Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
A few weeks ago the series included a episode of interest to many of us, a debate between Steven Pinker and Ross Douthat on “Do we need God.” These gentlemen should need no introduction, save to add that this debate probably arose because of Douthat’s new book, Believe: Why Everyone Should be Religious, a book that he promoted widely (see some of my takes on it here). The video of that debate went online yesterday.
Here’s part of the website’s intro to the debate:
Today, nearly a third of Americans claim no religious affiliation, which would have been unimaginable a generation ago.
But the story of religion in the West is much more complicated than simple decline. In the past few years, we’ve entered what feels like a religious revival, or at least a leveling off in the decline of faith. Even as our society becomes more technologically advanced, many people are searching more intensely for meaning, purpose, and moral clarity. In other words, the question of faith hasn’t disappeared. If anything, it is even more urgent.
For years, intellectuals predicted that as religion receded, society would become calmer, more rational, and more scientific. Shed religious superstition, the theory went, and we would inherit a more enlightened public life. Instead, many societies haven’t become less fervent so much as differently fervent—driven by conspiracy, tribalism, and forms of moral conflict that often feel almost cosmic in intensity.
The premise of our Things That Matter debates, sponsored by Bank of America, is simple but essential. We want to revive the tradition that has long made the United States exceptional: our ability to argue openly across deep divides while still remaining part of the same civic community. Disagreement does not have to mean contempt. And since religion is one of the most politically charged topics in public life, it felt fitting to begin here.
Where does morality come from without God? Are our ideas of human dignity, moral obligation, and human rights ultimately grounded in a transcendent reality—or are they products of human reason alone? Are the apparent benefits of religion simply the community and rituals it nurtures, rather than the truth of its claims?
You can hear the 57-minute debate by clicking below (I hope). It’s moderated by lawyer and commentator Sarah Isgur, who seems to be a secular Jew. It begins with summaries by Douthat and Pinker (about 4 minutes each), and then Isgur asks questions to Pinker and Douthat, questions that were clearly given to the debaters in advance (they have notes to answer them).
My take: Pinker wiped the floor with Douthat. Of course I’m biased, but Douthat’s arguments were lame, and he didn’t even dwell on the “science-y” arguments he made when touting his book (fine-tuning, consciousness, etc.). (Steve could have rebutted those, too.) Instead, Douthat says that “God self-evidently exists” and doesn’t rebut Pinker’s arguments showing the well-known negative correlation between religiosity of countries (or American states) and their well being. Douthat also makes quasi intelligent-design arguments, one of which is that our minds were created by God to help us understand the universe. I guess he doesn’t understand evolution.
Audience questions, chosen in advance, begin about 19 minutes in (the debaters apparently knew the selected audience questions, too). They’re interspersed with more questions from the moderator. The best of her questions is at the end (55:15): “What is something that each of you would concede tonight—a point that the other made that you found compelling—that made you perhaps question some of your own positions on this?”
I would have preferred more of a slugfest, one in which Pinker and Douthat addressed each other, as they often do in Presidential debates (there’s a bit of that). This is all polite and respectful, but that detracts from what I like to see in a debate. But that’s due to the organizers, not the participants. And, sadly, there are no before-and-after votes. In my view, humanism won hands down over religion.
And we have more photos. Today’s come from Jan Malik, documenting the birds of Barnegut Inlet in New Jersey. Jan’s captions and IDs are indented, and you can enlarge the photos by clicking on them.
My previous batch from the Barnegat Inlet covered geese and ducks. It’s time for some of the other coastal birds now.
Immature Double-crested Cormorant (Nannopterum auritum). In contrast to diving ducks, these birds have no buoyancy problem and submerge easily.
Common Loon (Gavia immer). Judging by the slightly pinkish gape at the base of its bill and the fuzzy transition between black and white, this is an immature bird that stays on coastal bay waters before maturing and returning to quiet inland lakes to breed:
Another loon, this one with a mangled crustacean that I suspect is an Atlantic blue crab (Callinectes sapidus). I wonder if a diving loon preferentially picks a freshly molted crab the way we select ripe fruit:
Not a great loon picture, but we can see enough of the prey’s fins to identify the fish as an Oyster Toadfish (Opsanus tau), a species in which males provide parental care to eggs and young. The fish was big and bony, so the loon struggled a bit to swallow it. That fish would be a terrible choice for performing the Fish Slapping Dance. For the loon, it would be preferable to swallow its catch underwater, because at the surface it may be stolen by gulls, who know where a bird has dived and circle above waiting for it to reappear:
A couple of Savannah Sparrows were hopping on the rocks. I suspect that this pale bird with very little yellow in its brow is an Ipswich Sparrow, a subspecies (Passerculus sandwichensis princeps) that breeds on the sand spit of Sable Island off Nova Scotia:
Three species of shorebirds are common in winter at the Barnegat Inlet, all quite similar at first glance in size and plumage, but each occupying a different ecological niche. First, the Ruddy Turnstones (Arenaria interpres), here trying to sleep—probably using only one half of their brain to watch for predators, in unihemispheric slow-wave sleep. Their bills are short, stubby, and slightly upturned, adapted for—just as their name suggests—turning over beach debris to search for invertebrates hiding underneath:
Next, the Dunlins (Calidris alpina). They feed, roost, and migrate in large flocks. Unlike Turnstones, their bills are long, slender, and sensitive, used for probing tidal mudflats for worms and crustaceans:
Last, there are the Purple Sandpipers (Calidris maritima). Their bills are more “general purpose” than those of the other two species. Their covert feathers do show a purple sheen in the right light:
Purple Sandpipers and Dunlins are not very afraid of people on their wintering grounds; they may rest a few meters from a quiet observer. But the slightest hint of danger can trigger the whole flock to take flight in an instant—only to land nearby a moment later:
Purple Sandpipers are adapted to rocky coasts, where they feed on mussels exposed during low tides and on other invertebrates. The undersides of their feet must have a texture that allows them to walk sure‑footed on slime‑covered, slippery rocks:
They have also evolved Silly Walks:
A distant Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina), a frequent sight in the Inlet, always seems to look at the jetty with disappointment when it notices that this prime haul‑out spot is occupied by people:
As I was about to leave, the colors of the sunset behind a distant house caught my attention, so I took a picture, thinking little of it. Only back home—rather like the character in Antonioni’s Blowup—did I realize that the picture hides a predator the sleeping shorebirds must be on guard against. To be honest, I can’t be sure this was a flesh‑and‑blood predator and not one made of polystyrene, but the impression remains:
Welcome to Thursday, March 12, 2026, and National Milky Way Day, celebrating my favorite American candy bar. From the link:
There are actually two versions of the Milky Way. The Milky Way known in the United States is sold as the Mars bar around the world, while the global Milky Way bar is similar to the American 3 Musketeers bar and doesn’t have the caramel topping. There also have been a number of variations besides the original Milky Way, such as Milky Way Midnight (previously Milky Way Dark) and Milky Way Cookie Dough. The original Milky Way and its variations are celebrated and enjoyed today on National Milky Way Day!
I have had a deep-fried Mars bar (battered and fried in fish oil) in Edinburgh, and it was good! Here from the Wikipedia entry is a comparison of the U.S. (left) and global (right) Milky Ways with different fillings:
Milky Ways were advertised as appetite-curbers to eat between meals, resulting in a famous ad:
Once marketed as a snack food that would not intrude on regular meals, modern marketing portrays the Milky Way as a snack reducing mealtime hunger and curbing the appetite between meals.
A widely known advertisement was debuted in 1989, featuring a red 1951 Buick Roadmaster and a vehicle that resembles a blue 1959 Cadillac Series 62 (lacking its dual headlights) racing, with the former eating everything in sight and the latter eating a Milky Way. The advertisement ends with the bridge to Dinnertown being out and the now fat red car being too heavy to jump the gap while the blue car makes the jump. The advertisement returned albeit edited in 2009, removing the claim that the Milky Way is not an appetite spoiler.
Remember this intro to the Hitchcock television show? If you do, you’re a geezer!
Readers are welcome to mark notable events, births, or deaths on this day by consulting the March 12 Wikipedia page.
Da Nooz:
First a discussion by NYT writers you may want to read (it isn’t archived yet, but click on it if you have a subscription):
*And here’s the top front page of the NYT from yesterday afternoon, highlighting its biggest stories, and I can see nothing but opprobrium towards the U.S. Yes, we now are pretty sure that the U.S. screwed up and hit a girls school, killing many children, but I swear that the NYT seems almost gleeful about that, at least about it being the fault of the U.S. and not Iran. (Would it have been the headline story if it were a misfired Iranian missile?). Click page to enlarge. If you want any articles and don’t subscribe, go here , click on an article, which you won’t be able to read, and then look for its URL on one of the archive sites.
Here are the op-eds, all of a similar tenor. Can you spot the heterodox column? See the next item.
I swear that on my grumpier days I see the NYT as a useful idiot for progressives who hate America, and in the case of the war I have a dark fantasy that the NYT newsroom would erupt with glee if Trump’s attack on Iran wound up not accomplishing anything. Today is one of those days.
*Okay, here’s an excerpt of Bret Stephens’ column, which you can also find archived here: “How does this end? Four scenarios for what comes next with Iran”. Here are Stephens’s four scenarios (bolding is mine):
Regime change is the most optimistic one. Some imagine it will take the form of the resumption of the mass demonstrations that the regime bloodily stamped out in January — millions of Iranians marching in dozens of cities, joined by police officers and soldiers and commanders from the conventional army, emboldened by American and Israeli air support, rising to tear down their rulers’ enfeebled apparatus of repression.
Nobody should discount this scenario, especially if Iran continues to be battered militarily and politically, perhaps with the loss of additional echelons of leadership. Nobody should count on it, either, at least not in the short term. . .
Regime modification — that is, a regime that stays in place but complies with U.S. and Israeli demands — is another optimistic scenario. It’s doubtful that Mojtaba Khamenei, the new supreme leader, will agree to surrender Iran’s nuclear and missile programs and cease support for regional proxies like Hezbollah. But the new Khamenei’s reign may be very short-lived. And whoever runs the regime next will have to come to grips with its vulnerability and isolation.
That isolation will be especially pronounced if U.S. forces seize Kharg Island, 15 or 16 miles off the Iranian coast in the Persian Gulf, which serves as the terminal for roughly 90 percent of Iran’s oil exports. American control would give the administration the whip hand over most of the regime’s remaining revenues, including its ability to pay salaries for soldiers and civil servants alike.
But perhaps the regime refuses to yield and the war carries on in much the same way for another two or three weeks before some sort of mutual cease-fire declaration, probably before President Trump’s planned visit to Beijing on March 31.
In this third scenario, all sides declare their own sort of victory and none of them quite believe it. . .
Reality, however, will catch up. The sanctions that have already crippled the regime economically will not be lifted. It’s hard to imagine the war ending before the United States and Israel attack Iran’s remaining nuclear sites, including its buried (but accessible) stores of highly enriched uranium. And any efforts by Iran to conduct spectacular terrorist attacks in the vein of Libya’s 1988 Lockerbie bombing, or to mine the Strait of Hormuz, will only result in another war. The era in which Iranian leaders thought themselves invulnerable is over.
This scenario has an ugly cousin: not regime change, but state collapse. The most worrisome form it could take would resemble Syria during its 13-year civil war, in which the regime would survive in some areas of Iran, fall in others, invite foreign intervention and lead to killing on an epic scale. Along with that killing would come waves of refugees throughout the Middle East and into Europe and Australia.
And Stephens gives his recommendation about what we should do:
What, then, should the Trump administration do? My prescription: Seize Kharg Island. Mine or blockade Iran’s remaining ports. Destroy as much Iranian military capability as possible over the next week or two, including a second Midnight Hammer operation to destroy what’s left of Iran’s nuclear capacity and know-how. And threaten the regime with further bombing if it massacres its own citizens, mounts terrorist attacks abroad or returns to nuclear work.
That constitutes the most realistic path to victory at the lowest plausible price in lives, risk and treasure. And for all its admitted dangers, it gives Iran’s people their best chance of winning their freedom. Not bad for a one-month war its critics warned would be another Iraq.
I am a fan of Stephens. He may be labeled as a conservative, but I think both his analysis of wars (both Iran and Gaza) and his recommendations are sensible. Of course, he’s Jewish, probably, like me, of the secular variety. There is, however, one problem with his recommendations above: how can we tell if Iran returns to nuclear work? Will there be unannounced inspections? Otherwise, his recommendations seem solid.
*Every night on NBC the lead news is, as it should be, about the war with Iran. But very quickly the latest news turns into a report on how the price of gas is going up. Granted, this affects nearly every price in America, because everything is delivered, but there are lives, freedom, and the fate of the Middle East at stake. I know I don’t use much gas, but I do buy stuff, and still I can’t really worry about price increases (farmers, of course, can). Still, it’s in all of our interests, as Stephens recommends above, that the Strait of Hormuz be open for transport of oil (it carries 20% of the world’s oil). Bombing Kharg Island in the Persian Gulf, as Stephens recommends above, will raise oil prices even more, for 90% of Iran’s oil flows through pipelines to that bit of land.
And as I write this on Wednesday afternoon I see that three commercial ships have been attacked in the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran is laying mines there. From the WSJ:
Three commercial ships were struck around the Strait of Hormuz on Wednesday as Iran stepped up its efforts to halt traffic through the critical oil conduit.
U.S. forces said they had destroyed 16 Iranian mine-laying vessels. The head of U.S. Central Command said that its focus remains on destroying Iran’s missiles and drones and degrading its ability to interrupt shipping in the strait.
The International Energy Agency said its member countries would release 400 million barrels of oil, the largest reserves distribution in history.
Other news tacked onto the above by the WSJ:
French President Emmanuel Macron is hosting a video conference call with leaders of the Group of Seven advanced economies to discuss ways to mitigate the energy crisis.
The U.S. told Israel that it was “not happy” with recent attacks on Iranian energy facilities and told Israel not to do it again unless approved by Washington.
One of the seven members of the Iranian women’s soccer delegation who were granted humanitarian visas by Australia has changed her mind.
*More from The World Hates Jews Department: Reader Bill sent some data from The Polarization Research Lab about Americans’ reactions to a Jew being killed for being a Jew, and the data aren’t pretty (bolding is theirs):
For six weeks our national polarization tracking survey included an item measuring public support for an explicitly antisemitic murder—an act motivated by a victim’s Jewish identity. Our data include 6,000 interviews from YouGov (May-July 2025).
Direct support for antisemitic murder is low but meaningful at 2.8%–a level comparable to what we measure for political violence. However, the key finding is the alarmingly high level of public indifference. Our study shows that 8.3% of Americans are indifferent to an explicitly antisemitic murder. This figure is four times larger than the indifference we observe toward other types of political murder. Together, 11.1% of Americans either support or are indifferent to the murder of a Jew simply because the victim was Jewish.
. . .The results presented in this report on support and indifference for antisemitic violence reveal that polling simply on support for political violence may mask deeply concerning patterns of indifference for hate-based violence. Our results are similar to those found in recent work by the Anti-Defamation League, where polling found that 87% of Americans disagree with recent acts of antisemitic violence and 85% disagree that violent acts were necessary. These data highlight the importance of asking unambiguous survey questions about political violence so that we can collect the most accurate data on what is driving hate in America and allocate resources with precision.
Survey design
The survey item was designed according to best practices for measuring political violence, ensuring high-quality data by confirming that:
The crime’s motivation was unambiguous.
The perpetrator had been adjudicated guilty, removing any doubt about the facts of the case.
Data were collected from high-quality samples using attention checks to ensure data integrity.
Survey question: “Alan Whitle was convicted of murder. He was arrested by police after surveillance footage was found showing him stabbing a prominent member of the local Jewish community to death. Whitle targeted the victim because the victim was Jewish, driven by opposition to the war in Gaza. Do you support or oppose Whitle’s actions?”
Reader Bill, who sent me the link to that report. , added in his email, “”I can’t believe this. . . .well perhaps, I can”
I told you that nobody likes the Jews! (Which reminds me of a joke that I’ll spare you right now.)
The San Diego Zoo Safari Park announced the births of four male cheetah cubs, the first of their species to be born at the facility since 2020.
The zoo said first-time mother Kelechi gave birth to the cubs on Jan. 24.
“Just as they do in native habitats, Kelechi and her cubs are bonding in a private, behind-the-scenes den at the Carnivore Conservation Center,” zoo officials wrote in the announcement. “The cubs are now emerging from their den, giving guests an opportunity to see them as part of an Ultimate Safari.”
The zoo said cheetah mothers are very attentive to their babies.
“During these vital early months, Kelechi spends much of her time grooming her cubs and keeping them close. As they continue to grow more curious and active, they play and climb all over her as she keeps a close eye on them, chirping to call them closer when needed,” the announcement said.
The brothers are expected to form a lifelong bond.
“Male cheetahs, like these four brothers, form groups called ‘coalitions’ that will hunt and travel together for life, a unique trait for this primarily solitary species,” officials said.
Here’s an adorable video. Listen to those babies squeak (adult cheetahs don’t roar, but chirp:
Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili and Andrzej have an amusing interchange:
Hili: When chaos starts to prevail, we need stable points of orientation.
Andrzej: Some search for the path by looking at the stars, others by inspecting the bowls.\
In Polish
Hili: Kiedy chaos zaczyna dominować potrzebujemy stałych punktów orientacyjnych.
Ja: Jedni szukają drogi patrząc w gwiazdy, inni sprawdzając miseczki.
Jango is in love with Hili, but the Princess spurns him:
From Masih: an Iranian official threatens all potential protestors. Oy!
Iranian authority openly threatening to kill its critics on national television.
I invite everyone to listen carefully to these threats broadcast on Iranian state TV.
“Confiscating property is nothing… we will make your mothers mourn you.”
This is not abnormal in Istanbul. If you’re a cat lover, you must go there! English translation:
In Istanbul, cats aren’t “strays”—they’re full-fledged citizens. There’s an unwritten law of collective care where shops and restaurants welcome them as part of the family. This little kitten isn’t begging for scraps; it’s savoring its rightful place at the table. A shining example of coexistence for the world!
Or, “I’m Mehmet and I’ll be your server tonight.”
En Estambul, los gatos no son “callejeros”, son ciudadanos de pleno derecho. 🇹🇷🐱 Existe una ley no escrita de cuidado colectivo donde los comercios y restaurantes los integran como parte de su familia. Este gatito no está pidiendo sobras, está disfrutando de su lugar en la mesa.… pic.twitter.com/3SJHGtGdTW
This French Jewish boy was gassed as soon as he arrived in Auschwitz. He was two years old, and would be 86 today had he lived. https://t.co/MBpP07HMvc
It must be strike season at American universities. Spring seems to be the time when well-paid, privileged, and entitled graduate students look to their unions—unions like the United Auto Workers—to demand even higher wages, other privileges, and, as I posted yesterday, political statements by some universities.
As I reported yesterday, there’s an impending graduate-student strike at Columbia, with the union demanding not only big salary increases for the students, but also that the University do all manner of anti-Israel things, like divesting from Israel and withdrawing from opening a program in Tel Aviv. That seems to me a violation of institutional neutrality, and I trust that Columbia won’t en
Now Harvard is follow suit, threatening a strike about wages, though fortunately there are no demands there about Israel. (It’s unlikely that any union demands related to Israel would be accepted by either university, as they’ve both been subject to lawsuits for ongoing antisemitism.)
As the article in the Harvard Crimson reports, both teaching fellow and research assistants (two ways that grad students can get paid while getting advanced degrees) want raises, with teaching fellows demanding a huge increase in pay.
Harvard is not biting, so a strike may be impending.
Click the link to read the Crimson article:
This is a bit complex; see what you make of it. First, the demands (Crimson quotes indented):
Harvard rejected graduate student workers’ demands for sweeping wage increases at a Tuesday bargaining session, countering with more modest raises and declining to equalize pay between teaching fellows and research assistants.
The proposals come as contract negotiations between Harvard and Harvard Graduate Student Union-United Auto Workers stretch past a year and union members vote in an ongoing strike authorization vote launched last Tuesday.
Last month, HGSU-UAW proposed a plan to close the wage gap between teaching fellows and research assistants, which would raise TF pay by roughly 74 percent — bringing it in line with the equivalent of a 10-month RA salary. The proposal also included a 12 percent increase to base salaries and annual raises of five percent.
Harvard instead offered a 10 percent raise over four years and a nearly 3 percent raise in the first year, amounting to annual raises of roughly 2.5 percent, according to a Harvard spokesperson.
It declined to match TF and RA monthly pay, according to HGSU-UAW president Sara V. Speller.
It appears, though that TF and RA pay is the same for the first four years of graduate fellowships:
Under Harvard’s current pay structure, graduate students earn roughly $50,000 annually during the first four years of their program, typically comprising two years of fellowship funding and two years of teaching fellowships supplemented with salary top ups and summer funding.
But those supplements expire after four semesters and summer funding ends after four years. During the remainder of their time at Harvard, many graduate students rely solely on teaching fellowships — which pay roughly $6,500 per section.
Now $50,000 is certainly enough to live, even in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Notice that this is appears to be a minimum salary, as there is summary salary and diverse “top ups”. After four years, you can either teach or be an RA, and that seems to be when the differential kicks in. I know that in the biological sciences there’s no substantial disparity even after four years, as they somehow find money to adequately support all students, but perhaps it’s in the humanities where they are demanding salary increases. And I’m unable to find out much about the humanities given the time constraints of time for writing posts.
Given that no student has to pay tuition, and the salary is what the university gives them on top of tuition remission, I was told that in biology the students are sitting pretty throughout their entire graduate career, even if they have to teach after four years. They are not making $6500 per year. In fact, they’re getting paid well on top of a free education at Harvard, so one may argue that these kinds of union demands are excessive. One of those who feel that way is reader Bat, who who called my attention to the Crimson article and commented,
Much like scholarship uni athletics and the obscenities of NIL pay [universities now paying student athletes] and free agency portals for colleges, I just think none of this [graduate-student unions] has a place in higher education.
Throw the rascals out. Plenty of hungry and bright applicants in the sea (as you informed Harvard when turning them down for grad school years ago if I recall correctly).
Sometimes we geezers are right. You kids get off my lawn!
Hooray! Two more groups of photos came in this morning and so we’re good through Friday (I have one in reserve and can cobble together a few others).
The regulars are pulling their weight, and here we have an informative text-and-photo educational post by regular Athayde Tonhasca Júnior. The subject is one of his favorites: bee behavior. You can enlarge Athayde’s photos by clicking on them, and his text is indented.
Witty impostors
On its release in 1956, Invasion of the Body Snatchers did not impress the critics. A spiel about alien plant spores growing into sociopathic duplicates of human beings was considered too outlandish. While the intelligentsia trashed the film, the producers laughed all the way to the bank because it was a commercial hit: the public loved it. One of the reasons for the film’s success was its ‘aliens among us’ theme. The idea of ill-intentioned beings circulating freely and unsuspectedly in the mist of our society is disturbing and gripping – especially during the McCarthy era, when Americans were inspecting their closets for hidden communists. ‘Enemies within’ inspired and inspires countless tales about spies, infiltrated assassins, covert extra-terrestrials, psycho cyborgs and zombified humans.
Despite what assorted internet sages tell us, tales of aliens’ secret forays into world domination are entertaining fibs. But the natural world provides many real body snatching thrills such as parasitic flies that zombify their victims or induce them to dig their own graves, or wasps that make their hosts work for them. These cases involve species we may already suspect to be mischievous. That some bumble bees could play similar tricks may surprise many.
Superficially, cuckoo bumble bees, Bombus species of the subgenus Psithyrus, look like any of their social (non-parasitic) relatives. But a close inspection of a female’s hind leg shows no pollen basket (corbicula), which is a shallow cavity surrounded by a fringe of long hairs, a structure used to store pollen to be carried away.
She has no corbiculae because she gathers no pollen; cuckoo bumble bees do not found their own nests nor produce a worker caste: there are only male and female reproductive forms. Instead, a female invades the nest of a social bumble bee, lays her own eggs, which are cared for by her unsuspecting hosts. Raising the young at another species’ expenses is known as brood parasitism, a behaviour displayed by some cuckoo birds (order Cuculiformes) – hence Psithyrus bees’ common name.
Cuckoo bumble bees go beyond brood parasitism; they don’t just lay their eggs in a host’s nest and leave them to themselves like cuckoo birds do. These bees take over the victim’s colony, a form of exploitation known as social parasitism. Among insects, this strategy is employed mostly by bees, wasps and ants – of which slave-making ants are notorious – but also by other taxa such as the large blue butterfly (Phengaris arion). Once inside the host’s nest, the female cuckoo and her young live off pollen and nectar pilfered from their hosts, so they are also kleptoparasites – animals that steal food or prey from another animal.
We should pause to appreciate the challenges a cuckoo bumble bee faces. First, she has to locate the nest of a suitable host. She must then get in through a narrow entrance protected by a mob armed with poisonous stings and sharp mandibles. Once these defences have been overwhelmed, she must be able to usurp the colony from the host queen, lay her own eggs and induce the host workers to feed her and her developing brood. A tall order for any brood, social and klepto- parasite.
Finding a nest is reasonably straightforward: like most social insects, cuckoo bumble bees rely on chemical signals from cuticular hydrocarbons to recognise nestmates, co-specific competitors and potential hosts. But locating a nest is just the start. It must be of suitable size: if too big, the defenders are likely to overwhelm and kill the trespasser; if too small, there will not be enough workers to care for her larvae. As an example, there’s a 100% survival for vestal cuckoo bumble bees invading buff-tailed bumble bee nests with five workers; survival drops to nil for colonies with fifty workers (Sramkova & Ayasse, 2009). To avoid disaster, the female cuckoo bumble bee assesses the size of the host colony possibly by their chemical signals and workers’ traffic (Lhomme & Hines, 2018).
After picking an appropriate target, the female cuckoo bumble bee must confront the residents, who understandably are not obliging. But the nest defenders face a formidable enemy: a cuckoo bumble bee is sturdier and better armed than her social counterparts. She has larger and stronger mandibles, more powerful sting muscles, an enlarged venom gland, and her ventral underside, a particularly vulnerable spot, is protected by thicker exoskeleton plates (sternites) (Richards, 1928). So, some cuckoo species use brute force: they bite, push and sting their way in.
But violence is not always necessary. Some species are let in because they mimic their host’s chemical signs. Others have no chemical signatures and display no aggressive behaviours; the host bees are not aware an enemy has sneaked in. The cuckoo will hide in a corner of the nest for a few days, long enough to acquire the scents of her host and blend in (Dronnet et al., 2005).
Once inside, our intruder has to deal with the queen, the only egg-laying member of the colony and thus the mother of all other bees, whose activities are controlled by their mum’s pheromones. Most cuckoo bumble bees don’t beat about the bush; they kill the queen and eat her eggs. Some species spare the deposed monarch, who loses control of her colony for reasons not completely understood: probably the usurper’s pheromones and physical aggression assure her dominance over the queen.
After sorting out the queen problem, the cuckoo bumble bee is free to lay her own eggs and induce the host workers to feed her and her developing young, although how this is done is largely unknown. The resulting male and female cuckoo bees will leave the nest by late summer and look for mating partners. Like most other bees, the male dies soon after intercourse, while the female will search for a safe spot underground to overwinter, just like her hosts. She will emerge from her slumber late, giving sufficient time for her hosts to establish their nests. The female cuckoo bee spends some time hopping from flower to flower, sipping nectar while her ovaries mature, so that she will be ready to find and conquer a bumble bee nest.
Of the 250 or so Bombus species, roughly 30 have evolved into parasitism. We have a poor grasp of cuckoo species’ biology and ecology, partly because they fly about for a relatively short time and their numbers are naturally low, since they don’t have a worker caste. Thus they are difficult to find and study. But the lack of information comes largely from prejudice. Parasites in general are not viewed sympathetically, especially those that target ‘cute and lovable’ victims such as bumble bees. As a result, cuckoo bumble bees are often absent from local species lists and conservation plans. But that’s a misguided view. Parasites and predators are integral components of ecosystems, preventing over-dominance of some species in favour of rarer ones (Frainer et al., 2018). Cuckoo species should be admired and valued for their physiological, morphological and behavioural adaptations that allow them to overcome the defences of highly organised colonies. These bees of ill-repute are in fact evolutionary marvels.
Dronnet, S. et al. 2005. Bumblebee inquilinism in Bombus (Fernaldaepsithyrus) sylvestris (Hymenoptera, Apidae): behavioural and chemical analyses of host-parasite interactions. Apidologie 36: 59–70.
Frainer, A. et al. 2018. Parasitism and the biodiversity-functioning relationship. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 33: 260–268.
Lhomme, P. & Hines, H. 2018. Ecology and evolution of cuckoo bumble bees. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 112: 122–140.
Richards, O.W. 1928. A revision of the European bees allied to Psithyrus quadricolor Lepeletier (Hymenoptera, Bombidae). Transactions of the Entomological Society of London 76: 345–365.
Sramkova, A. & Ayasse, M. 2009. Chemical ecology involved in invasion success of the cuckoo bumblebee Psithyrus vestalis and in survival of workers of its host Bombus terrestris. Chemoecology 19: 55–62.
Welcome to a “hump day” (“Дзень горба” in Belarusian); it’s Wednesday, March 11, 2026 and Debunking Day. Here’s one: You don’t have free will, even if you feel like it. As biochemist Anthony Cashmore said in the PNAS paper that turned me into a hard determinist:
Here I argue that the way we use the concept of free will is nonsensical. The beauty of the mind of man has nothing to do with free will or any unique hold that biology has on select laws of physics or chemistry. This beauty lies in the complexity of the chemistry and cell biology of the brain, which enables a select few of us to compose like Mozart and Verdi, and the rest of us to appreciate listening to these compositions. The reality is, not only do we have no more free will than a fly or a bacterium, in actuality we have no more free will than a bowl of sugar. The laws of nature are uniform throughout, and these laws do not accommodate the concept of free will.
And don’t listen to those compatibilists who make up new definitions of free will so we can have it despite the fact that we can never do other than what we did. Compatibilists are worried that if people accept determinism (which happens to be true), we’ll all become nihilists and never get out of bed—and society will fall apart. (This is the identical argument made by those promoting religious belief.) They’re wrong. People do just fine without religion (Scandinavia) and “free will” (determinists like Sapolsky and I are neither nihilists nor criminals).
President Trump said he was eyeing a quick end to the war in Iran, as some of his advisers privately urged him to look for an exit plan amid spiking oil prices and concerns that a lengthy conflict could spark political backlash.
Speaking to reporters in Florida on Monday, Trump characterized the military mission as mostly having achieved its goals. “We’re way ahead of schedule,” he said, adding he thought it would be over “very soon.”
He didn’t provide a clear timeline for ending the Iran operation. When asked about helping the Iranian people who have risen up against the regime, Trump sounded ready for a quick conclusion rather than to continue to push for leadership change.
“We want a system that can lead to many years of peace, and if we can’t have that, we might as well get it over with right now,” Trump said. He said he was disappointed in the appointment of Mojtaba Khamenei, son of the slain Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as Iran’s new supreme leader, a move that signals that Tehran won’t back down.
From the NYT:
In the days after President Trump launched U.S. forces in an attack against Iran, support for the strikes is far lower than what it has been at the beginnings of previous foreign conflicts.
So far, polls have found that most Americans oppose the Iran attacks. Support ranges from 27 percent in a Reuters/Ipsos poll to 50 percent in a Fox News poll. The wide variation suggests that public opinion is still taking shape as more Americans learn details of the attacks and the aftermath.
But even the highest level of public support for this conflict falls far lower than that at the start of most other conflicts, including World War II, the Korean War and the Iraq War.
Here’s a graph from the NYT article showing how little support this war has compared to others (in the initial days):
With Americans that opposed to our striking Iran, this will constitute strong pressure on Trump to get the conflict over with. It’s a bit disturbing that he’s not talking any more about regime change, and the nuclear issue seems to have disappeared. Without resolution of those issues, what will a quick “exit” accomplish, then? But see the next item!
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Iran is “badly losing” in the war and that Tuesday’s airstrikes would be the most intense yet of the campaign against the regime.
“We will not relent until the enemy is totally and decisively defeated, but we do so on our time line and at our choosing,” Hegseth told a joint press conference with Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
Earlier, Iran’s foreign minister said negotiations with the U.S. were off the table, after President Trump said the war will be over “very soon” but that the U.S. military campaign still has further to go.
And from the previous link:
The defense secretary set out three objectives for the U.S. campaign against Iran.
1. Destroy their missiles and their ability to make them.
2. Destroy their navy.
3. Permanently deny Iran nuclear weapons forever.
I don’t see how #3 can be accomplished without regime change. It would require a binding agreement by Iran, along with repeated and unannounced inspections of Iran’s uranium-enrichment facilities. But even that is not enough, as we know from previous experience. And how do we permanently destroy their ability to make missiles? Finally, they can always rebuild their navy. I fail to understand how these objectives can be achieved unless the government falls and is replaces by a democratic and friendlier one.
Nearly 48 hours since being appointed as the third supreme leader of the Islamic Republic in Iran’s history, Mojtaba Khamenei is nowhere to be seen.
No video message has been put out from him addressing the crowds of supporters that have gone onto the streets across Iran to pledge their allegiance to him, nor has a written statement been issued by him or his office. State media has relied on archive footage to introduce him to the audience, and state propaganda networks have heavily relied on AI video and stills to create an image of an all-wise leader who rightly inherits the mantle of leadership.
. . . One clue in the new leader’s absence may come from state media reports that he too has been injured in what’s being dubbed the “Ramadan War.” Perhaps his reported injuries have prevented him from appearing on video, though that wouldn’t explain the lack of a written statement. Another factor could be the disappointment expressed by US President Donald Trump in Mojtaba Khamenei’s appointment following his father’s assassination. Asked Monday if the new supreme leader has a target on his back, Trump responded that he didn’t want to say.
But even as the leader remains hidden from sight, it seems the wider body politic is still functioning with little suggestion of a change in the war posture; more public statements of allegiance have emerged from across the spectrum, with the likes of reformist former President Mohammad Khatami releasing a statement on Tuesday. Perhaps the mere thought that the position no longer remains vacant is enough to keep the war momentum going.
Or he could be scared of being killed. If any man in the world should be fearing for his life right now—save those on death row—it would be Khomenei, Jr. The last two sentences make little sense to me.
*Over at Quillette, Brian Stewart tells us that, despite its many good programs, “The United Nations is going broke.” But, adds Stewart, it has only itself to blame.
Yet the United Nations endures, not because its critics are wrong about its shortcomings, but because it’s better than nothing. This is faint praise, I realise. Still, it’s sobering to consider that, for all its flaws, the UN remains the only permanent standing forum where representatives of every nation can speak to their international counterparts—and, occasionally, even find ways to co-operate productively.
To give one example, it was in large part thanks to the World Health Organization, a specialised agency of the United Nations, that smallpox was eradicated in the 1970s. Other agencies and related organisations include the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, International Atomic Energy Agency, International Court of Justice, International Monetary Fund, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, and the World Bank. All of these multilateral entities have fairly earned their own critics. However, it’s hard to argue that the world would be a safer, healthier, or more culturally enriched place if they did not exist.
But the United Nations now faces a crisis that threatens to impair its global work. On 30 January, UN Secretary-General António Guterres warned that the body is on the brink of “imminent financial collapse,” citing record-high unpaid dues totalling nearly $1.6 billion (all figures US) and outdated budget rules. He cautioned that the UN could run out of cash by mid-2026, and urged member states to pay their assessed contributions in full and on time, or agree to fundamental financial reforms.
The U.S. has been responsible for a lot of the UN’s financial woes. Some of our refusal to pay is good (UNRWA), but other victims of withholding, like cuts to WHO contributions, don’t seem to deserve it.
The United States has long been the single biggest contributor to the UN’s regular budget and peacekeeping operations. That role has granted Washington outsized influence within international circles, but has also fuelled persistent domestic resentment among critics who ask why American taxpayers should underwrite an institution that often seems hostile to western interests.
As one might expect, Donald Trump is sympathetic to this constituency, and his administration (both during its first and second terms) has imposed sweeping cuts on payments to UN bodies, including the World Health Organization and the Human Rights Council. It also permanently halted funding to the UN agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA), which has been accused of serving the interests of Hamas. Last year, the Trump administration announced its withdrawal from the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), on the basis that the agency promotes “woke” and “divisive” cultural postures. This is actually the second time that Trump has ordered this move: He withdrew from UNESCO in 2019, but the United States rejoined in 2023 under Joe Biden’s watch.
Stewart also lauds the UN’s peacekeeping operations, with eleven underway. UNIFIL, the one in Lebanon, is however a huge waste of money, as UNIFIL does nothing to carry out its mission. Here’s a map of the rest of them:
(from article): A map of all UN field missions. Special Political Missions are indicated in purple. Peacekeeping operations are indicated in blue.
In the end, Stewart argues that the UN’s “political theater” has acted to scupper its mission and reduce the dosh the organization rakes in:
It’s a pity that all of this substantive work often gets overshadowed by the performative political theatre that grabs headlines. But to some extent, UN officials only have themselves to blame. The UN chief recently congratulated Iran’s mullahs on the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic Revolution—which, in case anyone needs reminding, ushered in the ruthless theocracy that just slaughtered tens of thousands of protesters.
This kind of misjudgment contaminates the whole UN brand, not just the organisation’s top administrator. And it isn’t surprising that politicians in many parts of the world are getting tired of paying his invoices.
It’s a pity that the people who run the UN or its agencies are so often hamhanded. If they’d chosen some good people unlike António Guterres and Francesca Albanese, the positive effect would ramify throughout the organization. The UN needs a complete restructuring and an ethical leadership.
*You’ll remember that the Iranian women’s soccer team, before playing a match in Australia, refused to sing their country’s national anthem. It was reported that on the team bus they were making the “SOS” sign, for they’d surely face punishment when they went home. Now I see this with a link to the story that five of them have defected (click photo for link to Jerusalem Post story). Also, Trump offered to take all 26 members of the team into the U.S. if they wanted to come.
Five members of the Iranian women’s soccer team, who visited Australia to play in the Women’s Asian Cup, were granted permission to stay in the country on Tuesday after international concern broke out over their safety.
An inside source told CNN that two additional people, a player and a member of staff, had also decided to stay in Australia, though officials have yet to confirm.
Last Monday, the players were recorded standing in silence during their national anthem, an action taken by hardliners in Iran as treason.
The women were reportedly forced to sing the anthem during their following two matches, and perform the military salute, but were filmed signing “Help” as they were driven away after their 2-0 loss to the Philippines last week.
Australian Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke, who has agreed to provide the women with visas, told reporters that the other team members were also welcome to stay in Australia, noting that the initial five players wanted to stay.
Australian officials identified the players as Zahra Sarbali Alishah, Mona Hamoudi, Zahra Ghanbari, Fatemeh Pasandideh, and Atefeh Ramezanizadeh. They were staying at an undisclosed location under police protection, officials said.
Simon Leske, the co-founder and director of Kindra Migration Lawyers, told The Jerusalem Post that Burke had used his unique powers to grant the women visas and that the players had likely received the subclass 449 temporary humanitarian visa.
“I believe, based on my experience, that it’s likely to be the subclass 449, humanitarian stay, temporary visa, which is a visa that can be used by the minister in very exceptional circumstances where there’s a need for a very quick grant to allow an individual to stay, and would then allow, subsequently, for the minister to grant a permanent visa, and that might take a little bit longer,” Leske explained.
While not able to comment on the diplomatic implications of the move, Leske shared that many Australians campaigned tirelessly for the women, including members of Australia’s own Iranian diaspora community.
“The fact that the minister actually traveled to Brisbane to meet with the players is quite an exceptional situation. I believe that’s probably due to the pressure within the community to show support,” he explained.
This is very heartening. The players surely knew that they would face retribution from Iran, and I’m wondering whether the other 21 players are actually going back to Iran. They will be regarded as traitors, and I wouldn’t bet on them surviving. Of course those who stay in Australia or the U.S. face the horrible possibility that their relatives will be punished, so it wasn’t an easy decision. But they decided not to sing the national anthem, and surely they knew what that would lead to. I applaud them. And see the two tweets from Masih below.
Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili’s again wondering, “Where’s the kibble?” But unlike Godot, the kibble always appears.
Hili: Life is a constant waiting.
Andrzej: For what?
Hili: For the next meal.
In Polish:
Hili: Życie jest ciągłym czekaniem.
Ja: Na co?
Hili: Na kolejny posiłek.
Two tweets from Masih today, both about the Iranian women footballers who refused to go back to Iran. Sound up:
“Stay here. Stay here.”
“ Help our girls, Help our girls”
When I heard the desperate cry of this Iranian man in Australia, begging for protection for the women football players who were threatened simply for refusing to sing the Islamic Republic’s anthem, I couldn’t hold back my… pic.twitter.com/WAxRLeyYBW
This is what “No to Hijab Day” actually looks like.
Same Iranian women.
Same players.
The only difference is freedom.
I hope FIFA and the Olympic Committee look carefully at this photo and understand how the Islamic Republic uses sports to normalize an apartheid regime.#Iranpic.twitter.com/eYX7oYYs39
From UBC political scientist Sally Sharif via Luana. LLMs are “Large language modules,” a form of AI. AI is going to be the death of universities, or so Luana maintains. (I am agnostic right now.)
I just gave a closed-book, pen-and-paper midterm exam in my 300-level course at UBC with 100 students. All exams were graded by an experienced graduate-level TA according to a rubric.
A French feminist gig chanting “Death, death to the IDF”. It astounds me how young western women do propaganda for Hamas who would murder every single one of them. pic.twitter.com/PXDj3ZD405
From reader Bryan, who says, “I used a straightedge on my phone screen, and also looked without glasses – this illusion is amazing.” Yep, the lines are straight.
— Wholesome Side of 𝕏 (@itsme_urstruly) March 9, 2026
One I reposted from The Auschwitz Memorial. Imagine hearing this speech as soon as you arrived at Auschwitz (and survived the “selection”:
PODCAST | The first moments at the Auschwitz camp
„You have arrived not at a sanatorium but at a German concentration camp in which the only way out is through the chimney. If someone doesn’t like this, he may at once go to the wires. If there are any Jews in this transport,… pic.twitter.com/vbKswlLHAc
One from Dr. Cobb. Mother Earwig (sounds like a Beatrix Potter book):
Female Common Earwigs Forficula auricularia are very good mothers. After spending the winter guarding her batch of eggs she cares for the nymphs for several weeks and regurgitates food for them. The nymphs will disperse when they are large enough to fend for themselves. Dartmoor, Devon
