Bees can train each other to use tools

In tests, the insects learned to use tools they would never find in nature.

Read the whole story

 

[jly]

I am utterly fascinated with honeybees and it never gets old watching them work. These experiments are not with honeybees, but they are obviously highly-related animals.

With social bees, the level of intelligence and cooperation as a super-organism is incredible. Because of their importance to our modern agriculture as crop pollinators, they have been intensively studied over the last few decades and the more we learn about their behavior, the more we appreciate how complex their abilities are. They represent, along with us, a pinnacle of evolutionary social behavior.

 

[jly]

"What this ultimately reveals is that bee behavior is even more flexible and adaptable than we realized."

I think we're on the verge of the downfall of the paradigm that animals operate on instinct (genetically programmed behaviors), while humans operate on intelligence (socially learned behaviors).

The main resistance to the notion that animals and humans are far more similar than previously recognized is that it will require a rethink of how humans treat animals.

Intelligence is a tricky thing. What we are realizing now is that we are not so different from any other animals. We all operate similarly, to maximize our inclusive fitness with our phenotype influenced by genetic and epigenetic factors. The fact that we have complex evolved social behaviors makes us somewhat unique in the animal world, but it does not change the fact that we are still animals and our (more complex) behavior is just as guided by these underlying evolutionary principles as the behavior of other animals is.

 

[rwxatc]

Looks that bee in the pic wearing hedphones!

 

[zvan]

I love bees. I use to keep them. I remember that occasionally when I opened the top of the hive they would get upset and hundreds of bees on the top bars would raise their abdomens in unison and stick their stingers in and out in alarm. What an amazing smell they give off.

Now that they are in danger of extinction, some genius wants to see robot bees developed to do pollination. Wrong! Nature must be protected from this kind of insane thinking.

 

[RRob]

The summary here doesn't really fit my definition of tool use. The pebble wasn't a tool, and they didn't use a tool to move it.

But bees training each other and learning from each other is pretty exciting all on its own.

 

[StratThinker]

"What this ultimately reveals is that bee behavior is even more flexible and adaptable than we realized."

I think we're on the verge of the downfall of the paradigm that animals operate on instinct (genetically programmed behaviors), while humans operate on intelligence (socially learned behaviors).

The main resistance to the notion that animals and humans are far more similar than previously recognized is that it will require a rethink of how humans treat animals.

There are many ways in which mankind mistreats animals, and if this can lessen that, this would be great. Humans are meant to have dominion over the animal kingdom, which includes protecting their existence (you can't have dominion over something that is extinct). But humans have the right to eat meat, if we limit humans, then we must limit all carnivores and humans have the right to protect themselves, just like animals do.

 

[cactusbush]

Fascinating, but these are bumble bees, not bees.

Bumble bees are bees.

No. Bumble bees are just not bees but one of four distinct and separate groups of corbiculate  bees. Bumblebees do not swarm like honeybees. Bumblebees do not stockpile honey or overwinter the entire colony like honey bees. Bumblebee nests typically contain far fewer members. Because of their smaller populations bumble bees probably develop differing patterns of eusociality than honey bees.

These should enough reasons for the writer and audience here to properly identify these bugs as being “bumble bees” - and not just ordinary everyday bees.....

 

[StratThinker]

"What this ultimately reveals is that bee behavior is even more flexible and adaptable than we realized."

I think we're on the verge of the downfall of the paradigm that animals operate on instinct (genetically programmed behaviors), while humans operate on intelligence (socially learned behaviors).

The main resistance to the notion that animals and humans are far more similar than previously recognized is that it will require a rethink of how humans treat animals.

Intelligence is a tricky thing. What we are realizing now is that we are not so different from any other animals. We all operate similarly, to maximize our inclusive fitness with our phenotype influenced by genetic and epigenetic factors. The fact that we have complex evolved social behaviors makes us somewhat unique in the animal world, but it does not change the fact that we are still animals and our (more complex) behavior is just as guided by these underlying evolutionary principles as the behavior of other animals is.

Are you saying that fashions, mathematics, fine art, abstract art, the stock market, astronomy, religions and puns are all just more advanced versions of animal behaviours?

 

[Whatexit]

Interesting. You state "Humans are meant to have dominion over the animal kingdom". Care to state by which authority this is true?

"What this ultimately reveals is that bee behavior is even more flexible and adaptable than we realized."

I think we're on the verge of the downfall of the paradigm that animals operate on instinct (genetically programmed behaviors), while humans operate on intelligence (socially learned behaviors).

The main resistance to the notion that animals and humans are far more similar than previously recognized is that it will require a rethink of how humans treat animals.

There are many ways in which mankind mistreats animals, and if this can lessen that, this would be great. Humans are meant to have dominion over the animal kingdom, which includes protecting their existence (you can't have dominion over something that is extinct). But humans have the right to eat meat, if we limit humans, then we must limit all carnivores and humans have the right to protect themselves, just like animals do.

 

[Hezio]

This calls for...

Dr.Bees!!!

 

[StratThinker]

Interesting. You state "Humans are meant to have dominion over the animal kingdom". Care to state by which authority this is true?

"What this ultimately reveals is that bee behavior is even more flexible and adaptable than we realized."

I think we're on the verge of the downfall of the paradigm that animals operate on instinct (genetically programmed behaviors), while humans operate on intelligence (socially learned behaviors).

The main resistance to the notion that animals and humans are far more similar than previously recognized is that it will require a rethink of how humans treat animals.

There are many ways in which mankind mistreats animals, and if this can lessen that, this would be great. Humans are meant to have dominion over the animal kingdom, which includes protecting their existence (you can't have dominion over something that is extinct). But humans have the right to eat meat, if we limit humans, then we must limit all carnivores and humans have the right to protect themselves, just like animals do.

I say it based on the Bible's authority. You can choose to ignore that if you want. Which authorities do you submit to? Even many governments allow humans collectively to have dominion.

Edit: Science does not say anything on the topic of who should be in authority.

 

[jly]

Fascinating, but these are bumble bees, not bees.

Bumble bees are bees.

No. Bumble bees are just not bees but one of four distinct and separate groups of corbiculate  bees. Bumblebees do not swarm like honeybees. Bumblebees do not stockpile honey or overwinter the entire colony like honey bees. Bumblebee nests typically contain far fewer members. Because of their smaller populations bumble bees probably develop differing patterns of eusociality than honey bees.

These should enough reasons for the writer and audience here to properly identify these bugs as being “bumble bees” - and not just ordinary everyday bees.....

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, here. Bumblebees are not honeybees, but they're both still bees (family Apidae). I think we're in agreement on that?

 

[Faanchou]

Interesting. You state "Humans are meant to have dominion over the animal kingdom". Care to state by which authority this is true?

"What this ultimately reveals is that bee behavior is even more flexible and adaptable than we realized."

I think we're on the verge of the downfall of the paradigm that animals operate on instinct (genetically programmed behaviors), while humans operate on intelligence (socially learned behaviors).

The main resistance to the notion that animals and humans are far more similar than previously recognized is that it will require a rethink of how humans treat animals.

There are many ways in which mankind mistreats animals, and if this can lessen that, this would be great. Humans are meant to have dominion over the animal kingdom, which includes protecting their existence (you can't have dominion over something that is extinct). But humans have the right to eat meat, if we limit humans, then we must limit all carnivores and humans have the right to protect themselves, just like animals do.

I say it based on the Bible's authority. You can choose to ignore that if you want. Which authorities do you submit to? Even many governments allow humans collectively to have dominion.

Edit: Science does not say anything on the topic of who should be in authority.

No, science does not say anything about that. How's weather in Vatican City^* these days?
^*The only currently existing Christian theocracy

 

[Project_2501]

We don't have a clue how smart/capable other species are. My opinion is we vastly underestimate their abilities.

... and in my opinion we treat many tragically. From animal farming to pet abuse and neglect, we have a ways to go.

 

[StratThinker]

Interesting. You state "Humans are meant to have dominion over the animal kingdom". Care to state by which authority this is true?

"What this ultimately reveals is that bee behavior is even more flexible and adaptable than we realized."

I think we're on the verge of the downfall of the paradigm that animals operate on instinct (genetically programmed behaviors), while humans operate on intelligence (socially learned behaviors).

The main resistance to the notion that animals and humans are far more similar than previously recognized is that it will require a rethink of how humans treat animals.

There are many ways in which mankind mistreats animals, and if this can lessen that, this would be great. Humans are meant to have dominion over the animal kingdom, which includes protecting their existence (you can't have dominion over something that is extinct). But humans have the right to eat meat, if we limit humans, then we must limit all carnivores and humans have the right to protect themselves, just like animals do.

I say it based on the Bible's authority. You can choose to ignore that if you want. Which authorities do you submit to? Even many governments allow humans collectively to have dominion.

Edit: Science does not say anything on the topic of who should be in authority.

No, science does not say anything about that. How's weather in Vatican City^* these days?
^*The only currently existing Christian theocracy

You can accept or reject man's dominion over the animals independently of where I got the idea from. He/she asked me where I got the rule of man having dominion from and I told him/her.

 

[ApplePaladin]

Interesting. You state "Humans are meant to have dominion over the animal kingdom". Care to state by which authority this is true?

"What this ultimately reveals is that bee behavior is even more flexible and adaptable than we realized."

I think we're on the verge of the downfall of the paradigm that animals operate on instinct (genetically programmed behaviors), while humans operate on intelligence (socially learned behaviors).

The main resistance to the notion that animals and humans are far more similar than previously recognized is that it will require a rethink of how humans treat animals.

There are many ways in which mankind mistreats animals, and if this can lessen that, this would be great. Humans are meant to have dominion over the animal kingdom, which includes protecting their existence (you can't have dominion over something that is extinct). But humans have the right to eat meat, if we limit humans, then we must limit all carnivores and humans have the right to protect themselves, just like animals do.

I say it based on the Bible's authority. You can choose to ignore that if you want. Which authorities do you submit to? Even many governments allow humans collectively to have dominion.

You're not making a very compelling argument for your claim that "humans are meant to have dominion over the animal kingdom." Humans are just another animal. We aren't anything separate or distinct from the rest of the animal kingdom or every other life from on Earth that evolved from the same initial ancestors. We share almost half our DNA with bananas. We're just another life form among many, and if you mosey into places where certain predators roam you'll find empirical evidence that some animals absolutely dominate humans.

 

[StratThinker]

itdraugr[/url]":2714uz4k]

Interesting. You state "Humans are meant to have dominion over the animal kingdom". Care to state by which authority this is true?

"What this ultimately reveals is that bee behavior is even more flexible and adaptable than we realized."

I think we're on the verge of the downfall of the paradigm that animals operate on instinct (genetically programmed behaviors), while humans operate on intelligence (socially learned behaviors).

The main resistance to the notion that animals and humans are far more similar than previously recognized is that it will require a rethink of how humans treat animals.

There are many ways in which mankind mistreats animals, and if this can lessen that, this would be great. Humans are meant to have dominion over the animal kingdom, which includes protecting their existence (you can't have dominion over something that is extinct). But humans have the right to eat meat, if we limit humans, then we must limit all carnivores and humans have the right to protect themselves, just like animals do.

I say it based on the Bible's authority. You can choose to ignore that if you want. Which authorities do you submit to? Even many governments allow humans collectively to have dominion.

You're not making a very compelling argument for your claim that "humans are meant to have dominion over the animal kingdom." Humans are just another animal. We aren't anything separate or distinct from the rest of the animal kingdom or every other life from on Earth that evolved from the same initial ancestors. We share almost half our DNA with bananas. We're just another life form among many, and if you mosey into places where certain predators roam you'll find empirical evidence that some animals absolutely dominate humans.

I was not trying to make a compelling argument, because I cannot think of a compelling argument that handles all cases, I am just saying that if the asker has already accepted his own government's authority (for some reason) and if his government allows man to have dominion, then that could be a reason. But if the asker rejects his governments authority, then I do not know what argument to make.

You are not making a very compelling argument for the counter point either.

 

[Deleted member 1]

itdraugr[/url]":2mkjma59]

Interesting. You state "Humans are meant to have dominion over the animal kingdom". Care to state by which authority this is true?

"What this ultimately reveals is that bee behavior is even more flexible and adaptable than we realized."

I think we're on the verge of the downfall of the paradigm that animals operate on instinct (genetically programmed behaviors), while humans operate on intelligence (socially learned behaviors).

The main resistance to the notion that animals and humans are far more similar than previously recognized is that it will require a rethink of how humans treat animals.

There are many ways in which mankind mistreats animals, and if this can lessen that, this would be great. Humans are meant to have dominion over the animal kingdom, which includes protecting their existence (you can't have dominion over something that is extinct). But humans have the right to eat meat, if we limit humans, then we must limit all carnivores and humans have the right to protect themselves, just like animals do.

I say it based on the Bible's authority. You can choose to ignore that if you want. Which authorities do you submit to? Even many governments allow humans collectively to have dominion.

You're not making a very compelling argument for your claim that "humans are meant to have dominion over the animal kingdom." Humans are just another animal. We aren't anything separate or distinct from the rest of the animal kingdom or every other life from on Earth that evolved from the same initial ancestors. We share almost half our DNA with bananas. We're just another life form among many, and if you mosey into places where certain predators roam you'll find empirical evidence that some animals absolutely dominate humans.

I was not trying to make a compelling argument, because I cannot think of a compelling argument that handles all cases, I just saying that if the asker has already accepted his own governments authority (for some reason) and if his government allows man to have dominion, then that could be a reason. But if the asker rejects his governments authority, then I do not know what argument to make.

You are not making a very compelling argument for the counter point either.

Humans have domination over nature simply to the extent that we have the power to dominate it. Nature (and the creatures living in it) kick our asses all the time. Natural disasters, drowning, exposure, poisonous animals, stronger animals, and the massive domination of us by small and microscopic creatures. None of this is a "we should" do anything, either pro or con. Science has at least made it clear just how badly we get "pwned" by aspects of nature, and has been instrumental in our own efforts to dominate or at least survive over nature.

 

[SpatulaCity]

"Now, children, come on over here. I'm going to tell you a bedtime story. Are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin. Once upon a time, there lived a magnificent race of animals that dominated the world through age after age. They ran, they swam, and they fought and they flew, until suddenly, quite recently, they disappeared. Nature just gave up and started again. We weren't even apes then. We were just these smart little rodents hiding in the rocks. And when we go, nature will start over. With the bees, probably. Nature knows when to give up, David." - Stephen Falken

 

[StratThinker]

cos_1[/url]":1vzc8szr]
Humans have domination over nature simply to the extent that we have the power to dominate it. Nature (and the creatures living in it) kick our asses all the time. Natural disasters, drowning, exposure, poisonous animals, stronger animals, and the massive domination of us by small and microscopic creatures. None of this is a "we should" do anything, either pro or con. Science has at least made it clear just how badly we get "pwned" by aspects of nature, and has been instrumental in our own efforts to dominate or at least survive over nature.

"None of this is a "we should" do anything, either pro or con."
Exactly!

"Science ... has been instrumental in our own efforts to dominate or at least survive over nature."
Which is why science is important.

 

[ApplePaladin]

itdraugr[/url]":3h80utr1]

Interesting. You state "Humans are meant to have dominion over the animal kingdom". Care to state by which authority this is true?

"What this ultimately reveals is that bee behavior is even more flexible and adaptable than we realized."

I think we're on the verge of the downfall of the paradigm that animals operate on instinct (genetically programmed behaviors), while humans operate on intelligence (socially learned behaviors).

The main resistance to the notion that animals and humans are far more similar than previously recognized is that it will require a rethink of how humans treat animals.

There are many ways in which mankind mistreats animals, and if this can lessen that, this would be great. Humans are meant to have dominion over the animal kingdom, which includes protecting their existence (you can't have dominion over something that is extinct). But humans have the right to eat meat, if we limit humans, then we must limit all carnivores and humans have the right to protect themselves, just like animals do.

I say it based on the Bible's authority. You can choose to ignore that if you want. Which authorities do you submit to? Even many governments allow humans collectively to have dominion.

You're not making a very compelling argument for your claim that "humans are meant to have dominion over the animal kingdom." Humans are just another animal. We aren't anything separate or distinct from the rest of the animal kingdom or every other life from on Earth that evolved from the same initial ancestors. We share almost half our DNA with bananas. We're just another life form among many, and if you mosey into places where certain predators roam you'll find empirical evidence that some animals absolutely dominate humans.

I was not trying to make a compelling argument, because I cannot think of a compelling argument that handles all cases, I am just saying that if the asker has already accepted his own government's authority (for some reason) and if his government allows man to have dominion, then that could be a reason. But if the asker rejects his governments authority, then I do not know what argument to make.

You are not making a very compelling argument for the counter point either.

"Dominion over the animal kingdom" isn't granted by governments. Governments simply pass laws and decide cases which set legal precedents for what we can and can't do with animals depending upon their relationship to us, i.e., whether they are wild animals, domesticated livestock, domesticated pets, etc.

None of that indicates that we are meant to have "dominion over the animal kingdom." Those laws simply describe how we should conduct ourselves given the situation we already find ourselves in vis-à-vis our relationship with other, non-human animals.

 

[StratThinker]

itdraugr[/url]":gt3b9n4f]
"Dominion over the animal kingdom" isn't granted by governments. Governments simply pass laws and decide cases which set legal precedents for what we can and can't do with animals depending upon their relationship to us, i.e., whether they are wild animals, domesticated livestock, domesticated pets, etc.

None of that indicates that we are meant to have "dominion over the animal kingdom." Those laws simply describe how we should conduct ourselves given the situation we already find ourselves in vis-à-vis our relationship with other, non-human animals.

I suppose that is a fair point.

Well then it appears we are at impasse, because neither of us can give a definite reason (that the other party accepts) for or against man's dominance.

 

[StratThinker]

SpatulaCity[/url]":2adyadzo]"Now, children, come on over here. I'm going to tell you a bedtime story. Are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin. Once upon a time, there lived a magnificent race of animals that dominated the world through age after age. They ran, they swam, and they fought and they flew, until suddenly, quite recently, they disappeared. Nature just gave up and started again. We weren't even apes then. We were just these smart little rodents hiding in the rocks. And when we go, nature will start over. With the bees, probably. Nature knows when to give up, David." - Stephen Falken

Nature is not a sentient being.

 

[oldskull]

In every life, we have some trouble.
But when you worry you make it double.
Don't worry! Bee happy!

The landlords say your rent is late.
He may have to litigate.
Don't worry!
Bee... Happy!

Ain't got no cash, ain't got no style, ladies vomit when I smile. But does Zoidberg worry? Feh, you wish!
Bee... Happy!

 

[Bernardo Verda]

pft, if bees were sooooo smart, they'd not be going extinct

Well you know...
The way things have been going, I'm not sure that humans are in any position to denigrate the intelligence of other species.

 

[ApplePaladin]

pft, if bees were sooooo smart, they'd not be going extinct

Well you know...
The way things have been going, I'm not sure that humans are in any position to denigrate the intelligence of other species.

Yeah, that ship's just about sailed.

 

[bjf182]

Someone, somewhere will teach them to solve the "I'm not a robot" CAPTCHA.

 

[ceomrman]

Humans are not special.

Um, yeah, we are. Just because some animals have surprising levels of learning ability doesn't mean we aren't. There's no conceit in stating the fact. We're the Spider-Man of the animal world.

Spider-people, please.

 

[Hapticz]

News flash world ... all animals are smarter than we realize. All life is smarter than we realize. Consciousness is in all high level nervous systems, a byproduct of complex neural networks, each animal with their own variety of consciousness that suits their abilities and environment. Humans are not special. News flash over =p

begs the question, why are humans so incredibly stupid in this regard anyway? why has it taken this long to realize that those under our dominion are actually whip smart but far less vocal than we?

criminy, we can't even communicate effectively among the other humans with 5000 differing language bases! and now, we find these dumbass critters may be busy mutating and actually adapting quite well without our 'help'.

who the hell gave us the key to the universe anyway?

 

[Demolition]

I was expecting a bee as the article author, i don't know why.

Annabee Newitz?

 

[chaos215bar2]

itdraugr[/url]":3ghv40sr]
"Dominion over the animal kingdom" isn't granted by governments. Governments simply pass laws and decide cases which set legal precedents for what we can and can't do with animals depending upon their relationship to us, i.e., whether they are wild animals, domesticated livestock, domesticated pets, etc.

None of that indicates that we are meant to have "dominion over the animal kingdom." Those laws simply describe how we should conduct ourselves given the situation we already find ourselves in vis-à-vis our relationship with other, non-human animals.

I suppose that is a fair point.

Well then it appears we are at impasse, because neither of us can give a definite reason (that the other party accepts) for or against man's dominance.

Why does it need to be one way or the other? It sounds like you're trying to make a black or white distinction on a topic that's incredibly nuanced and complex, and claiming that one authority or another grants permission for one group to do whatever they please to another is about the least compelling argument possible.

 

[iEvolution2]

Hate to say this, human are really awful stupid when it comes to comparison of the size of our brains to theirs. And we are also weak in our physical strength when it compared ours to their physical sizes and strength. They can move objects thousand of time larger than their own body size. In general human can left objects that are 1/3 of their own body weights. Ex: If you weighted 150 lbs all you can left is around 50 lbs. Except for the exceptions, the Super human.

Heck yeah I'll move this ball if it means I'll get some sugar. I'm a bee, dammit!

Wait.. she really said that or are you making this up?

 

[Andara]

You are not making a very compelling argument for the counter point either.

You made the claim, it's up to you to support it.

So far, you've put up an appeal to an authority that not all people here (probably not even most) will accept without any actual foundation for said claim.

The simple fact is that the only reason any species might have "dominion" over another is because they have the ability to assert it. No more, no less. Right now, we're the observable pinnacle of evolutionary development. As such, we have granted ourselves dominion over the other animals of this planet because there is nothing out there to stop us other than our own empathy.

 

[Whatexit]

Interesting. You state "Humans are meant to have dominion over the animal kingdom". Care to state by which authority this is true?

"What this ultimately reveals is that bee behavior is even more flexible and adaptable than we realized."

I think we're on the verge of the downfall of the paradigm that animals operate on instinct (genetically programmed behaviors), while humans operate on intelligence (socially learned behaviors).

The main resistance to the notion that animals and humans are far more similar than previously recognized is that it will require a rethink of how humans treat animals.

There are many ways in which mankind mistreats animals, and if this can lessen that, this would be great. Humans are meant to have dominion over the animal kingdom, which includes protecting their existence (you can't have dominion over something that is extinct). But humans have the right to eat meat, if we limit humans, then we must limit all carnivores and humans have the right to protect themselves, just like animals do.

I say it based on the Bible's authority. You can choose to ignore that if you want. Which authorities do you submit to? Even many governments allow humans collectively to have dominion.

Edit: Science does not say anything on the topic of who should be in authority.

Thanks, I figured that was your source. I categorically reject that humans have been "given" dominion over anything by an outside force. I've heard people use the dominion argument to justify doing anything they want to animals and the world, rejecting what I would consider "wise" dominion. I don't believe in providing religious excuses for people to throw their (destructive) weight around in this world - we're more than capable doing that on our own. I'm not trying to start an argument on the fine points of what is meant by "dominion" in the Bible. There are many points of wisdom in there (as well as evil - sorry, don't stone your disobedient son), but I consider the Bible to be an interesting collection of writings by people expressing their opinions, inspired by their imaginations and not any actual, literal invisible deities. We're on our own and can't blame anyone else for our actions.

 

[glenalec]

While it's difficult to say if this study truly means what is being suggested, it DOES clearly demonstrate that bee intelligence is stranger than we thought. Tool use would seem to be outside the cognitive capacities of a such a limited neural design. And yet, they do seem to be doing it. But then, we used to think birds were all pretty stupid (hence the moniker "bird brain"). Maybe the notion of 'intelligence' is an inherently biased one. We think of ourselves as intelligent, so that which is not like us is not as intelligent. The less like us it is, the less intelligent it must be.

This is probably why aliens won't talk to us - they think we are stupid. Well, we are, but not for the reasons they are assuming!

 

[proclomeesius]

Fascinating, but these are bumble bees, not bees.

Bumble bees are bees.

No. Bumble bees are just not bees but one of four distinct and separate groups of corbiculate  bees. Bumblebees do not swarm like honeybees. Bumblebees do not stockpile honey or overwinter the entire colony like honey bees. Bumblebee nests typically contain far fewer members. Because of their smaller populations bumble bees probably develop differing patterns of eusociality than honey bees.

These should enough reasons for the writer and audience here to properly identify these bugs as being “bumble bees” - and not just ordinary everyday bees.....

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, here. Bumblebees are not honeybees, but they're both still bees (family Apidae). I think we're in agreement on that?

Yeah I'm unsure what point nikusa or cactusbush are trying to make either. Bumblebees are most certainly bees. Perhaps they're trying to make the distinction from honey bees? But if so, they're dispelling a common public misconception rather than an actual error in the article. A 'bee' is any member the Anthophila clade, this includes both honey bees and bumblebees, amongst thousands of others.

 

[StratThinker]

Whatexit[/url]":bl9viw5k]

Interesting. You state "Humans are meant to have dominion over the animal kingdom". Care to state by which authority this is true?

"What this ultimately reveals is that bee behavior is even more flexible and adaptable than we realized."

I think we're on the verge of the downfall of the paradigm that animals operate on instinct (genetically programmed behaviors), while humans operate on intelligence (socially learned behaviors).

The main resistance to the notion that animals and humans are far more similar than previously recognized is that it will require a rethink of how humans treat animals.

There are many ways in which mankind mistreats animals, and if this can lessen that, this would be great. Humans are meant to have dominion over the animal kingdom, which includes protecting their existence (you can't have dominion over something that is extinct). But humans have the right to eat meat, if we limit humans, then we must limit all carnivores and humans have the right to protect themselves, just like animals do.

I say it based on the Bible's authority. You can choose to ignore that if you want. Which authorities do you submit to? Even many governments allow humans collectively to have dominion.

Edit: Science does not say anything on the topic of who should be in authority.

Thanks, I figured that was your source. I categorically reject that humans have been "given" dominion over anything by an outside force. I've heard people use the dominion argument to justify doing anything they want to animals and the world, rejecting what I would consider "wise" dominion. I don't believe in providing religious excuses for people to throw their (destructive) weight around in this world - we're more than capable doing that on our own. I'm not trying to start an argument on the fine points of what is meant by "dominion" in the Bible. There are many points of wisdom in there (as well as evil - sorry, don't stone your disobedient son), but I consider the Bible to be an interesting collection of writings by people expressing their opinions, inspired by their imaginations and not any actual, literal invisible deities. We're on our own and can't blame anyone else for our actions.

Just because someone misuses that verse on man's dominion, does not mean you have to reject someone's correct usage of it. The only possible way one can misuse that verse is if one closes their eyes to the tens of other verses that clarify our relationship with animals, such as Proverbs 12:10 "A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel." Often when someone misuses that verse, they are just fishing for a verse that justifies their own wickedness. I did not misuse that verse as seen in my original post.

There are many ways in which mankind mistreats animals, and if this can lessen that, this would be great. Humans are meant to have dominion over the animal kingdom, which includes protecting their existence (you can't have dominion over something that is extinct).

 

[Whatexit]

Whatexit[/url]":7s9a53x7]

Interesting. You state "Humans are meant to have dominion over the animal kingdom". Care to state by which authority this is true?

"What this ultimately reveals is that bee behavior is even more flexible and adaptable than we realized."

I think we're on the verge of the downfall of the paradigm that animals operate on instinct (genetically programmed behaviors), while humans operate on intelligence (socially learned behaviors).

The main resistance to the notion that animals and humans are far more similar than previously recognized is that it will require a rethink of how humans treat animals.

There are many ways in which mankind mistreats animals, and if this can lessen that, this would be great. Humans are meant to have dominion over the animal kingdom, which includes protecting their existence (you can't have dominion over something that is extinct). But humans have the right to eat meat, if we limit humans, then we must limit all carnivores and humans have the right to protect themselves, just like animals do.

I say it based on the Bible's authority. You can choose to ignore that if you want. Which authorities do you submit to? Even many governments allow humans collectively to have dominion.

Edit: Science does not say anything on the topic of who should be in authority.

Thanks, I figured that was your source. I categorically reject that humans have been "given" dominion over anything by an outside force. I've heard people use the dominion argument to justify doing anything they want to animals and the world, rejecting what I would consider "wise" dominion. I don't believe in providing religious excuses for people to throw their (destructive) weight around in this world - we're more than capable doing that on our own. I'm not trying to start an argument on the fine points of what is meant by "dominion" in the Bible. There are many points of wisdom in there (as well as evil - sorry, don't stone your disobedient son), but I consider the Bible to be an interesting collection of writings by people expressing their opinions, inspired by their imaginations and not any actual, literal invisible deities. We're on our own and can't blame anyone else for our actions.

Just because someone misuses that verse on man's dominion, does not mean you have to reject someone's correct usage of it. The only possible way one can misuse that verse is if one closes their eyes to the tens of other verses that clarify our relationship with animals, such as Proverbs 12:10 "A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel." Often when someone misuses that verse, they are just fishing for a verse that justifies their own wickedness. I did not misuse that verse as seen in my original post.

There are many ways in which mankind mistreats animals, and if this can lessen that, this would be great. Humans are meant to have dominion over the animal kingdom, which includes protecting their existence (you can't have dominion over something that is extinct).

Thanks for the clarification - I didn't think that you intended to misuse that verse. It's just that I've seen many so-called Christians attacking others and selectively quoting a sentence from the Bible in support while ignoring others that aren't vonvenient. I'm in agreement with Ghandi who said something like "I like your Christ, not so much some of your Christians"

 

[BigAssRat]

While it's difficult to say if this study truly means what is being suggested, it DOES clearly demonstrate that bee intelligence is stranger than we thought. Tool use would seem to be outside the cognitive capacities of a such a limited neural design. And yet, they do seem to be doing it. But then, we used to think birds were all pretty stupid (hence the moniker "bird brain"). Maybe the notion of 'intelligence' is an inherently biased one. We think of ourselves as intelligent, so that which is not like us is not as intelligent. The less like us it is, the less intelligent it must be.

Reminds me of this Einstein quote:

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”"

 

[BlameFate]

katorga[/url]":gyx4o5ud]We don't have a clue how smart/capable other species are. My opinion is we vastly underestimate their abilities.

…And most adults vastly underestimate children. I still remember how that felt…