in mostly organic areas, which we have a lot of around here.
  So the price of formerly-cheap honey did go up significantly, and the big farms had trouble contracting with beekeepers.
  But farmers who keep their own bees, and beekeepers using traditional formulas and leaving the bees a percent of their own honey for the winter, they're not really having any more problems than usual. Everybody loses a few bee colonies now and then, but all the smaller brands at the health food stores have had stable supply and prices. Urban beekeepers have also continued to be successful.
  Anywhere I go in nature during the spring I see lots of wild bee activity from a variety of species.
Bees Need Not Apply by dbiere · 2017-02-12 09:05 · Score: 1

Wait, so now even the *bees* have to worry about losing their jobs to robots? Cripes.
Band aid by no-body · 2017-02-12 09:12 · Score: 1

not eliminating the underlying reasons and - in case it would work on a larger scale, who is making money on this BS? - manifest the incapacity of current systems to eliminate systemic malfunction endangering ... - A LOT !!! (wherever your conditioned imagination allows you to to).
Dead drones don't rot into soil like bees do by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 09:12 · Score: 0

What happens when a million of the drones malfunction, loose all power and die in a field? Now you've just littered and polluted into crop fields. They could leach into the soil and poison the crops.
"All they have to do" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 10:10 · Score: 0

"All they have to do is make sure to set aside enough land conducive to the bees' habitat."
Which is basically stealing land from people. Sorry, you fucking retarded immoral scientists but if we have to choose between bees and people, we're choosing people. This is why Clinton lost the last election, these immoral academics who try to impose their bizarre and idiotic morality upon the rest of us need to just sit down and shut up.
No by Jason1729 · 2017-02-12 10:12 · Score: 1

Can We Pollinate Flowers With Tiny Flying Drones?

Whenever a question is the headline to an article here, the answer is always no. It's the first fundamental rule of slashdot.
Young whipper snappers and their drones by Tablizer · 2017-02-12 13:56 · Score: 1

In the old days we'd have to do it manually

--
Table-ized A.I.
"playing down" by SuperKendall · 2017-02-12 17:45 · Score: 1

The source is not "playing down" anything, it is giving you a total colony count for bees which has been INCREASING.
The other places you seem to trust are OVER-EMPHASIZING the absolute magnitude of colony collapse disorder - which BTW was so named as to scare as many people as possible, one big red flag you can use for just about any topic to determine if it's fake news or not.
The bees are just fine. What needs a lot of help are the people of the earth, led as never before to believe a tsunami of fake news meant to make them fear and turn over power (and money) to the elites of the world. Once enough money is "donated" (i.e. stolen) magically the problem has been solved, and the next crisis begins...

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Herbicides are more damaging by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 23:46 · Score: 0

Okay, so we get it. The US just refuses to ban what science has found to be the root cause of colony collapse disorder, and that is neonicotinoid pesticides. But, then we all know the US Government is a corporate oligarchy headed up by Monsanto and ConAgra.
So, if we operate under the (good) assumption that Trump is going to do nothing but do more to enrich his corporate cronies, we have to figure out something else, and that something else is going to have to be at the grassroots level.
Each of us can start by, in addition to ceasing all use of pesticides on our property, also stopping the use of all weed killers. Dandelions, for example, are the earliest source of food for pollinators. They spring up early and are able to survive the frosts, providing much-needed food for bee colonies.
Also, plant wildflowers. I have two large raised beds in front of my house that I plant all sorts of native wildflowers in, and the bee population during the warm season is ridiculous. There are a hundred bees at a given time during the day.
We have to get away from this notion of trying to use government to impose positive change while at the same time not engaging in that positive change ourselves. It's not just hypocritical, but lazy and unrealistic. We need to create a market for pesticide-free food - and keep in mind that "Organic" does not mean pesticide-free. Demand your grocer tell you where their produce comes from, do the research, and find out whether those farms use pesticides.
Bee Endangered Species by zifn4b · 2017-02-13 00:38 · Score: 1

Is it possible? Maybe? Should we do it? Probably not, considering there are currently 7 species of bees that are on the endangered species list. We should be very careful about knowledge that can be used to affect the balance of nature.

--
We'll make great pets
What about evolutionary selection? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-13 01:47 · Score: 0

How would the drone choose what flower to pass on? If we were to claim that we could embed millions of years of experience in this field on a chip just now we would be fools.
Prior art by thomn8r · 2017-02-13 04:03 · Score: 1

I've had a 1.6" pollinator bot for 40 years - in my pants!
How about pest control? by Narcocide · 2017-02-13 04:05 · Score: 1

Pollination is good and all, but I'd like to see a model that can also kill all the caterpillars in a chemical-free fashion while it's at it.
Can We Pollinate Flowers With Tiny Flying Drones? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-13 06:19 · Score: 0

Of course not! That's just plain dumb! Pollination is done by sterile female worker bees. The Drones only function is to mate with the Queen Bee. That's from Birds and the Bees 101.
Re:Can We Pollinate Flowers With Tiny Flying Drone by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-13 10:22 · Score: 0

It seems much more efficient to just breed bees that are resistant to...
That sounds like a great idea. I hear the bees from Africa are much more resistant. I suggest we take some of those bees and breed them with European bees. Maybe test them in some out of the way place like Brazil in case something unexpected happens.
Missing bees? by dddux · 2017-02-13 14:09 · Score: 1

Missing bees, Amerrikens, eh? We've got plenty of them here in Europe because we're not as stupid as you are. Simple as that.

--
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti