# Bee Slavery



## BeeManiac (Feb 26, 2012)

ohh brother...


----------



## tommyt (Aug 7, 2010)

> What would happen if bees developed to the next stage of giving up slavery and wars? Would they go extinct?


Yep with all the rest of us
It is 2012 you know


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

I am not sure what you are getting at.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Are the workers the slaves or is the queen? The queen spends most of her life locked inside making babies. . The workers decide how many eggs the queen will lay. When she can no longer keep up with what they want they make a new queen and kill her.

Or maybe, they are - a team. All alloted their own tasks for the benefit of all.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

The way I see it the workers are the slaves. They are the ones that are starved and forced to work till death. Replacing the queen is no different than humans overthrowing their leader. Surely you have heard of that. Until the point of replacement the queen is royalty and treated as such.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

If you see one of your hives swarming, then tell me the queen is treated as royalty. She is chased mercilessly around the hive until she is driven out the front door. Then bees can be seen chasing her around so aggressively you think they are going to kill her. She runs around the outside of the hive really fast trying to escape until she takes flight, which was the bees plan.

All that after the bees starved her for around a week to get her down to a size that she can fly.


All this another remarkable behaviour for a creature with a brain the size of a piece of dust. Without any of these behaviors the species would not have survived.

Using words like slavery is applying human behavior and motives, to an insect. I think they all do what they have been programed to do. Nobody forces bees to flit around flowers. They do it cos they like it. If we are going to apply human understandings. 

Which, is another reason I object to these vegans or whatever they are, who say in all seriousness, that humans are making bees slaves. What we are actually doing is providing the bees with a well designed home that enables them to store a food surplus, which we take as rent.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

I think it was in Randy's speech somewhere that the honeybee was not a colony insect to start with (or maybe it was a thought of his). Originally all the bees grew to the queens ability to reproduce and was solitary like other bees. The honeybee evolved into a colony when it was found that if the larvae was starved it would result into a slave worker. So I am thinking what is the next step in the far distant future. Will bees grow out of this behavior and will it be better or worse in the end. Or have bees evolved as far as they are going to go and the end game is to be a domestic animal for human use and thereby be totally dependant on humans?


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

OK, well if he was there, I guess he'd know. You got me Ace.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

Amazing... simply amazing...once again we anthromorphize....


----------



## KelpticFest (Apr 19, 2011)

Mother Nature rarely "grows out of" something that works. The point at which surroundings change and the old way doesn't work any more, is when some forward-thinking opportunist moves into the new or recently vacated ecological niche.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

StevenG said:


> anthromorphize....


I don't know this word and I don't find a definition for it.


----------



## Steven Ogborn (Jun 3, 2011)

Hi Ace.
How about putting a twist on this slavery thing when comparing it to human behavior.
Long ago in Celtic society the cheiftains were chosen buy the people of the tribes that they led. They had the best of food,
housing, jewelry, etc. Much like a queenbee is treated. In return they were expected to sacrifice their life to all the day to day
running of the tribe and even their life for honor of the tribe in battle or war. (Ancient celts went to battle without going to actual
war) The tribes health and prosperity were directly related to the abilities of their cheiftain. He or she lived a good life until
they couldn't perform any longer (then they got superceded). Their throne room became a prison in a society that kept and starved
slaves. Everyone had a duty to fullfill for the betterment of the tribe.


----------



## KelpticFest (Apr 19, 2011)

Proper spelling helps: anthropomorphize


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

Acebird said:


> I don't know this word and I don't find a definition for it.


I wish you were joking ...


I think you should name your hive "Uncle Acebird's Cabin".


----------



## Steven Ogborn (Jun 3, 2011)

Anthromorphize is when people apply human traits or behaivior to animals. Talking dogs or calling the bees "gurls".


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Well there you go! I learned something even out of this thread!


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

KelpticFest said:


> Proper spelling helps: anthropomorphize


Hey!! That's my job.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

My mistake, as mentioned above, the correct spelling is "anthropomorphize". And you now have the definition. 
I recall reading several places over the years that it is rather dangerous and quite inappropriate to apply human criteria and behavioral understandings to honeybees. Other species too, but in our case, honeybees. When we do that, we fail to understand them on their terms. Seems like it is difficult enough to understand and know them as they are, without applying inappropriate criteria to them.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Well there you are Ace, you anthropomorphizeist you.


----------



## Steven Ogborn (Jun 3, 2011)

At the end of the talk, Randy was talking about not breeding for a large amount of different traits. So, he gave his 
breeder colonies a "job description". This is kind of Anthropomorphizing (I'll try to copy the spelling right this time)
them. Right? He used it as a way to simplify the selection process. They (the breeder queens) knew they had to 
produce well or they would die. He said he told them this. LOL


----------



## Steven Ogborn (Jun 3, 2011)

After listening to this I think Randy needs to select for decaffinated.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

It doesn't take long watching bees in an observation hive to conclude that the workers are in charge and the queen is their slave who they will replace at the drop of a hat if she doesn't do her job.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

I prefer looking at a colony as an organism of sorts. The colony is the body. The queen and the drones are the reproductive organs of the colony, though the drones in the colony don't mate w/ the queen of the colony. The worker bees are like all the other organs and cells of the colonys' "body".

Is your brain or your heart slave to your feet or hands? I see no slave/master relationship here or in a colony of bees. Bees are bees and do what they do as a superorganism w/out passion or intent, as far as I can tell.


----------



## feltze (May 15, 2010)

In an effort to further anthropomorphize the subject.

My bees appear to be unionized, no one gets in or out with out union approval and the management operates at the will of the overall union. I'm pretty certain that the Drones are representatives of the the union management and are reposted annually. Where as the Queen is the overall CEO and is welcome to keep her position as long as she can be productive. As a representative of the overarching government I (the beekeeper) must suit up, and blow smoke to confuse the general population and of course ultimately I am interested in collecting all the tax (honey) I can without causing an implosion of the colony structure thereby maintainting my status and control over the situation for seasons to come.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

KelpticFest said:


> Mother Nature rarely "grows out of" something that works.


It doesn't sound like you listened to the speech. Species become extinct quite often as we humans have the biggest impact on the environment. Many living things can't cope with the changes we have made in a short time frame.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

StevenG said:


> My mistake, as mentioned above, the correct spelling is "anthropomorphize". And you now have the definition.


You got to love it when someone tries to impress you with their vocabulary and blows it.

Maybe there is a word that would better describe the treatment of another species which looks like slavery. I don't know that one either. We could use it if the linguistics could come up with it.


----------



## Rick 1456 (Jun 22, 2010)

This is one of "Uncle Ricks" Bee shacks  
http://www.beesource.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1288&d=1329777847


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> I prefer looking at a colony as an organism of sorts. The colony is the body. The queen and the drones are the reproductive organs of the colony, though the drones in the colony don't mate w/ the queen of the colony. The worker bees are like all the other organs and cells of the colonys' "body".


You can look at a beehive (colony) how ever it floats your boat. What I was trying to discuss is evolution of a species. Is the process similar for different species?
Why do we use the word colony anyway? Isn't that a human behavior? That sounds like anthropomorphizing.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

It's not just applied to humans. We have ant colony, seal colony, bird colony, anything that makes a colony.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Michael Bush said:


> It doesn't take long watching bees in an observation hive to conclude that the workers are in charge and the queen is their slave who they will replace at the drop of a hat if she doesn't do her job.


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



> Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property to be bought and sold, and are forced to work.[1] Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand compensation


I thought it prudent to look up the word for a definition and it is now obvious to me it doesn’t really fit a beehive because there is no ownership or buying and selling but there are workers. So part of it fits and part doesn’t.

Forget the word. Think of anything in nature that has gone from a solitary life to a colonized life. Is there another step in the evolution process? Maybe a society with rulers? Seeley suggested a democracy. Could he be right?


----------



## Rick 1456 (Jun 22, 2010)

I thought this interesting as Bees and Ants are not totally different. The thought here is, "Getting others to do the work." 
http://theanimalexplorer.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/slave-making-ants/

Perhaps in the evolutionary future, bees will enslave some other creature to groom them of mites.  Wait a minute, that's me!


----------



## Intheswamp (Jul 5, 2011)

Acebird said:


> You can look at a beehive (colony) how ever it floats your boat. What I was trying to discuss is evolution of a species. Is the process similar for different species?
> Why do we use the word colony anyway? Isn't that a human behavior? That sounds like anthropomorphizing.


Since you are trying to be so precise or whatever in your wording/spelling....my understanding is that a bee*hive* is merely the wooden box used for the housing of bees...the *colony* resides within the "hive". 

But bird, did we possibly take the idea of "colony" from nature? Zoomorphism??....which is the opposite of antropopopomorpiscismism? But, alas, I can't find a good word for attributing animal-like traits to humans being as most dictionaries define zoomorphism as attributing the animal traits to "gods" (little g) so that's not an exact fit for what you're talking about...I guess I'll hang from the tallest limb until sundown....


----------



## Intheswamp (Jul 5, 2011)

Rick 1456 said:


> <snip>
> 
> Perhaps in the evolutionary future, bees will enslave some other creature to groom them of mites.  Wait a minute, that's me!


 As long as the bees don't start wearing short pleated mini-skirts, carry little whips, and impresonate Steve Martin doing "King Tut" we might have a chance...


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Acebird said:


> You can look at a beehive (colony) how ever it floats your boat. What I was trying to discuss is evolution of a species. Is the process similar for different species?
> Why do we use the word colony anyway? Isn't that a human behavior? That sounds like anthropomorphizing.


I have been avoiding comments here to attempt to avoid confrontation and argument. I guess I lack the knowlege, skill and personal discipline to be of benefit to this "discussion". 

Haven't we beat this dead horse enough numerous times before?


----------



## Intheswamp (Jul 5, 2011)

<sigh>You're right, Mark. I guess it goes back to...


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

Acebird said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery
> 
> 
> I thought it prudent to look up the word for a definition and it is now obvious to me it doesn’t really fit a beehive because there is no ownership or buying and selling but there are workers. So part of it fits and part doesn’t.
> ...


Hoisted with your own petard? opcorn: (see post #27)

Perhaps the best description of the honeybee is Jurgen Tautz's description of the honeybee as a "superorganism." Johannes Mehring (d. 1878) first described the honey bee colony as a single "being" equivalent to a vertebrate animal. American biologist William Morton Wheeler, based on his work with ants, coined the term "superorganism" in 1911, in an effort to adequately describe what he was observing in nature. 

Folks might find Tautz's book fascinating reading, _The Buzz About Bees - Biology of a Superorganism_
Regards,
Steven


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

sqkcrk said:


> Haven't we beat this dead horse enough numerous times before?


Aww Mark, we now have proof positive there is a resurrection!
:lpf: It just won't stay dead!
Regards,
Steven


----------



## KelpticFest (Apr 19, 2011)

_"It doesn't sound like you listened to the speech."_ - I didn't. I was addressing the terminology, and the mindset it promotes, that uses the concept of growing out of something as if it were either an individual maturation process or a conscious choice. Natural species continue AS LONG AS THEY ARE SUCCESSFUL. When they change, or the environment changes, in ways that limit success, they wink out and something else comes along that fits better. OR they change and adapt to the new circumstances, in which case they are probably a new species. Go back and read my original. Slowly. Please don't attack my statements and then re-state the same thing in different words.


----------



## BeeManiac (Feb 26, 2012)

Acebird said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery
> 
> 
> I thought it prudent to look up the word for a definition and it is now obvious to me it doesn’t really fit a beehive because there is no ownership or buying and selling but there are workers. So part of it fits and part doesn’t.
> ...


Ace i would like you to think of one thing just one thing in nature that you are positive was once solitary and turned into a colony? Or any animal for that matter that we have seen "change" I believe they are not slaves and that they have but one goal to survive and to work together.

Animals and insects are different than people. I believe they were created. There is no logical reason otherwise. Ask any beekeeper if you can put a queen into a box if it will take off and be populous. It does not happen. honey bees were created in my mind and i bet that first hive was HUGE!


----------



## Rick 1456 (Jun 22, 2010)

Well, In the swamp,,,,I sorta like the idea of "little whips". Who cares what material the skirts are made of as long as the are mini enough 
Sorry, Mark, best dead horse we got to beat right now.

Look up Eusocial,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 
Just to throw gas on the fire hee hee hee ,,,,I believe sponges (Porifera) were solitary creatures that united to form a colony. Have to check my Zoology notes.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

Sponges? Wow! How close-knit can you get?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

KelpticFest said:


> _"It doesn't sound like you listened to the speech."_ - I didn't. ... Please don't attack my statements and then re-state the same thing in different words.


I attacked your statement as you say because of the word "rarely". If you had listened to the speech you would have heard him say species go extinct quite often and now at an alarming rate. Pretty much one sole influence, us.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

BeeManiac said:


> honey bees were created in my mind and i bet that first hive was HUGE!


I am not going to argue Adam and Eve vs. evolution if that is what you are driving at. I learned about Adam and Eve at a young age but I believe in evolution. You are entitled to have your own beliefs.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> Both have identical genes but they appear to be two different species of bees. -Acebird


Huh? How do you figure? To any insect systematist, they do not appear to be distinct species. Drone look even less like workers than queens do; do you believe that sexually dimorphic species appear to consist of different species?



> What I was trying to discuss is evolution of a species. -Acebird


With eusocial insects, you much consider the inclusive fitness of each individual in the evolutionary process. Workers gain inclusive fitness by helping their genes move into future generations by caring for and protecting individuals that share their genes. As such, "slavery" does not really exist among honey bees.

As others have pointed out, the "slaves" that are taken by ants usually consist of workers of a different species of ant being conquered by and enslaved during an "ant war" or "slave raid." Those ant slaves do not gain inclusive fitness in the slave-holding colony since the slaves' genes are not being passed into future generations through that colony.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

BeeManiac said:


> honey bees were created in my mind ...


Now I know why you are a BeeManiac. I'd be one too had that happened to me.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. More than spelling matters.


----------



## BeeManiac (Feb 26, 2012)

You know what they say! if you're losing an arguement or dont know what to say next, pick on their spelling =) I love you guys. I cant wait till it warms up =) i have 7 cut outs to do !!! wheh!!!


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Kieck said:


> Huh? How do you figure? To any insect systematist, they do not appear to be distinct species. Drone look even less like workers than queens do; do you believe that sexually dimorphic species appear to consist of different species?


Randy used almost the same words that I paraphrased so what is your argument?


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

That, is the problem with setting someone up as a guru. Randy would not want to be considered as an infallible guru, and nor would Kieck. 

To argue that (name of particular guru), said xxx, therefore it is true, to me is a non argument. That a particular person said something, may add, or subtract, weight from it, depending on the standing of the person. But I've always found this elevating of people to an almost infallible status unhealthy.


----------



## Rick 1456 (Jun 22, 2010)

Ladies and gentleman, welcome to tonight's fight,,,This will be the heavy weight champion of the world vs all anybody who wants to. In this corner, we have the Darwinist, evolution is on the line here tonight. In the opposing corner, we have the Horse beaters. Should be a good show tonight ya'll. The referee tonight ,,,Sponge Bob,,,,,


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Pretty bee cabin Rick, what's it for, just a pretty hive for around the house?


----------



## Rick 1456 (Jun 22, 2010)

Oldtimer,
Thanks for noticing in the heat of battle It sorta started as a joke. My buddy makes bird houses out of Tobacco sticks. Not sure if you would be familiar. 1 x 1 used to split and hang tabacco plants to dry in a barn. (Southern Maryland thing) I have a source for sticker wood. 1x1 used to stack and dry lumber. Started foolin around one day a figured as long as I kept the inside dimensions correct, the bees wouldn't care. Put a porch on it.  In reality, it is a five frame nuc. Will be used. I have some others that are pretty interesting as well.
Rick


----------



## honeyshack (Jan 6, 2008)

Rick 1456 said:


> Ladies and gentleman, welcome to tonight's fight,,,This will be the heavy weight champion of the world vs all anybody who wants to. In this corner, we have the Darwinist, evolution is on the line here tonight. In the opposing corner, we have the Horse beaters. Should be a good show tonight ya'll. The referee tonight ,,,Sponge Bob,,,,,


I am sorry to quote the whole post, I could not bring myself to disect it.
Rick, you gave me a much needed laugh....Sponge Bob...heheehheee


----------



## Rick 1456 (Jun 22, 2010)

Thanks
I'm only returning the favors


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Oldtimer said:


> That, is the problem with setting someone up as a guru. Randy would not want to be considered as an infallible guru, and nor would Kieck.


Oops, I didn't want to set anybody up. And I hope this isn't a fight. I am wondering if Kieck heard Randy's speech though. He was making references not saying that a queen is a different species than a worker bee. Or a drone to a worker for that matter.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Well Kieck is an evolutionary biologist, so his take on Randy's presentation will be interesting.

Re the "different species" thing, since Randy's presentation I've already seen it mentioned elsewhere, now it's been uttered by an expert, no doubt it will be the next thing to get bandied around for another year or so.

The foibles of human nature.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Oldtimer said:


> Well Kieck is an evolutionary biologist, so his take on Randy's presentation will be interesting.


Ah, so that is what ruffled his feathers. I will try to follow along but I am not promishing anything.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> Randy used almost the same words that I paraphrased so what is your argument? -Acebird


Randy gives a great talk, and makes some good points. However, I disagree with this sort of statement, that they "appear to be different species." The same sort of claim could be made about humans that superficially appear quite different; a 400-pound male "appears" quite different than a 110-pound female. Yet, to anyone interested in systematics and taxonomy, the two show remarkable similarities. In fact, the similarities exceed the differences.



> He was making references not saying that a queen is a different species than a worker bee. -Acebird


Right. I wish he had pointed out the differences without making any reference to appearances of different species. Randy's presentation dealt with efforts to adapt to _Varroa_ pressures, and breeding programs for queens. He didn't really talk at all about evolution of eusociality and sterile castes.

The point here, though, is that workers are not slaves, and eusociality of honey bees is not dependent on slavery and war. They are not likely to evolve become social insects or solitary insects again. The workers use queens to pass their genes into future generations. The queens use workers to pass their genes into future generations. Evolutionarily, the system works quite well. But it is nothing like slavery employed by humans, and not even like the slavery used by some species of ants.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Kieck said:


> But it is nothing like slavery employed by humans, and not even like the slavery used by some species of ants.


There are many forms of slavery employed by humans. Many claim to be slaves just for cooking dinner and washing cloths. It is hard to find a good definition for slavery that doesn't have some similar characteristics to the worker bee.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100825131437.htm
some interesting reading.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Acebird said:


> There are many forms of slavery employed by humans. Many claim to be slaves just for cooking dinner and washing cloths. It is hard to find a good definition for slavery that doesn't have some similar characteristics to the worker bee.


An argumentitive and unnneccesary reply.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> It is hard to find a good definition for slavery that doesn't have some similar characteristics to the worker bee. -Acebird


As part of the definition from dictionary.com:



> Slavery emphasizes the idea of complete ownership and control by a master: to be sold into slavery.


As such, worker bees are not slaves. They can and do come and go freely (search "drifting"). Some certainly choose not to return to their hive, and may live out their days as solitary insects. However, those workers that choose to lead solitary lives are unlikely to pass their genes into future generations.

Perhaps the closest thing to slavery, then, comes as bees are slaves to evolution.

If you want to pursue that train of thought further, I recommend reading _The Selfish Gene_ by Dawkins.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> An argumentitive and unnneccesary reply.


I disagree but you could think of my disagreement as argumentative.

BTW Kieck, thanks for seeing this discussion through. It helped me maybe not anyone else.


----------

