Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / Millions of Honey Bees Found Dead in Canada

Author
Message
Libervurto
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Jun 2006
Location: On Toast
Posted: 18th Jul 2013 17:06
Quote: "It is - and we're in the middle of one right now. "

Do you mean against pollution and global warming or is there actual warfare going on where ecosystems are trying to be destroyed intentionally to harm their enemies?
Green Gandalf
VIP Member
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jan 2005
Playing: Malevolence:Sword of Ahkranox, Skyrim, Civ6.
Posted: 19th Jul 2013 03:05
The former - but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the latter is also true somewhere. There are plenty of corrupt, cruel and mindless governments around unfortunately.
TheComet
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Oct 2007
Location: I`m under ur bridge eating ur goatz.
Posted: 20th Jul 2013 11:47
Quote: "Life always finds a way."


Quote: "Mother Nature's got this."


You're completely right. This just popped up in the news.



Carnivorous Bees Discovered in Columbian Rain Forest


Ecologists in June made a fascinating discovery deep in the rain forests of Columbia; bees that kill, and consume, animal tissue. Ecologists say that in an environment populated by an increasing amount of animals that feed on flowers and their nectar, this genus of bees had to adapt to a different source of nutrients. Bees will actually make their combs inside the deceased flesh of large mammals, use the energy to create a new generation of the bees, and move onto a new host. The entire process from attack to complete consumption is thought to take as little as three weeks.

Pictured here is a hive made from the remaining flesh of a threatened species of red brocket deer native to Columbia. The neck and head is clearly visible. The deadly bees are thought to overwhelm large mammals until they perish, then construct a hive in the animal’s corpse, using it as a reservoir of nutrients. There are no reports of the bees attacking humans, but Patrick P. Howard, expert of tropical insects, says not to rule anything out.

The most frightening aspect of this discovery however, is that these bees may be on the move. Howard says there may be some cause for concern, “We haven’t found any direct evidence of the killer bees migrating north, but the reports that lead to this discovery came out of not South America, but Mexico." Howard explained that climate change may be responsible for the alleged migration of the bees, “If something isn’t done to reverse climate change in the next few years, we may see these bees as far north as Seattle Washington in under a decade."

TheComet

CoffeeGrunt
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2007
Location: England
Posted: 20th Jul 2013 13:12
Well, when I said that life finds a way, I wasn't expecting that.
Benjamin
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 20th Jul 2013 13:32
Nice job guys, you've screwed us all.

"Sideboobs are awesome. Getting punched in the face is not." - Jerico2Day on violence and nudity
Green Gandalf
VIP Member
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jan 2005
Playing: Malevolence:Sword of Ahkranox, Skyrim, Civ6.
Posted: 20th Jul 2013 14:15
Sounds a bit like the way Europeans colonized the rest of the planet.
CoffeeGrunt
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2007
Location: England
Posted: 20th Jul 2013 15:39
Please, let's not go down that road, Gandalf.
xplosys
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Jan 2006
Playing: FPSC Multiplayer Games
Posted: 20th Jul 2013 18:18
Quote: "Sounds a bit like the way Europeans colonized the rest of the planet."


We're just another species of animals, man.

I am the underground.
Green Gandalf
VIP Member
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jan 2005
Playing: Malevolence:Sword of Ahkranox, Skyrim, Civ6.
Posted: 21st Jul 2013 03:13
Of course - but we have a special interest in this one.
xplosys
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Jan 2006
Playing: FPSC Multiplayer Games
Posted: 21st Jul 2013 04:10
The bees probably think that they are the "Masters of the Universe" too. I can imaging that they have some kind of "Supreme Bee-ing". It made them small so they would have to work together to achieve greatness and conquer their enemies. They have inhabited the globe, spreading the buzz-word of salivation. One day, a large carpenter bee will appear and lead them to final victory, after which they will live in a land of honey.

Something like that, anyway.

I am the underground.
rolfy
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Jun 2006
Location:
Posted: 21st Jul 2013 09:02 Edited at: 21st Jul 2013 09:06
They are just a bunch of 'wanna-bees'.

It's said in the town of Effen there is a huge one called 'The big Effen Bee' the Effen Police are still to confirm reports.
Green Gandalf
VIP Member
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jan 2005
Playing: Malevolence:Sword of Ahkranox, Skyrim, Civ6.
Posted: 21st Jul 2013 11:52
Quote: "It's said in the town of Effen there is a huge one called 'The big Effen Bee' the Effen Police are still to confirm reports."


There's Effen not enough of them around here - and we live in the countryside.

Did see two unusually large and dark wasps drinking from our pool yesterday though - and they weren't hornets. Perhaps Cornwall is being invaded by the Effen bees Effen cousins?
Thraxas
Retired Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Feb 2006
Location: The Avenging Axe, Turai
Hawkblood
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Dec 2009
Location:
Posted: 27th Jul 2013 17:10 Edited at: 27th Jul 2013 17:14
37 million? Did they count them all? Did any survive the onslaught of the human invasion? I mean, sure we breed bees so that we can make them as slaves, using them to pollinate crops that we selfishly eat, but a whole scale slaughter? We should be ashamed of ourselves for being so selfish and cruel! Everyone of us should stop eating and drinking and let ourselves die. Then the wonderful Gaia will bless this planet with her love and all the beautiful creatures can live in peace and harmony.

Yea, that sounds stupid when you put it like that, but the reality is that humans do terrible thing to the environment, but we also do things for our own survival. Which is evil?

DDT is a well known insecticide that was widely effective. It was used commercially worldwide after WW2. In 1962, however, an article was published that suggested it *could* cause cancer. And in 1972 was banned worldwide. What did this do? DDT was a very inexpensive and very effective insecticide that less developed countries (than US and European countries) could afford. After its ban, these countries could no longer gain access to this product; crops were lost and people died from insect born illnesses:
Quote: "Robert Gwadz of the National Institutes of Health said in 2007, "The ban on DDT may have killed 20 million children.""


Where do we draw the line between environmentalism and human survival? Those of us in the 1st world countries suffer far less from our knee-jerk reactions to articles like in the OP than people in the 3rd world (who we claim to want to save). We sit on our high horses and look down at the "little people" and say "sorry, you can't have this life saving invention because it could kill 37 million bees"......

How many of you remember that eggs are bad for you.... Oh, wait now they are good for you..... Oh, wait now they are bad for you again.... Or salt is bad for you..... Oh, wait salt has no ill effects (unless you consume 50lbs a day)......

Dog bites man is not news. Man bites dog, now that's news! Sensationalism will always be in the headlines. Will you ever see a news article that says: "Beekeepers raise 370 million bees per year"? No, because no one cares-- it's not fashionable.

I'm not a heartless jerk. I just think we need to reasonably consider the ramifications of everything we do. This includes introduction of chemicals AND disuse of chemicals.

The fastest code is the code never written.
Green Gandalf
VIP Member
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jan 2005
Playing: Malevolence:Sword of Ahkranox, Skyrim, Civ6.
Posted: 27th Jul 2013 17:35
The following is a more balanced view of DDT:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT
Hawkblood
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Dec 2009
Location:
Posted: 27th Jul 2013 22:56 Edited at: 27th Jul 2013 23:07
That's where I got that quote. The point is that we (people in general) have a tendency to knee jerk when the media shows us a story like the OP. These reactions have real consequences that can sometimes be worse than the original problem. I love honey and therefore someone could say that I'm killing bees. You see, by me eating honey, I am taking nutrients from the bees that would otherwise feed the bee larvae. So not only am I a robber, I'm a killer of bee young! Therefore I should be stopped at all costs..... This is environmentalism's thought process taken to its logical end.

We must temper our emotional concerns with logic and real forethought. No right minded company willingly kills-- it's bad for business. Bees are important for our food supply and doing things that kill them would be suicide. Businesses are run by people-- people that need to eat........


EDIT: hahahaha here's something:
http://youtu.be/ctUvhERJChI

The fastest code is the code never written.
Green Gandalf
VIP Member
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jan 2005
Playing: Malevolence:Sword of Ahkranox, Skyrim, Civ6.
Posted: 28th Jul 2013 01:30
Quote: "That's where I got that quote. "


Maybe - but you chose one which the article itself states is highly contentious. Selective quotes taken out of context might convince you but they don't convince me. The evidence against DDT - and other pesticides like it - has been quite overwhelming. Have you read Rachel Carson's book? If not then you should. It's as relevant now as it was when it first appeared (c. 1962).

Quote: "No right minded company willingly kills-- it's bad for business."


Platitudes like that get us nowhere. It's been known for decades, for example, that smoking kills yet the tobacco companies both knowingly and willingly have continued to promote their products. Are those companies examples of "right minded" ones or are they examples of a different breed altogether?
bitJericho
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 28th Jul 2013 03:12
Quote: "We must temper our emotional concerns with logic and real forethought. No right minded company willingly kills-- it's bad for business. Bees are important for our food supply and doing things that kill them would be suicide. Businesses are run by people-- people that need to eat........"


Unless the CEO doesn't believe in scientific evidence or (more likely) is in denial. *cough* climate change */cough*

Quote: "How many of you remember that eggs are bad for you.... Oh, wait now they are good for you..... Oh, wait now they are bad for you again.... Or salt is bad for you..... Oh, wait salt has no ill effects (unless you consume 50lbs a day)......"


When we are unwilling to change our position even in the face of strong evidence to the contrary it's called religion, not science.

Visit my blog http://www.canales.me.
Hawkblood
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Dec 2009
Location:
Posted: 28th Jul 2013 03:33
There has never been a case of cancer that is the direct result of DDT.

"Smoking" is an example of people making bad choices and corporations taking advantage of stupid people. The ill effects of smoking don't kill off as many people (as fast) as the destruction of our food supply will. Smoking kills most of its victims near the end of their life, so the tobacco industry has several years to suck the money out of them. On the other hand, if smoking were to kill only a few months after use, the demand would dry up quickly and the companies would have no market.

People buy things from corporations because those "things" are what the people want/need......

Let's speculate that the cause of the bee deaths are the result of, let's say, pesticides on crops that the bees were pollinating..... Bee keepers would start to see populations dwindle and would know something is wrong. The bee keepers would ask someone in the scientific community to determine the cause. The scientists would discover that pesticide X was causing the deaths and publish their findings in some pier review journal. More scientists would try to debunk/corroborate the findings and so forth. The company that makes pesticide X would of course have their own scientists to try to refute this as well. But, in the end everyone will know that pesticide X is the cause and the bee keepers won't pollinate farms that use pesticide X. The market for pesticide X will dry up and the company will have to re-engineer a new pesticide to stay in business. This time, the company will do more testing and will be sure it doesn't kill bees......

This is not what happened to DDT! It was a propaganda machine that killed it with unsubstantiated claims.

Did you look at the "cow urine video"? I find it funny that we spent so much time and money to find some pharmaceutical way to "cure" the bees when cow pee was the answer..... I don't know if it works as they claim, but that would be funny.

The fastest code is the code never written.
Indicium
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th May 2008
Location:
Posted: 28th Jul 2013 04:07
Quote: "Smoking kills most of its victims near the end of their life"


Death usually comes at the end of one's life.


They see me coding, they hating. http://indi-indicium.blogspot.co.uk/
Green Gandalf
VIP Member
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jan 2005
Playing: Malevolence:Sword of Ahkranox, Skyrim, Civ6.
Posted: 28th Jul 2013 13:57
That, sadly, is true.
Matty H
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Oct 2008
Location: England
Posted: 28th Jul 2013 14:24
Quote: " The company that makes pesticide X would of course have their own scientists to try to refute this as well. But, in the end everyone will know that pesticide X is the cause and the bee keepers won't pollinate farms that use pesticide X. The market for pesticide X will dry up and the company will have to re-engineer a new pesticide to stay in business. This time, the company will do more testing and will be sure it doesn't kill bees......"


You are probably right, but this is a long drawn out process and a lot of damage can be done while the company in question fights and holds out to protect its profits.

There is also the chance that the people/animals/insects being harmed have no link to the market in question so the damage can be done indefinitely.

I don't agree that the markets will always find the best answer, if we have evidence that something is damaging we should act on it, after evaluating the cost of acting/not acting of course. We should be suspicious of vested interests and should not put too much faith in their findings, independent studies are needed.

Hawkblood
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Dec 2009
Location:
Posted: 28th Jul 2013 17:40
All I'm saying is be careful of media hype......

The "market" consists of willing partners-- not government regulations. When the bee keepers hire scientists to study why the bees are dying; that's a market. The scientists have a vested interest in discovering the truth behind the deaths. Sure the scientists hired by the corp. have a vested interest in debunking the aforementioned scientists claims, but that's what science is about-- finding the truth/facts. As soon as the claim that pesticide X is killing bees comes out in the preliminary report, many bee keepers will start being cautious about where they let their bees pollinate.

When government steps in, there's no choice on the matter. No matter how unfounded the findings, if the government decides that pesticide X kills bees (even if it actually doesn't), it makes a law that says "you can't use pesticide X", and *poof* no more pesticide X is manufactured or used.....

Now let's speculate that pesticide X doesn't kill the bees at all. Now, with the government intervention, there is no discussion, no more debate, and no more pesticide X. The company that invested millions, maybe billions to develop this product has lost all that money. So now company X would like to stay in business, so it has to lay off 10,000 workers just to stay afloat..... You see where I'm going?

Nothing happens in a vacuum. We need to be sure that don't act too rashly when making decisions like these.

The fastest code is the code never written.
Green Gandalf
VIP Member
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jan 2005
Playing: Malevolence:Sword of Ahkranox, Skyrim, Civ6.
Posted: 28th Jul 2013 18:30
Quote: "We need to be sure that don't act too rashly when making decisions like these."


Agreed.

The problem facing governments is one of having to take decisions in the face of uncertainty - to always do nothing would be simply irresponsible.

In the case of DDT there was, on the one hand, the known short-term benefits of its use as an insecticide (and very effective it was in some important application areas) and on the other the ever-growing evidence that DDT and related persistent pesticides were causing serious fertility problems in some species of animals. The chemicals involved, if I recall correctly, had a tendency to be stored in the fatty tissues of animals which consumed food tainted with those chemicals. Unfortunately the one property which made those chemicals particularly effective was also the one causing problems - their persistence in body tissues. Other chemicals were more easily broken down by normal metabolic processes. The result was that potentially lethal, or at least damaging, levels could gradually build up in the tissues of animals which were not the intended target of the insecticide.

The most notable instance was the national emblem of the US, the bald eagle, but there were others. The problem was particularly acute in long-lived predator species at the end of the food chain - the bald eagle being a prime example. There is of course another species at the end of a long food chain - us. I think the governments at the time took the correct decision - but we will probably never know for certain whether that decision was necessary.
Hawkblood
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Dec 2009
Location:
Posted: 28th Jul 2013 19:17 Edited at: 28th Jul 2013 19:17
The fact of outlawing DDT is that this inexpensive and very effective insecticide hurt the poorest countries more than it hurt the US. The collective world community is a body of people that make decision "for the greater good" with only a small amount of hard data. When you look at their decisions, from DDT to "climate change", you will see a pattern of anti-capitalism. These decisions serve one purpose: to make the world poor and dependent on larger and larger governments so that few have power and the masses are nothing more than serfs!

The fastest code is the code never written.
Green Gandalf
VIP Member
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jan 2005
Playing: Malevolence:Sword of Ahkranox, Skyrim, Civ6.
Posted: 28th Jul 2013 23:54
Quote: "The fact of outlawing DDT is that this inexpensive and very effective insecticide hurt the poorest countries more than it hurt the US. "


Evidence? India, for example, still uses it. You need to read that link I gave from beginning to end before making such ill-informed statements. Not least is the issue of resistance to DDT which renders it useless unless used very carefully.

Quote: "When you look at their decisions, from DDT to "climate change", you will see a pattern of anti-capitalism."


Do I see blind prejudice rearing its ugly head yet again?

This is from the link I gave earlier:

Quote: "In response to an EDF suit, the U.S. District Court of Appeals in 1971 ordered the EPA to begin the de-registration procedure for DDT. After an initial six-month review process, William Ruckelshaus, the Agency's first Administrator rejected an immediate suspension of DDT's registration, citing studies from the EPA's internal staff stating that DDT was not an imminent danger to human health and wildlife.[14] However, the findings of these staff members were criticized, as they were performed mostly by economic entomologists inherited from the United States Department of Agriculture, who many environmentalists felt were biased towards agribusiness and tended to minimize concerns about human health and wildlife. The decision not to ban thus created public controversy.[22]

The EPA then held seven months of hearings in 1971–1972, with scientists giving evidence both for and against the use of DDT. In the summer of 1972, Ruckelshaus announced the cancellation of most uses of DDT – an exemption allowed for public health uses under some conditions.[14] Immediately after the cancellation was announced, both EDF and the DDT manufacturers filed suit against the EPA, with the industry seeking to overturn the ban, and EDF seeking a comprehensive ban. The cases were consolidated, and in 1973 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the EPA had acted properly in banning DDT.[14]
"


The U.S. Court of Appeals is, of course, a well-known "anti-capitalist" organisation.

The idea that concerns about climate change, etc, are merely "anti-capitalist" is laughable frankly. Sure, there are anti-capitalist groups who jump on the bandwagon - but then there are plenty of anti-capitalist groups who are as ignorant of the science as are the so-called pro-capitalist groups who wish to deny such changes. If we're not careful there won't be any civilisation left to argue about, capitalist or otherwise.
Hawkblood
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Dec 2009
Location:
Posted: 29th Jul 2013 00:46
My only prejudice is against environmentalism at the expense of humanity. We need lots of food to sustain us (here in the US and there is Africa). How do we grow that much food? Here we can use expensive or ineffective ways to grow crops, but that won't work in 3rd world countries. They need inexpensive and effective ways. If by spraying tomato plants with human sewage (assuming it would be safe..... don't think so), would be effective in keeping insects away, I would use it. Currently there are two methods for farmers: insecticides and "organic". Organic is certainly a good way to go because you don't introduce chemicals into the growth process, but the yields are generally smaller and fewer (that aren't eaten or damaged by pests). This won't do for farms that have low yield already because of the soil.....

The U.S. Court of Appeals is not just 1 court. It is comprised of several "circuits" (11 to be exact) and each one is different in how they interpret the law. The 9th circuit is well known as a liberal court and yes, anti-capitalist.

Perhaps you are used to the government intruding into your life, but I am not.

Quote: "If we're not careful there won't be any civilisation left to argue about"

You're right on that note. But I am not afraid of corporations because they can't "make" me do anything. Governments on the other hand have a nasty habit of taking more and more power for the few from the many. I want the government to have as little power as possible over people's lives......

The fastest code is the code never written.
Matty H
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Oct 2008
Location: England
Posted: 29th Jul 2013 02:20
Quote: "Perhaps you are used to the government intruding into your life, but I am not."


This is quite a common stance to have these days it seems. The choice between government and people is a false choice in my opinion.

Corporations can put you out of business, it's a scandal right now in the UK, hacking, burglary, all to put competitors out of business. Some corporations are no more capitalist than the liberals you refer to.

Not totally disagreeing with you, just think you are being a little selective when comparing governments and corporations, I find they sometimes work hand in hand to make things worse

xplosys
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Jan 2006
Playing: FPSC Multiplayer Games
Posted: 29th Jul 2013 02:42
A lot of the problem with "discussions" on this forum is that when people get a little resistance to thier ideas or beliefs, they start getting defensive and using inflamatory language. First it's "laughable", then it's "ignorance", and finally you're just plain "stupid" if don't agree with me. If you have a good argument and know your facts, you can get your point across and it will be better recieved without trying to belittle those who disagree. Once you get them on the defense, they'll never see your side of it.

Also, I just wanted to point out that it was a terrible waste, loosing all those bees, when we could have covered them in chocolate and at least made a few bucks on the sale. They are very tasty.

Brian.

I am the underground.
Green Gandalf
VIP Member
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jan 2005
Playing: Malevolence:Sword of Ahkranox, Skyrim, Civ6.
Posted: 29th Jul 2013 02:46
Quote: "My only prejudice is against environmentalism at the expense of humanity."


The whole point of environmentalism is to have a world fit for humanity. You seem to be hitting out at an imaginary foe there.

Quote: "We need lots of food to sustain us (here in the US and there is Africa)."


True - but present practices are not sustainable. There is the wider issue of sustainability, not just of food, but of water, power, certain mineral resources, and perhaps even oxygen itself if things go seriously awry. Humanity needs to take a long hard look at the way it manages its affairs and resources.

Quote: "They need inexpensive and effective ways."


True.

Quote: "Currently there are two methods for farmers: insecticides and "organic"."


That's a common myth. You need to do a bit of research on that one. here's a good place to start:

http://www.soilassociation.org/whatisorganic/organicstandards

Quote: "Organic is certainly a good way to go because you don't introduce chemicals into the growth process, but the yields are generally smaller and fewer (that aren't eaten or damaged by pests)."


That's actually rather debatable because of the damaging environmental effects of the petrochemical and agrochemical industries. In the short term you often see an increase in yields if you switch to chemical based agriculture but the benefits are often not sustained and the environment is often ruined. Also, poor farmers are often misled into accepting contracts which do not offer a sustainable future for their farms.

Quote: "This won't do for farms that have low yield already because of the soil....."


I think you'll find that the chemical "solution" is not a solution at all. There are no easy answers on these issues - mainly because humanity's collective use of resources on this planet is simply not sustainable. It's not obvious which particular environmental stress is going to be the tipping point but it's quite obvious that major and damaging changes are ahead.

Quote: "Perhaps you are used to the government intruding into your life, but I am not."


What exactly is the relevance of that statement?

Quote: "But I am not afraid of corporations because they can't "make" me do anything."


Ditto.

They might not be able to "make" you do anything but they can certainly ruin the world you live in.

Quote: "The U.S. Court of Appeals is not just 1 court. It is comprised of several "circuits" (11 to be exact) and each one is different in how they interpret the law. The 9th circuit is well known as a liberal court and yes, anti-capitalist."


Fair point - but "anti-capitalist"? I think you've confused different issues here. Limiting the power of large corporations is not necessarily "anti-capitalist" - especially if it enables smaller scale capitalists to thrive. Let's just stick to the issues at stake here - the environment is in serious danger whichever world political system you live under and whether you like it or not concerted government actions will be needed to deal with it. Whether humanity generally will wake up in time to deal with the problems is another matter.
Green Gandalf
VIP Member
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jan 2005
Playing: Malevolence:Sword of Ahkranox, Skyrim, Civ6.
Posted: 29th Jul 2013 15:56
Looks like more problems for bees:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/geekquinox/more-bad-news-honeybee-deaths-further-proof-change-204803166.html

I haven't seen the original source for this claim so I don't know how reliable it is.
xplosys
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Jan 2006
Playing: FPSC Multiplayer Games
Posted: 29th Jul 2013 16:12
Knowing that we have extensively and unnaturally increased the bee population over the years for our own benefit, I would like to see some numbers which show; the man-made increase versus the death toll. Obviously any large amount of deaths will affect our food supply, but how much of the death is of the over population? I hope I worded that right.

I am the underground.
Green Gandalf
VIP Member
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jan 2005
Playing: Malevolence:Sword of Ahkranox, Skyrim, Civ6.
Posted: 29th Jul 2013 22:52
Even if it was all of the increase it would still be worrying wouldn't it? Our present demand for food probably far outstrips what would be available without farming - especially since we are busy killing off the natural, i.e. non-farmed, sources of food. The real issue is how important the bees really are.

Like others on this thread I do wonder what the relative importance of bee pollination is. My guess is that it will vary enormously from crop to crop. Honey bees are conspicuous by their absence in our garden whereas there used to be hordes of them. What I have noticed though is that things like black currants are cropping just as they used to but beans are not. I don't know enough about the habits of bees to know whether their disappearance is related to that difference - or whether it's simply the weird weather we've had in recent years. Insects do tend to have rather picky pollination habits.

Of course some crops won't be affected anyway since many plants are wind pollinated. Fruit growers traditionally rely - or say they rely - on thriving bee populations. There should be enough data coming through from the massive North American orchards which regularly transport bee hives around the country for the specific purpose of pollination. Have they reported anything to cast light on this?
CoffeeGrunt
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2007
Location: England
Posted: 30th Jul 2013 22:06
I find it strange that almost globally this is apparently occurring, despite wildly varying methods of farming.
Hawkblood
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Dec 2009
Location:
Posted: 30th Jul 2013 22:57
Quote: "I find they sometimes work hand in hand to make things worse"

That is what is called "crony capitalism". This never works out in the end. You end up with only a few people with power/money (which is where we are going if we don't stop it) and the masses dependent on handouts and subsidies. When capitalism and government (elected representation) are working at their best (doing what they are supposed to do), they have almost no interaction with each other.....

@GG
What resources are we running out of? Sure there are parts of the world that have less of a particular resource than others, but that's an issue that fair trade can handle.

Quote: "Quote: "Currently there are two methods for farmers: insecticides and "organic"."

That's a common myth. You need to do a bit of research on that one."

Yes. I was being TOO specific and not including EVERYTHING that "organic" means. I am not worried if people want to go the organic route. I worry only that those measure will be IMPOSED for everyone. It hasn't happened yet, and there's no serious talk of doing that here.....

The "organic" (in quotes) is to emphasize that everything that is grown IS organic-- even when using insecticides and artificial fertilizers. The word is used to differentiate a method of agriculture.

"sustainability" is a buzz-word that has been tossed around for several years now. It's implication is that what we are presently doing is either "bad" or "we will run out". There are plenty of things we will run out of in the future like fossil fuels, but there is SOOOOO much of it that is untapped, that by the time we run out SURELY we will find a viable alternative. NO, I don't like "dirty air and dirty water", but right now we need the energy being produced by fossil fuels. Actually, I wish we could build more nuclear power planets here in the US. France uses nuclear power for electricity at ~79% and the US only ~19%.

Quote: "Quote: "Perhaps you are used to the government intruding into your life, but I am not."

What exactly is the relevance of that statement?
"

Sorry, I was being unnecessarily inflammatory. Your "location" tag says you are from the UK. I am upset that we are heading toward a system more like the UK and EU. I don't like it! To each his own.....

Quote: "They might not be able to "make" you do anything but they can certainly ruin the world you live in.
"

So can the government. Presently, we can elect officials that "can" make things better, but usually they don't because they become corrupt. Recently, the US people discovered that the NSA is spying on the US people without warrants-- this is still a big debate. Our Constitution was written with specific restrictions on the government. The restrictions are being violated and many people don't even seem to care!

Quote: "Limiting the power of large corporations is not necessarily "anti-capitalist""

Corporations are ONLY supposed to have power in the market. More and more the government takes kickbacks from these large corps and in turn makes the market favor those corps. This has to stop!

Now back to the OP:
I hope they figure out what the cause is..... I'm pretty sure I read one of the posts that linked an article that said it was a parasite that was infecting the larvae.... I also linked a vid that suggested cow urine would prevent this problem. I LOVE it when they find a natural way to fix things (really, I do)!

The fastest code is the code never written.
Indicium
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th May 2008
Location:
Posted: 30th Jul 2013 23:11
Quote: "Actually, I wish we could build more nuclear power planets here in the US. France uses nuclear power for electricity at ~79% and the US only ~19%."


Uranium is not in unlimited supply unfortunately. IIRC - Earth only has enough fissionable Uranium to last another 80 years at current usage. Sorry but I don't have a source for that.


They see me coding, they hating. http://indi-indicium.blogspot.co.uk/
Hawkblood
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Dec 2009
Location:
Posted: 31st Jul 2013 01:33
I'm not saying it's the ultimate power supply, but at least in the short term, it is the cleanest. Sure, we have to "dispose" of the spent fuel rods, but at least it's not being dumped into the atmosphere or polluting our water and soil.

Here is a source describing how long we have:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last
Breeder reactors seem to be the way to go.....

The fastest code is the code never written.
Green Gandalf
VIP Member
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jan 2005
Playing: Malevolence:Sword of Ahkranox, Skyrim, Civ6.
Posted: 31st Jul 2013 01:36
Quote: "@GG
What resources are we running out of?"


Water is the main one. Sure, there's lots around but large areas of the planet are running out of good clean water - and there's a good chance that future wars will be about who controls water. De-salination is a possibility but that's probably an expensive procedure which will only exacerbate the problem. In the short term better water management can alleviate some of the problem but that is only a short-term answer. Mankind is increasing it's demand for both water and power (and it's demand for associated resources).

Other resources might not be running short as such but are becoming more expensive to extract - like oil for example (although it's a moot point whether that's a good thing).

I'm not convinced that the nuclear option is the answer to our energy problems. Obviously there are a few high-profile incidents which damage their reputation - but that can happen in any industry like the recent explosions at a Texas fertilizer factory in the US. I'm more concerned about the cumulative effects of nuclear waste and haven't yet been convinced by the answers given by either side. Clear numerical answers seem beyond both side for some reason - but then I've probably not looked at the right source.

But you're question is right in a sense. We extract most (all?) our mineral resources from only small parts of the earth's crust - it's plain that there must be vast quantities elsewhere. Unfortunately the act of extracting much of that only exacerbates other problems - unless active attempts are made to alleviate them.

Quote: "I also linked a vid that suggested cow urine would prevent this problem. I LOVE it when they find a natural way to fix things (really, I do)!"


Probably a good way of controlling excitable groups from the USA too.

Quote: "Sorry, I was being unnecessarily inflammatory."


Er, yes. I think I was guilty of that too.

Quote: "I am upset that we are heading toward a system more like the UK and EU. I don't like it! To each his own....."


Fair enough.

Quote: "Now back to the OP:
I hope they figure out what the cause is"


So do I. It wouldn't completely surprise me if it was something else entirely. Such as:

Quote: "I find it strange that almost globally this is apparently occurring, despite wildly varying methods of farming."


Perhaps it's nothing to do with farming. What about the radiation from the ubiquitous mobile networks springing up everywhere? Perhaps bees use the natural low-level radiation sources as there navigational source? [I have no idea whether this even possible but such things have been known - many creatures seem to navigate quite accurately over long distances in ways that humans cannot do without the aid of complicated equipment.] I still favour the pesticide theory but the root cause could be something else.

@xplosys

Quote: "Knowing that we have extensively and unnaturally increased the bee population over the years for our own benefit, I would like to see some numbers which show; the man-made increase versus the death toll. Obviously any large amount of deaths will affect our food supply, but how much of the death is of the over population? I hope I worded that right."


I have a feeling that last sentence also applies to the first sentence of my earlier reply to you.
xplosys
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Jan 2006
Playing: FPSC Multiplayer Games
Hawkblood
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Dec 2009
Location:
Posted: 31st Jul 2013 04:38
Quote: "Probably a good way of controlling excitable groups from the USA too."

Do you mean the video or a judicious application of cow urine?

The fastest code is the code never written.
Green Gandalf
VIP Member
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jan 2005
Playing: Malevolence:Sword of Ahkranox, Skyrim, Civ6.
Posted: 1st Aug 2013 13:09
Quote: "or a judicious application of cow urine?"


Or, better still, an injudicious one.


@xplosys

Thanks for those links - encouraging news although there is a note of caution at the end of the first article. Looks like a case of "watch this space" as usual.
nixitexpoole
12
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Aug 2013
Location: 103 H Laura St, Jacksonville, FL 32202
Posted: 16th Aug 2013 10:07
Hey,, that really sounds like the life of bees is really coming to an end?? If it is so then we need to have a strong committee that to only for the health and care of bees as we know these are small bees but they travel a long-long distance in order to collect the nectar of flowers to generate a healthy honey..

Hawkblood
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Dec 2009
Location:
Posted: 16th Aug 2013 19:10
Your address looks like a business. Are you trying to sell something? It seems strange that you joined the forum TODAY and you posted an actual address in the location block. Not to mention that when Googled, the surrounding buildings don't look like houses or apartments......

The fastest code is the code never written.
Green Gandalf
VIP Member
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jan 2005
Playing: Malevolence:Sword of Ahkranox, Skyrim, Civ6.
Posted: 16th Aug 2013 20:58
Spam?



Powered by Free Banners
xplosys
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Jan 2006
Playing: FPSC Multiplayer Games
Posted: 16th Aug 2013 22:44
Definitely. He linked to some king of health food page. When a forum is as diverse, controversial, and far reaching as we are, we're bound to draw all kinds of people.

I am the underground.
Green Gandalf
VIP Member
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jan 2005
Playing: Malevolence:Sword of Ahkranox, Skyrim, Civ6.
Posted: 17th Aug 2013 13:02
You and I are testament to that.



Powered by Free Banners

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2026-07-03 09:55:10
Your offset time is: 2026-07-03 09:55:10