11 ms·

Why do bees die when they sting you?

235 points by rzk 4y ago

rolph 4y ago
they dont die right away, it takes about a week. this also, those bees in the defense cohort are in the sunset of life, they will die of old age in 1 or 2 weeks. non-regal bees have a life span of ~5weeks in warm season, this allows a turnover of labour specialties tuned to the situation at hand. in winter bees change and live about 7months. i regularily overwinter my hives up here.
rogers18445 4y ago
A bee colony is to a bee what you are to one of your cells. The author's attempts to apply group selection, kin selection or even natural selection to individual bees is a misunderstanding of what is happening. There is no selfish calculus possible for individuals within a colony, they are all parts of the whole. Even the queen can get killed by the other bees if there is a younger more fit queen. Male bees leave the hive every day to fly to a congregation area to mate with potential queens. They are quite literally analogous to sperm cells.
NoboruWataya 4y ago
Because Zeus was offended by the nymph Melissa's request for a stinger to defend her honey against humans, IIRC.
anlsh 4y ago
Great little refresher on how hymenopteran genetics advantages eusociality! I do wish that it made an effort to address why bees are different in this regard from other eusocial hymenopterans such as wasps though (ie, why do bees die when they string you?). But at least it's a neat little mystery to appreciate:)
_xnmw 4y ago
Why does every feature of every living thing have to have an evolutionary explanation? The author struggles to look for a natural selection explanation for honeybee stingers and then hand-waves away all that useless speculation by simply noting that other species of bees and wasps "followed a different evolutionary path". Why even bother speculate then? Different things are just different, I don't need an evolutionary explanation for that. In fact, I would say this cult-like insistence on making up an evolutionary explanation for everything, which cannot be tested or falsified, and employing mental gymnastics to find any reason to fit the theory (instead of testing hypotheses by experimentation) sounds more like a conspiracy theory than science.
- yamrzou 4y ago
  By the same logic nothing requires explanation. Everything is just different, or everything is just the way it is. I think your question is still interesting, so let me ask you: When does a phenomenon require an explanation in your opinion?
  - _xnmw 4y ago
    I say the question "why do honeybees die when they sting" is interesting, but the answer need not necessarily be made in an evolutionary framework. A scientifically testable hypothesis would be more productive, or simply appreciate the pros and cons of a suicidal stinger without trying to overfit an evolutionary model.
- kortex 4y ago
  > Why does every feature of every living thing have to have an evolutionary explanation? This phrasing implies the premise is true, which I don't agree with, so I am going to tackle 3 related questions: - Why does /any phenomenon/ require explanation? Because we are curious, and want to know how and why things do what they do. Answers lead to more questions, to more answers, in a loop of learning - Why do all biological phenomena need an evolutionary explanation? Because outside of artificial selection, natural selection is the only causal mechanism (outside of pure chance). Mitosis, Miosis, and Mutation are the building blocks. But much of that boils down to, "why is x the way it is? Because chance". which is not very interesting, which leads to... - Why does bee sting suicide in particular warrant an explanation? Because under a naive understanding of evolution, it is a paradox. Also, there was a time when proto-hymenoptera were not eusocial, so how did they become eusocial? Those are really interesting problems to look at. You are right in pointing out that pop-sci evolutionary handwavy explanations are a problem. But I don't think that is common in the broad science in biology.
  - _xnmw 4y ago
    > natural selection is the only causal mechanism (outside of pure chance) It is this particular cult-like insistence on the omnipotence of natural selection that I challenge. Maybe there are other causal mechanisms? In any case, it needs to be a falsifiable hypothesis before we can call it "science". Can you prove natural selection caused this particular feature of suicidal honeybees? Even if we assume the author's natural selection explanation makes sense, the causal mechanism is FAR from clear. My complaint is, biologists are wrong by limiting themselves ONLY to the evolutionary toolbox instead of seeking other causal mechanisms. And it looks like a conspiracy theory when the come up with fanciful unfalsifiable unprovable "evolutionary" explanations of everything. > Because under a naive understanding of evolution, it is a paradox. Then maybe the response should be, something is wrong with the theory of evolution, i.e. the theory of evolution cannot explain every feature of every living being, and we need not pretend it can.
gradascent 4y ago
I'm always in awe at how such a simple algorithm (natural selection) can create such beautifully complex systems (organisms or even super-organisms).
- verdenti 4y ago
  What’s the algorithm here? Can you whiteboard/pseudo code it haha?
- igiveup 4y ago
  >simple algorithm Reminds me of this article about the deceptive simplicity of evolution: http://pchiusano.github.io/2018-04-21/evolutionary-methods.html http://pchiusano.github.io/2018-04-21/evolutionary-methods.h... Not saying all of that is true. It seems to be pretty much philosohpy at this point. But maybe one day our methods scale up enough or evolve :-) in some other way and there will be a breaktrough in evolutionary AI, like there was in neural nets.
ineedasername 4y ago
>I mean, we humans and nearly all other mammals certainly don't have a singular queen and a sterile caste of workers. Corporations can be seen as superorganisms of humans. I don't think I have to elaborate too much here for this to seem a minimally acceptable metaphor? There's even a queen replacement equivalent. In some circumstances a new new corporate queen will be prepared by the hive, but its also not uncommon for the (out of scope for this metaphor) mechanism of society to simply transplant one from elsewhere. "Sterile cast of workers" probably requires the least explanation of the metaphorical equivalents here. Governments as super organisms also seems an apt metaphor.
- kaashif 4y ago
  > "Sterile cast of workers" probably requires the least explanation of the metaphorical equivalents here. I mean, I disagree. Can you explain? Human workers aren't sterile, even if fertility rates aren't all that high.
  - atomicnumber3 4y ago
    I think he must mean in an economic or social capacity. An individual worker, alone, has essentially zero meaningful leverage compared to the CEO/queen. So sterility here means autonomy or agency or power.
  - ineedasername 4y ago
    They are sterile within the organization of a corporate superorganism. They cannot create more employees. The desire to obtain more employees for the superorganism is derived from a complex set of signals that propagates throughout the organization. Edit: Also unless employees are having sex and making the babies sort mail or fight off corporate raiders then the metaphorical aspects still hold.
bratbag 4y ago
I suspect its more an adaption to leave the stinger in and pumping poision even if the bee is killed and removed.
lifeisstillgood 4y ago
So if humans are a group, and altruism is something to be valued, are elites (1% of the 1%) simply those who have found ways to bend the group altruism to their benefit - and found stories like honour and sacrifice that guide others while they make no such sacrifice?
- imtringued 4y ago
  They aren't necessary to the survival or thriving of humanity. It is not like you have been born from the womb of the queen.
gscott 4y ago
Ok here is what ChatGPT thinks on this subject "Bees do not die after stinging. However, the stinger is left behind in the victim's skin and the bee will eventually die because it is attached to the bee's digestive tract and other internal organs. When a bee stings, it releases a chemical called pheromone that attracts other bees to attack. This is why it is important to remove the stinger as quickly as possible to prevent more stings. Bees are essential pollinators and play a vital role in maintaining the balance of ecosystems. They are important for the health of plants and the production of food. Therefore, it is important to respect bees and avoid disturbing them, as they are a valuable and vital part of the natural world."
tibbydudeza 4y ago
Worker bees are not important to the hive organism - there just need to be a sufficient number- afaik there is mass die-off during winter and a core remains to cluster together for the heat during the 3 months. Normally worker bees live 4-6 weeks, but the winter generation somehow is coded to live the entire 3 months.
CoastalCoder 4y ago
> Why do bees die when they sting you? Because I come after them later with a can of RAID. </joke>
NautilusWave 4y ago
This article is correct in being cautious about "why" questions, but for the wrong reason. On science topics, people often ask "why" when they should ask "how". Things don't happen for reasons; they happen via mechanisms. Asking "why" tends to lead to answers that imply human-like intentionality where it doesn't exist.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  The "why" for this sort of question is there must be some evolutionary advantage, what is it?
  - smt88 4y ago
    No, there doesn't have to be an evolutionary advantage. Some things just exert no significant selective pressure and are incidental.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      Doesn't have to be, but if it's significant (death is significant) an evolutionary advantage is highly likely to be there somewhere.
whoopdedo 4y ago
Let's not overlook that evolution is an economic process. There's an opportunity cost to every mutation. There may be an evolutionary path that will lead to non-sacrificial bee stingers, but to change that would be immediately detrimental to the species and so it is never pursued. Or at best, provides no immediate benefit which would allow the mutants to out-compete other bees. Natural selection isn't goal-oriented and can't look to the future to measure a potential benefit. It's essentially throwing everything at the wall and see what sticks deployed at scale. The bees have found a local optimum that happens to tolerate bees dying when they sting and there's no pressure for that to change. If the economic formula ever changed where dying put them at a disadvantage, then the evolution engine would kick into high gear.
- pastacacioepepe 4y ago
  It'd be more correct saying that evolution can be explained with economic formulas. Saying stuff like > Let's not overlook that evolution is an economic process. > If the economic formula ever changed where dying put them at a disadvantage, then the evolution engine would kick into high gear. makes it sound like economists could explain and predict evolution, while in reality they struggle to even predict the next financial crisis, or deal with inflation and unemployment.
farhanhubble 4y ago
Out of guilt maybe? They could have evolved to regenerate the stinger.
rsync 4y ago
This question is framed in an anthropocentric way that equates the thing that stings you with an individual bee. In reality, it is not only much more useful but much more correct to think of the entire hive - or perhaps only the queen - as the individual bee. That flying thing that stings you might not be a "bee" at all and the fact that it "dies" might be about as interesting to the hive/queen as clipping a fingernail is to you.
- tyre 4y ago
  that’s literally what the article is about
wolverine876 4y ago
> most individuals could not care less what happens to the rest of the species A popular trope these days but is there a basis for it? IME, almost every human I know cares deeply about what happens to other humans, to their country, community, family, etc. Many animals certainly bond with their families, some bond with humans and will die protecting them. I strongly doubt that creature are so narcissistic.
- igiveup 4y ago
  Other humans != human species. Let alone specific other humans, like my family. I know what happens to each individual human: They will die. I don't like that very much, but making human species survive doesn't seem to help. I don't really care if new, stranger humans will be born to learn about my time in history classes, and eventually die, too.
MagicMoonlight 4y ago
It makes sense. One queen gives birth to all the young so they’re effectively all the same unit. Protecting the unit means survival, letting the hive get destroyed means certain death in the winter for any individual who survives.
stcroixx 4y ago
I wonder if their body just has no capacity to heal or regenerate. I’ve kept bees for a few years now and am still very much an amateur, but I’ve never heard of sick/wounded bees recovering from anything. Their bodies are pretty simple and don’t have much in the way of superfluous parts or capacity.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
NathanielBaking 4y ago
As a beekeeper for several years I have posited that bees have evolved to die after stinging because the act of stinging can cause pathogens from the creature being stung to adhere to the stinging bee. This would create an easy vector into the hive where it would then spread eventually infecting the queen. It would be interesting if someone with some game theory experience could model this behavior.
- 323 4y ago
  Pathogens are pretty species specific. It's quite unlikely a bee could get infected by whatever a mammal is carrying. And it would be easier to evolve "needle cleaning" (flushing acid over it for example).
- mytailorisrich 4y ago
  I don't think game theory is involved as there is no 'conscious' decision involved. Your theory is purely based on evolution through natural selection: the death of a bee after it has strung would increase the survival chances of the hive enough that, over time that (initially random) trait would be favoured.
  - jwarden 4y ago
    Game theory doesn't have to operate at the level of individuals making conscious decisions. Consider the concept of the Evolutionary Stable Strategy: https://cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/e/Evolutionarily_stable_strategy.htm#:~:text=In%20game%20theory%2C%20an%20evolutionarily,refinement%20to%20a%20Nash%20equilibrium https://cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/e/Evolutiona....
    - mytailorisrich 4y ago
      OK, thanks. Even so, IMHO this is 'simple' evolution through natural selection because a hive is equivalent to a single individual, not a population, evolutionary-speaking since a single individual reproduces and all the bees are also the offsprings of a single individual. So ultimately, IMHO the characteristics and behaviour of the hive only depend on the Queen and its survival. Which can also explain in part why sacrificing individual bees might be a successful strategy.
Lanrei 4y ago
This article makes one assumption without justification and then follows it to a wrong conclusion. When bees sting other insects they can sting them multiple times, like a wasp. If you give them time a bee will usually be able to work it's stinger out of you and go on it's merry way. Their stingers just happen to get stuck in skin. Here's a basic video discussing the topic: https://youtu.be/nTVsqc2CCGo https://youtu.be/nTVsqc2CCGo
- cactusplant7374 4y ago
  I cringed thinking about this. Does anyone wait and let the bee leave?
  - forgotmypw17 4y ago
    I've seen it done by someone practicing bee sting therapy.
  - imtringued 4y ago
    Yeah, other insects because the time needed to pull the stinger out is much shorter.
- spc476 4y ago
  And here's the video they're talking about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-C77ujnLZo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-C77ujnLZo
- the_af 4y ago
  It could be an adaptation for stinging mammals, where the venom pump would matter more than when stinging other insects. Though wasps don't need it and they are very effective at causing pain in mammals. The article mentions different evolutionary paths.
- h0l0cube 4y ago
  Why would honey bees evolve to leave behind an autonomous pump with their stinger? I don’t think the article suggests that all stings result in suicide, it merely answers the question of why it happens at all, and why it is peculiar to only a select subgroup of species in the entire animal kingdom
bmitc 4y ago
I think there are some leaps in the article, especially revolving around the concepts of calling this suicide or a sacrifice. First of all, not all bee species even have stingers and only honeybees have barbed stingers. Even then, honeybees do not always die when stinging animals, such as insects, as only mammalian and maybe avian skin is thick enough to retain the barb. Calling this suicide or a sacrifice seems to imply that the honeybee workers are aware of possible death when stinging a mammal, which I haven’t read evidence of, and I don’t think it’s something we have the ability to know. And honeybees only live a few months, so it’s a very human-centric viewpoint nonetheless. Is it known whether this is an evolutionary strategy vs an evolutionary mistake? I suppose that isn’t really a question we can answer. The only thing I can think of is that mammals are larger and if the venom keeps pumping after the bee removes itself, then that would inject more venom. But for larger animals, is there a strong need for the bee to only be active in the sting temporarily? It seems a honeybee with a smooth barb could just sting a larger animal longer, removing the “need” (of the above hypothesis is true) of stinging for a short time but leaving the venom producing system behind.
- Stevvo 4y ago
  Both of your "criticisms" Are discussed in the article.
  - bmitc 4y ago
    I read the article and didn’t feel it was adequately addressed.
  - h0l0cube 4y ago
    Yes. If only people read TFA (which was very thorough) before opining at length: > These altruistic acts are typically not done consciously, they have simple been formed by natural selection to act in this way. For instance, your neutrophils do not consciously commit suicide, they have just been shaped to do that by evolution. And of course you don't go out thinking "Hm yes I will save you two from drowning because you are each 5/8 related to me." Although maybe one biologist did actually think like this.
rnd0 4y ago
Honestly, I'm more curious about the way that wasps evolved and what path that took. Especially since it seems like they have managed to adapt (in some cases) to living eusocially without sacrificing individual members.
- hackernewds 4y ago
  you could have argue bees vastly outperform and outnumber wasps perhaps due to their evolutionary advantages
- mvidal01 4y ago
  I think the book The World of Bees by Charles D. Michener covers that subject. There's a pdf of that book on the net.
- dejj 4y ago
  That, and why don't worker bees heal to continue working without stinger, instead of dying? Do bees ever heal? Is perhaps the cost of evolving a genetic apparatus for large-scale repairs higher than just birthing another individual in the comb?
scaredginger 4y ago
Bees dying after stinging really highlights the question of what an organism is to me. It seems similar to routine cell death; the organism (hive) keeps thriving. In the grand scheme of things, the individual doesn't matter
- jstummbillig 4y ago
  Since the big thing is mostly made of small things, neglecting small things systematically is probably not a good idea.
  - scaredginger 4y ago
    Perhaps I'm oversimplifying, but if this neglect results in independent random events of destruction of these individual small things, it'll average out, so it's fine as long as they can be replaced
    - hbarka 4y ago
      I’m reminded of infantry soldiers
      - scaredginger 4y ago
        Seems very macabre to try and apply the idea to human populations, but I suppose this did more or less happen in WWI on the Western Front...
        hbarka 4y ago
        There was a scene in All Quiet On The Western Front where upon the signing of the armistice, an hour or so was left before the effective time of cessation. A brutal German general who was aware of this orders his troops to have one more charge. They were already celebrating the end of the war.
  - the_af 4y ago
    It's not neglect. A tiny part of the hive dies fending off something that would be harmful to the colony, which is the true reproductive superorganism.
raydiatian 4y ago
Always fun to see the term “super-organism” pop up. I was super fascinated with super-organisms back in college. I convinced myself that mankind counts as a super-organism (although I’m sure experts might disagree, with reason). We’re an incredibly specialized bunch, the majority of us are utterly incapable of surviving without the tethers of civilization. And I was super enamored with the notion that the internet was a central nervous system for this budding Homo sapiens super organism, and wanted to ask interesting questions like “is the super-organism intelligent?” To which the answer was “if we can learn from our mistakes.” So I’m not so sure we’re an intelligent super-organism.
- ImHereToVote 4y ago
  What you have done, is simply added a symbol to a phenomena. What exactly does the symbol "super-organism" mean to you? Or to anyone for that matter? If it doesn't have a rigorous definition then it is simply a token that evokes an emotional reaction.
  - raydiatian 4y ago
    I think it’s an accepted concept in the biology community. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superorganism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superorganism
  - yamrzou 4y ago
    > What you have done, is simply added a symbol to a phenomena. Isn't that what we always do when we use language? To me a "super-organism" means seeing the whole instead of the parts. When I speak about myself, I don't say: my hands did, my feet walked. I say: I did, I walked. In my mind, I don't picture the multitude of cells composing my body as individual organisms, rather as parts of a single unit.
forinti 4y ago
In my experience, a wasp's sting hurts a whole lot more. One bee sting doesn't even hurt much; many probably do. OTOH, you hardly ever find a wasp's nest as large as a typical bee hive. So maybe it makes sense for wasps to have better weapons and try to save every individual.
- to11mtm 4y ago
  > One bee sting doesn't even hurt much; many probably do. It kinda depends on where, too. My only bee sting was on my chin (during recess in grade school) and it was definitely more painful than the wasp stings I've received on other parts of the body.
- digitalsushi 4y ago
  I was removing an old raised bed from the previous owners, using a 20 pound sledge hammer. I got stung by a yellow jacket on the wrist, and it hurt as much as a toddler would playing with a rubber band. It took me a few moments to understand what was happening - and I ran into the house, bringing seveal more with me. One got into my shirt and stung me under my arm, and that felt like purple. I balistically punched myself in instinct until they were all dead. Then I learned how it works. You get tagged by the first hornet. They have a little scent that is a 'tracer', and once they see it, you're marked. Many, many times now I have been tagged by an angry yellow jacket and run to safety before the first stinging. There's about a second or two where your muscle memory can sprint you out of their area, about 300 feet. Often they will be found slamming the back door for several minutes, trying to follow me. They hate percussive vibrations. Walking, sledgehammering, digging. They have two entrances to their nests, always a hole in the ground. I own a bee suit and will just go dig it up with a shovel now. I think it's still legal to do in my state. I really hate yellow jackets, I'm sorry but I can't see what they are bringing other than their rage.
  - yakshaving_jgt 4y ago
    > and that felt like purple. Is this a commonly known idiom? I've never heard it, and I Googled to no avail.
  - 4y ago
stokesr 4y ago
Absolutely brilliant article, really enjoyed it!
JoeAltmaier 4y ago
Bees are cheap; evolution favors solutions that work, regardless of the cost to an individual.
photochemsyn 4y ago
One could also ask, "What good does it do for an insect to taste bad to birds? By the time the insect gets 'tasted' it's already dead." Very simply, animals learn to avoid such insects. The same simple explanation - absent much of any concept of selfish or altruistic behavior - probably applies to bees as well, regardless of their colony structure. Once an animal is stung by a bee, it learns to avoid bees, which reduces predatory pressure on all bees (including bee mimic species). The other primary role of the stinger is in defense of the hive, i.e. colony survival. That's a more direct group selection concept, as if the queen and some drones survive an attack on the colony, new generations can be bred, so an aggressive pheromone-trigger response by workers is likely. Furthermore, one must always consider in evolution the role of accident and misfortune. For example, walking upright in humans is widely considered to have been a beneficial evolutionary development, as humans were able to spread onto the plains and were no longer limited to living in forests. So is the development of a large brain. However, together those factors make childbirth more difficult for human females relative to other mammals. This wasn't a desirable outcome, more of a side effect. Bee stingers lodging in some of their targets may be a similar issue - i.e. an accident of evolution, not something chosen by selection.
- svnt 4y ago
  > However, together those factors make childbirth more difficult for human females relative to other mammals. This wasn't a desirable outcome, more of a side effect. This is a pop science concept from the 60s known as the obstetrical dilemma and is not well-supported by the evidence we have.
  - Izkata 4y ago
    A better example perhaps: Sickle cell anemia, which causes all sorts of health issues, also provides protection against malaria.
  - kortex 4y ago
    Huh, TIL that childbirth was likely challenging for other smaller-head hominids, not just big-brain Sapiens. Walking upright is still the strongest hypothesis for the difficult birth process. https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-have-figured-out-why-childbirth-became-so-complex-and-dangerous/ https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-have-figured-out-why-chi...

235 points by rzk 4y ago

they dont die right away, it takes about a week. this also, those bees in the defense cohort are in the sunset of life, they will die of old age in 1 or 2 weeks. non-regal bees have a life span of ~5weeks in warm season, this allows a turnover of labour specialties tuned to the situation at hand. in winter bees change and live about 7months. i regularily overwinter my hives up here.

rogers18445 4y ago

A bee colony is to a bee what you are to one of your cells. The author's attempts to apply group selection, kin selection or even natural selection to individual bees is a misunderstanding of what is happening. There is no selfish calculus possible for individuals within a colony, they are all parts of the whole. Even the queen can get killed by the other bees if there is a younger more fit queen. Male bees leave the hive every day to fly to a congregation area to mate with potential queens. They are quite literally analogous to sperm cells.

NoboruWataya 4y ago

Because Zeus was offended by the nymph Melissa's request for a stinger to defend her honey against humans, IIRC.

anlsh 4y ago

Great little refresher on how hymenopteran genetics advantages eusociality! I do wish that it made an effort to address why bees are different in this regard from other eusocial hymenopterans such as wasps though (ie, why do bees die when they string you?). But at least it's a neat little mystery to appreciate:)

_xnmw 4y ago

Why does every feature of every living thing have to have an evolutionary explanation? The author struggles to look for a natural selection explanation for honeybee stingers and then hand-waves away all that useless speculation by simply noting that other species of bees and wasps "followed a different evolutionary path". Why even bother speculate then? Different things are just different, I don't need an evolutionary explanation for that. In fact, I would say this cult-like insistence on making up an evolutionary explanation for everything, which cannot be tested or falsified, and employing mental gymnastics to find any reason to fit the theory (instead of testing hypotheses by experimentation) sounds more like a conspiracy theory than science.

yamrzou 4y ago
By the same logic nothing requires explanation. Everything is just different, or everything is just the way it is. I think your question is still interesting, so let me ask you: When does a phenomenon require an explanation in your opinion?
- _xnmw 4y ago
  I say the question "why do honeybees die when they sting" is interesting, but the answer need not necessarily be made in an evolutionary framework. A scientifically testable hypothesis would be more productive, or simply appreciate the pros and cons of a suicidal stinger without trying to overfit an evolutionary model.
kortex 4y ago
> Why does every feature of every living thing have to have an evolutionary explanation? This phrasing implies the premise is true, which I don't agree with, so I am going to tackle 3 related questions: - Why does /any phenomenon/ require explanation? Because we are curious, and want to know how and why things do what they do. Answers lead to more questions, to more answers, in a loop of learning - Why do all biological phenomena need an evolutionary explanation? Because outside of artificial selection, natural selection is the only causal mechanism (outside of pure chance). Mitosis, Miosis, and Mutation are the building blocks. But much of that boils down to, "why is x the way it is? Because chance". which is not very interesting, which leads to... - Why does bee sting suicide in particular warrant an explanation? Because under a naive understanding of evolution, it is a paradox. Also, there was a time when proto-hymenoptera were not eusocial, so how did they become eusocial? Those are really interesting problems to look at. You are right in pointing out that pop-sci evolutionary handwavy explanations are a problem. But I don't think that is common in the broad science in biology.
- _xnmw 4y ago
  > natural selection is the only causal mechanism (outside of pure chance) It is this particular cult-like insistence on the omnipotence of natural selection that I challenge. Maybe there are other causal mechanisms? In any case, it needs to be a falsifiable hypothesis before we can call it "science". Can you prove natural selection caused this particular feature of suicidal honeybees? Even if we assume the author's natural selection explanation makes sense, the causal mechanism is FAR from clear. My complaint is, biologists are wrong by limiting themselves ONLY to the evolutionary toolbox instead of seeking other causal mechanisms. And it looks like a conspiracy theory when the come up with fanciful unfalsifiable unprovable "evolutionary" explanations of everything. > Because under a naive understanding of evolution, it is a paradox. Then maybe the response should be, something is wrong with the theory of evolution, i.e. the theory of evolution cannot explain every feature of every living being, and we need not pretend it can.

gradascent 4y ago

I'm always in awe at how such a simple algorithm (natural selection) can create such beautifully complex systems (organisms or even super-organisms).

verdenti 4y ago
What’s the algorithm here? Can you whiteboard/pseudo code it haha?
igiveup 4y ago
>simple algorithm Reminds me of this article about the deceptive simplicity of evolution: http://pchiusano.github.io/2018-04-21/evolutionary-methods.html http://pchiusano.github.io/2018-04-21/evolutionary-methods.h... Not saying all of that is true. It seems to be pretty much philosohpy at this point. But maybe one day our methods scale up enough or evolve :-) in some other way and there will be a breaktrough in evolutionary AI, like there was in neural nets.

ineedasername 4y ago

>I mean, we humans and nearly all other mammals certainly don't have a singular queen and a sterile caste of workers. Corporations can be seen as superorganisms of humans. I don't think I have to elaborate too much here for this to seem a minimally acceptable metaphor? There's even a queen replacement equivalent. In some circumstances a new new corporate queen will be prepared by the hive, but its also not uncommon for the (out of scope for this metaphor) mechanism of society to simply transplant one from elsewhere. "Sterile cast of workers" probably requires the least explanation of the metaphorical equivalents here. Governments as super organisms also seems an apt metaphor.

kaashif 4y ago
> "Sterile cast of workers" probably requires the least explanation of the metaphorical equivalents here. I mean, I disagree. Can you explain? Human workers aren't sterile, even if fertility rates aren't all that high.
- atomicnumber3 4y ago
  I think he must mean in an economic or social capacity. An individual worker, alone, has essentially zero meaningful leverage compared to the CEO/queen. So sterility here means autonomy or agency or power.
- ineedasername 4y ago
  They are sterile within the organization of a corporate superorganism. They cannot create more employees. The desire to obtain more employees for the superorganism is derived from a complex set of signals that propagates throughout the organization. Edit: Also unless employees are having sex and making the babies sort mail or fight off corporate raiders then the metaphorical aspects still hold.

bratbag 4y ago

I suspect its more an adaption to leave the stinger in and pumping poision even if the bee is killed and removed.

lifeisstillgood 4y ago

So if humans are a group, and altruism is something to be valued, are elites (1% of the 1%) simply those who have found ways to bend the group altruism to their benefit - and found stories like honour and sacrifice that guide others while they make no such sacrifice?

imtringued 4y ago
They aren't necessary to the survival or thriving of humanity. It is not like you have been born from the womb of the queen.

gscott 4y ago

Ok here is what ChatGPT thinks on this subject "Bees do not die after stinging. However, the stinger is left behind in the victim's skin and the bee will eventually die because it is attached to the bee's digestive tract and other internal organs. When a bee stings, it releases a chemical called pheromone that attracts other bees to attack. This is why it is important to remove the stinger as quickly as possible to prevent more stings. Bees are essential pollinators and play a vital role in maintaining the balance of ecosystems. They are important for the health of plants and the production of food. Therefore, it is important to respect bees and avoid disturbing them, as they are a valuable and vital part of the natural world."

tibbydudeza 4y ago

Worker bees are not important to the hive organism - there just need to be a sufficient number- afaik there is mass die-off during winter and a core remains to cluster together for the heat during the 3 months. Normally worker bees live 4-6 weeks, but the winter generation somehow is coded to live the entire 3 months.

CoastalCoder 4y ago

> Why do bees die when they sting you? Because I come after them later with a can of RAID. </joke>

NautilusWave 4y ago

This article is correct in being cautious about "why" questions, but for the wrong reason. On science topics, people often ask "why" when they should ask "how". Things don't happen for reasons; they happen via mechanisms. Asking "why" tends to lead to answers that imply human-like intentionality where it doesn't exist.

WalterBright 4y ago
The "why" for this sort of question is there must be some evolutionary advantage, what is it?
- smt88 4y ago
  No, there doesn't have to be an evolutionary advantage. Some things just exert no significant selective pressure and are incidental.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    Doesn't have to be, but if it's significant (death is significant) an evolutionary advantage is highly likely to be there somewhere.

whoopdedo 4y ago

Let's not overlook that evolution is an economic process. There's an opportunity cost to every mutation. There may be an evolutionary path that will lead to non-sacrificial bee stingers, but to change that would be immediately detrimental to the species and so it is never pursued. Or at best, provides no immediate benefit which would allow the mutants to out-compete other bees. Natural selection isn't goal-oriented and can't look to the future to measure a potential benefit. It's essentially throwing everything at the wall and see what sticks deployed at scale. The bees have found a local optimum that happens to tolerate bees dying when they sting and there's no pressure for that to change. If the economic formula ever changed where dying put them at a disadvantage, then the evolution engine would kick into high gear.

pastacacioepepe 4y ago
It'd be more correct saying that evolution can be explained with economic formulas. Saying stuff like > Let's not overlook that evolution is an economic process. > If the economic formula ever changed where dying put them at a disadvantage, then the evolution engine would kick into high gear. makes it sound like economists could explain and predict evolution, while in reality they struggle to even predict the next financial crisis, or deal with inflation and unemployment.

farhanhubble 4y ago

Out of guilt maybe? They could have evolved to regenerate the stinger.

rsync 4y ago

This question is framed in an anthropocentric way that equates the thing that stings you with an individual bee. In reality, it is not only much more useful but much more correct to think of the entire hive - or perhaps only the queen - as the individual bee. That flying thing that stings you might not be a "bee" at all and the fact that it "dies" might be about as interesting to the hive/queen as clipping a fingernail is to you.

tyre 4y ago
that’s literally what the article is about

wolverine876 4y ago

> most individuals could not care less what happens to the rest of the species A popular trope these days but is there a basis for it? IME, almost every human I know cares deeply about what happens to other humans, to their country, community, family, etc. Many animals certainly bond with their families, some bond with humans and will die protecting them. I strongly doubt that creature are so narcissistic.

igiveup 4y ago
Other humans != human species. Let alone specific other humans, like my family. I know what happens to each individual human: They will die. I don't like that very much, but making human species survive doesn't seem to help. I don't really care if new, stranger humans will be born to learn about my time in history classes, and eventually die, too.

MagicMoonlight 4y ago

It makes sense. One queen gives birth to all the young so they’re effectively all the same unit. Protecting the unit means survival, letting the hive get destroyed means certain death in the winter for any individual who survives.

stcroixx 4y ago

I wonder if their body just has no capacity to heal or regenerate. I’ve kept bees for a few years now and am still very much an amateur, but I’ve never heard of sick/wounded bees recovering from anything. Their bodies are pretty simple and don’t have much in the way of superfluous parts or capacity.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

NathanielBaking 4y ago

As a beekeeper for several years I have posited that bees have evolved to die after stinging because the act of stinging can cause pathogens from the creature being stung to adhere to the stinging bee. This would create an easy vector into the hive where it would then spread eventually infecting the queen. It would be interesting if someone with some game theory experience could model this behavior.

323 4y ago
Pathogens are pretty species specific. It's quite unlikely a bee could get infected by whatever a mammal is carrying. And it would be easier to evolve "needle cleaning" (flushing acid over it for example).
mytailorisrich 4y ago
I don't think game theory is involved as there is no 'conscious' decision involved. Your theory is purely based on evolution through natural selection: the death of a bee after it has strung would increase the survival chances of the hive enough that, over time that (initially random) trait would be favoured.
- jwarden 4y ago
  Game theory doesn't have to operate at the level of individuals making conscious decisions. Consider the concept of the Evolutionary Stable Strategy: https://cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/e/Evolutionarily_stable_strategy.htm#:~:text=In%20game%20theory%2C%20an%20evolutionarily,refinement%20to%20a%20Nash%20equilibrium https://cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/e/Evolutiona....
  - mytailorisrich 4y ago
    OK, thanks. Even so, IMHO this is 'simple' evolution through natural selection because a hive is equivalent to a single individual, not a population, evolutionary-speaking since a single individual reproduces and all the bees are also the offsprings of a single individual. So ultimately, IMHO the characteristics and behaviour of the hive only depend on the Queen and its survival. Which can also explain in part why sacrificing individual bees might be a successful strategy.

Lanrei 4y ago

This article makes one assumption without justification and then follows it to a wrong conclusion. When bees sting other insects they can sting them multiple times, like a wasp. If you give them time a bee will usually be able to work it's stinger out of you and go on it's merry way. Their stingers just happen to get stuck in skin. Here's a basic video discussing the topic: https://youtu.be/nTVsqc2CCGo https://youtu.be/nTVsqc2CCGo

cactusplant7374 4y ago
I cringed thinking about this. Does anyone wait and let the bee leave?
- forgotmypw17 4y ago
  I've seen it done by someone practicing bee sting therapy.
- imtringued 4y ago
  Yeah, other insects because the time needed to pull the stinger out is much shorter.
spc476 4y ago
And here's the video they're talking about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-C77ujnLZo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-C77ujnLZo
the_af 4y ago
It could be an adaptation for stinging mammals, where the venom pump would matter more than when stinging other insects. Though wasps don't need it and they are very effective at causing pain in mammals. The article mentions different evolutionary paths.
h0l0cube 4y ago
Why would honey bees evolve to leave behind an autonomous pump with their stinger? I don’t think the article suggests that all stings result in suicide, it merely answers the question of why it happens at all, and why it is peculiar to only a select subgroup of species in the entire animal kingdom

bmitc 4y ago

I think there are some leaps in the article, especially revolving around the concepts of calling this suicide or a sacrifice. First of all, not all bee species even have stingers and only honeybees have barbed stingers. Even then, honeybees do not always die when stinging animals, such as insects, as only mammalian and maybe avian skin is thick enough to retain the barb. Calling this suicide or a sacrifice seems to imply that the honeybee workers are aware of possible death when stinging a mammal, which I haven’t read evidence of, and I don’t think it’s something we have the ability to know. And honeybees only live a few months, so it’s a very human-centric viewpoint nonetheless. Is it known whether this is an evolutionary strategy vs an evolutionary mistake? I suppose that isn’t really a question we can answer. The only thing I can think of is that mammals are larger and if the venom keeps pumping after the bee removes itself, then that would inject more venom. But for larger animals, is there a strong need for the bee to only be active in the sting temporarily? It seems a honeybee with a smooth barb could just sting a larger animal longer, removing the “need” (of the above hypothesis is true) of stinging for a short time but leaving the venom producing system behind.

Stevvo 4y ago
Both of your "criticisms" Are discussed in the article.
- bmitc 4y ago
  I read the article and didn’t feel it was adequately addressed.
- h0l0cube 4y ago
  Yes. If only people read TFA (which was very thorough) before opining at length: > These altruistic acts are typically not done consciously, they have simple been formed by natural selection to act in this way. For instance, your neutrophils do not consciously commit suicide, they have just been shaped to do that by evolution. And of course you don't go out thinking "Hm yes I will save you two from drowning because you are each 5/8 related to me." Although maybe one biologist did actually think like this.

rnd0 4y ago

Honestly, I'm more curious about the way that wasps evolved and what path that took. Especially since it seems like they have managed to adapt (in some cases) to living eusocially without sacrificing individual members.

hackernewds 4y ago
you could have argue bees vastly outperform and outnumber wasps perhaps due to their evolutionary advantages
mvidal01 4y ago
I think the book The World of Bees by Charles D. Michener covers that subject. There's a pdf of that book on the net.
dejj 4y ago
That, and why don't worker bees heal to continue working without stinger, instead of dying? Do bees ever heal? Is perhaps the cost of evolving a genetic apparatus for large-scale repairs higher than just birthing another individual in the comb?

scaredginger 4y ago

Bees dying after stinging really highlights the question of what an organism is to me. It seems similar to routine cell death; the organism (hive) keeps thriving. In the grand scheme of things, the individual doesn't matter

jstummbillig 4y ago
Since the big thing is mostly made of small things, neglecting small things systematically is probably not a good idea.
- scaredginger 4y ago
  Perhaps I'm oversimplifying, but if this neglect results in independent random events of destruction of these individual small things, it'll average out, so it's fine as long as they can be replaced
  - hbarka 4y ago
    I’m reminded of infantry soldiers
    - scaredginger 4y ago
      Seems very macabre to try and apply the idea to human populations, but I suppose this did more or less happen in WWI on the Western Front...
      - hbarka 4y ago
        There was a scene in All Quiet On The Western Front where upon the signing of the armistice, an hour or so was left before the effective time of cessation. A brutal German general who was aware of this orders his troops to have one more charge. They were already celebrating the end of the war.
- the_af 4y ago
  It's not neglect. A tiny part of the hive dies fending off something that would be harmful to the colony, which is the true reproductive superorganism.

raydiatian 4y ago

Always fun to see the term “super-organism” pop up. I was super fascinated with super-organisms back in college. I convinced myself that mankind counts as a super-organism (although I’m sure experts might disagree, with reason). We’re an incredibly specialized bunch, the majority of us are utterly incapable of surviving without the tethers of civilization. And I was super enamored with the notion that the internet was a central nervous system for this budding Homo sapiens super organism, and wanted to ask interesting questions like “is the super-organism intelligent?” To which the answer was “if we can learn from our mistakes.” So I’m not so sure we’re an intelligent super-organism.

ImHereToVote 4y ago
What you have done, is simply added a symbol to a phenomena. What exactly does the symbol "super-organism" mean to you? Or to anyone for that matter? If it doesn't have a rigorous definition then it is simply a token that evokes an emotional reaction.
- raydiatian 4y ago
  I think it’s an accepted concept in the biology community. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superorganism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superorganism
- yamrzou 4y ago
  > What you have done, is simply added a symbol to a phenomena. Isn't that what we always do when we use language? To me a "super-organism" means seeing the whole instead of the parts. When I speak about myself, I don't say: my hands did, my feet walked. I say: I did, I walked. In my mind, I don't picture the multitude of cells composing my body as individual organisms, rather as parts of a single unit.

forinti 4y ago

In my experience, a wasp's sting hurts a whole lot more. One bee sting doesn't even hurt much; many probably do. OTOH, you hardly ever find a wasp's nest as large as a typical bee hive. So maybe it makes sense for wasps to have better weapons and try to save every individual.

to11mtm 4y ago
> One bee sting doesn't even hurt much; many probably do. It kinda depends on where, too. My only bee sting was on my chin (during recess in grade school) and it was definitely more painful than the wasp stings I've received on other parts of the body.
digitalsushi 4y ago
I was removing an old raised bed from the previous owners, using a 20 pound sledge hammer. I got stung by a yellow jacket on the wrist, and it hurt as much as a toddler would playing with a rubber band. It took me a few moments to understand what was happening - and I ran into the house, bringing seveal more with me. One got into my shirt and stung me under my arm, and that felt like purple. I balistically punched myself in instinct until they were all dead. Then I learned how it works. You get tagged by the first hornet. They have a little scent that is a 'tracer', and once they see it, you're marked. Many, many times now I have been tagged by an angry yellow jacket and run to safety before the first stinging. There's about a second or two where your muscle memory can sprint you out of their area, about 300 feet. Often they will be found slamming the back door for several minutes, trying to follow me. They hate percussive vibrations. Walking, sledgehammering, digging. They have two entrances to their nests, always a hole in the ground. I own a bee suit and will just go dig it up with a shovel now. I think it's still legal to do in my state. I really hate yellow jackets, I'm sorry but I can't see what they are bringing other than their rage.
- yakshaving_jgt 4y ago
  > and that felt like purple. Is this a commonly known idiom? I've never heard it, and I Googled to no avail.
- 4y ago

stokesr 4y ago

Absolutely brilliant article, really enjoyed it!

JoeAltmaier 4y ago

Bees are cheap; evolution favors solutions that work, regardless of the cost to an individual.

photochemsyn 4y ago

One could also ask, "What good does it do for an insect to taste bad to birds? By the time the insect gets 'tasted' it's already dead." Very simply, animals learn to avoid such insects. The same simple explanation - absent much of any concept of selfish or altruistic behavior - probably applies to bees as well, regardless of their colony structure. Once an animal is stung by a bee, it learns to avoid bees, which reduces predatory pressure on all bees (including bee mimic species). The other primary role of the stinger is in defense of the hive, i.e. colony survival. That's a more direct group selection concept, as if the queen and some drones survive an attack on the colony, new generations can be bred, so an aggressive pheromone-trigger response by workers is likely. Furthermore, one must always consider in evolution the role of accident and misfortune. For example, walking upright in humans is widely considered to have been a beneficial evolutionary development, as humans were able to spread onto the plains and were no longer limited to living in forests. So is the development of a large brain. However, together those factors make childbirth more difficult for human females relative to other mammals. This wasn't a desirable outcome, more of a side effect. Bee stingers lodging in some of their targets may be a similar issue - i.e. an accident of evolution, not something chosen by selection.

svnt 4y ago
> However, together those factors make childbirth more difficult for human females relative to other mammals. This wasn't a desirable outcome, more of a side effect. This is a pop science concept from the 60s known as the obstetrical dilemma and is not well-supported by the evidence we have.
- Izkata 4y ago
  A better example perhaps: Sickle cell anemia, which causes all sorts of health issues, also provides protection against malaria.
- kortex 4y ago
  Huh, TIL that childbirth was likely challenging for other smaller-head hominids, not just big-brain Sapiens. Walking upright is still the strongest hypothesis for the difficult birth process. https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-have-figured-out-why-childbirth-became-so-complex-and-dangerous/ https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-have-figured-out-why-chi...