Display:
I don't know why people need to settle on the most dramatic conclusions.  I guess alarmism sells news but it is really not helpful when trying to form scientific hypothesis.  First everyone likes to pick his or her favorite enemy.  Here it is transgenic crops, which without really knowing anything about them, one concludes that they must be bad.  Although the jury is still out one would suspect if this were the cause of colony collapse it would have been noticed in North America years ago and on a large scale.  Whatever is causing colony collapse is relatively new and there could very well be a number of reasons.  The collapse of colonies and the increase of parasites and fungi are not surprising since the colony functions as a `superorganism'.  Once the number of individuals drops below a certain level there are no longer enough bees to care for brood, or forage, or defend the colony and maintain homeostasis.  It is likely that some strains of bees are resistant and certainly there are other pollinators, although agriculture is not geared up to utilize them.  My guess is that it is a pesticide and probably a recently introduced systemic one, unlike Bt it is a general insecticide.  If so, other pollinators would be just as affected as honey bees.  The mystery will solved shortly.
by bellumregio on Thu Mar 29th, 2007 at 11:48:47 AM EST
The article refers to a scientific experiment in which bees were fed pollen from BT corn and the weaker bees had problems with it. Or didn't you see that bit?
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Mar 29th, 2007 at 12:00:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Speaking of selling news, if media headlines is a good indication of what sells best, these must be unbeatable hot topics: dissapearance (or "mysterious" deaths) of Caucasian females or boy-scouts; another verbal slipup of a progressive politician; fundrasing records of politicians; legal problems of celebrities; and such.

Regarding potentially dangerous problems, say, global warming, the most you can read are excuses to ignore them. In particular, there is not much in the media that you can read about the bee problem. When the media - perhaps fully controlled by narrow minded interests of minimum industrial accountability, I am just guessing - does not provide any reasonably concerned framework to discuss environmental problems, you get to read running-scared punks like me (haha).

The mystery will be solve shortly.

Firstly, there are different levels of "solving". You may find out how the problem arrises, or how it works, but you may have little clue how to solve it with widely acceptable means.

Secondly, this particular mystery might be solved soon, but maybe not soon enough. I am skeptical that we will eventually solve every problem we came accross with our modern headlong enterprising adventure. We are at the stage when we make more problems than we solve.  

by das monde on Thu Mar 29th, 2007 at 10:38:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
We are at the stage when we make more problems than we solve.

To put this another way, we're reaching the limits of our ability to manage the level of complexity we've created.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Thu Mar 29th, 2007 at 11:18:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In some ways I can't but agree.  Oddly, tho', many problems we're seeing (if one has the eyes) in the bio-sphere are the result of a reduction in Complexity.  
by ATinNM on Thu Mar 29th, 2007 at 11:51:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
We do not even make a conscious effort to manage the complexity we are generating. We are just minding each own buisiness, piously believing that Free Market will solve everything.

Iraq's war is a typical example of the modern approach - you do "what you have to do", and then discover the next level of mess.

by das monde on Fri Mar 30th, 2007 at 12:03:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series