Comment on It's just loss.

• hellfire103@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  in the comments section. straight up ‘sourcing it’. and by ‘it’, haha, well. let’s justr say. My pnas.

  source
• then_three_more@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ 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.

  source

  • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ 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?

    source

    • wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

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

      source

      • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨23⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        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.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • ogler@lemmynsfw.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    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.

    source

    • then_three_more@lemmy.world ⁨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

      source

      • blackbrook@mander.xyz ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        Clearly Big Invertabrate was behind this.

        source
• gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ 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, 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.

  source