825
It's just loss. (mander.xyz)
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] toppy@lemy.lol 2 points 23 hours 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.

[-] zod000@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 day ago

This is highly depressing to see first thing in the morning.

[-] jsomae@lemmy.ml 70 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days 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.)

[-] v4ld1z@lemmy.zip 12 points 2 days ago
[-] Soulg@ani.social 16 points 2 days ago

Lmao the slurs you make up are so cute

Nobody defends factory farms they're universally hated

[-] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 12 points 2 days ago

Nobody defends factory farms they’re universally hated

But not enough for people to boycott, other than a single-digit % of the population.

[-] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 days ago

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

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Pierre121000@lemmy.ml 48 points 2 days ago
[-] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 20 points 2 days ago

I don't want to sound all Malthusian but that's kind of fucked??

[-] jsomae@lemmy.ml 18 points 2 days ago

more elephants than I expected tbh

[-] ExhaleSmile@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago
[-] jsomae@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 days ago

I know. It's still more elephants than I expected.

[-] kilgore_trout@feddit.it 4 points 1 day ago

That's likely the sum of all elephant species, spanning from Africa to northern Asia.

[-] jsomae@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 day ago

I know. It's just still more than I expected.

[-] N0t_Legal_Advice@lemmy.today 6 points 1 day ago

Jsomae: "Really y'all I can read, I'm just surprised!" Lol

[-] aeternum 118 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

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 72 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

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 26 points 2 days ago

Look I get you but

points at fangs

Canines though

[-] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 25 points 2 days ago

^ Vampire! Run for your lives!!!

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] TimewornTraveler@lemmy.dbzer0.com 27 points 2 days ago

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

[-] aeternum 19 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

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)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] KingGimpicus@sh.itjust.works 73 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

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 76 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

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 32 points 2 days 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 22 points 2 days ago

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 16 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

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)
[-] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Yeah the reason why biomass is used instead of number of individuals becomes rather clear when you consider the following:

  • what counts as an individual? is an unborn already an individual? (that one's a heated debate, as you can see by the abortion debate)
  • if unborns are individuals, then at what age are they?
  • if they are from the moment of fertilization, then some animals, like spiders or frogs (idk any mammal examples, but there might be some), might lay a shitload number of eggs, like a million or sth, and it would drive up the number of individuals dramatically. But it would be a bullshit metric, because 99% of these individuals are never gonna survive a single year on earth. so it would be utterly confusing and misleading.

Going by mass solves all of these problems because it's more clear and more direct. And on top of that it has the nice side-benefit of also giving an estimate of land usage. Land usage is roughly proportional to biomass, so measuring biomass is meaningful to estimate land usage as well, and that one really matters as that's the limited resource that you're trying to distribute among all species on earth.

[-] theparadox@lemmy.world 22 points 2 days ago

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 30 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

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?

[-] Gustephan@lemmy.world 56 points 2 days 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

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] RedSnt@feddit.dk 5 points 1 day ago

And yet cats kill billions of birds each year. Wild.

[-] Bosht@lemmy.world 24 points 2 days ago

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)
[-] ryedaft@sh.itjust.works 26 points 2 days ago
[-] echodot@feddit.uk 14 points 2 days ago

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

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2025
825 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

15785 readers
2463 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