1338: "Land Mammals"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
rhomboidal
Posts: 791
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:25 pm UTC
Contact:

1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby rhomboidal » Wed Mar 05, 2014 5:11 am UTC

Image

Title Text: Bacteria still outweigh us thousands to one--and that's not even counting the several pounds of them in your body.

I'm sure sheeple will eventually outweigh even the bacteria.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10270
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Mar 05, 2014 5:13 am UTC

Wait, by mass, what's the ratio of cow to human?

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6588
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby ucim » Wed Mar 05, 2014 5:31 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Wait, by mass, what's the ratio of cow to human?
Well, just by looking (and not counting), I'd say 1.4 to 1.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
Alsadius
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 2:14 am UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Alsadius » Wed Mar 05, 2014 5:33 am UTC

Wish there were more labels. That's impressive, and a bit scary, though.

Baalthazaq
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 5:33 am UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Baalthazaq » Wed Mar 05, 2014 6:00 am UTC

Alsadius wrote:Wish there were more labels.


I wish the labels weren't "off white" on a white background. I didn't realize there was labels at all until I stood up and my angle on the monitor changed.

User avatar
Steve the Pocket
Posts: 697
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:02 am UTC
Location: Going downtuuu in a Luleelurah!

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Steve the Pocket » Wed Mar 05, 2014 6:10 am UTC

I don't understand the decision to break the unlabeled groups into random chunks. Are they meant to represent anything? For that matter, is there any significance to the random blob nature of this infographic at all besides making it look less like a dry infographic that doesn't belong on a webcomic's site?
cephalopod9 wrote:Only on Xkcd can you start a topic involving Hitler and people spend the better part of half a dozen pages arguing about the quality of Operating Systems.

Baige.

sondre99v
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:10 am UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby sondre99v » Wed Mar 05, 2014 6:42 am UTC

I would guess that the smaller, unlabeled groups also represents a specific kind of animal. Although I would like for them to be labeled.

As for the random partitions, I think its an artistic choice. You can see how our livestock surrounds the humans, supporting and protecting us, while the wild animals are on the periphery, further away from people.

Heliocanth
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 6:33 am UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Heliocanth » Wed Mar 05, 2014 6:44 am UTC

sondre99v wrote:I would guess that the smaller, unlabeled groups also represents a specific kind of animal. Although I would like for them to be labeled.


I agree. I found it sort of frustrating given that Randall clearly knew the information about which animals they were, since he calculated the sizes of all the clusters. Does anyone want to figure out what they are?

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 929
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby da Doctah » Wed Mar 05, 2014 6:44 am UTC

First Contact:

Extraterrestrial: "Take us to your leader."
Earthling: "Moooooo!"

User avatar
keithl
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:46 pm UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby keithl » Wed Mar 05, 2014 7:21 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Wait, by mass, what's the ratio of cow to human?


There's a "yo mama so fat" joke in there somewhere.

vitron
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 7:18 am UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby vitron » Wed Mar 05, 2014 7:22 am UTC

Wild Animals, Wild Mammals, or Wild Land Mammals?

Alltat
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Alltat » Wed Mar 05, 2014 7:29 am UTC

Steve the Pocket wrote:I don't understand the decision to break the unlabeled groups into random chunks. Are they meant to represent anything?

They presumably follow the same pattern as the rest, minus the labels. There are some fairly large groups of domesticated mammals that are unaccounted for: dogs, camels, etc.

User avatar
keithl
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:46 pm UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby keithl » Wed Mar 05, 2014 8:10 am UTC

I would like to see a similar plot for plants and crop area. Since wheat uses more crop area than anything else, we must stop calling our planet "Earth" and start calling it "Salty Wet Hamburger Sandwich". Corn is second ("Salty Wet Taco"), and number 3 is "Salty Wet Beef Fried Rice".

User avatar
chridd
Has a vermicelli title
Posts: 830
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 10:07 am UTC
Location: ...Earth, I guess?
Contact:

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby chridd » Wed Mar 05, 2014 8:15 am UTC

It sort of looks like the squares are supposed to be forming a picture of something (since they're not some boring rectangular shape), but I can't tell what.
Although the white space in between the squares looks sort of kind of like some sort of insect.
~ chri d. d. /tʃɹɪ.di.di/ (Phonotactics, schmphonotactics) · she(?)(?(?)(?))(?(?(?))(?))(?) · Forum game scores
mittfh wrote:I wish this post was very quotable...
chridd (on Discord) wrote:
Dummy wrote:Sorry You're Gay Dads
SYG'D
marionic (on Discord) wrote:sleep in grave

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Diadem » Wed Mar 05, 2014 8:28 am UTC

Is this right? Surely rodents and other small mammals vastly outnumber us? Generally speaking heavier animals represent less biomass, since it is much harder to support them.

It is kinda shocking if it's right.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5008
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Pfhorrest » Wed Mar 05, 2014 8:29 am UTC

vitron wrote:Wild Animals, Wild Mammals, or Wild Land Mammals?

Since the whole chart is land mammals, I would assume the green blobs representing wild animals are the subset of land mammals which are also wild animals, i.e. wild land mammals.

There are also reptiles and birds and things in both the pets/livestock and wild animals categories. I wonder why they weren't included.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

GazongaGizmo
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 1:56 pm UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby GazongaGizmo » Wed Mar 05, 2014 9:00 am UTC

Does anyone significantly less lazy than me care to count the squares of the biggest groups?

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 833
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Wed Mar 05, 2014 10:20 am UTC

Diadem wrote:Is this right? Surely rodents and other small mammals vastly outnumber us? Generally speaking heavier animals represent less biomass, since it is much harder to support them.

It is kinda shocking if it's right.

Maybe it's in your "rodents and other small mammals". If you need to combine a huge variety of species to compare to Bos primigenius the individual species may not be that large.

User avatar
Ool
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:19 am UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Ool » Wed Mar 05, 2014 10:26 am UTC

Since I eat a lot more chicken than beef I wonder how large a blob they and other fowl would be...

Lomskij
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 10:24 am UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Lomskij » Wed Mar 05, 2014 10:34 am UTC

Diadem wrote:Is this right? Surely rodents and other small mammals vastly outnumber us? Generally speaking heavier animals represent less biomass, since it is much harder to support them.

It is kinda shocking if it's right.

It is kinda difficult to estimate, however I’d guess that combined biomass of all rodents is somewhere between 10 and 15 million tonnes.

Granted, they easily outnumber the number of humans (the population of rats alone is estimated to be around 7 billion), however they’re quite light. The most numerous rodents are mice, and even though estimates of population vary wildly, for argument sake let’s take 100 billion. With an average weight of a mouse being 30 grams, it makes the total biomass of mice just 3 million tonnes.

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 833
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Wed Mar 05, 2014 11:06 am UTC

But do you also wear more chicken and eat more eggs than dairy? I'm curious how much each industry is responsible for each livestock element.

cheweytoo
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 9:38 am UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby cheweytoo » Wed Mar 05, 2014 11:29 am UTC

Baalthazaq wrote:I wish the labels weren't "off white" on a white background. I didn't realize there was labels at all until I stood up and my angle on the monitor changed.

While the contrast in this comic indeed isn't that high, there's something quite wrong with your
screen if #C7C7C7 isn't visible under normal viewing angles. I recommend doing at least a
"rough calibration" via manual contrast adjustment, using something like dpreview's gray wedge.

User avatar
thevicente
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:19 pm UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby thevicente » Wed Mar 05, 2014 12:12 pm UTC

I was looking for the chicken area until I reread the MAMMALS in the biggest letters. :oops:

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 1956
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby cellocgw » Wed Mar 05, 2014 12:31 pm UTC

Next stat of interest: total edible portion of each subclass. I'm guessing that the average human doesn't eat 1.4 times his weight in cow meat (per cow lifetime? ) but maybe we do, especially given that a large fraction of cowmass is relegated to fertilizer (bone meal) and pet food and other things I don't want to think about.

Probably need some sort of lifetime/turnover rate for each subclass as well for this to make any sense.
https://app.box.com/witthoftresume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3006
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby orthogon » Wed Mar 05, 2014 12:47 pm UTC

thevicente wrote:I was looking for the chicken area until I reread the MAMMALS in the biggest letters. :oops:

That's right: you'll be wanting the version comparing wild and domesticated dinosaurs.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

casanunda
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 8:07 am UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby casanunda » Wed Mar 05, 2014 12:57 pm UTC

keithl wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Wait, by mass, what's the ratio of cow to human?


There's a "yo mama so fat" joke in there somewhere.


Yep, There is definitely a square missing for that. :)

User avatar
eviloatmeal
Posts: 562
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 9:39 am UTC
Location: Upside down in space!
Contact:

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby eviloatmeal » Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:02 pm UTC

By weight?

I suppose that implies that if we sent some cows to the moon, the chart would need to be updated to account for their reduced weight despite still belonging to the category "our livestock", right?

Let's try sending some cows to the moon to figure out if the comic will change dynamically!
*** FREE SHIPPING ENABLED ***
Image
Riddles are abound tonightImage

dbam987
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 8:30 pm UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby dbam987 » Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:10 pm UTC

Does anyone think the diagram looks sort of like the Google Chrome logo?

Edit: I blame the cattle for global warming.

User avatar
TheSoberPirate
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 12:48 am UTC
Location: 13 T 492960 4492224

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby TheSoberPirate » Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:20 pm UTC

And yet, where I work in Texas, people think we need more cows...

User avatar
Lazy Tommy
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: New Jersey, USA

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Lazy Tommy » Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:23 pm UTC

Alsadius wrote:Wish there were more labels. That's impressive, and a bit scary, though.


Indeed. Especially when you consider that even optimistic projections have the human population growing by at least another 30% or so before leveling off... If we've crowded out wildlife to such an extent even at our present population size, what chance of survival does large wildlife have? It's pretty depressing.

akadruid
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:11 pm UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby akadruid » Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:27 pm UTC

Heliocanth wrote:
sondre99v wrote:I would guess that the smaller, unlabeled groups also represents a specific kind of animal. Although I would like for them to be labeled.


I agree. I found it sort of frustrating given that Randall clearly knew the information about which animals they were, since he calculated the sizes of all the clusters. Does anyone want to figure out what they are?


I believe one of the larger green clusters is deer. Hard to get accurate numbers, but there are over 2 million moose, so that's a megaton, 1 million elk in North America alone, call them another megaton, "many" millions of red deer, so lets call that 3 megatons, and if you include reindeer, fallow deer etc, etc, then surely deer must be one of the two largest clusters, 7 squares or 10 squares.

User avatar
jc
Posts: 349
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 5:48 pm UTC
Location: Waltham, Massachusetts, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy
Contact:

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby jc » Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:35 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Wait, by mass, what's the ratio of cow to human?
Well, just by looking (and not counting), I'd say 1.4 to 1.

People haven't gotten quite that obese yet. ;-)

A quick google check turns up some numbers: The mean mass of an adult human is around 70 kg; for adult domestic cattle it's about 750 kg. That's a bit larger than a 1.4 ratio. Of course, both of these numbers do have large variance, but that's harder to find, and isn't really needed to estimate the total mass of an entire species.

And the mean mass of all humans is closer to 60 kg, because a large percent of our population aren't adults.

(And a good fraction of the cattle population doesn't reach the age of 1 year ...)

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 833
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:54 pm UTC

eviloatmeal wrote:By weight?

I suppose that implies that if we sent some cows to the moon, the chart would need to be updated to account for their reduced weight despite still belonging to the category "our livestock", right?

Let's try sending some cows to the moon to figure out if the comic will change dynamically!

Some cows? Does your idea of 'some cows' include numbers of around 10⁶? I think launching sufficient cattle to affect the comic may cause this problem.

User avatar
moody7277
Posts: 581
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 7:06 pm UTC
Location: Extreme south Texas

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby moody7277 » Wed Mar 05, 2014 2:02 pm UTC

Lomskij wrote:
Diadem wrote:Is this right? Surely rodents and other small mammals vastly outnumber us? Generally speaking heavier animals represent less biomass, since it is much harder to support them.

It is kinda shocking if it's right.

It is kinda difficult to estimate, however I’d guess that combined biomass of all rodents is somewhere between 10 and 15 million tonnes.

Granted, they easily outnumber the number of humans (the population of rats alone is estimated to be around 7 billion), however they’re quite light. The most numerous rodents are mice, and even though estimates of population vary wildly, for argument sake let’s take 100 billion. With an average weight of a mouse being 30 grams, it makes the total biomass of mice just 3 million tonnes.


Which would make them that group of three squares next to the elephants.

I figure that dogs are that group of 13 at the top, and cats would be the group of 8 at the bottom (next to the mice).
The story of my life in xkcdmafia:

Tigerlion wrote:Well, I imagine as the game progresses, various people will be getting moody.


BoomFrog wrote:I still have no idea what town moody really looks like.

User avatar
Soup
Posts: 299
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 3:47 pm UTC
Location: The Comfy Chair

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Soup » Wed Mar 05, 2014 2:16 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Wait Weight, by mass, what's the ratio of cow to human?

FTFY :lol:

Runs, hides
Waiting for it...

Go username5243, musthavebeenmykarma, Rakhal, thunk!!

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 1956
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby cellocgw » Wed Mar 05, 2014 2:32 pm UTC

moody7277 wrote:
I figure that dogs are that group of 13 at the top, and cats would be the group of 8 at the bottom (next to the mice).


Well, did anyone check the Javascript? :oops: (to see if there's hidden identifiers, of course! Not because one of the squares is for molpies or anything)
https://app.box.com/witthoftresume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

rmsgrey
Posts: 3482
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby rmsgrey » Wed Mar 05, 2014 3:05 pm UTC

jc wrote:
ucim wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Wait, by mass, what's the ratio of cow to human?
Well, just by looking (and not counting), I'd say 1.4 to 1.

People haven't gotten quite that obese yet. ;-)

A quick google check turns up some numbers: The mean mass of an adult human is around 70 kg; for adult domestic cattle it's about 750 kg. That's a bit larger than a 1.4 ratio. Of course, both of these numbers do have large variance, but that's harder to find, and isn't really needed to estimate the total mass of an entire species.

And the mean mass of all humans is closer to 60 kg, because a large percent of our population aren't adults.

(And a good fraction of the cattle population doesn't reach the age of 1 year ...)


I think we're after the total mass of all cattle compared to the total mass of all humans, not the comparison between representative members of each species...

User avatar
Nylonathatep
NOT Nyarlathotep
Posts: 720
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:06 am UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Nylonathatep » Wed Mar 05, 2014 3:08 pm UTC

Time for some facts:

At a global scale, the FAO has recently estimated that livestock (including poultry) accounts for about 14.5 percent of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions estimated as 100-year CO2 equivalents.[25]

...

Because a large fraction of GHG emissions attributed to livestock production involves methane (from enteric fermentation and manure management), care is appropriate in considering contributions of these emissions to global warming. Relative to carbon dioxide, atmospheric methane has a 100-year global warming potential of 25 (including indirect effects on ozone and stratospheric water vapor).[37] Methane emission from livestock and other anthropogenic sources has contributed substantially to past warming; however, it is of much less significance for current and recent warming. This is because there has been relatively little increase in atmospheric methane concentration in recent years,[37][38][39] with total methane sources, estimated at 582 Tg per year, being nearly balanced by methane sinks, estimated at 581 Tg per year.[37] In a tabulation by the IPCC, estimates of methane emission from global livestock range from 80 to 115 Tg per year.[40]



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmen ... production

So here's another reason why we should stop eating hamburgers and switch to wheat and veggies.

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Whizbang » Wed Mar 05, 2014 3:28 pm UTC

Nylonathatep wrote:Time for some facts:

Words



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmen ... production

So here's another reason why we should stop eating hamburgers and switch to wheat and veggies.


I think that mass protein deficiency would become a bigger problem, in most people's minds, than global warming.

User avatar
Nylonathatep
NOT Nyarlathotep
Posts: 720
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:06 am UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Nylonathatep » Wed Mar 05, 2014 3:38 pm UTC

Whizbang wrote:I think that mass protein deficiency would become a bigger problem, in most people's minds, than global warming.


I'm not proposing an all out non-meat diat. Just like fossil fuel usage in today's world, we should take everything in moderation. Hell, if we stop using fossil fuel entirely in the world, our civilization would collsape! :)


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests