1338: "Land Mammals"

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

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

jpvlsmv
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:43 pm UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby jpvlsmv » Wed Mar 05, 2014 3:51 pm UTC

If every goat was made of TNT and detonated them all at once, you'd have the equivalent of a Tsar bomba.

db85
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 4:31 pm UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby db85 » Wed Mar 05, 2014 4:30 pm UTC

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


What is the point of the title text...? Is there really that much different between

3000 bacteria-lbs per 1 human-lb

and

3003 (bacteria-lbs + bacteria-in-human-lbs) per 1 human-lb

??

Bounty
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 10:38 pm UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Bounty » Wed Mar 05, 2014 4:38 pm UTC

Nylonathatep wrote: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]

...



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

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


Your logic is backwards. If the problem is "Food animals produce greenhouse gases", using the solution "eat fewer animals" would actually increase the population, which increases the amount of gas produced. Obviously if uneaten tasty, tasty meat creatures produce CO2 eating MORE of them will help the enviornment. So have a second hamburger, it might just help save the planet!

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1415
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby mathmannix » Wed Mar 05, 2014 4:41 pm UTC

cellocgw wrote: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)...


I'm not sure exactly where you were going with this, but personally I would guesstimate that I eat an average of a pound of beef in a week. (I could easily eat more, if I got Burger King or McDonalds every day, but I usually only get that about once a week, plus some hamburger helper, beef stew, and the occasional steak.) At that rate, it would take me about 5.75 years to eat 1.4 times my weight in beef, which is less than the life expectancy of a beef cow, at about 10 years. But I'm probably not average; lots of humans never eat beef.
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

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 4:52 pm UTC

Bounty wrote:Your logic is backwards. If the problem is "Food animals produce greenhouse gases", using the solution "eat fewer animals" would actually increase the population, which increases the amount of gas produced. Obviously if uneaten tasty, tasty meat creatures produce CO2 eating MORE of them will help the enviornment. So have a second hamburger, it might just help save the planet!


Except these are farm animals. If we don't want to eat as much cattle, we could just breed less of them... ???
Last edited by Nylonathatep on Wed Mar 05, 2014 4:59 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
keithl
Posts: 639
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:46 pm UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby keithl » Wed Mar 05, 2014 4:53 pm UTC

casanunda wrote:
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. :)
Missing square added.
Spoiler:
yo_mama.png

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1587
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Wed Mar 05, 2014 4:59 pm UTC

db85 wrote:
Bacteria still outweigh us thousands to one--and that's not even counting the several pounds of them in your body.


What is the point of the title text...? Is there really that much different between

3000 bacteria-lbs per 1 human-lb

and

3003 (bacteria-lbs + bacteria-in-human-lbs) per 1 human-lb

??
It reduces the weight of human biomass. So 3,000:1 becomes 3,000.05 : 0.95
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

User avatar
cjmcjmcjmcjm
Posts: 1158
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 5:15 am UTC
Location: Anywhere the internet is strong

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby cjmcjmcjmcjm » Wed Mar 05, 2014 5:06 pm UTC

Bounty wrote:
Nylonathatep wrote: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]

...



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

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


Your logic is backwards. If the problem is "Food animals produce greenhouse gases", using the solution "eat fewer animals" would actually increase the population, which increases the amount of gas produced. Obviously if uneaten tasty, tasty meat creatures produce CO2 eating MORE of them will help the enviornment. So have a second hamburger, it might just help save the planet!

I keep telling that to my vegetarian sister!
frezik wrote:Anti-photons move at the speed of dark

DemonDeluxe wrote:Paying to have laws written that allow you to do what you want, is a lot cheaper than paying off the judge every time you want to get away with something shady.

User avatar
keithl
Posts: 639
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:46 pm UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby keithl » Wed Mar 05, 2014 5:09 pm UTC

Nylonathatep wrote: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.
So here's another reason why we should stop eating hamburgers and switch to wheat and veggies.
I beg to differ. Computing from your own statistics, if we chow down on the darker grey blob in the center, the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions will be 7 times greater than switching from livestock to vegetables.
People
who eat people
are the hungriest people
in the world
- testimony sung at Barbra Streisand's cannibalism trial

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 5:12 pm UTC

keithl wrote:
Nylonathatep wrote: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.
So here's another reason why we should stop eating hamburgers and switch to wheat and veggies.
I beg to differ. Computing from your own statistics, if we chow down on the darker grey blob in the center, the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions will be 7 times greater than switching from livestock to vegetables.
People
who eat people
are the hungriest people
in the world
- testimony sung at Barbra Streisand's cannibalism trial



I didn't have the calculations myself. The entire quote is from wikipedia. Again here's the link

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

User avatar
Wnderer
Posts: 640
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 9:10 pm UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Wnderer » Wed Mar 05, 2014 5:48 pm UTC

So being eaten by people has been very very good for cows and if we want to increase bio diversity we should eat more different kinds of animals.

Ekaros
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 8:37 am UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Ekaros » Wed Mar 05, 2014 5:54 pm UTC

Anyone else surprised by amount of horses still around?

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1587
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Wed Mar 05, 2014 6:12 pm UTC

Blind taste tests show they're better than cows.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

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 6:42 pm UTC

Quizatzhaderac wrote:Blind taste tests show they're better than cows.


What are? Horses?

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1587
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Wed Mar 05, 2014 7:12 pm UTC

yes
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

User avatar
Trickster
Posts: 89
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 5:56 pm UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Trickster » Wed Mar 05, 2014 7:17 pm UTC

Dammit. I want more labels too. One of those clumps gotta be chickens. There are a lot of chickens. This needs to be larger and more labeled--it looks partitioned as though that's how it was originally calculated. :P

Krealr
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 8:22 pm UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Krealr » Wed Mar 05, 2014 7:24 pm UTC

Trickster wrote:Dammit. I want more labels too. One of those clumps gotta be chickens. There are a lot of chickens. This needs to be larger and more labeled--it looks partitioned as though that's how it was originally calculated. :P



Milked many chickens lately? :mrgreen:

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 7:34 pm UTC

What other Mammals do we keep as livestock and/or pets? Llamas, donkeys, buffalo, etc. Do zoo animals count? Would all the mammals in the world's zoos add up to enough to a square?

I am guessing the top-center one is dogs. We keep more dogs than cats, right? I gotta think more people are dog people than cat people, seeing as how cats are cats and all.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3454
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby rmsgrey » Wed Mar 05, 2014 7:42 pm UTC

Whizbang wrote:What other Mammals do we keep as livestock and/or pets? Llamas, donkeys, buffalo, etc. Do zoo animals count? Would all the mammals in the world's zoos add up to enough to a square?

I am guessing the top-center one is dogs. We keep more dogs than cats, right? I gotta think more people are dog people than cat people, seeing as how cats are cats and all.


Dogs tend to be bigger.

Jragonlord
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 8:33 am UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Jragonlord » Wed Mar 05, 2014 7:42 pm UTC

... Is anyone else a little disappointed that the boxes aren't arranged as an abstract of the continents?

Of course, that could be bad, if all the cows are set up on North America... quite the statement about the people there...

jiggy
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri May 29, 2009 9:39 am UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby jiggy » Wed Mar 05, 2014 8:05 pm UTC

Wnderer wrote:So being eaten by people has been very very good for cows and if we want to increase bio diversity we should eat more different kinds of animals.


That's the main thrust of most of the livestock conservancy groups. The more that people eat a particular breed of animal, the more it is produced.

snoweel
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 8:04 pm UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby snoweel » Wed Mar 05, 2014 8:11 pm UTC

Fascinating. I wouldn't have guessed that sheep would be the #3 species (after humans). Or that there were so many horses. Or that wild mammals are such a small quantity (roughly equal to the horses). This raises so many questions. How do these numbers compare to birds, or fish, or insects, or other invertebrates?

This kind of chart in a large tactile version would be a neat addition to a science museum, like the way they sometimes have scale models of the solar system.

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 8:15 pm UTC

Whizbang wrote:
Quizatzhaderac wrote:Blind taste tests show they're better than cows.


What are? Horses?

Besides, they're sold as beef in Europe.
Jragonlord wrote:... Is anyone else a little disappointed that the boxes aren't arranged as an abstract of the continents?

Of course, that could be bad, if all the cows are set up on North America... quite the statement about the people there...

I think pigs for Middle-East+North-Africa would be worse.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Klear » Wed Mar 05, 2014 9:16 pm UTC

Whizbang wrote:
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.


I don't think people who consume most beef are in any danger of protein deficiency.

Mikeynolan
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 8:49 pm UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Mikeynolan » Wed Mar 05, 2014 9:43 pm UTC

We need it as a function of time: When did we (and our domestic animals) start to make such a huge fraction, and is there usually a largest one.

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 11:40 pm UTC

Klear wrote:
Whizbang wrote:
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.


I don't think people who consume most beef are in any danger of protein deficiency.

I think they meant if people stopped eating hamburgers. I think I would agree that most animal products (from both dead an living animals), some fungi and soy dishes would be a better source of protein than wheat and most veggies.

RainierBob
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 12:12 am UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby RainierBob » Thu Mar 06, 2014 12:18 am UTC

The graphic gives a bit of a jolt. Not that I'm shocked on reflection. But I do wonder where the numbers come from.

Are feral cats counted as wild animals? What with vermin, it seems as if there should be some green dots here and there among the human and domestic animal population.

Dan H
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:45 pm UTC
Location: West Chester, OH

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Dan H » Thu Mar 06, 2014 12:26 am UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
Whizbang wrote:What other Mammals do we keep as livestock and/or pets? Llamas, donkeys, buffalo, etc. Do zoo animals count? Would all the mammals in the world's zoos add up to enough to a square?

I am guessing the top-center one is dogs. We keep more dogs than cats, right? I gotta think more people are dog people than cat people, seeing as how cats are cats and all.


Dogs tend to be bigger.

Then again, most dog people have 1 or 2 dogs, whereas many cat people seem to have about 28 of them. Or at least many of the women I went out with way back when I was single.

mschmidt62
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 4:09 am UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby mschmidt62 » Thu Mar 06, 2014 1:49 am UTC

I wonder whether rats and mice are counted as "wild" or "domestic." Certainly there are some truly wild mice and rats, but I would imagine that the majority of the mass of these rodents is essentially domestic, reliant on human agriculture (and other human activities) for their food.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9996
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby addams » Thu Mar 06, 2014 1:59 am UTC

keithl wrote: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".

Yumm.
Your post made me hungry.

It's difficult to get it 'Just Right'.
Wet enough to almost be Wrong,

Yet; Flavorful enough to be better than Right.
Yumm.

Hamburgers! Tacos! And; Chinese Food!
It's Heaven! Or; San Fransico.

Spoiler:
It's all the salt.
Are you in SF?


oh. The Comic. ahhhh.
Yeah… (sigh)... go mammals.

Spoiler:
We Are rooting for the mammals. correct.

The mammals are holding their own against the insects.
It is an uneasy truce mammals have with plants.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
ThirdParty
Posts: 325
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 3:53 pm UTC
Location: USA

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby ThirdParty » Thu Mar 06, 2014 4:22 am UTC

Ool wrote:Since I eat a lot more chicken than beef I wonder how large a blob they and other fowl would be...
Well, let's say there are about 24 billion chickens in the world, averaging about 5 pounds each. That yields a total mass of about 60 million tons, i.e. about half again as large as the mass of goats.

If that strikes you as surprisingly small compared to the total mass of cattle, keep in mind that we cycle through chickens a lot quicker than we cycle through cows: cows are slaughtered at about 20 nanohertz, whereas chickens are slaughtered at nearly 200 nanohertz. Consequently, the number of kilogram-hours of cow that go into producing one pound of beef is about ten times larger than the number of kilogram-hours of chicken that go into producing one pound of chicken.

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).
Let's say there are 400 million dogs, averaging about 30 pounds each. That would be 6 blocks.

As for cats, let's say 500 million averaging 8 pounds each. 2 blocks.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Klear » Thu Mar 06, 2014 1:16 pm UTC

mschmidt62 wrote:I wonder whether rats and mice are counted as "wild" or "domestic." Certainly there are some truly wild mice and rats, but I would imagine that the majority of the mass of these rodents is essentially domestic, reliant on human agriculture (and other human activities) for their food.


I think there's a difference between domestic and domesticated. Then again, that would suggest feral cats would be counted among wild animals.

RainierBob wrote:The graphic gives a bit of a jolt. Not that I'm shocked on reflection. But I do wonder where the numbers come from.


The source is written in the comic, bottom-right corner, though it's very hard to see:

Data from Václav Smil's The Earth Biosphere: Evolution, Dynamics and Change, plus a few other sources.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2987
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby orthogon » Thu Mar 06, 2014 1:29 pm UTC

ThirdParty wrote:Consequently, the number of kilogram-hours of cow that go into producing one pound of beef is about ten times larger than the number of kilogram-hours of chicken that go into producing one pound of chicken.

Kilogram-hours per pound; the composite unit of choice for forward-looking people who don't want to abandon the past either. ;)
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

Kristopher
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 4:18 pm UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Kristopher » Thu Mar 06, 2014 4:07 pm UTC

Less goats, more Wooly Mammoths, please.

Vir4030
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 10:56 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Vir4030 » Thu Mar 06, 2014 4:38 pm UTC

keithl wrote: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".


This is awesome.

The lack of complete labels on the original comic is not. Randall always does a great job labeling things. I think that plays well to the audience. That really makes this stand out. Why would Randall not have labelled everything completely? It's an affront to the whole comic!

User avatar
Moose Anus
Posts: 396
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Moose Anus » Thu Mar 06, 2014 5:08 pm UTC

Nylonathatep wrote:
Bounty wrote:Your logic is backwards. If the problem is "Food animals produce greenhouse gases", using the solution "eat fewer animals" would actually increase the population, which increases the amount of gas produced. Obviously if uneaten tasty, tasty meat creatures produce CO2 eating MORE of them will help the enviornment. So have a second hamburger, it might just help save the planet!


Except these are farm animals. If we don't want to eat as much cattle, we could just breed less of them... ???
Every sperm is sacred.
Lemonade? ...Aww, ok.

User avatar
Trickster
Posts: 89
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 5:56 pm UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Trickster » Thu Mar 06, 2014 5:22 pm UTC

Krealr wrote:Milked many chickens lately? :mrgreen:

Don't be so smug. There are about 19 billion chickens in the world; at least ten times more chickens than cattle (more still if you only mean cows, since you can't milk bulls unless you're Ben Stiller).

Chickens weigh about 1% of what cows weigh (10 pounds for feed chickens vs. 1000 for an average-sized cattle), so put the two parameters together and this tells you chickens should have around one-tenth as many boxes as cattle, give or take 50%.

The fact that they don't approach this suggests to me that there is some error involved in Randall's math or the parameter estimations he used. Either way, that thirteen-block section must be chickens. Like I said in my initial post, there are a lot of chickens... despite the fact that they are, indeed, unmilkable (Ben Stiller notwithstanding).

User avatar
Trickster
Posts: 89
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 5:56 pm UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Trickster » Thu Mar 06, 2014 5:25 pm UTC

Vir4030 wrote:Why would Randall not have labelled everything completely? It's an affront to the whole comic!

Theory: xkcd is the biggest troll in history. From here on in, labels will get spottier and the information more and more inaccurate. It will become the M. Night Shamalamadingdong of webcomics. :twisted:

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Klear » Thu Mar 06, 2014 5:29 pm UTC

Moose Anus wrote:Every sperm is sacred.


That's what makes hunting sperm whales so sad.. =(

Trickster wrote:The fact that they don't approach this suggests to me that there is some error involved in Randall's math or the parameter estimations he used. Either way, that thirteen-block section must be chickens. Like I said in my initial post, there are a lot of chickens... despite the fact that they are, indeed, unmilkable (Ben Stiller notwithstanding).


Chickens are not land mammals. He even made that part of the comic extra large, yet people keep overlooking/forgetting it (including me, more than once).

User avatar
Wnderer
Posts: 640
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 9:10 pm UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Wnderer » Thu Mar 06, 2014 5:34 pm UTC

I think we're supposed to read this book to understand this comic.

http://www.vaclavsmil.com/harvesting-th ... om-nature/


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: speising and 29 guests