top 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 1 point 1 year ago

There aren't cougars in missions!

  • source
  • [–] 50 points 1 year ago (7 children)
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    more elephants than I expected tbh

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 1 year 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.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Are pets livestock, or did they miss a category of mammals? In the US there are more dogs than children.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    It's intentionally misleading, like most vegan propaganda. It's by mass, not population.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago

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

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago

    birbs are only 2/3rds unreal confirmed ✅

  • source
  • [+] [S] 14 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    It’s so fucking surreal to me how much megafauna extinctions have happened in the past 50’000 years.

    I don’t think people realise we had like giant land birds (3+ meters tall), megasloths (elephant sized), giant kangaroos roaming round not that long ago.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 47 points 1 year 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

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago

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

  • source
  • [+] 102 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (20 children)
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 57 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -19 points 1 year ago (9 children)
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    If you’re worried about cultural factors, you might find removing any significant percentage of the total population will likely run into even more implacable “cultural factors” than meat reduction would.

    This is regardless of the method of population reduction, save perhaps “slow decline” which seems to be promising atm, but that obviously has the downside that it’ll take a few generations to really have an impact.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children)

    It's not though, seeing that a very large proportion of the world's population get by, and that about 1/3rd of all food produced for human consumption is wasted each year. (Checked the UN source it's 19% of food that makes it to people, and 13% of food pre-end point in the supply chain).

    And this is without starting to consider the energy inefficiency of feeding livestock to feed to humans.

    Also an awful lot of the world gets by with much less than US or much of Western Europe does. There's a long way between our surplus of food and food insecurity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    But there's about enough housing for everyone too... Just that it's of houses are sitting empty across Europe, North America, and China.

    And lots of the food wasted in those places (minus China) is imported from places with less food security, such as Brazil, India, and Morocco.
    So it's almost like the energy use and infrastructure is already part of the problem and solving it would take less.

    My point is that Malthusian was never correct, and the problems are ones of distribution. Not number of humans. (And Malthusian worries tend towards genocide naturally, that they've been shown consistently to be wrong should make them doubly suspect.)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    I don't think a single vegan is expecting animal exploitation to completely end in their lifetime. This will require a cultural shift that could take so fucking long. Despite that, we all think it is worth doing and being a part of.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 59 points 1 year ago (9 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.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    On top of that, it's an annoyingly disproportionate graphic. The cow is much wider than the human so its area is much more than 60% of the area of the graphic.

    The owl might be 3cm high and the hen 6cm high, but 9cm² and 36cm² would be the rough areas, even if it weren't for the fact that again, the hen picture is much, much wider than the owl.

    With 30% and 70%, the owl should just be a little under half as big as the hen, but it looks like about 1/4 or 1/5 of the size of the hen.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 29 points 1 year ago (7 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (6 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Sadly it's not objectively false, it's merely vague. There's no equivocation whereby it actually specifies that the unit of measure is the individual animal, rather than, say, kg. It's just playing on your assumptions (I did assume biomass fwiw, but who cares).

    But anyway, the point made by sheer fucking biomass imbalance is surely the thing to focus on here? Now that we know what it means, and are in agreement that the wording should be clearer, the statistic is still egregious, isn't it? Humans have taken far too much of the world for themselves IMO. Vastly diminishing returns for us, devestatingly larger impact on the environment, the more we push it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I'm in fact under the impression that the "number must go up" plot was played on us as well. Humans are increasing in quantity ever since the industrial revolution, but instead we should be focusing on the quality of life.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Couldn't agree with you more. In particular, the way most state pensions are structured imply infinite exponential growth. It's gonna be a tough drug to wean off of.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 64 points 1 year ago* (13 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.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (12 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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 year 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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)

    Why would the infographic be by number?
    (I'm not dissing you, I only ask bcs I never even thought about it being my population, like, what would it compare by population in such a vast group as mammals.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago* (8 children)

    Okay, so you have 240 rats and one cow in a pen on a farm. How many mammals are in the pen?

    This survey would answer that the pen is 90% cow and 10% rat by weight, therefore there are 9 times as many cows as there are rats.

    In reality land, where the rest of us live, we would say that there are 241 mammals in the pen and only 1 of them is a cow.

    You see why I'm calling bullshit by the way this is worded?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

    Oh, I see now, thx.

    For me (how I perceived the simplified pic) the main difference was that I didn't think 'in a pen on a farm' but 'on a planet'.
    And your example also screams of 'it's not comparable, don't do that, in what scenario would you need a number 241 that would made sense?'
    (I really can't think of on answer short of making a Twitch channel for each individual animal.)

    Also that question is leading bcs you ask how many, whereas the pic in the post doesn't specifically say anything (which is the complaint as I gather - but we deduct the meaning of words from context all the time in all languages, if the 'by individual' doesn't make sense, it's obviously not that).

    you have 240 rats and one cow in a pen on a farm

    Do you not think the farmer saying he has 241 animals would be made fun of?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

    I'm basically saying that you can see from the context (the numbers) that it's biomass - the same-ish as below even when/if the first thing you think about doesn't make sense, you search for the way it does (again, not dissing, but strictly technically it is about literacy, which in this case the pic is at fault for not all of the audience not getting it, and you for not understanding it, an overlap just didn't happen):

    And yes, since this is pun-ish territory, it's normal to feel some anger, puns are there worst.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I was trying to think of some other meaning than 'drinks dispensary' for 'bar' and I couldn't think of a sensible reason for putting a bar in your shower for quite a while until I realised metal bar.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Yes, that describes the complexities of language perfectly (and the process of how you decipher the meaning)!

    We tend to forget how complex communication is, expressing huge concepts with a few sounds/characters/gestures is one of the greatest achievements of Earth's animals (humans included).

    It's amazing it even works. But requires a lot of brainpower to encode & decode.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    The pic says "of all the mammals on earth". It's exactly as i said with the pen, just scaled up to a 3d spherical planetary sized pen. The numbers I'm talking about don't change.

    There are WAY more rats than cows. Period. They're on every continent except Antarctica, and there might be some weird subterranean prehistoric voles huddled around a hydrothermal vent pool or some shit.

    OP just needs to add a qualifier to the graphic. Anything along the lines of "with respect to biomass" right at the start

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    There are WAY more rats than cows. Period.

    So if you know that, why would you insist it's saying that instead of immediately looking for something that does fit?

    Also a planet is not a pen and no farmer ever will say they have 241 animals!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    A planet is a pen without fences. You just have to expand your perspective. You've obviously never interacted with a farmer in your life if you've never heard them brag about how many animals they have on the property. And those are just the ones they can count. Im sure some crazy farmer somewhere in India would be mad proud of how many rats he's got running around. They're holy in certain parts.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 55 points 1 year ago* (30 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.)

  • source
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (15 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Some website I've never heard of before that you term as a "random website" says "We estimate..." a bunch of times without any attempt to describe the methodology used for their estimates.

    So that's bullshit.

    The problem with the vegan animal rights movement is you're always going for the moonshot of ending an entire industry instead of even trying to identify and shut down farms with horrible practices or outlaw those practices. To accomplish the goal of ending an industry, you're fudging numbers and coming out as being dishonest which means no one will trust you and you'll accomplish nothing. If animals are indeed being boiled alive (I don't believe you about this because you're obviously making up shit on other things) then it will continue to happen because you're trying to accuse an entire industry of doing things that only some in the industry might do.

    If you cared about the boiling animals alive thing (if it actually happens) you'd be trying to get that particular farm shut down, get laws passed to prevent that from happening. But you're not doing that (you're not even identifying any particular farms) so that leads me to believe either it's not happening, or maybe you want it to continue to happen because it somehow helps your vain cause of ending all meat.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    You're right to question the boiling. I was thinking of death by suffocation in heated steam. Boiling is not the technically correct term.

    Here are some more sources that nearly all livestock live in factory farms: [Our World in Data, PETA,]; there are a lot more I can find searching the web but they mostly seem to link back to the Sentience Institute's research. OWiD's is based on SI's research, and I suspect PETA's claim is based off SI's as well. More importantly, I haven't found any claim that the proportion is lower than 90%, or even anyone challenging SI's figures. Do you have reason to doubt this? And if so, can you find any source? It seems plausible to me just based on the fact that factory farming is vastly more efficient than other methods, and most people aren't picky about such things. Just as a prior, I would expect that the vast majority of livestock are found in the most efficient types of farms.

    Without any attempt to describe the methodology used for their estimates.

    I mean they literally have their calculations available right there as an easily-viewable google sheets link. And the data source is clearly stated: "these estimates use the 2022 Census of Agriculture and EPA definitions of CAFOs to estimate the number of US farmed land vertebrates who are in CAFOs ("factory farms")."

    You’d be trying to get that particular farm shut down, get laws passed to prevent that from happening. But you’re not doing that

    Who is not doing that? Me specifically or animal rights people in general? I don't see why shutting down a particular farm would be very helpful, the scale of the problem is incredibly massive; passing laws would be much more effective. I would like to see laws passed, though, to stop these kinds of abuses. What would make you think I am not interested in that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    And how many percentage of all livestock do you think is "free range" like the cows you describe?

    Estimates vary from 80% to 99% are factory farmed. Which means majority of meat anyone is eating is factory farm. Unless you can verify the source of your meat yourself, you most likely are eating tortured animals.

    So this whole argument that I have friends and family that care for their livestock like it's their kids is the misrepresentation since, it maybe true that you know someone that is treating animals humane, it doesn't represent majority.

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    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.

    Like, say, if you were to imply that anything less than the vast overwhelming majority of all meat consumed comes from factory farms? Ignorance is bliss I suppose...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Do you source 100% of your meat from the one place you visited that one time? How many pounds of meat per year do you eat?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    I buy all of my food from Food 'n Stuff... and most of my stuff.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Weird way to dodge the question

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (11 children)
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Lmao the slurs you make up are so cute

    Nobody defends factory farms they're universally hated

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    If you are describing omnivores as "carnies" then that would be a slur since most people consider people on the carnivore diet to be unhinged or misinformed.

    Slurs exist to denigrate and diminish ones character.

    Without argument, more vegetarians will help the world, but I don't think name calling wins hearts and minds.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    you seem misinformed, 'carnist' and by extension 'carnie' has nothing to do with the carnivore diet, but with carnism:

    Carnism is a concept used in discussions of humanity's relation to other animals, defined as a prevailing ideology in which people support the use and consumption of animal products, especially meat.[1] Carnism is presented as a dominant belief system supported by a variety of defense mechanisms and mostly unchallenged assumptions.[1][2][3][4]

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    The term carnism was coined by social psychologist and author Melanie Joy in 2001

    I have been hearing this term used to demean meat eaters since the late 80s. I guess they were all misinformed too.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Have you heard of the carnivore movement? There are genuinely people saying to stop eating vegetables. It's probably mostly ragebait, but it exists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago
    load more comments
    view more: next ›