5 ms·

What estimates? I've only heard this estimate of ants (15-25%) http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29281253 http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29281253

CydeWeys 10y ago
That estimate is different -- it's referring to ant biomass versus human biomass. The statistic I'm talking about is about biomass attributable to humans, which includes all domesticated and tame animals. The vast majority of that figure is not human biomass itself, but our animals. You can see a bunch of the discussions on this claim online, and then probably track it back to a source: https://www.google.com/webhp?ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=human+biomass+98%25&* https://www.google.com/webhp?ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=human+b...
- awinter-py 10y ago
  wait, your statement is that 98% of biomass attributable to humans is humans + livestock + pets? What about tree farms & edible crops? If cows are 70% water I imagine the other 30% is made out of corn. What about landfills?
  - CydeWeys 10y ago
    It's not my statement, it's someone else's. And, to clarify, it's not all biomass, it's terrestrial animal biomass. So crops and such don't matter, there aren't many living animals in landfills (not enough to matter anyway), and it doesn't matter what the cow ate, it's still a cow.
    - awinter-py 10y ago
      If it's just animals, this number should be 100%. Are they ruling out service animals? Also, I think this 'terrestrial animal mass attributable to humans' figure has no bearing on the spider stat. Unless we're saying spiders are attributable to humans because of our effect on the fly population.
      - CydeWeys 10y ago
        Why would it be 100%? There are plenty of wild animals out there. That you mention service animals leads me to believe that you're misunderstanding the statistic; service animals are a negligibly small portion of all total terrestrial animals. And it's important to compare multiple different stats that sort of deal with the same thing as a way of helping to evaluate a new claim, to see if it's internally consistent.

CydeWeys 10y ago

That estimate is different -- it's referring to ant biomass versus human biomass. The statistic I'm talking about is about biomass attributable to humans, which includes all domesticated and tame animals. The vast majority of that figure is not human biomass itself, but our animals. You can see a bunch of the discussions on this claim online, and then probably track it back to a source: https://www.google.com/webhp?ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=human+biomass+98%25&* https://www.google.com/webhp?ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=human+b...

awinter-py 10y ago
wait, your statement is that 98% of biomass attributable to humans is humans + livestock + pets? What about tree farms & edible crops? If cows are 70% water I imagine the other 30% is made out of corn. What about landfills?
- CydeWeys 10y ago
  It's not my statement, it's someone else's. And, to clarify, it's not all biomass, it's terrestrial animal biomass. So crops and such don't matter, there aren't many living animals in landfills (not enough to matter anyway), and it doesn't matter what the cow ate, it's still a cow.
  - awinter-py 10y ago
    If it's just animals, this number should be 100%. Are they ruling out service animals? Also, I think this 'terrestrial animal mass attributable to humans' figure has no bearing on the spider stat. Unless we're saying spiders are attributable to humans because of our effect on the fly population.
    - CydeWeys 10y ago
      Why would it be 100%? There are plenty of wild animals out there. That you mention service animals leads me to believe that you're misunderstanding the statistic; service animals are a negligibly small portion of all total terrestrial animals. And it's important to compare multiple different stats that sort of deal with the same thing as a way of helping to evaluate a new claim, to see if it's internally consistent.