• ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    5 months ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

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

        • silasmariner@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          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.

  • Gustephan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    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

  • jsomae@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Livestock have to live through horrible agony, like the worst kind of torture. This means (by biomass, which some people correlate indirectly with moral worth), at least 60% of mammals on Earth undergo horrible torture. Bentham’s Bulldog, “Factory Farming is Literally Torture.

    Excess pigs were roasted to death. Specifically, these pigs were killed by having hot steam enter the barn, at around 150 degrees, leading to them choking, suffocating, and roasting to death. It’s hard to see how an industry that chokes and burns beings to death can be said to be anything other than nightmarish, especially given that pigs are smarter than dogs.

    Ozy Brennan: the subjective experience of animal’s suffering 10/10 intense agony is likely the same as the subjective experience of a human suffering such agony. (~6 paragraph article, well worth a read.)

      • Soulg@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Lmao the slurs you make up are so cute

        Nobody defends factory farms they’re universally hated

        • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Can you explain how that is a slur? Who is being unfairly oppressed/please describe the victim of the slur?

          • syreus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            If you are describing omnivores as “carnies” then that would be a slur since most people consider people on the carnivore diet to be unhinged or misinformed.

            Slurs exist to denigrate and diminish ones character.

            Without argument, more vegetarians will help the world, but I don’t think name calling wins hearts and minds.

            • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              you seem misinformed, ‘carnist’ and by extension ‘carnie’ has nothing to do with the carnivore diet, but with carnism:

              Carnism is a concept used in discussions of humanity’s relation to other animals, defined as a prevailing ideology in which people support the use and consumption of animal products, especially meat.[1] Carnism is presented as a dominant belief system supported by a variety of defense mechanisms and mostly unchallenged assumptions.[1][2][3][4]

  • Bosht@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    5 months ago

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

  • toppy@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    5 months ago

    This is very depressing. I feel science and technology has improved a lot and now people should consume lab grown meat and lab grown milk. Humans should try to reduce their imprint in the world. Human growth has become unsustainable. We produce so much food but still there is hunger. So many kids around the world are dying of hunger. Something has to change. Otherwise I feel the system will collapse.

  • renzhexiangjiao@piefed.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    by number of organisms, biomass, species count, or something else?

    edit: ok not species count because there’s only one species of human

  • Evil_Shrubbery@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    A planet used up for specific food cultivation (which left no ecosystem unaffected).

    Should have invented (energy to) food replicators before having the hubris to feed 100s of millions.

    • tfowinder@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      You fell for the clickbait. When comparin organisms outside mammals by biomass the stydy says.

      The sum of the biomass across all taxa on Earth is ≈550 Gt C, of which ≈80% (≈450 Gt C; SI Appendix, Table S2) are plants, dominated by land plants (embryophytes). The second major biomass component is bacteria (≈70 Gt C; SI Appendix, Tables S3–S7), constituting ≈15% of the global biomass. Other groups, in descending order, are fungi, archaea, protists, animals, and viruses, which together account for the remaining <10%.

      Today, the biomass of humans (≈0.06 Gt C; SI Appendix, Table S9) and the biomass of livestock (≈0.1 Gt C, dominated by cattle and pigs; SI Appendix, Table S10) far surpass that of wild mammals, which has a mass of ≈0.007 Gt

      We dominate the mammals space but we are barely visible in front of the plants, bacterias and fungi on the planet earth.

      • Evil_Shrubbery@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Oh, no, I knew that (it fascinated me before), this isn’t even the first such study, but mammals are there dominant species, a lot of other biomass is supporting it (eg oxygen, weather, etc).

  • topherp@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Does the wild animals include insects? What about single cell animals?