this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2025
751 points (93.1% liked)

Science Memes

16062 readers
909 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
[–] aeternum@lemmy.blahaj.zone 95 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (9 children)

we kill 3T animals a year for food/medicine/clothing/etc. Maybe we should stop?

edit: sorry, that was quite extreme of me to suggest we don't kill 3T animals a year.

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 54 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I'm going to go brutally murder and deep-fry my dog just to cancel out whatever grass you ate today, you extremist vegoon! something something lions something desert island grumble grumble muh canines

Hope that serves as a warning the next time you feel like ~~expressing an opinion that differs from mine~~ being preachy.

[–] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 21 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Look I get you but

points at fangs

Canines though

[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 23 points 2 weeks ago

^ Vampire! Run for your lives!!!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TimewornTraveler@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

not sure what the edit is for... you looking to be disagreed with? are there comments I can't see?

[–] aeternum@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

I was merely pointing out that people call people extremists for not eating animals, but they don't recognise that killing TRILLIONS of animals a year is extreme.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Do ypu have a source for that 4 trillion?

[–] aeternum@lemmy.blahaj.zone 20 points 2 weeks ago

it changes depends on the source. this quotes 1.2T per year. It's in the trillions anyway.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] KingGimpicus@sh.itjust.works 63 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks 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 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks ago (1 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 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks 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 (1 replies)
[–] theparadox@lemmy.world 21 points 2 weeks 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 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 28 points 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Gustephan@lemmy.world 54 points 2 weeks 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

[–] floo@retrolemmy.com 16 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

I’ve eaten crow. I would not recommend it.

[–] pHr34kY@lemmy.world 19 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

This sounds like a way to cause an outbreak of Corvid-19.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] mysticpickle@lemmy.ca 34 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

You forgot the citation bro.

[–] graycube@lemmy.world 22 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

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

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] ryedaft@sh.itjust.works 22 points 2 weeks ago
[–] Bosht@lemmy.world 22 points 2 weeks 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)
[–] OpenStars@piefed.social 15 points 2 weeks ago

birbs are only 2/3rds unreal confirmed ✅

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 14 points 2 weeks ago

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

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 14 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

End of the Holocene, Last of the Megafauna party.

[–] FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks 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 12 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)
[–] FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 2 weeks 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 ›