this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2025
789 points (93.5% liked)

Science Memes

15755 readers
3047 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
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 57 points 1 day 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 1 day 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 23 points 1 day ago (2 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 19 points 1 day ago

Intentionally misleading

[–] silasmariner@programming.dev 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Sadly it's not objectively false, it's merely vague. There's no equivocation whereby it actually specifies that the unit of measure is the individual animal, rather than, say, kg. It's just playing on your assumptions (I did assume biomass fwiw, but who cares).

But anyway, the point made by sheer fucking biomass imbalance is surely the thing to focus on here? Now that we know what it means, and are in agreement that the wording should be clearer, the statistic is still egregious, isn't it? Humans have taken far too much of the world for themselves IMO. Vastly diminishing returns for us, devestatingly larger impact on the environment, the more we push it.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm in fact under the impression that the "number must go up" plot was played on us as well. Humans are increasing in quantity ever since the industrial revolution, but instead we should be focusing on the quality of life.

[–] silasmariner@programming.dev 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Couldn't agree with you more. In particular, the way most state pensions are structured imply infinite exponential growth. It's gonna be a tough drug to wean off of.

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 1 points 16 hours ago

We're below reproduction rate in most parts of the world, and likely will fall below in the rest of the world during this century, so we're already in the 'find out' era :(

[–] davidagain@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

On top of that, it's an annoyingly disproportionate graphic. The cow is much wider than the human so its area is much more than 60% of the area of the graphic.

The owl might be 3cm high and the hen 6cm high, but 9cm² and 36cm² would be the rough areas, even if it weren't for the fact that again, the hen picture is much, much wider than the owl.

With 30% and 70%, the owl should just be a little under half as big as the hen, but it looks like about 1/4 or 1/5 of the size of the hen.