this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2025
1 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

15752 readers
289 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
[–] then_three_more@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (2 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 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 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

[–] wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 0 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

It would be MUCH more than 2x resource consumption, because every action that animal takes requires greater energy to move it around. The energy required to sustain larger lifeforms is significantly greater than the proportion of their mass.

[–] yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Not necessarily, many small animals have an utterly insane metabolism making them eat their entire body mass in a couple of days. For example, hummingbirds eat the human equivalent of 150,000 calories per day.

Larger animals typically cannot afford to spend so much energy - there is just no large food source that has sufficient calory density.

[–] wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 0 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Good point! I'd love to see a by-genus breakdown of average metabolic rate vs body mass.

[–] ogler@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

it's not "massively favouring" large mammals. it's just the metric they were interested in. it's not disingenuous to select this metric. we're not voting for president of the mammals.

[–] then_three_more@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago

But why that metric? What makes that metric a good metric to use? Was that metric genuinely the best, or was it the best to get the answer they wanted to satisfy whoever was funding the study?

we're not voting for president of the mammals.

No, but in general it's worth questioning any stats and figures because people we vote for use them to make policy decisions