Skip to main content

Beeing organised

We bee amazingly organised, and I quote:

When 10,000 honeybees fly the coop to hunt for a new home, usually a tree cavity, they have a unique method of deciding which site is right: With great efficiency they narrow down the options and minimize bad decisions.

Their technique, says [...] biologist Thomas Seeley, includes coalition building until a quorum develops.

This all by an, ahem, beestie about the size of a match folded in half! Why can’t we proud/thundering/organised/eager great bipeds — weighing perhaps 20,000 to 60,000 times as much apiece and with brains massing maybe 700 times as much as the whole critter — manage similar functions anything like as well? D’oh?

Comments

Leon RJ Brooks said…
This sounded like a rigged question at the surface: the aviators are kind of specialised to their task.

However, given an individual 700x brain-mass advantage plus bonus flexibility and tools like computers available (even pencils and notepads), surely we could expect to do at least a little better?

I think the enemy is the nefarious “I know how to do that” with the appended silent/invisible “kinda, sorta, in one or a few special cases and ways, etc...”
Leon RJ Brooks said…
In terms of brain-mass, our absolute advantage is potentially much larger than 700x. For example, it seems that data from every single facet (their formal name is ommatidia) in a bee eye is separately acquisitioned and mentally processed.

On top of this, it seems that — while high-definition-ish for a compound eye — a bee sees roughly only a sixtieth as well as a typical human, even given great swages of ommatidia.

So if we assume 60x better eyes and (very) roughly 7000x as much brain matter, we should be recognising things (a thumbwave figure) roughly 400,000 times more effectively.

Bees typically have three extra relatively simplistic (likely general light-levels and detection-of-movement only) eyes called ocelli, but the simplicity and extra processing cost, I guess, would count against any assistance they promised, rather than for.

All in all, heh, it looks like one human bean should see (and think about seeing) at least tens of thousands of times more effectively than a typical productive honey-maker.

Given roughly ten bees reporting on each potential site, plus the avasilability to the bean of assistant artefects like binoculars, maps, telephones, Internet, writing, vehicles et al, the aforementioned and humungous bean should be getting at least thousands of times as much processed information back to home base as a miniswarm of bees.

So even allowing for, say, 90% laziness or demotivation, said beans should be consistently hundres of times better data collectors than a miniswarm. What this implies about our motivation levels is not... well... very motivating.

Popular posts from this blog

An Open and Shut response to Darl McBride

Hi, Darl. I see you’re being dishonest again . It’d be really nice if you could shoot straight for a change, but I think Kerry’s Dad will be selling snowplows in Hell first. Three years ago, when I first joined The SCO Group, we focused the company on the area that was most profitable and provided the most benefit to customers, investors, resellers, developers and employees: UNIX No, you focused the company on suing people, which was most profitable to lawyers and provided some golden parachutes for your buddies. People thought we were crazy. They were right. But since SCO owns the UNIX operating system The SCO Group does not own UNIX® in any sense of the word. The Open Group owns the UNIX trademark, definition and other rights , The SCO Group does not. The SCO Group doesn’t even own the UnixWare® or OpenServer® code, the rights to those are held by Novell and TSG use them only by permission and under certain conditions — which they have violate...

5x7 text dot-matrix in five minutes...

This is a fairly primitive toy I threw together today for a specific purpose, published in case it’s any use to others... feed it a list of words as command arguments, which it will then display as a 5x7 ASCII dotmatrix with ‘#’ as a dot & ‘_’ as a blank. /* * display text using a 5x7 bitmap font in ASCII letters */ static unsigned char font [] [5] = { { 0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00 }, // 0x20 32 { 0x00,0x00,0x6f,0x00,0x00 }, // ! 0x21 33 { 0x00,0x07,0x00,0x07,0x00 }, // " 0x22 34 { 0x14,0x7f,0x14,0x7f,0x14 }, // # 0x23 35 { 0x00,0x07,0x04,0x1e,0x00 }, // $ 0x24 36 { 0x23,0x13,0x08,0x64,0x62 }, // % 0x25 37 { 0x36,0x49,0x56,0x20,0x50 }, // & 0x26 38 { 0x00,0x00,0x07,0x00,0x00 }, // ' 0x27 39 { 0x00,0x1c,0x22,0x41,0x00 }, // ( 0x28 40 { 0x00,0x41,0x22,0x1c,0x00 }, // ) 0x29 41 { 0x14,0x08,0x3e,0x08,0x14 }, // * 0x2a 42 { 0x08,0x08,0x3e,0x08,0x08 }, ...

Citizens Augmenting Government Waste

So here we have Microsoft-funded “ Citizens Against Government Waste ” (CAGW) heavily criticising Massachusetts’s switch to an internationally accepted and open document standard (not open source, open standard — but I seem to remember a large monopolist who frequently confuses the two when it suits them). I remember CAGW, they were the organisation who had dead people writing in to support Microsoft in court a few years ago — thanks to sbergman27 for the link — is this “the dead hand of CAGW” at work again? Let’s follow the money and find out. Who stands to lose the most money and control if Massachusetts switches to an unencumbered document format? Big surprise, it’s CAGW sponsor Microsoft, through their dominant MS-Office suite. Why did CAGW list Microsoft’s suite last, after two other much-less-dominant examples which are waning anyway? If you’re inclined to wallow in additional irony, consider that at leas...