...man would have no more than four years to live.

So, most people here seem interested in science and what not. On the news today they had another story about all the bees here dying/disappearing yada yada.
If any of you haven't heard the quote, once upon a time ol' Alby Einstien said "If the bee disappears from the surface of the earth, man would have no more than four years to live."

So, my question to you all is what do you think of this???

My personal opinion is that first of all, there is very little chance of this actually happening. I think that in a population as large as the honey bee there is enough genetic variation that the species as a whole is relatively safe, and thats before we take into account all the tree huggers out there doing their thing to save them.
On the off chance that the honey bee were to become extinct, I think that it would only serve to empty a niche that would be filled by some other organism, probably but not necessarily another insect. And everything would basiclly keep on keeping on.

This obviously assumes that the reasoning behind Einstiens comment was based on our dependance on bees as pollinators for, ultimately, all our food sources. If you have a different interpretation please share.

Hart wrote:So, most people here seem interested in science and what not. On the news today they had another story about all the bees here dying/disappearing yada yada.
If any of you haven't heard the quote, once upon a time ol' Alby Einstien said "If the bee disappears from the surface of the earth, man would have no more than four years to live."

So, my question to you all is what do you think of this???

My personal opinion is that first of all, there is very little chance of this actually happening. I think that in a population as large as the honey bee there is enough genetic variation that the species as a whole is relatively safe, and thats before we take into account all the tree huggers out there doing their thing to save them.
On the off chance that the honey bee were to become extinct, I think that it would only serve to empty a niche that would be filled by some other organism, probably but not necessarily another insect. And everything would basiclly keep on keeping on.

This obviously assumes that the reasoning behind Einstiens comment was based on our dependance on bees as pollinators for, ultimately, all our food sources. If you have a different interpretation please share.

Einstein*, not Einstien. Just like it's Ornstein, not Ornstien.

Einstein was probably referring to the pollination thing, but bees aren't the only source of pollination. Besides, I trust in Nature to make everything all right. She always does.

Elifia wrote:Einstein*, not Einstien. Just like it's Ornstein, not Ornstien..

^^^ This triggered a real-life facepalm.

It would probably take longer for other animals to fill the gap than we can survive to see it.
We wouldn't immediately see the effects, but there will no longer be balance in the food chain, and it will bite us in the *** some years later.

In the worst case, we'll live longer than four years, but not by much*
(relative to history of man, not to the 4 years)

The current generation would live more or less normally, until other animals (herbivores) start dying, taking their predators with them, all the way up to humans, but this will take some time and we'll most likely live off of farming and livestock for quite some time.

Hart wrote:

Elifia wrote:Einstein*, not Einstien. Just like it's Ornstein, not Ornstien..

^^^ This triggered a real-life facepalm.

A facepalm at your own inability to spell Einstein's name correctly?

I think it's safe to say that Albert Einstein was a physicist, not a biologist, therefore his expertise in that field is minimal. We know bees are important for pollination, we know the loss of any animal would screw with the ecosystem they exist in, but we don't know how it would be affected, how large the impact will be, if the impact can be mitigated or if we even need to take action.

I hate bees anyways, totally worth it.

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

I already knew most of this, but bees are far from the only source of pollination. Other sources: wind, wasps, ants, butterflies, beetles, moths, flies, birds and bats.

Not to mention that humans are advanced enough to know how to artificially pollinate stuff themselves.

If you want a real thinker, I've always had dreams that would tell me I'd when I was twenty. I'm turning twenty one in a month about. Will I do within a month?

But in regards to possibility, yeah incredibly possible for us to get wiped out, but likely not related to bees. Do you know how many things happen on a cosmic scale daily? We could have a gamma burst coming at us, and be unable to even see it coming as it strike earth killing all known life.

In the end, it doesn't matter. Einstein only said man would die (he didn't, but whatever). Woman would live on. Go woman!

Elifia wrote:In the end, it doesn't matter. Einstein only said man would die (he didn't, but whatever). Woman would live on. Go woman!

Woman or women? It would be pretty sad if any person would live on by themselves.

densetsushun wrote:

Elifia wrote:In the end, it doesn't matter. Einstein only said man would die (he didn't, but whatever). Woman would live on. Go woman!

Woman or women? It would be pretty sad if any person would live on by themselves.

Women. It's woman as in womankind, just like man in the quote means mankind, not just 1 man.

Elifia wrote:
Women. It's woman as in womankind, just like man in the quote means mankind, not just 1 man.

"woman" as in "womankind" does not exist in the English language. I take issue with the term "man" as in "mankind" as well, but at least that one exists.

i think it would be a pretty big deal, for once there would be no almonds lol but we'd be screwed and im pretty sure mother nature can replace something that been here for so long in a couple of years, i don't see the tree frogs(or any species getting wiped out) that keep going extinct getting replaced by something else, meh i actually give us around 500 years left and that's beign generous, we really need another huge meteor to wipe out like 90% of humanity and for earth to replenish itself.

Elifia wrote:Besides, I trust in Nature to make everything all right. She always does.

Yes, but Nature works at her own pace. To Nature it doesn't matter if something takes 10 million years to heal/correct itself. I, on the other hand, will be long dead.

We can not destroy nature, we can only destroy ourselves.

Nature has been reborn countless of times before. and it will always hit back at us, hard at that.

Hachouma wrote:It would probably take longer for other animals to fill the gap than we can survive to see it.
We wouldn't immediately see the effects, but there will no longer be balance in the food chain, and it will bite us in the *** some years later.

In the worst case, we'll live longer than four years, but not by much*
(relative to history of man, not to the 4 years)

The current generation would live more or less normally, until other animals (herbivores) start dying, taking their predators with them, all the way up to humans, but this will take some time and we'll most likely live off of farming and livestock for quite some time.

We've learned how to make poo edible, I'm fairly certain we can survive anything.

Elifia wrote:

Hart wrote:

Elifia wrote:Einstein*, not Einstien. Just like it's Ornstein, not Ornstien..

^^^ This triggered a real-life facepalm.

A facepalm at your own inability to spell Einstein's name correctly?

Yes, I sekond tha fase palm. Gramer on the inturnet iz just.....

I mean, why Efliaiafia?

Animaaal wrote:

Elifia wrote:

Hart wrote:

Elifia wrote:Einstein*, not Einstien. Just like it's Ornstein, not Ornstien..

^^^ This triggered a real-life facepalm.

A facepalm at your own inability to spell Einstein's name correctly?

Yes, I sekond tha fase palm. Gramer on the inturnet iz just.....

I mean, why Efliaiafia?

Yes, I second the face palm. Grammar on the internet is just.....

I mean, why Elifia?*

Also it's spelling, not grammar.

This thread is no more.

So womankind aint included in man huh???...that's rich.

If Humanity does die out it wouldnt be a loss, humans are cancer we damage the earth grom progressing and kil of countless species as we do, if anything else did this it would be reffered to as a disease.

Sorry if i sound dark but ive literally lost faith in humanity.

Elifia wrote:

Animaaal wrote:

Elifia wrote:

Hart wrote:

Elifia wrote:Einstein*, not Einstien. Just like it's Ornstein, not Ornstien..

^^^ This triggered a real-life facepalm.

A facepalm at your own inability to spell Einstein's name correctly?

Yes, I sekond tha fase palm. Gramer on the inturnet iz just.....

I mean, why Efliaiafia?

Yes, I second the face palm. Grammar on the internet is just.....

I mean, why Elifia?*

Also it's spelling, not grammar.

That is so stupid.

Why do people give so much hate if you`re grammatcly incorrect on the internet? I could put the samr sentence on paper and no one would go * You`re.