this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2025
768 points (93.2% liked)

Science Memes

17959 readers
1612 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] KingGimpicus@sh.itjust.works 63 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

Source?

Im gonna go out on a limb and say this is udder cowshit. Rats are mammals, as are raccoons, squirrels, and whole fucking masses of little basically unfarmable varmints. You're telling me that there's like 12 farm cows for every wild rat on earth?

Horse. Shit.

[–] needanke@feddit.org 72 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

The source apperently takes the percentages by biomass, not by count as it seems. So small varmints will not have as much of an impact as a human or cow would.

[–] hellfire103@lemmy.ca 33 points 5 months ago

in the comments section. straight up 'sourcing it'. and by 'it', haha, well. let's justr say. My pnas.

[–] then_three_more@lemmy.world 14 points 5 months ago (4 children)

Which I think is intentionally disingenuous as it massively favours the large mammals over the far higher number of species of smaller mammals.

For example you'd need over 70 squeal monkeys to make to the biomass of an average American.

Humans and other great apes can be considered mega fauna, so it doesn't seem surprising that us and the animals we consume make up a higher percentage of bio mass. Were bigger.

[–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

I don't think it's disingenuous. It represents the total share of resource consumption. If something has 2x the biomass, it consumed 2x the materials needed to produce that biomass (purely in terms of the makeup of the body, that is)

I don't think count by itself is very relevant. There's more bacteria in a glass of water than there are humans in a country, but what does that tell you, exactly?

Although I do agree the infographic should be changed to specify biomass

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] theparadox@lemmy.world 21 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Quick Internet search.... https://ourworldindata.org/wild-mammals-birds-biomass

They are referring to biomass.

  • 1 cow ~ 1200 lbs / 545 kg

  • 1 rat ~ 0.5 lbs / 0.25 kg

1 cow ~ 2400 rats by biomass

[–] KingGimpicus@sh.itjust.works 26 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (11 children)

Well thats not what the infographic says. It specifies "mammals", not "mammals by weight".

OK so how many tons of cow are accounted for by whales?

Or does the survey cherry pick land animals too?

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 59 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Not saying at all this isn't a problem, but I hate bullshit statements that are deliberately deceiving.

These numbers are all by mass. Not actual number. Cows are huge. So are chickens, for birds. How this comic is laid out infers that there's 60 cows for every 40 of every other mammal, and that isn't even remotely close to true.

[–] silasmariner@programming.dev 29 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I think biomass is probably more important than sheer number for these comparisons. Although I would also accept 'proportion of world's arable land being used to sustain them' as I suspect the ratios come out pretty similar for obvious reasons.

[–] Limonene@lemmy.world 26 points 5 months ago (5 children)

The problem is that the infographic says "of all the mammals on Earth", which means individuals, not biomass. So the infographic is objectively false.

[–] Mustakrakish@lemmy.world 21 points 5 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Gustephan@lemmy.world 54 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I don't think this is loss. I'm ready to eat crow if I'm proven wrong, but I think the real joke is the amount of time people will spend staring at this image and trying to figure out how it's loss

[–] mysticpickle@lemmy.ca 34 points 5 months ago (2 children)

You forgot the citation bro.

[–] ryedaft@sh.itjust.works 24 points 5 months ago
[–] Bosht@lemmy.world 23 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Title made me think they were doing some 4 levels deep "loss" meme. It almost has it but frame 3 isn't close.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] graycube@lemmy.world 23 points 5 months ago (5 children)

Are pets livestock, or did they miss a category of mammals? In the US there are more dogs than children.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] OpenStars@piefed.social 15 points 5 months ago

birbs are only 2/3rds unreal confirmed ✅

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 14 points 5 months ago

I didn't realise rhinos were so small. No wonder I never see them.

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 14 points 5 months ago (1 children)

End of the Holocene, Last of the Megafauna party.

[–] FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

It’s so fucking surreal to me how much megafauna extinctions have happened in the past 50’000 years.

I don’t think people realise we had like giant land birds (3+ meters tall), megasloths (elephant sized), giant kangaroos roaming round not that long ago.

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 13 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)
[–] FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 5 months ago (1 children)

(In many places, we burnt the garden).

We’ve been shaping ecosystems through fire for so long.

That article’s on my to read list now, thanks.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›