> CCD has probably "pruned" the bee population in a good way
A reduction in the population is never a good thing. Is this some sort of neo-eugenics viewpoint? Pruning the population will not create some sort of super-bee. That's not how it works.
It will enhance whatever qualities are being selected for, but it will reduce the genetic diversity in the population, making it vulnerable to a hole raft of new diseases and disorders.
Ideally what you want is for the genetic variant that protects against a specific disease to be already within the population and for that variant to simply spread, without any population loss. If you're losing population, that is a BAD thing. That means things are happening too quickly and you're in for a world of hurt in the long-term.
Yours is a needlessly inflammatory response to what was in fact a reasonable question.
Eugenics is a philosophy that suggests human breeding should be controlled to select for favored features. It's disfavored for a variety of obvious reasons that connect to our principals about the unique value of human life.
Honey bees are livestock. Livestock has been selectively bred for millennia, and discussions of long-term genetic selection among honey bees is not an indicator that participants believe in eugenics.
I'm sorry, but what word would you use to describe the theory that selective pressures that decimate a population will eventually result in a superior specimen?
It may be inflammatory, but that's the only word that came to mind.
To wit, the phrase "Survival of the fittest" was not coined by Darwin. It was coined by Herbert Spencer when he was taking about corporate survival in a free market. Any argument that boils down to using that phrase to describe the natural world is suspect at best.
You've mistakenly abused a very inflammatory word. I understand how it happened: eugenics sounded like a generally descriptive term about selective breeding; it is not: it's a philosophy about the genetic superiority and inferiority of different human beings.
It's no big deal. Helpful tip for future reference: avoid calling people eugenicists.
If you are incapable of it, then eugenics was the right word to use, regardless of your sensibilities. It was not my intention to offend, but to accurately identify. If you have a better word for it, I would certainly like to hear it.
Again: What word would you use to describe the theory that selective pressures that decimate a population will eventually result in a superior specimen?
I don't think genetic engineering involves killing off large chunks of a population just because it - for the moment - pays off. I'm not a specialist, though, so I may well be wrong here...
Reduction in population allocates more reproduction-relevant resources to the survivors. Resistance genes spread faster if the threat kills the non-resistant. (It is much easier to outcompete a corpse than an invalid.)
But ancestor post is also presuming that it is possible for bees to acquire genetic resistance to CCD. As we are not entirely certain about the exact mechanism involved, which may or may not have something to do with pesticides, chemicals in HFCS, dietary deficiency disease, or mites, it's hard to say whether any random mutation could protect against CCD without also making the colony unable to reproduce. For instance, if CCD is caused by a dietary deficiency, a colony is very unlikely to spontaneously acquire the ability to synthesize the missing nutrient, unless the species lost that ability at some point.
For instance, it is far more likely that humans could re-acquire the ability to synthesize ascorbate than it is that we might spontaneously gain the ability to synthesize our own omega-3 fatty acids. E. coli evolution experiments show it is possible, but the selection pressure has to be maintained over thousands of generations.
Applied human brainpower to the specific mechanisms of the threat is going to cure CCD much faster than bee breeding, which in turn is faster than natural bee evolution.
The only good behind the pruning of the population is that it is scaring the human agricultural industry into investing resources to stop further losses.
But the way it should be reduced would be by limiting "family size" not "family number". This allows for higher genetic diversity among the population. Which is always a good thing for long term survival or future genetic engineering experiments.
It seems that the way beekeepers raise bees, spreading positive genetic variants happens often. They split healthy colonies into two to hedge their bets against bad colonies bringing down the entire population.
If you select for resistance to CCD, other characteristics can (and will) vary negatively. Organisms have a finite amount of energy to grow and breed. If increased energy is channeled into one particular characteristic, then there is less energy for other characteristics.
A reduction in the population is never a good thing. Is this some sort of neo-eugenics viewpoint? Pruning the population will not create some sort of super-bee. That's not how it works.
It will enhance whatever qualities are being selected for, but it will reduce the genetic diversity in the population, making it vulnerable to a hole raft of new diseases and disorders.
Ideally what you want is for the genetic variant that protects against a specific disease to be already within the population and for that variant to simply spread, without any population loss. If you're losing population, that is a BAD thing. That means things are happening too quickly and you're in for a world of hurt in the long-term.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck