Comment

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

Sort:hotnew top

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 ⁨18⁩ ⁨hours⁩ 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 ⁨17⁩ ⁨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
    wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works ⁨17⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    Good point! I’d love to see a by-species breakdown of average metabolic rate vs body mass.
    
    source
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 ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    Clearly Big Invertabrate was behind this.
    
    source