Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by StavrosK | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

StavrosK

Next up: Ants are extinct! Their proportion of total mass compared to elephants is almost zero.

View on HN

"On average, ants monopolize 15–20% of the terrestrial animal biomass"

http://www.pnas.org/content/97/26/14028.full

Elephants are almost extinct because their proportion of mass is almost zero compared to ants!

That would be funnier if elephants were not, in fact, perilously close to being extinct, especially in the wild.

This thread is like a demolition derby for metaphors.

Tangent interested should check out http://www.greenermedia.com/hec.html for more on HEC(human elephant conflict) and to read about their recent trip to Sri Lanka(second) to finish filming a documentary called Common Ground. Can't wait to see it! Elephants and rural farmers need all the help they can get.

Also: Sri Lanka Wildlife Conservation Society www.slwcs.org

This is one of the things I love about HN. Someone makes a flippant comment and I get to learn something interesting cause someone else posts a response like it was a serious statement. I find myself correcting people's flippant comments often, or at least thinking about doing it, and most people just seem annoyed. I really enjoy learning something new even if it's tangential to the topic at hand.

There was a fascinating discussion on how geeks are not like other people in this regard:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1080272

This is one of the things I love about this site.

Right now, I'm half tempted to see if I can find something to submit or discuss that will lead to other tangents relevant to my interests.

It's funny, because I think I was interested in the Y-combinator itself when I came here...

That was StavrosK's whole point, he's obviously aware of it or he wouldn't have picked that particular example.

Give the guy some credit.

Thanks, it's a bit odd that people didn't get it from picking a ubiquitous, numerous species versus one that's almost extinct...

I actually had to laugh when reading it the first time because it seemed such a neat spoof on the article in so few words. You could have used bacteria or insects just the same. Just goes to show that there are many well known facts that turn out to be not that well known after all.

Perhaps your original intent would have been more immediately obvious if you had chosen a different animal that's also almost extinct, but not synonomous in people's minds with large size more so than the fact of their near extinction? Or was that also part of the original intent?

I admit that the analogy is a bit leaky, but the point is that ants are nowhere near extinct, even though they may be much smaller than elephants. Where it breaks down is if you consider the number of ants vs elephants globally. I probably shouldn't have said "total" mass, just relative mass.

Completely off-topic, but a quick google seach interestingly implies that ants hold a significant portion of animal biomas:

On average, ants monopolize 15–20% of the terrestrial animal biomass, and in tropical regions where ants are especially abundant, they monopolize 25%

http://www.pnas.org/content/97/26/14028.full

I didn't have as much luck finding a quick elephant biomass estimate. But giving a generous estimate of 1 million elephants, and the upper limit of the weigh of the larger African elephant at 26,000 pounds we can guess that elephant biomass is less than 26 billion pounds. Considering that's less than the biomass of humans in the US, I'd say ants probably actually do compare well to elephants in proportion of total biomass.

I apologize for any pedantry, but it was actually a question that piqued my curiosity.

I know, otherwise I wouldn't have picked an endangered species versus one that sends a billion members whenever you have a picnic! :p

I see you point but...

"Their proportion of total mass compared to elephants is almost zero."

...that...doesn't seem true.

Hold on, I'll make a graph to prove it to you.

A graph on relative usage was used to prove something absolute...and you offering a graph on relative mass to prove relative mass...so almost but not quite. I didn't see anyone dispute the accuracy of the graph. People balked at the notion that the graph is proof that the web is dead.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com