this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2025
822 points (93.6% liked)

Science Memes

15786 readers
1967 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
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] toppy@lemy.lol 5 points 1 day 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 2 days ago

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

[–] Pierre121000@lemmy.ml 51 points 2 days ago (2 children)
[–] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 21 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 (1 children)

more elephants than I expected tbh

[–] ExhaleSmile@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] kilgore_trout@feddit.it 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 58 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (15 children)

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.)

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 17 points 2 days ago (11 children)

It says 60% of mammals are livestock, not 60% live in factory farms. I've been around cows in normal (non-factory) farms, and they seem fine. Way better off than wild animals that starve, die of disease, freeze to death, etc.

I have family members that have livestock and if something bad happens to them it's like someone hurt their child.

A seal in the 4% living in the wild may be eaten alive by a killer whale or torn to shreds by a great white shark.

We aren't going to prevent all animals from suffering, because how could we do that? Kill off all of the predators? Then there would be animal overpopulation and animals dying of starvation and disease.

Maybe we just focus on ending factory farms because that seems doable. But that effort won't be successful with obvious hyperbole claiming all livestock is treated like animals in the most horrible factory farms. Some people have actually been to farms that aren't like that you know.

People aren't stupid and if you misrepresent the facts, no one will believe anything else you're saying no matter how emotional you are when misrepresenting the facts.

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 16 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Not the person you are replying to, but that is severely underestimating the amount of factory farming. They are the dominant method of production

Based on the EPA's definition of a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (i.e factory farm) and USDA census data:

All fish raised in fish farms were considered to be factory-farmed. More than 98% of hens and pigs. For chickens and turkeys, the share was more than 99%. Cows were a bit more likely to be raised outside in fields, with greater space and freedom. Nonetheless, 75% were still fed in concentrated feeding operations for at least 45 days a year.

https://ourworldindata.org/how-many-animals-are-factory-farmed

And even those that are not considered factory farmed don't always look how one may think, for instance non-factory farmed cows still use plenty of grain feed

Currently, 'grass-finished' beef accounts for less than 1% of the current US supply

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad401

None of this is not limited to the US by any means. For instance in the UK:

There are more than 1,000 US-style mega-farms in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, including some holding as many as a million animals

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/18/uk-has-more-than-1000-livestock-mega-farms-investigation-reveals

Factory farming is unfortunately what scales well. If we want less factory farming we need the industry itself to be smaller. That is no impossible goal. Germany, for instance, has seen its overall meat consumption fall over the last decade

In 2011, Germans ate 138 pounds of meat each year. Today, it’s 121 pounds — a 12.3 percent decline. And much of that decline took place in the last few years, a time period when grocery sales of plant-based food nearly doubled.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23273338/germany-less-meat-plant-based-vegan-vegetarian-flexitarian

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 16 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (7 children)

60 % of mammals are livestock, not 60% live in factory farms

99% of US farmed animals live in factory farms, according to this random website I just found. I don't claim to be an expert, though, and worldwide is probably lower than than 99%, but I would bet you that the vast majority of livestock is factory-farmed.

Agreed though that not all livestock are factory farmed. I should have clarified.

I'll point out though that even some non-factory-farmed livestock are likely suffering. Bentham's Bulldog talks about how hens undergo severe agony:

Egg-laying hens in conventional farms endure about 400 hours (!!!!!) of this kind of disabling agony. Remember, this is agony about as bad as the worst thing that’s ever happened to you, unless you’ve had an experience as bad as being severely tortured.

(emphasis mine.)

--

A seal in the 4% living in the wild may be eaten alive by a killer whale or torn to shreds by a great white shark.

That's bad, though probably not anywhere near as much agony as being boiled alive for several hours until one's death. Regardless of whether you feel morally obligated to reduce wild animal suffering, you should admit that (a) from a utilitarian perspective, it's much easier to reduce factory farm suffering, and (b) from a deontological perspective, factory farming is (collectively) our fault, whereas the food chain isn't.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 61 points 3 days ago (2 children)

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 30 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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 26 points 2 days ago (5 children)

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

[–] Mustakrakish@lemmy.world 21 points 2 days ago

Intentionally misleading

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] aeternum@lemmy.blahaj.zone 108 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (14 children)

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 60 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] TimewornTraveler@lemmy.dbzer0.com 26 points 3 days ago (3 children)

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

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[–] KingGimpicus@sh.itjust.works 64 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

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 75 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (10 children)

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 33 points 3 days ago

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

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] theparadox@lemmy.world 24 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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 25 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (11 children)

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 54 points 3 days ago (5 children)

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)
[–] mysticpickle@lemmy.ca 34 points 3 days ago (2 children)

You forgot the citation bro.

[–] Bosht@lemmy.world 24 points 3 days ago (2 children)

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)
[–] RedSnt@feddit.dk 5 points 2 days ago

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

load more comments
view more: next ›