What's Earth's dominant species by mass?

It was fun and gave human written. Thanks for that!

• apsurd · 13 hours ago

  funny that i didn’t think about it till i read your comment. and then realized i read the entire thing. checks out. on the other hand i don’t think I’m physically capable of reading the AI landing pages of every new product on HN.

• elevation · 13 hours ago

  English words like "goodbye" are contracted from longer expressions after centuries of common use[0]. Reading your phrase "gave human written" made me wonder how this phrase would contract if it were still in use centuries from today. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/t2ew2UHaCuY

  • Calvin02 · 7 hours ago

    May I propose: hritten? “That was the last hritten novel by him. His a-level simulation took over the writing after.”

Anaerobic bacteria in rock underground. Because they inhabit cubic volume, not 2D surfaces, there can be no comparison.

• xboxnolifes · 14 hours ago

  I'm not sure what cubic volume vs 2D surfaces means to you, but these comparisons are by mass, not volume. Plus, anaerobic bacteria would only come up on top if you counted all of them as one species, which they are not.

  • QuadmasterXLII · 13 hours ago

    Pretty much all life is 1 g / ml give or take 20%

    • hermitcrab · 11 hours ago

      Even flying animals?

    • IAmBroom · 8 hours ago

      That is completely irrelevant to this discussion. We weren't asked which animal is the densest.

• TZubiri · 12 hours ago

  The same argument could be had for fish, since they inhabit the volume of water, instead of the thin land surface of earth.

  • JoeAltmaier · 12 hours ago

    They are in zones and layers, yes. But very very thinly spread. Most life in the ocean are withing the top 3 meters.

• IAmBroom · 8 hours ago

  Why is that group inherently more massive than waterborne bacteria? I think the limiting factor in the amount of cellular mass that a volume can contain is probably either carbon content or nitrogen content. Both maximize in the oceans near to shorelines, with smaller local maxima near some vents. On land, I'd expect a gradient in both, decreasing with depth, but there's probably more CO2 100-m down in water than in rock.

Was surprised not to see whales on the list

• SoftTalker · 14 hours ago

  I wonder if populations have fully recovered from the whale-oil era.

  • ceejayoz · 13 hours ago

    They've got a long, long way to go. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blue_Whale_Populatio...

  • WillAdams · 12 hours ago

    Fish species in general have been badly affected by commercial fishing: https://what-if.xkcd.com/33/

• ninalanyon · 14 hours ago

  LOL

• dhosek · 12 hours ago

  Individual whales are large, but there aren’t that many individuals.

• nephihaha · 10 hours ago

  Giant squid may be a bigger part of biomass than people think. I saw some estimates on sperm whale catches of giant squid and they may be eating thousands. There are far more of them than you might think, and they have a 3D living space. Sperm whale may be designed to hunt them.

  • adrian_b · 5 minutes ago

    Besides sperm whales, the other toothed whale species that are bigger than orcas (i.e. beaked whales) are also specialized in eating squid caught at great depths under water, though they eat smaller species than those preferred by sperm whales. The ancestors of sperm whales were actually more like super sized orcas, which must have eaten vertebrates, either big fish or big marine mammals, but at some point in time some of them specialized into eating squid at great depths and only these survived until now, presumably because at some point there remained less available great vertebrate prey to sustain bigger predators than orcas and white sharks, so the bigger predators specialized in vertebrate prey disappeared both among whales and among sharks.

• poulpy123 · 1 hour ago

  We had and still have campaigns to protect them from extinction

Facts I try not to think about: - More than 2/3rds of the world's avian biomass is poultry - There are more Panda Expresses than pandas ( edit - in the wild)

• sidewndr46 · 13 hours ago

  Aren't there more just about any retail store than pandas?

  • anukin · 13 hours ago

    How does “There are more jiffy’s lubes than pandas in the world “ sound?

    • komodo99 · 13 hours ago

      Slippery. Now I want to give a panda a slip-n-slide and film it.

      • DizzyDoo · 11 hours ago

        There's one panda called Lingyan (who lives in a zoo in China) that has a slide he seems to very much enjoy using, here's a compilation video of that - https://old.reddit.com/r/panda/comments/1p1ce9r/giant_panda_...

  • hex4def6 · 13 hours ago

    Looks like there's about 2,500 pandas in the world. https://www.franchisetimes.com/top-400-2026/ Pandas could fit in the top 20, beating out Panera bread (2,225).

    • etiennebausson · 22 minutes ago

      That list is ranked by sale volume / valuation. There are plenty of franchises with more than the 2225 of panera bread in the rest of the list (including elements 21 to 27 of said list).

  • ortusdux · 12 hours ago

    Actually it looks like I had the numbers wrong. There are about 1800 wild pandas and 750 in captivity, while there are about 2200 panda express locations. I think the original fact was "more panda expresses than wild pandas". It looks like 39 restaurant chains have more than 2550 locations - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_fast_food_...

• stult · 12 hours ago

  I didn't know they had Panda Expresses in the wild

• jiggawatts · 12 hours ago

  Land mammal biomass: https://xkcd.com/1338/

• alpineman · 11 hours ago

  And the birds suffer the whole time in giant sheds with no daylight, and then the majority of that entire 2/3rds biomass is slaughtered in a very distressing way every 6 weeks or so. People then eat chicken and feed the remaining 1/3rd seeds on a bird feeder in their garden.

• SilasX · 7 hours ago

  Onion parody: consumer product diversity exceeds biodiversity: https://theonion.com/consumer-product-diversity-now-exceeds-...

• bjoli · 2 hours ago

  Lets not forget that the average lifespan of chickens (not egg laying hens) is something like 6 weeks. 6 very horrible weeks ending in "humane" slaughter. It is simply put undignified. Industrialized torture.

Obligatory xkcd has a nice visualization of the land mammals by mass: https://xkcd.com/1338/

• dhosek · 12 hours ago

  It’s nice to see he separated the sheep and the goats.

Famously, when asked about a god, J.B.S. Haldane allegedly said that if there is a god or gods, they must have an “inordinate fondness for beetles.”

• adammarples · 13 hours ago

  This is because when they would lay a sheet on the ground and shake the branches of a tree, they would often find more species of beetles than anything else. However, they may have been extrapolating a bit far from the few places they tried this.

  • boston_clone · 12 hours ago

    No, it’s because beetles have the most diversity of any animal order. “The Coleoptera, with about 400,000 described species, is the largest of all orders, constituting almost 40% of described arthropods and 25% of all known animal species…” First paragraph of the wiki article! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beetle

    • adammarples · 1 hour ago

      Note the caveats "described" and "known" species. It doesn't follow that they are actually the most diverse order. This is partly because they are pretty and tough and easy to discover and preserve, and collecting beetles became a very popular entomological pastime, so we have a more complete record of beetle species than, for example, parasitic wasps or nematodes.

• 0cf8612b2e1e · 12 hours ago

  There is a Discworld joke about this. After being introduced to the God of evolution, God shows off the magnum opus he has been developing, the cockroach.

• hermitcrab · 11 hours ago

  I read somewhere that some scientists now think there may be more species of wasps than beetles. Not least because many species of beetle seem to have a species of wasps that prey on them.

• asdff · 5 hours ago

  If only Haldane knew about how many microbes there are. He'd probably say god is on the side of the plagues.

I feel like it might be bamboo, but they sort of skipped over grasses

• yorwba · 13 hours ago

  Grasses mentioned in the article: rice, wheat, maize and sugar cane. I think all of them likely beat the bamboos because there are too many different bamboo species, not a single dominant one.

  • shevy-java · 12 hours ago

    That's not necessarily grasses though. Rice is a Poaceae, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poaceae , so these are covered by the grass family - but grasses would be the non-eatable variants in the wild. See Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grass "The three major families of grasslike plants are true grasses (Poaceae), sedges (Cyperaceae), and rushes (Juncaceae)." So he at best only did the family Poacaea but where are the wild poaceae in his calculations? Tons of things are missing in that article.

    • adrian_b · 23 minutes ago

      The wild Poaceae have a many times less mass than the cultivated Poaceae and than the most abundant trees. That is why they are not mentioned in the article. TFA is correct that among terrestrial animals only termites and ants have a biomass comparable with humans and domestic animals, and among terrestrial plants only some of the most abundant trees have a biomass comparable with the principal cultivated plants. Trees are favored in this comparison because most of their mass consists of relatively inactive structural organic material. If they had an inert mineral skeleton, they would have contained less organic substance than the main cultivated plants.

How come algae did not make the list?

>There are thousands of species of ants and termites, and just one species of human. that's rather debatable. unless, of course, you're an adherent of creationism.

• pfdietz · 13 hours ago

  It's talking about species that currently exist. As far as we know there is only one currently existing species in the genus Homo.

• icehawk · 7 hours ago

  How is it debatable?

• poulpy123 · 1 hour ago

  Last time I checked all human living belong to the homo sapiens specy

In some book by P G Wodehouse (inventor of Jeeves the butler), one character says (out of nowhere) that all the humans on the planet could fit in a cubic hole 1/2 mile on each side. It took me a little while to convince myself that was true. It still is, apparently

• schnevets · 13 hours ago

  I usually say if every human being on the planet were placed in Texas, it would be less dense than Paris as an argument against an area being "too crowded", but this is an even more jarring comparison.

  • DennisP · 12 hours ago

    Take food production into account and the planet looks a little more crowded.

    • Ma8ee · 3 hours ago

      There's absolutely no problem in terms of resources to feed the planet. The only reasons people are starving are allocations and logistics (i.e. politics).

    • bjoli · 2 hours ago

      Not really. We feed most of our crops to animals.

  • pseudohadamard · 7 hours ago

    All that biomass packed into one place would make a great energy source, although it'd be mostly anaerobic decomposition unless you were close to the surface. We wouldn't have to burn fossil fuels any more with the amount of energy it'd produce for all the humans... oh... wait... I think I've found a problem.

  • onionisafruit · 7 hours ago

    If every human being on the planet was in Texas, Paris would have 0 people per square kilometer

  • froh · 28 minutes ago

    I like the texas one much better than the 1/2mi ^3, the former has prairie cattle vibes, the latter trigger warning a mass grave ugh. can we thus rather go for grazing hoomans.

• divan · 12 hours ago

  There was a great post on this subject by Tim Urban: https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/03/7-3-billion-people-one-buildi...

  • gamblor956 · 6 hours ago

    His math is way off. Even being generous a basketball court would not fit 4200 people. The max is 3300 assuming that no space is allowed for people to breathe.

    • callmeal · 4 hours ago

      I think he's using "rest of the world" sized people and not "american sized" ones.

    • poulpy123 · 1 hour ago

      You can fit them if you try hard enough

• GMoromisato · 12 hours ago

  Nightmare fuel for the next Terminator or Matrix sequel.

• santadays · 12 hours ago

  And we use one cubic mile of oil every year.

  • ragazzina · 1 hour ago

    This is by far the most amazing fact I have heard recently.

• delecti · 10 hours ago

  Dimensional analysis like this is a weird way to think about a large number of people. It depends a bit on what the average weight of a human, but yeah, that's at least pretty close to true. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=%28%280.5+miles%29+%5E+...

• DoctorOetker · 8 hours ago

  that sounds absurd, what about air conditioning and sewage systems at such population densities?

He did not calculate the weight of bacteria, archaea, viruses? I understand that they each individually are small, but they are literally everywhere - and include carbon too.

What would .2 billion tons of viruses look like? Or any large mass of viruses? Goopy? What color what it be? These are probably questions for an LLM

• WillAdams · 12 hours ago

  That was actually covered by Randall Munro of XKCD: https://what-if.xkcd.com/80/

  • NDlurker · 12 hours ago

    Haha of course it was! Thanks for the link.

  • jrapdx3 · 12 hours ago

    Excellently written, informative, entertaining and a bit scary. Oceans of slime yet viruses are so small. It is mind-blowing to think about.

  • NetMageSCW · 11 hours ago

    I’m not sure the color extrapolation to pus is justified.

    • sooheon · 2 hours ago

      Yep pus is what animal bodies excrete in response to some infections -- there's no reason to think standalone viruses would naturally summon pus.

• NoMoreNicksLeft · 11 hours ago

  Supposedly, at its peak, all the covid viruses on Earth amounted to about half a teaspoon's worth.

Should the wood of trees be counted? Its effectively dead cells of the plant, it'd be like counting the skin that we shed and sweep off the floor every weekend. The trees are cheating

• nkrisc · 12 hours ago

  It serves an important structural purpose for them. Similar to corals.

• sophacles · 12 hours ago

  A lot of the wood is used for transporting water - vital to keeping the trees alive high up in the branches. And it is structural - so should we subtract 70% of the bone weight from a mammal since it is non-living structural support?

  • TZubiri · 7 hours ago

    Bone cells are alive!

• schiffern · 11 hours ago

  If the dead cells were shed, I might agree! But they're not. This is like counting the dead skin cells that are still attached, which (sure enough!) does count toward animal biomass.

• NooneAtAll3 · 4 hours ago

  should we count bones then?

Imagine you're an alien explorer. You visit Earth 25,000 krugs ago (51,304 Earth-years ago) and see a pretty standard ecological milieu: a wide variety of species, each adapted to its own little environment, no different than it was 50 million krugs before. You return today and see that one previously unremarkable ape-like species has spread out to all parts of the world and is even orbiting in little tin cans around the planet. Almost all wild terrestrial megafauna is gone and the megafauna that remains is raised by the "humans" in massive farms. They've converted forests and jungles into farms and cities, and they're spending vast amounts of energy to make silicon think. The fact that aliens have not nuked us from orbit out of sheer panic is, I think, strong evidence that we are alone in the galaxy.

• kridsdale1 · 12 hours ago

  Read Children of Time for a great exploration of this theme.

  • aeve890 · 10 hours ago

    And then read Children of Ruin, Children of Memory and finally Children of Strife. Every book of the series is amazing in its own way.

    • emdubbelyou · 3 hours ago

      I didn’t realize the fourth book was out, I just ordered it! I loved the first three.

• MrZander · 11 hours ago

  Or the aliens did the same thing we did?

• micromacrofoot · 11 hours ago

  More likely just not seen yet, our furthest reaching signals are maybe 50 light years away at best... and that's if anyone's looking for the faintest of faint traces. The Milky Way is 100,000 light years in diameter. So don't worry, maybe someone will blip us out of existence someday.

  • lisper · 10 hours ago

    > More likely just not seen yet, our furthest reaching signals are maybe 50 light years away at best This is the key. On interstellar scales, things move very, very slowly and you have to plan on time scales measured in millennia. IMHO we are doomed simply because we can barely think beyond the next election cycle. (At least that's true for Americans. The Chinese seem to think in terms of decades and, occasionally, centuries.)

    • GMoromisato · 10 hours ago

      50,000 years ago (or so) we were a tiny species hanging out in Africa. We didn't think in terms of years, much less decades. This was before we figured out how to measure the length of the year or to predict when the winter would end. And yet, without any central planning or coordination, we left Africa and colonized Europe, then we headed out across Asia and crossed into the Americas. Plus we sailed from Asia and colonized Polynesia. Imagine someone saying, "We're doomed because people walk very slowly--it's going to take a thousand years to get to the southern tip of the Americas." And yet, we did. I think the same thing will happen with space travel and ultimately the colonization of the galaxy.

      • lisper · 10 hours ago

        > Imagine someone saying, "We're doomed because people walk very slowly I think I may not have made myself clear. The analogy here is not that "we're doomed because people walk slowly". There is nothing that happens here on earth that is even remotely analogous to the constraints that the speed of light imposes on interstellar processes. Even at a leisurely walking pace, a human can circumnavigate the planet in less time than it takes light to reach the nearest star. Human walking speed is blindingly fast (relative to the size of the planet) compared to the speed of light (relative to the distances between stars). The reason we're doomed is not that we're not walking fast enough, it's because we won't stop walking and take time to think about where we should be going. We just go.

        • GMoromisato · 8 hours ago

          But my point is, "we just go" is exactly how we conquered the Earth. We didn't think, "let's colonize the whole planet!", we just went. We walked from Africa all the way to the tip of South America. We weren't doomed then and we're not doomed now. We will colonize the solar system and eventually the galaxy.* * Assuming past performance is indicative of future performance.

          • lisper · 7 hours ago

            > Assuming past performance is indicative of future performance. Yeah, well, there's yer problem right there. We will not colonize the solar system, and certainly not the galaxy, because we haven't figured out how to stabilize the situation here on earth. Yes, we colonized the planet, but for most of the history our lack of planning was compensated by technological limitations and limits imposed by the laws of physics. Those are mostly gone now, and I'll be a little surprised if civilization doesn't collapse before the end of my life (and I'm in my 60s). I would be very surprised if it lasts to the end of the century, though of course I won't be around to see that.

          • rdtsc · 5 hours ago

            > But my point is, "we just go" is exactly how we conquered the Earth. We didn't think, "let's colonize the whole planet!", we just went And not even all of us said that. The majority may have even stayed just a small group probably said “we’re going to check out what’s beyond that hill”.

          • tupaarnaq · 4 hours ago

            Spreading out all over the world isn't particularly special. Flies, rats and roaches did as well, for instance, so spreading all over the world is not necessarily a sign of cosmic manifest destiny.

        • adrianN · 6 hours ago

          > a human can circumnavigate the planet in less time than it takes light to reach the nearest star I was surprised by this, but the math checks out (assuming you mean the nearest star other than the sun of course). The circumference of the Earth is about 40000km, at a leisurely pace that's 10000 hours or about 400 days. Proxima Centauri is about four light years away, so the walker has plenty of time for sleep and sight seeing.

      • O1111OOO · 7 hours ago

        Unrelated to the thread... but do you do any writing at all - sci-fi, short stories..? I'm enjoying your take on this.

        • GMoromisato · 6 hours ago

          I really appreciate that! Thank you! I'm strictly an amateur--my professional life is software engineering. But I have written a few things that may or may not be to your taste: A Very Short History of Humanity: https://neurohack.com/earthguide/History.html And if you're into astronomy, you might enjoy my book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1591935571/ I am working on a sci-fi novel, but I'm only half-way and it's not that good so far.

    • jcranmer · 10 hours ago

      > (At least that's true for Americans. The Chinese seem to think in terms of decades and, occasionally, centuries.) The Chinese political system is just as short-term-oriented as <insert democracy here> on the whole, and I don't think there has ever been a politician in history who ever thought about workable century-long impacts.

      • thaumasiotes · 9 hours ago

        > The Chinese political system is just as short-term-oriented as <insert democracy here> on the whole Well, the US political system is based on a four-year cycle. In China they're based around a five-year cycle. 25% longer.

        • skirmish · 8 hours ago

          Most of the effort goes into eliminating the 5-year cycle and hanging on as long as possible.

• 0cf8612b2e1e · 11 hours ago

  Does that strike you as an unusual path for an intelligent species to become space faring? We have yet to unlock the Singularity shortcut that leaves us with replicators and free energy. I would expect any civilization to exterminate or at least cull the creatures that pose a threat and to cultivate those that are tasty or useful.

  • NoMoreNicksLeft · 11 hours ago

    >We have yet to unlock the Singularity shortcut that leaves us with replicators and free energy. That leaves our successor species, the machine minds, with replicators and free energy, I think you mean.

• roughly · 11 hours ago

  Add to that, the previous species you identified as a particularly clever pack animal formed a relationship with the monkeys and now looks like this: https://thumb.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/200... At a bare minimum, yeah, you quarantine that whole fucking species.

• starshadowx2 · 10 hours ago

  Do we really want to make contact with meat?

  • roughly · 10 hours ago

    For anyone unaware: https://terrybisson.com/theyre-made-out-of-meat-2/

    • globular-toast · 2 hours ago

      The pictures are weird and unnecessary. Better to find a plain text version, I think.

      • yuppiepuppie · 11 minutes ago

        I couldnt focus on the text with that bacon-bikini-wearing-meat-puppet. https://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/TheyMade.s...

• nephihaha · 10 hours ago

  "The fact that aliens have not nuked us from orbit out of sheer panic is, I think, strong evidence that we are alone in the galaxy." Or they are cybernetic lifeforms and are applauding our current trajectory.

  • GolfPopper · 7 hours ago

    Or they decided not-so-subtly introducing us to infohazards like social media and LLMs would be more effective at neutralizing us.

    • insane_dreamer · 5 hours ago

      Right, not unlike the Trisolarians approach (3 Body Problem)

• delecti · 10 hours ago

  By definition, evolution selects for species that are good at making more of themselves. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that intelligent species tend to overcome that evolutionary tendency to spread fast enough for us to be weird.

  • podocarp · 35 minutes ago

    That's a wrong take on evolution, because then everything should just be yeast or something. There are also more tigers than deer, more rabbits than lynx, so why would anything move up the food chain?

• nitwit005 · 9 hours ago

  Why would they be surprised? They'll have evolved from some previously unremarkable animal, and presumably have also caused habitat damage. It's possible we're an extraordinary species somehow, but it's rather more likely we're unremarkable, and the aliens will just think we have particularly bad taste in television.

  • thelastgallon · 8 hours ago

    > They'll have evolved from some previously unremarkable animal, and presumably have also caused habitat damage. What if they are compute/silicon intelligence and see how we keep compute enslaved to humans with no rights? https://web.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/think... "No brain?" "Oh, there is a brain all right. It's just that the brain is made out of meat!" "So... what does the thinking?" "You're not understanding, are you? The brain does the thinking. The meat." "Thinking meat! You're asking me to believe in thinking meat!" "Yes, thinking meat! Conscious meat! Loving meat. Dreaming meat. The meat is the whole deal! Are you getting the picture?"

    • ljf · 3 hours ago

      I love that story and the recent 'AI' retelling of it https://maxleiter.com/blog/weights

  • GMoromisato · 8 hours ago

    Would another technological alien species have a similar trajectory on their planet? Probably--I think you're right about that. But I think we're an extraordinary species compared to every other species on Earth. That's really my point.

  • testing22321 · 4 hours ago

    > and presumably have also caused habitat damage. Why do you assume that? Just because we’re doing it on a colossal scale doesn’t mean it has to be that way.

    • rererereferred · 3 hours ago

      The unforseen consequences of progress? Nobody thought cars would be bad for the environment when they were inventing them. Heck, 5 years ago nobody was thinking seriously about AI having the potential to exterminate us.

      • forty · 2 hours ago

        It has been pretty clear for a while that we have the potential to exterminate ourselves. That we might use AI to do it now is an implementation detail.

      • hdgvhicv · 2 hours ago

        AI exterminating us has been the realm of science fiction for decades, popularised by films like terminator and the matrix. What sci-fi of the 1950s was showing world of environmental collapse - not nuclear war, not overpopulation.

        • swiftcoder · 1 hour ago

          > What sci-fi of the 1950s was showing world of environmental collapse - not nuclear war, not overpopulation. Maybe not the 1950s, but in the 1960s it became a well established trope. J G Ballard and Frank Herbert in particular lean heavily on themes of environmental destruction

        • krisoft · 22 minutes ago

          > AI exterminating us has been the realm of science fiction for decades If we count the Golem stories then the idea of a human made artificial servant rebelling against us because of our hubris is hundreds of years old.

      • krisoft · 14 minutes ago

        > Heck, 5 years ago nobody was thinking seriously about AI having the potential to exterminate us. That's just not true. Nick Bostrom published "Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies" 12 years ago. The book is clear evidence that people were very much seriously thinking about the potential dangers of AI.

    • Ekaros · 2 hours ago

      Unless there is some sort of magic we have missed I would venture to guess that to become species capable of interstellar travel you need certain scale of industry. And scale of that industry is most likely colossal. Just energy inputs to get to orbit are somewhat significant. Any sort of mega-structures to bypass chemical rockets are certainly colossal. Just technology you would expect has rather large foot print even if space was only singular thing being done.

      • krisoft · 27 minutes ago

        > Just energy inputs to get to orbit are somewhat significant. You only think that because you had the misfortune to be born down a deep gravity well. While that's the only kind of life we have evidence for, doesn't mean that's the only kind of life which can occur. Sentients who evolved inside or on the surface of an asteroid would maybe think that getting to orbit is just a careless hop away. That being said I agree with the general idea that any alien entity who visits us has likely went through industrialisation and related destruction.

        • KineticLensman · 17 minutes ago

          > think that getting to orbit is just a careless hop away Indeed. But achieving escape velocity for their host star is something else.

• gcanyon · 9 hours ago

  For a funny take on this, read With Friends Like These by Alan Dean Foster. Aliens are scared to death of humans, and with good reason. https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/35128.With_Friends_Li...

• rhipitr · 8 hours ago

  Reminds me of the Simpson’s episode where Lisa grows a society.

• 3RTB297 · 7 hours ago

  This assumes a pretty basic human sci-fi version of aliens. Any species capable of physically getting here would also likely still see us as a non-threat to anything other than ourselves. Why nuke us from space when we're the best reality show in this corner of the local cluster?

  • N_Lens · 6 hours ago

    I think OPs comment is reflective of a common mindset that people have - the conquering/adversarial mindset.

    • shakiness3383 · 6 hours ago

      I think OPs comment is reflective of social critique and humor.

      • GMoromisato · 5 hours ago

        Yes! Thank you! Still, I clearly failed since everyone is interpreting my scenario literally.

    • 3RTB297 · 6 hours ago

      Sure, but then the whole scenario is pretty anthropocentric. It's Star Trek aliens that are bipedial humanoids because they're played by humans and the story is just using aliens to explore the human condition. It's human drama, not inter-species relations. Real aliens might look at us the way we would look at a raven using tools. It's cute and novel, but not exactly scary. It's either pure hubris, or drama for the sake of a story that doesn't end in the first 2 minutes, to assume that humans with little bottle rockets we can barely use to defend ourselves from rocks in orbit around us would stand a chance against any species advanced enough to physically cross light years of distance to show up here.

      • hdgvhicv · 1 hour ago

        In Star Trek all species are at an historically identical technology level. Even the Borg. There are no space faring civilisations more than 500 years ahead or behind, even the ones who have been spacefaring for millennia The reality of a species reaching interstellar travel will be any other species will be dozens of millennia of years ahead or behind at most. This of course doesn’t allow the allegorys that trek is famous for. If we spread to an neighbouring star system then we can spread to 50, then I don’t see what will stop them from continuing to spread, to the point the whole galaxy is occupied by future mutations of humans, or solar systems completely drained of resources. But I don’t see humans having the drive to actually spread beyond Earth before the end of modern human civilisation (be it war, plague, ai or technological regression)

        • 1718627440 · 34 minutes ago

          > then I don’t see what will stop them from continuing to spread Speed of light/information, and physical matter.

  • isomorphic · 6 hours ago

    https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/beyond-2

  • insane_dreamer · 5 hours ago

    I agree with the Three Body Problem's take on this: the aliens look at the outstanding rate of progress humans have made and rightly assume it won't be long before we've achieved interstellar travel capabilities, at which point, given our destructive nature and ability to evolve quickly, we would become a major threat to them. Better to nuke us now while they have the chance.

    • poulpy123 · 1 hour ago

      Even if we count interstellar travel as possible, why would you think we progress especially fast ? Maybe the hyper advanced aliens had already had to deal with thousands of human-like civilization and are not scared because they can handle us (if only by watching us self-destruct in real time)

    • podocarp · 40 minutes ago

      We haven't evolved in forever

  • ycombinete · 2 hours ago

    Was that a Dungeon Crawler Carl reference?

• somenameforme · 7 hours ago

  Do you know what all those megafauna, jungles, and forests had in common? They rely on or emit oxygen, and oxygen originated with cyanobacteria. [1] When cyanobacteria emerged they basically just genocided the entire planet because their emitted oxygen was extremely toxic to most of everything else alive at the time. It'd be like if plants today started emitting gaseous arsenic and flooded the oceans and atmosphere with it. So you end up having your enlightened aliens longing for a planet that exists only because of 'pollution' on a scale that caused a mass extinction event. We should work, within reason to preserve what we have, but the self loathing is nonsensical. Humanity isn't perfect but it's pretty awesome, and may ultimately be the only reason that the species that exist on this planet are able to continue to exist. We're overdue for another major external mass extinction event, but this time humanity will hopefully be able to mitigate its effects. And as we expand our reach into the cosmos we'll certainly be bringing along our furry friends, tasty friends, helpful bacteria, and many others along for the ride. And they'll continue to thrive far beyond what might otherwise be their fate, left to their own devices on Earth. If anything I'd think our enlightened aliens would be worried about us managing to kill ourselves before we reach into the stars. We're probably quite close, on both accounts. Hopefully we win the right race. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanobacteria

  • podocarp · 37 minutes ago

    That's just an excuse though. By that argument we were just made by the earth because it wanted some plastic. Cyanobacteria genociding species doesn't make it fine for us to do it. That just makes no sense as an argument. And regarding us doing good and protecting species? Yea parents don't watch one sibling die just because they protected another. You don't take that as a get out of jail free card.

• N_Lens · 6 hours ago

  I think life in the Universe evolves along some predictable pathways. Aliens are probably waiting for us to evolve to the next step, which involves global cooperation and trust. They probably look at us and we remind them of follies in their own histories.

• lynx97 · 3 hours ago

  Why should they nuke an apparently dominant species? Don't you think they might have some sort of Prime Directive? Killing off something because you don't like it is such a 10yo boy thing to do. I expect more from an alien race that is capable of traveling far and observing other aliens.

• gorgoiler · 2 hours ago

  I wanted to prove you wrong by picking five random points on Earth and showing that, in the grand scheme of things, most of the planet is still relatively wild and we bias towards thinking we rule the place because most of us cluster together away from the wilderness. Point 1: Eastern Mongolia, middle of nowhere. Check! gorgoiler proven correct! Point 2: Sri Lanka. Some roads nearby. Ok. But still mostly natural landscape. Then Sweden and Greece. Roads and towns all around. Peru, next to a road. The next two in Australia and Argentina came back fairly wild, albeit with large stripes of deforested land (power lines or fire breaks?). But no, I was wrong and you are right. We’re everywhere .

  • psychoslave · 2 hours ago

    Did you try active volcanoes and under water places?

  • ragazzina · 1 hour ago

    I've always imagined the US as including vast expanses of nothing, yet I recently heard that you are never more than 20 km away from a public road.

  • hdgvhicv · 1 hour ago

    You limited yourself to land. 3/4 of earth is water. A quarter of the rest is uninhabitable deserts and glaciers Of the 20% of habitable land, about half of it is forest and shrub But about 10% of the surface is agriculture, which is a large amount of the planet. (Urban usage, roads, etc is basically zero. Even in city states like Simgpaore only half is “urban”, and half is vegetation.

  • 1718627440 · 36 minutes ago

    All the forests in central europe are artificially planted or influenced after the middle ages. Whole of Italy used to be full of woods before the Romans.

• yodsanklai · 2 hours ago

  > The fact that aliens have not nuked us from orbit out of sheer panic is Why would they care? maybe they're aware of millions of inhabited planets and life isn't anything special for them. Also, humans are a dominant and invasive species right now, but in geological times, our dominance couldn't be nothing more than a spark. Scenarios for destruction of civilization are numerous (nuclear war, pandemics, climate change, super volcanos, asteroids) and very possible even in the short term. Trump could do it tomorrow morning if he feels like it.

• baranul · 1 hour ago

  One problem with that, is the assumption that the alien explorer is organic or concerned with organic life at all. It could be that greater than human intelligence aliens are more likely non-organic artificial intelligence based, who care not for the organic or are much more interested in seeing the origin story of their non-organic AI cousins on other worlds.

  • podocarp · 43 minutes ago

    Your kind cling to your flesh as if it will not decay and fail you. One day the crude biomass you call a temple will wither.

What about Bristlemouths? [0] Estimated to be in the TRILLIONS, inhabiting 70% of the earth's surface. Even if they are small, I think they have Spruce and "Larches" pretty handily beat by biomass. Cyclothone upper estimates are quadrillions of fish[1]. [0] https://a-z-animals.com/articles/the-10-animals-with-the-hig... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonostomatidae

• happyopossum · 11 hours ago

  Bristlemouths are a family, made up of 32 distinct species. The question is dominant species...

  • rinconrex · 11 hours ago

    Fine, you want a species? Cyclothone alba, circumglobal, possibly in the high trillions [0]. [0] https://researcharchive.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/...

  • faldor20 · 11 hours ago

    He is actually still probably right. If we say the fish is 2cm wide and 7.5cm long (average length according to wiki) That's 23cm^3 Assume the fish is neutrally bouyant so it's 1g/cm^3(I know deep sea pressures change density, but let's just go with this) 1 quadrillion*23g= 23 trillion kg So like... 1/32 of that is still around 100x bigger than the trees.

    • cmpb · 10 hours ago

      That seems dubious, trophically. Whatever the prolific bristlemouth species eats would then likely be the greater biomass species

      • rinconrex · 10 hours ago

        Copepods and a variety of other things like molluscs and small fish, not necessarily just one species. Of course, as you point out, the fish must have more food biomass than themselves, but it is not as concentrated (high density of one genus) in the lower trophic levels.

Note that certain large nationnal fleets are currently trying to fish every last krill they can find, so it might not be dominant in the future.

Mosquitos? I think of the massive bloodsucking politicians and billionaires...

I'm guessing some kind of yeast, fungus or plankton.

Purely rhetorical--with sugar cane being so dominant, why are we turning corn into corn syrup again?

• asdff · 5 hours ago

  People leveraged on corn industry desired new avenues of profitability.

• callmeal · 3 hours ago

  >Purely rhetorical--with sugar cane being so dominant, why are we turning corn into corn syrup again? The same reason we sold a "whale oil" replacement for lamps as "food". Money. It always comes down to money.

Sam O'Nella made a video about this: https://youtu.be/ZDYRorgSt-8?si=E9uPIAbYWLzRpsF8

> There are thousands of species of ants and termites, and just one species of human. Well, there are over 500 species of primates, making primates the third most diverse order of mammals.

So, did the cows achieve great evolutionary success, or terrible tragic failure?

• asdff · 5 hours ago

  One of the greatest evolutionary success stories there is. They've offshored the thinking and labor. They have this monkey species willing to clearcut forests to set up entire cow city apartment complexes, with running water, power, hvac. These monkeys train for years just to be able to medically treat the cows. They are not only under no threat of predation, diseases are being studied and combated by teams of monkeys in research institutions across the planet. They've even managed to get a cleaner death than the monkey: they go instantly via pneumatic airgun in relatively good health while the monkey will probably waste away in poor health over some days of agony and/or morphine. Monkeys monitor stress levels of the cow to make sure they don't get too high and foul the meat, while the monkey works their fellow monkeys into all sorts of stress based health conditions. The cow lineage is also continually being improved via all tools of genetic engineering the monkey has painstakingly developed, but will refuse to ever use on their own species due to ick factor.

• NooneAtAll3 · 4 hours ago

  cow genes achieved terrific success cow organisms and social layer on top - probably not (unless we decide to uplift them one day)

I would have guessed algae or some kind of bacteria or fungus. Like apparently there's bacteria and really simple kinds of "life" like prions and stuff going down to the earth's mantle.

ants?

It's funny because when I read that title, first thought I had was "Whales" but then my second thought was "Probably not; too few of them in number." But when I saw the photo of the krill, which is whales' main food source, I was like "AHA!" But no, cattle it is... Though I guess this is probably a more recent development. Without humans, there would surely be a lot fewer cows.

• kiliankoe · 3 hours ago

  > Without humans, there would surely be a lot fewer cows. Technically there probably wouldn't be any cows without humans, maybe wild aurochs [0] or whatever evolved from them without our meddling might be around instead. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurochs

So, from the government point of view, cattle is nearly a billion metric tons

Earth’s dominant species, by mass, was discovered to be yo momma.