It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Massive Bee Deaths Solved? (GM Corn Is The Culprit)

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 01:33 PM
I had an argument about this with a friend of mine and did some research.

For one, there is no "massive bee deaths." There have been instances of hive die-offs, but they're not massive and mostly limited to North America and Great Britain. The South American bees are doing just fine, thank you.

The hive die-offs have all happened with commercial bee hives. There are no reports of significant natural or wild beehive die-offs.

Research the commercial bee industry. It involves splitting hives, requiring the creation of queens (which may not succeed), shipping them by truck around the country, and mixing various hives for rental purposes. Yeah, "bee rental." Most research indicates that what happened with the dying commercial bee hives is a combination of feeding the bees cheap sugar water to increase honey production (which does a number of things, including lowering their immune response), and cross-contamination by parasites and other diseases.

This is all caused because people are demanding more "naturally grown" gourmet fruits and vegetables, and more honey. And who are these people? Ironically, they're the same relatively wealthy Earth-aware hippie types who buy their upscale fruits and veggies and honey at places like Whole Foods! The same ones worried about the bees! Oh, the irony.

edit on 16-2-2012 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 01:38 PM
reply to post by tgidkp

right off the top of my head: driving. huge risk there in which we are forced to accept the researchers claim that driving is indeed dangerous with a high degree of significance. should we now stop driving and forego the obvious benefits we receive from it?

not really a good example.

i choose to drive.

i can't chose wether or not i eat GMO food because it isn't labeled as such.

and i got to drive to make money.

this is no fair example imo.

but i believe we're pretty much on the same page though

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 03:42 PM

Originally posted by research100
Researchers have found a type of parasite that turns bees into zombies, causing them to exhibit strange behavior before dying.

If I had to guess that sounds like a Nematode, a very nasty kinda of parasite. They typically develop to take out a species that has an unnatural balance, like ants and moths and such. I'm speculating, but what if the overproduction of commercial honey and overworked bees (to produce the rich yuppie's Whole Foods produce as it was mentioned) is causing an unnatural balance? I try and help these Whole Fooders when I can and steer them in the direction of the local farmer's market.

On the ethical stance, yes I'm biased. Why wouldn't I be? If you knew farmers who are suffering from being sued by Monsanto, for having wind blow the toxic seeds in their fields, this is insane. To create a seed that cannot bear fruit or reproduce? That's not just profit, it's unadulterated GREED and gets to the point of getting scary. SCENARIO: SHTF and you are not ready, you raid local supermarkets for produce and thinking "smart" you try and save the seeds only to find out they don't produce any food and quickly die.

I think GMOs are unhealthy, and I do not hate Monsanto, but I do not support them and I try and make my friends aware of their unethical business practices and try to support the small local farmer instead. Should I write this on my forehead to make it easier next time?

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 03:51 PM

Originally posted by Blue Shift
This is all caused because people are demanding more "naturally grown" gourmet fruits and vegetables, and more honey. And who are these people? Ironically, they're the same relatively wealthy Earth-aware hippie types who buy their upscale fruits and veggies and honey at places like Whole Foods! The same ones worried about the bees! Oh, the irony.

Hey that's offensive, to real hippies that is. I'm broke as a joke as are all real hippies, and we want nothing to do with the Whole Foods crowd because they make us look bad, also because real hippies typically know about permaculture and aquaponics, and when "farm raised" actually means a good thing (tilapia).

But I forgive you, it's good to laugh isn't it?

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 04:13 PM

Originally posted by tgidkp

Originally posted by ShockTruther
reply to post by tgidkp

And you cannot deny that the current model of GMO is driven solely by profit.

i do not deny this and i am no stranger to the "lies" of the establishment. believe it or not, i actually practice what i preach. i am not simply being a jerk. i am a jerk with a purpose. thanks for a rational perspective which actually adds to the discussion.

You only highlight your own ignorance by persisting in your argument.

....was that really necessary?

You're right, that was out of line. I apologize.

I understand your mind set as I have been there myself. I have completed a BS in microbiology (with strong emphasis on biochem and genetics) and a MS in food science (it was actually a molecular biology project) and I've been to the J. Craig Venter several times for classes and training. (You should see the microarray printers they have there...:up

I understand where you're coming from, because the promise of genetic engineering is so great. I believe that the potential is amazing, almost unlimited once we master it. However, I can tell you from experience that universities, companies, and science in general is absolutely corrupted. This is not to say that every individual researcher is corrupt, and this is not to say that new technologies can even be judged morally. I am saying that money rules and the only science that gets done is science that will profit a corporation.

The funding for all major projects comes from either a company, or a government institution such as the FDA, USDA, NSF, etc. These institutions are run by former CEOs and other high ranking officers of corporations (see the graphic posted previously in this thread.) I used to think that the science could be done for its own merit and that I was not ethically responsible for how it was used in the end. I cannot accept that any longer. If it's all about the money, then it is not sound science. Period.

The restriction of scientific endevour to only include projects which will be extremely profitable is a travesty. The argument that science must pay for itself is fine for a company's R&D department. But what about government funded projects? What about the corruption of academia and the complete destruction of altuism? The solely-for-profit scheme is bad, but the biggest sin is the ridicule and/or complete neglect of investigating other ways of solving problems. All those people doing small-scale unfunded research outside the system aren't real scientists, right? They're just a bunch of kooks... Not to mention the suppression of science that may prove a profitable product is harmful, or a long used product has caused lots of damage. Ever read the EPA's dioxin report? No, you haven't, because it has been withheld for nearly 20 years..

Are you convinced that the solutions I suggested previously cannot solve the scarcity problem? Permaculture, ecological education, using native food plants, water conservation, developing heirlooms for a given region, etc. Have you even looked at these avenues of approaching the problem? These solutions are often ridiculed as being implausible and unrealistic. Why? Where are the numbers to prove that null hypothesis? Ask yourself, which is the more permanent solution, permaculture and native plants, or GMOs that require poor people to buy seed, fertilizer, AND herbicides? Which solution will actually permanently better the lives of the people that we are supposedly trying to help?

I would suggest that you do some soul searching and seriously consider the problem of funding for science. Can the science be ethical if it has only the promise of doing good in the world? What happens when that promise is time and again abused and the implementation is something completely different? Are universities and academics really ethically free of wrongdoing when they have enough information to know that their work will most likely be turned into a purely profit seeking venture? I say, no. You cannot wash your hands when you have eyes to see the corrupt system you are voluntarily contributing to.

This is why I've decided to get out of the sciences and go to medical school. This way I can start a private practice. I will not contribute to the corrupt system by taking more patients than I can handle and pushing pills. I will take the time to educate and truly help my patients. I may end up poor because of it, but I believe that my conscience and yes, my soul, are too valuable. They are not for sale. IF I find a place to do research that makes a REASONABLE profit (maybe a small start up) and has a good chance of not selling out, I may reconsider. But as things stand now, well I refuse to contribute to the empire of lies for prof
edit on 16-2-2012 by ShockTruther because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 06:04 PM

Originally posted by Phage
Your source would not be considered the most unbiased. I see no indication in your source that GM corn is "the culprit".

Clothianidin is a widely used pesticide. Since it is a pesticide, it's not really surprising that bees have a problem with it.

edit on 2/15/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Phage... just wanted you to know I look forward to seeing responses from you... I was surprised to see you here though cause you are usually in space type topics. We made it through elenin! Lol now we just have to make it through 2012..

Keep it up with the short and to the point answers...

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 06:59 PM
reply to post by ShockTruther

Permaculture, ecological education, using native food plants.......

i am totally in favor of "living in harmony with nature", based on my own definition of such. so, in theory, i think any of these suggestions may have great value.

the problem of such lofty goals is in the implementation. nearly everything you have said relies on the notion that individual persons will strive toward the highest good. but as you have acknoweledged in your post, this is not the current state of society, nor politics, nor economics.

thus, in short, these "good and correct" solutions will never happen for the simple reason that it would require an effort on the part of individuals. this is not cynicism, this is reality.

because it is reality, and we are all "only human" (which is a disgusting phrase), it is pointless to attempt to educate those whom are not in the position to recognize or accept a "higher good". it is also pointless to resent them for it. it is also, importantly, pointless to feel a sense of defeat because of something which we are all (and i mean ALL) susceptable to.

in the end, just like Neo at the very end of the third matrix film, the only reason to do anything at all ("good" or "bad") is because "I CHOOSE TO". as such, i commend your noble path in life. if you should stray, do not think too harshly upon yourself.

I would suggest that you do some soul searching and seriously consider the problem of funding for science.

i am not even in the tiniest bit concerned about this. my involvement in science and academia in general is for my own pleasure, or rather, because I choose to. i refuse to become a part of the system, even if it should be that i am unable to perform the experiments of my choosing.

the upside to this is that (as most people would be keen to recognize) the practice of science is not nearly so esoteric and compartmentalized as people have been led to believe. while it is true that there is a stranglehold on the dissemination of information, the cat is already out of the bag thanks mostly to our beloved internet. as you no doubt know, the techniques of genetic analysis can be performed on even a very tight budget.

the trick, then, is to independently formulate the "next big thing", and then set out to test it in any small way you can. if you can manage to collect supportive data IN ANY WAY, then, as my father would say, "the money will come to you."

because science is a selfish practice for me, i honestly do not care what may happen subsequent to my findings. i am not a nihlist, per se, but i also would not mind terribly if we rip this planet, and ourselves, to utter destruction.

i hold pacifism and selfish persuit as the highest virtues possible. an odd mindset, for sure. but it seems to be working.

thanks again.

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 09:24 PM
reply to post by tgidkp

Definitely an interesting point of view. I try very hard to understand the viewpoint of others and I somewhat comprehend where you're coming from. And although I know it will sound cliche, let me say this. Just wait until you leave college and enter the real world. Also, wait until you have a wife and kids. Your lack of caring for the rest of the human race may not subside (I think getting what we deserve for being so blundering in our hubristic pursuit of progress/perfection would be a laugh riot), but you will at least have the hope that those of us with our heads out of our a88es and your own progeny will survive somehow.

But then, I am a proponent of natural birth and am accepting of the consequences. If my child dies as a consequence of being unsuited for natural birth, I will not blame myself. Same thing goes for overprotection. I will not keep a leash on my child out of fear. I also think it is a sign of the sickness of our society that we completely hide death from ourselves in every way possible. Maybe people wouldn't be so soon to cry about every little offense if they actually witnessed true suffering and death a few ties in their lives. And true suffering does not include a hospital death followed by a body preserved with chemicals...

What better adventure than death? The only experience that this life cannot offer, eh?

Anyway, thanks for engaging and sharing your point of view. I'll add it to my mental library of personal philosophies. Never hurts to have more blocks to build with.

edit on 16-2-2012 by ShockTruther because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 09:31 PM
reply to post by kn0wh0w

It doesn't take a Genius to figure out that all the problems with insect and small animals including bats and even humans has gotten worse since the introduction of Mospanto monstrosity call GMOs.

All you have to do is check when bees has been dying and when the GMOs has been poisoning the environment.

But as usual unless the research is backed by the corrupted FDA bees are and never been in danger with GMO, see in the great corporate dictatorship that is now the US money talks and bull crap walks.

Wait when we humans start facing the same decimation as bees, but no in our generation but the next generations to come.

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 09:51 PM
GM crops has nothing to do with it. Root cause is Swedish company did not test pesticide for bee side affects. Its old news they new about this years ago and kept it quite.

posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 07:26 AM
reply to post by Tachyeon

Yes, let blame it on the Eastern bunny, Santa and lately Iran they all killing the bees, Monspanto GMO mountrosity is God given gift to humanity, just pray for your children and grandchildren.

I have been around for a long time.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in