they classed aggregates as meterials used in construction, and some of it would fall under platic, such as silicone. but i also wonder where all the non plastic and construction silicates have gone, we've surely produced a huge amount of glassware and bottles.
The technomass needs to be broken into the part in use and the part already discarded. Garbage mass is growing faster than all the other categories, combined.
True. Although, all of it is eventually garbage. I'd like to see efficiency/durability studies. Anecdotal example: The wedding present fridge my parents got lasted 70 years. The "high efficiency" light weight replacement fridge lasted 4. Extreme example, I suppose, but then.... How many landline phones did your parents or grandparents replace 'cuz they "wore out". How many cell phones have you replaced that DIDN'T wear out?
@@Mephistahpheles I have a 1935 GE refrigerator that has gone through two grand uncles, my father and myself. Despite having had it slide back down a flight of stairs when moving it, it runs just fine, thank you!
@stevenkarnisky411 I had a GE fridge from around the late 1930s. It looked more like a car than a fridge. Even the handle looked like a hood ornament. Someone broke in and tried to rip the copper out of it. Ruined it, I mis that beauty. 😔
It is indeed and it's responsible for depleting our sand. Concrete requires specific types of sand and it happens to be the beach kinds. This is damaging coastal ecosystems and accelerating erosion.
@@scottdorfler2551 Only if you use fossil fuels to make it. They also can use CO2 to bind with the concrete to reinforce it. There are techniques to reduce CO2 like using pozzolan as part of the clinker.
Buildings are responsibilities for 40 percentage of global energy use and one third of global greenhouse gas emissions. Since buildings have a relatively long lifespan, it has become increasingly more important that governments prioritize the building sector in reducing greenhouse emissions in their national climate change strategies. For example just by painting a roof white, a building can reduce its heat up to 50 degrees .
Good point, although it made me want to know how big the cube would be for white paint if we painted the roof of every building white? Would it have to be oil based paint too to survive weathering longer? Thats a lot of oil too if so
okay, paradise is a STRONG word. grateful to the plants for oxygen, and all the little pieces of nature that allow me to live, but let's be very very real. nature is beautiful but it is also brutal and terrifying. every species on the planet is finding new and innovative ways to kill/survive each other in a bid to take over the world. i promise you, an all natural world, much like an all technological world, is a dystopia, not a utopia.
yeah and the oceans are like 90% depleted now, we took all the fish and replaced them with plastic.. cause you gotta keep buying things otherwise the people at the top cant afford all their supercars and private jets
@rogerwilco1777 like 90% depleted? U are aware of oceans rising right? It's like a big point in the global warming conspiracy. If you mean the living organisms inside, it's also growing more than it's depletion rate. Yes there are a few species that arnt but even without human intervention, it's a part of nature's cycle
@@ReptilezDznGiven Mr. Petrov's age (he's only in his 40s) change is likely to come in his lifetime and you may well be watching his videos from a better future one day. I'd like to live long enough to see a video where he says that recent efforts to save the biosphere are working and the damage is being undone. I've been fighting for the planet since the '70s and would like some assurance that things will be alright before I clock out.
Thanks Anton. It started me checking the 110 billion people who have lived, and to notice that less than 25 billion of those existed before 1800... the industrial revolution has changed us and the planet enormously. This video illustrates that for me quite a bit. Anton Rocks!!!Gr8! Peace ☮💜Love
This is why I think we have not only exited the Holocene, we have exited in the Cenozoic. We have not merely entered the anthropocene, we have entered the Anthropozoic - or the Noozoic if complex self-reproducing autonomous artificial intelligences are to surpass humans in short order geologically speaking.
One thing this model doesn't factor in is volume. Concrete, metals, asphalt and bricks are all typically a lot heavier (higher density) than plastics and most organisms. I'd like to see and update to this graphic that factors in volume too, which would probably put plastics up waaay higher than metals. The techno-volume will still probably be higher than the bio-volume though. Also...no representation for wood? Does wood count as plant mass even when used as a building material by humans? Does my coffee table count as "plant biomass"?
Almost certainly not: the biomass estimates shown here (assuming they're from the same sources that previous exercises of this kind focussing on biomass alone) refers to living biomass (though the latter almost certainly includes the effectively "dead" biomass of wood still supporting the living parts of woody plants... (This stuff gets complicated...)
Techno mass should be compared to geo mass. It would show how small we are. Its really the simple rearrangement of geomass for the most part. As for things that arent currently well recycled like plastic it could be used to make asphalt of all things as we run out of affordable oil so maybe just store it for now?
@@LecherousLizard Up to 100 *million* gigatons in the lithosphere or 0.03% is carbon... a minute fraction of the mass of the earths crust... should give people a grasp of how vast and big this planet is and how comparing cumulative technomass to biomass is almost completely irrelevant...
We can't really be sure about that. In classical physics, this is true. But modern research suggests that matter can in fact be created. Which we know for certain is what Einstein taught us: That Energy and mass are but the manifestation of the same thing. Energy equals mass times speed of light squared, resp. e=mc²
I wrote "can be created", which might be misleading in a way, and I don't know if Einstein would use these words. Just some food for thought for ya, really
@@hah-vj7hcQuantum field fluctuations can create a pair of particle - anti particle while not violating laws of thermodynamics because their energy cancels out (though they quickly annihilate themselves). Also we actually are turning mass into energy in nuclear power plants but in the end it's such an insignificant amount that we basically don't need to take that into account.
This site is clearly misleading, even if we can argue that concrete and co are synthesized by human, they're clearly not coming from biomass. Adding the mass of mountains on the screen would make the whole picture way less dramatic.
Why it’s called techno mass. You don’t have to like it and it may not be perfect for you. But it’s a really interesting way to quantify humans impact on our planet. The take away should be that in a short period of time we’ve made a lot of crap and perhaps we should consider our actions a little more going forward. Unless of course you want to live in a world covered in concrete with only cows,pigs,humans, and chickens running around
There's a lot of aggregate used in the layers beneath a few inches of asphalt. Also a little bit under concrete foundations and under the ground level floors. I would have thought a timber cube would be there but that might be considered carbon sequestering so I can see why they ignored that.
@@fredriks5090 But all of it pretty much goes to a landfill or the ocean afterwards, and that positive thing is also why it's used so much everywhere to be just thrown away after use
I have for some time questioned the effects from all that technomass to the planet's geophysical state. Like have we got to the point where the planet spin or orbit being affected by all those technomass that we mostly dug from inside of the land to practically moved atop of the land? Things like momentum conservation, change in plate tectonics etc, there has to be some changes with the huge amount of stuff being moved around on planetary scale. We already know there are many sinking cities just because we pumped up ground waters, what about all those fossil fuels? All those minerals? All those stones and others? I bet the reality from those "geo engineering" is scarier than what most people realize.
This was the first time I paused Anton’s video before its end and jumped to the site! (But surely I came back to finishing the video, since Anton always add pearls of knowledge to any topic)
I'd love to see the waste biomass being totally converted into substantial utility. The imagination runs wild with the possibilities for humane implementation.
The most recycled material on earth is carbon dioxide. Second, by weight, is asphalt. Grind it up, heat, add a bit of oil, lay it down, tamp into form before it cools.
I’m confused. If you look at damn near any map on earth, you’ll see green. More green than could ever be imagined. Just driving within 2 hours of my home, the ratio of living areas versus nature is like 10 to 1. There is SO much more wilderness than just plant biomass… so I’m confused as to how this is even remotely true, unless it actually does go by weight,
It compares the drymass alive at a certain time with all artefacts produced since 1900. With most organisms having a density slightly higher than water, at 1g/cm^3 and iron weighing 7,8g/cm^3 you could have a volume ratio of between 50 and 100 to 1 and still end up with equal weight.
Excellent visualization. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Nobody should ever again be allowed to say "The Economy is doing great" without someone finishing the sentence "in the middle of the 6th Great Extinction".
not necisarrily, i doubt very much of the surface that is covered with asphalt contains or contained oil. unless you are talking about over millions of years
Looking at my Vision Pro on my desk thinking…this should be an immersive experience. These blocks, the technomass growth, the detail windows. Is a developer out there reading this please!?
I' ve been saying for years that the only way to progress is to willingly stop mass production but I often get attacked because people get angry saying things like how do you suppose you got to write that message.. like then I have to apologize and cower away and thank the God of mass production and beg for forgiveness or something. I mean, if we were really smart and were really progressing we wouldn't need all this artificial stuff. I personally reckon that making a move back to the hunter gatherers way could be a journey that we could take. Not saying chuck it all out and set it on fire and going around like a maniac desperately searching for something to victimize. I believe we are smarter than that.
I wish the science and technology part of UA-cam interconnected more; this would be a perfect video to make a shout-out to futurism UA-camrs (or just be self-referential) to show cool and efficient ways of balancing this equation out. SFIA comes to mind.
These other products, considered man-made, are merely reconstituted and re-arranged from their natural forms, and displace little more volume than they always have. Steel is distilled, concrete is simply reformulated, no greater volume induced except from air entrainment. These naturally occurring substances are not displacing us.
These other plantae, considered natural, are merely reconstituted and re-arranged from their natural forms, and displace little more volume than they always have. Nitrogen is distilled, Carbon and minerals is simply reformulated, no greater volume are except from air entrainment. These naturally occurring substances are not displacing us. Babygirl the same applies to plants too and anything else that is biomass
@@DavidHughey-xu2ce I'm not a girl. And these other materials ALL have a natural mechanism by which they get broken down. Iron rusts, asphalt crumbles, concrete weathers and dissolves via acidic precipitation, but MOST plastic does NOT.
Anton, this analysis is based on weight, which is the scientific default measurement system, but if calculated by volume plastic would win hands down, on this ball of limited volume. AND doesn't occur naturally, therefore cannot be processed naturally.
Hi Anton; I love your channel but I have to take issue with a couple of points. First you claim that the world will run out of oil in the next 100 years. This claim has been made repeatedly over the last 100 years, and yet we have access to more oil today than we did then. So a prediction that has always been wrong is most likely not a solid prediction, or at least should be thrown out there cautiously. Malthus first made his predictions about the world running out of resources soon after the American Revolution -- yet we have access to far more resources per person today than we did when he first made that prediction, in spite of a vastly larger population. The other issue is that the info-graphic performed a bit of slight of hand in so much as it is showing mass as a volume. Things like metals, bricks and concrete are far more dense than most -- if not all -- life forms. Showing them as a volume vastly inflates the apparent impact. Also given that most of them (metals, bricks and aggregates like concrete) are merely rearrangements of materials which exist naturally in the the earth, suggesting that they are "human made" is not quite accurate. They were not created out of "whole cloth", but merely reorganized existing raw materials to suit our needs.
It is deceptive. Biomass is given as drymass to make it look smaller. Also, it seems they are comparing the biomass alive at a certain point to all artefacts produced since 1900 - like comparing your salary to your neighbours savings. Good you are pointing out the difference in density. Organisms weigh around 1g/cm^3, iron 7,8g/cm^3.
@@oberonpanopticonYour statement makes it sound as if everything would be fine. We are very much capable of eventually turning our planet into a Venus or Mars copy. We probably already have the means of doing so if we really wanted to.
Fun Fact: We have emitted around 2500 Gt of CO2 between 1850-2022. Excluding pre-1850 emissions and emissions from land use changes like deforestation.
This is a great resource, not least because it is so easy to understand. Sadly though, it further demonstrates the monstrosity that human kind as a species and puts into perspective the enormity of the problems we face. The only cube I would add to these is the proportion of biomass which crosses over into techno mass by virtue of its being grown exclusively to feed ourselves and the animals we keep for our sustenance. That way we could see how the biomass really shrinks over time. I live in an area where agriculture is the biggest industry. To visitors from the city, the green landscape and the clean air feels refreshing and natural. It's not. It's just as much part of what Bob Marley referred to as "Babylon" as a city skyscraper. The cube for natural wild spaces, with a biosphere which is free from human intervention is actually terrifyingly small. Let's not pull any punches here. Obsessing about 1.5° of global warming is a key indicator of the state we are in but while we allow industrialists and politicians the luxury of procrastination, the human population is growing and the destruction is accelerating. I'm too old for it to matter much. If one was watching the foresighted naturalists of the mid 70's like David Attenborough and Jacques Cousteau, who presented not only the wonders of wild life but also the dangers of the destruction already apparent, then the trajectory for mankind was obvious even for a teenager with no science training at all. How sad.
There actually already 500 years of confirmed oil reserves (more years if human population starts to decline around 2050 as expect). So, that should be factored in your comments, e.g., about asphalt roads and other things that require petroleum. Just like all the Malthusian bunk that people somehow still believe, fear of running out of petroleum needs to be debunked.
I'll have to look into this, but since aggregate is used in concrete and roadways/parking lots...it would seem that it would need to be subtracted from the concrete and asphalt totals...
I had been thinking that measuring the temperature was being unduly influenced by heat island effects in cities. But just the sheer mass of concrete, aggerate and asphalt makes me consider global warming is happening because so much mass is not vegetation.
They said that the amount of concrete and asphalt can weiegh as much as a mountain range. I've even heard it claimed that this redistribution of weight is affecting the earth's rotation axis by a degree or two.
It's not quite that heavy. What is that heavy is all the extra fresh water from melting ice and that is what is knocking the Earth's axis off kilter. Look at a map of the axial procession and about the '90s it makes a right angle turn. We are lucky that it's lessening the tilt at the moment. If it turned the other way we'd be in even bigger trouble.
@@johnnyirish7940 The cities are also affected by the Moon's tidal forces but they are solid not liquid and also much less massive than oceans. The center of balance is what's being thrown off, you see. As the ice melts the water is distributed around the landmasses which are not symmetrical at all, thus changing our planet's center of mass ever so slightly. This is then an issue of angular momentum and the planet is pulled around to compensate. Despite the great mass of a whole planet, Earth is in many ways quite delicate. Look at what happened to Mars: Olympus Mons grew so large it turned the crust around and became equatorial. Edit: Also cities are nothing compared to how big tectonic plates are. Our tallest building isn't even 1km tall but the plates are dozens of kilometers thick and are quite solid. A metric ton of rock is smaller than you might expect.
@SAOS451316 all that water in the ocean is pulled outwards at the equator due to the earth spin and the moon gravity. At such a scale fluid conform to those forces, stone does not. The plates are just gaint scabs of solid rocks floating on molten rock, it is the land masses moving that causes the drift. Next you'll be trying to tell me a melting northpole is to blame when it's basically free floating.
@@johnnyirish7940 You may notice that the planet is an oblate spheroid no matter what the current plate configuration is and you may notice that despite being solid glaciers literally flow. Greenland and Canada beg to differ on your sarcastic comment about ice melting, never mind Antarctica. I'm not sure what your confusion is when changing angular momentum of fluids is intuitive and can be shown with a glass of water. It's easy to lose a sense of scale with very large things but you're a couple orders of magnitude off here.
Seeing the things we produced in these amounts, it should be clear that errosion of them therefor will have longterm effects. Much we dig up and convert, but in the end the weather/entrophy will degrade stuff and particles/molecules/chips break landing in the end on the seafloor. One thing often also neglected are overlapping effects. We can ofcause stop producing certain substances with longterm detremental effects to the environment or our health, but we mostly are not able to take them out of rotation on a short timescale so the existing once would stop spreading those detremental effects. Seeing this i am glad i live in europe where building regulations deny us to build scyscrapers just anywhere. Still looking at how our rural communities have all developed economic zones for companies and what not, i can see us here being part of a problem.
In the year by year timelaps, another comparison nice to have would be, if we could see how much of what biomass categories would deminish since 1900. Not sure we could have relyable numbers for that, but it would help to see and simplyfy trends that way, There are already timelapses out there for the increase of farm animals, so putting that in there as well could show coralations.
Probably insignificant in most cases, but I strongly suspect dams & reservoirs can be significant. The mass's of water behind the dams in Santa Clara California....might they contribute to earthquake activity? No idea. 🙂 Wouldn't be the first time we discovered significant side effects to "harmless" technology. (Well, besides the immediate environmental harm...but, ya know....)
An interesting take indeed... but some of the estimations seems a off, and you need to take time into account - biomass is in a constant cycle of life and death. Technomass, with a few exceptions, breaks down in surprisingly fast when we look at geological timespans. Yes humans have created a lot of stuff and the way we spend our ressources is completely insane, but we already knew that. But you should be carefull not to maje any specific conclusions based solely on these data.
Why are we comparing natural biomass to human produced inanimate mass? If we were to compare inanimate mass produced by nonhuman actions, you would add up all the volcanism, erosion, evaporative depositions, etc. And then there are organic processes such as solid accumulation and calcium carbonate deposition on the seafloor. It is a silly comparison and seemingly designed to compare unlike things to produce a scary looking outcome
Plus comparing an “educated” guess instantaneous level for biomass with 120+ years of technomass (and ignoring recycling of that mass into other forms of mass) seems somewhat disingenuous.
So the idea is, on average, there's an inverse relationship between the two categories. Human production is exploitative and destructive. In our ever-accelerating race to chew through and sort all of this geology, those meager cubes will be collateral damage. We'll end up maintaining the bare-minimum, profitable, necessary non-human biomass into the future. We may have been born into a paradise, but we don't need a planet sized garden to do what a few industrial farms can belt out for a profit! The rest will make a worthy sacrifice on the altar of capitalism!
@@zombieGI Just go down to the average beach anywhere in the wold and count the bits of plastic washing up. Just dissect a sea bird and count the bits of plastic in the gullet. I would believe it.
Ive heard something like this before. Something like, the bodyweight of a human over a lifetime fundamentally converts more energy in a system then the sun does with the same time and weight of a human.
You wrote "Ive heard something like this before. Something like, the bodyweight of a human over a lifetime fundamentally converts more energy in a system then the sun does with the same time and weight of a human." This video by anton that shows that everything that humans made exceeds the mass of the biopshere, doesn't have anything to do with what you said. The latter is a good illustration of our abuse of our environment while the former is a good illustration of the fact that evolution makes machines that are efficient in terms of energy usage, The sun does not need to be efficient. It just needs a lot of mass to make energy.
Hey, Anton. Would it be possible to add these shorter videos to the UA-cam Music app - podcast episode section? I would love to be able to listen to these videos with my screen off; saving some battery 🔋 and some data 👍🏼
If we count the things humans made, i will add the things the biosphere made outside living things, like calcium carbonate deposits or mollecular OXIGEN (This is in the range of petatons, and constantly reused and created). Oil is also a byproduct of life
That doesnt included everything made by humans before 6000 years. Most of which is either buried or under the silt in the oceans. 400ft+ of ocean covers a lot land and previous civilisations.
I read that even in the deepest boreholes we find insane numbers of living microbiota. Does this study take into account all possible sub surface microbial life?
This strikes me as a pretty weird way of looking at things. (We humans do like to flatter ourselves as being far more powerful and consequential than we actually are, don't we?) A lot of what humans do (that is documented here) is to move non-biological matter around and remixing it in novel ways. As a proportion of, say, the non-biological mass in the earth's crust, the big cubes here are piddly. Moreover, even if you looked only at the non-living portions of the earth's crust that are themselves biological in origin: all the ancient limestone, chalk, marble, coal & petroleum deposits and their more recent versions like coral reefs and peat bogs, these too are likely to be pretty massive (and would be a better benchmark for assessing the overall "physical" footprint of humans - the focus here - as distinct from our "ecological" footprint, which is a distinctly different thing). Admittedly, some of the non-biological mass we've moved around (think of aggregates) are barely transformed, while others are refined in ways that (at least for a time best measured on human rather than geological scales) are taken out of what might be called "bio-available resources" (I'm thinking mostly of plastics and concrete here, but bricks and other such building materials probably belong there as well). Leaving aside the fact that a lot of that pre-transformation material was never likely to be particularly hospitable to hosting a vigorous, dense biome had it been left in situ, the analysis reported here actually passes over what is probably the most important bio-displacement we ARE responsible for, namely agriculture and the replacement of dense, complex, plant-based biomes with more biological fragile monocultures. So: there are a LOT of interesting ideas here, but I doubt these findings are as meaningful as might appear to be the case at first glance...
Cubes are terrible items for visualisation because its hard to assess differences in volume compared to differences in lengths. But if these data were presented as bar charts nobody would get excited about it.
wow, theres a lot of people in the comments trying to use science to explain away why this graphic is so horrifying. in terms of the relationship between the things we make and the things that live, maybe the things we make shouldnt be at the cost of the things that live, and maybe our heavy bias on cars, oil, and singular crops/livestock animal cultures are actually a bad thing in the context of everything and not just the relationship of things on a single graph! we dont need rampant consumerism, or wasteful industries, or market stock lead ventures, or wars industrial military complex to dictate how this graph will look in another few decades.
Shithropocene, a new word I learned a week ago. So much talk on YT about an impending human population collapse and the problems that will bring. Meanwhile, few address the calamity our excessive population bestows on our beautiful planet right now.
They left out the single biggest form of technomass, old copies of National Geographic Magazine that no one can bring themselves to throw out.
True 😂
Ha Ha ! Can relate.
Nice one my friend
So true...
Abandon National Geographic, embrace old Arizona Highways.
Hahaha I`m with you 🤣
Astounding! I'm surprised they left out silica products, those are a huge chunk of what we product as well.
they classed aggregates as meterials used in construction, and some of it would fall under platic, such as silicone. but i also wonder where all the non plastic and construction silicates have gone, we've surely produced a huge amount of glassware and bottles.
The technomass needs to be broken into the part in use and the part already discarded. Garbage mass is growing faster than all the other categories, combined.
True. Although, all of it is eventually garbage.
I'd like to see efficiency/durability studies.
Anecdotal example: The wedding present fridge my parents got lasted 70 years. The "high efficiency" light weight replacement fridge lasted 4.
Extreme example, I suppose, but then....
How many landline phones did your parents or grandparents replace 'cuz they "wore out".
How many cell phones have you replaced that DIDN'T wear out?
@@Mephistahpheles I have a 1935 GE refrigerator that has gone through two grand uncles, my father and myself. Despite having had it slide back down a flight of stairs when moving it, it runs just fine, thank you!
I question that. Not a lot of concrete or aggregates are ever discarded and most metals are recycled.
@stevenkarnisky411 I had a GE fridge from around the late 1930s. It looked more like a car than a fridge. Even the handle looked like a hood ornament. Someone broke in and tried to rip the copper out of it. Ruined it, I mis that beauty. 😔
Yeah I think we'll run out of place to store garbage sooner than we'll run out of oil
I had no idea. This does paint a stark picture! Thank You, Anton.
Yep. We're at the tipping point. Probably not good for the planet long term.
Unimantic is definitely on my radar now, looking forward to exploring their platform.
Those statistics are horrifying.😥
Isnt the manufacturing of cement a huge greenhouse gas producer? I wonder how many tons of co2 is created to make all that concrete.
It is indeed and it's responsible for depleting our sand. Concrete requires specific types of sand and it happens to be the beach kinds. This is damaging coastal ecosystems and accelerating erosion.
@@markrix Concrete production is responsible for 15% of world wide CO2 emissions. Concrete itself actually releases CO2 after it's poured.
CO2 increases the plant biomass.
@@scottdorfler2551 Only if you use fossil fuels to make it. They also can use CO2 to bind with the concrete to reinforce it. There are techniques to reduce CO2 like using pozzolan as part of the clinker.
Not enough
I dislike how they never separate protozoans and chromists
Why is that so important?
@@christophmessner6450 becouse i have no idea weather seaweed/algae are being lumped with plants or protists thats why
Buildings are responsibilities for 40 percentage of global energy use and one third of global greenhouse gas emissions. Since buildings have a relatively long lifespan, it has become increasingly more important that governments prioritize the building sector in reducing greenhouse emissions in their national climate change strategies. For example just by painting a roof white, a building can reduce its heat up to 50 degrees .
And Chin@, built and is STILL building highrise cities that are essentially empty and always will be.
Yes and that's why it is important to preserve existing buildings rather than replace them with new ones.
@@luudest Agree100% ..and a half.
Not really that important.
Good point, although it made me want to know how big the cube would be for white paint if we painted the roof of every building white? Would it have to be oil based paint too to survive weathering longer? Thats a lot of oil too if so
They paved paradise and put up a parking lot.
Someone should make a song about that
@nilo70 I know right..
You been out there? It's full of things trying to kill you and each other. You have a strange definition of paradise.
@@nilo70 Does have kind of a ring to it....
okay, paradise is a STRONG word. grateful to the plants for oxygen, and all the little pieces of nature that allow me to live, but let's be very very real. nature is beautiful but it is also brutal and terrifying. every species on the planet is finding new and innovative ways to kill/survive each other in a bid to take over the world. i promise you, an all natural world, much like an all technological world, is a dystopia, not a utopia.
Man the worlds gotta stop with this insane amount of consumerism It’s unsustainable. Nice vid Anton!!
yeah and the oceans are like 90% depleted now, we took all the fish and replaced them with plastic.. cause you gotta keep buying things otherwise the people at the top cant afford all their supercars and private jets
but i love to consume these videos that anton makes...
@rogerwilco1777 like 90% depleted? U are aware of oceans rising right? It's like a big point in the global warming conspiracy.
If you mean the living organisms inside, it's also growing more than it's depletion rate. Yes there are a few species that arnt but even without human intervention, it's a part of nature's cycle
@@ReptilezDznGiven Mr. Petrov's age (he's only in his 40s) change is likely to come in his lifetime and you may well be watching his videos from a better future one day.
I'd like to live long enough to see a video where he says that recent efforts to save the biosphere are working and the damage is being undone. I've been fighting for the planet since the '70s and would like some assurance that things will be alright before I clock out.
@@rogerwilco1777[citation needed]
Thanks Anton. It started me checking the 110 billion people who have lived, and to notice that less than 25 billion of those existed before 1800... the industrial revolution has changed us and the planet enormously. This video illustrates that for me quite a bit. Anton Rocks!!!Gr8! Peace ☮💜Love
We grow exponentially, like the pay of CEOs...
These graphic representations need to be widespread
great find. another interesting comparison would compare nervous system mass vs compute/IT mass
This is why I think we have not only exited the Holocene, we have exited in the Cenozoic. We have not merely entered the anthropocene, we have entered the Anthropozoic - or the Noozoic if complex self-reproducing autonomous artificial intelligences are to surpass humans in short order geologically speaking.
One thing this model doesn't factor in is volume. Concrete, metals, asphalt and bricks are all typically a lot heavier (higher density) than plastics and most organisms. I'd like to see and update to this graphic that factors in volume too, which would probably put plastics up waaay higher than metals. The techno-volume will still probably be higher than the bio-volume though.
Also...no representation for wood? Does wood count as plant mass even when used as a building material by humans? Does my coffee table count as "plant biomass"?
Almost certainly not: the biomass estimates shown here (assuming they're from the same sources that previous exercises of this kind focussing on biomass alone) refers to living biomass (though the latter almost certainly includes the effectively "dead" biomass of wood still supporting the living parts of woody plants... (This stuff gets complicated...)
The biomass is also estimated as dry mass, according to the homepage. Including the water increases the volume many times over.
It really is insane how we have transformed our planet.
Techno mass should be compared to geo mass. It would show how small we are. Its really the simple rearrangement of geomass for the most part. As for things that arent currently well recycled like plastic it could be used to make asphalt of all things as we run out of affordable oil so maybe just store it for now?
By the time oil will run out, IF it will run out, all the plastic we've produced thus far would've long decomposed.
@@LecherousLizard Up to 100 *million* gigatons in the lithosphere or 0.03% is carbon... a minute fraction of the mass of the earths crust... should give people a grasp of how vast and big this planet is and how comparing cumulative technomass to biomass is almost completely irrelevant...
Really burning that candle on both ends............
My candle burns at both ends. It shall not last the night, but oh my friends and oh my foes it gives a lovely light.
Well-informed content. Thank you
Matter is neither created nor destroyed. Crazy to think how we'll need to recycle our technomass.
We can't really be sure about that. In classical physics, this is true. But modern research suggests that matter can in fact be created.
Which we know for certain is what Einstein taught us: That Energy and mass are but the manifestation of the same thing. Energy equals mass times speed of light squared, resp. e=mc²
I wrote "can be created", which might be misleading in a way, and I don't know if Einstein would use these words. Just some food for thought for ya, really
@@hah-vj7hcQuantum field fluctuations can create a pair of particle - anti particle while not violating laws of thermodynamics because their energy cancels out (though they quickly annihilate themselves). Also we actually are turning mass into energy in nuclear power plants but in the end it's such an insignificant amount that we basically don't need to take that into account.
That will become more and more expensive. Think pushing entropy back into order, which will take more energy than released from the reordering.
Yeah, like all these rocks, stones and sand.
This site is clearly misleading, even if we can argue that concrete and co are synthesized by human, they're clearly not coming from biomass.
Adding the mass of mountains on the screen would make the whole picture way less dramatic.
Why it’s called techno mass. You don’t have to like it and it may not be perfect for you. But it’s a really interesting way to quantify humans impact on our planet. The take away should be that in a short period of time we’ve made a lot of crap and perhaps we should consider our actions a little more going forward. Unless of course you want to live in a world covered in concrete with only cows,pigs,humans, and chickens running around
Isn’t aggregate used in concrete and asphalt? Wouldn’t that be double counting? Unless that was already accounted for and omitted.
Meaningless. All of that is put together by someone who hasn't a clue how things are made.
Wondering this too. Will have to check out his sources.
It’s still two separate things.
There's a lot of aggregate used in the layers beneath a few inches of asphalt. Also a little bit under concrete foundations and under the ground level floors. I would have thought a timber cube would be there but that might be considered carbon sequestering so I can see why they ignored that.
Wow! Thanks for sharing this Anton.
I expected concrete, but aggregates and brick being that big is surprising damn
I was surprise plastics was so low, since there is already plastics in literally everything(including microplastics inside all plants and animals).
@@Lilitha11the main positive thing about plastic is that in most usecases we need it thin, and it does the job while being thin.
That's because it's not technomass.
@@fredriks5090 But all of it pretty much goes to a landfill or the ocean afterwards, and that positive thing is also why it's used so much everywhere to be just thrown away after use
I have for some time questioned the effects from all that technomass to the planet's geophysical state.
Like have we got to the point where the planet spin or orbit being affected by all those technomass that we mostly dug from inside of the land to practically moved atop of the land?
Things like momentum conservation, change in plate tectonics etc, there has to be some changes with the huge amount of stuff being moved around on planetary scale.
We already know there are many sinking cities just because we pumped up ground waters, what about all those fossil fuels? All those minerals? All those stones and others?
I bet the reality from those "geo engineering" is scarier than what most people realize.
This was the first time I paused Anton’s video before its end and jumped to the site! (But surely I came back to finishing the video, since Anton always add pearls of knowledge to any topic)
Very interesting,entertaining video, thanks 👍😊❤
I'd love to see the waste biomass being totally converted into substantial utility. The imagination runs wild with the possibilities for humane implementation.
wood should be a part of techomass as well, and I suspect it would be a huge cube as well. From paper to houses it sure feels like it
And we actually needed 1% of it
Business and money drives everything. Making a living. Overproduce. Make more money. Money is security.
But the 1% superrich need so much more than the Rest of us 🤷 and for Elon and his wifes being able to repopulate Mars, sacrifices have to be made!
Exactly. Capitalism is stupidly wasteful
That's what the Chinese do with 1.5 m2 coffin rooms.
No, really. 1%? Are you clinically stupid?
Wonderful as always Anton. Thank you. 👍😎
i wish all my science teachers in middle school were like Anton
The most recycled material on earth is carbon dioxide.
Second, by weight, is asphalt. Grind it up, heat, add a bit of oil, lay it down, tamp into form before it cools.
I’m confused. If you look at damn near any map on earth, you’ll see green. More green than could ever be imagined. Just driving within 2 hours of my home, the ratio of living areas versus nature is like 10 to 1. There is SO much more wilderness than just plant biomass… so I’m confused as to how this is even remotely true, unless it actually does go by weight,
It compares the drymass alive at a certain time with all artefacts produced since 1900. With most organisms having a density slightly higher than water, at 1g/cm^3 and iron weighing 7,8g/cm^3 you could have a volume ratio of between 50 and 100 to 1 and still end up with equal weight.
Great video, so most of the human created mass has been since my birth!😮
Excellent visualization. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Nobody should ever again be allowed to say "The Economy is doing great" without someone finishing the sentence "in the middle of the 6th Great Extinction".
More like "The Economy is doing great bringing about the 6th Great Extinction"
Shame the website doesn't load now. I was wondering where the pets are. Are they included under livestock?
Asphalt is sucked from below and replaced on top. Subsidence will eventually take place.
not necisarrily, i doubt very much of the surface that is covered with asphalt contains or contained oil. unless you are talking about over millions of years
Looking at my Vision Pro on my desk thinking…this should be an immersive experience. These blocks, the technomass growth, the detail windows. Is a developer out there reading this please!?
I' ve been saying for years that the only way to progress is to willingly stop mass production but I often get attacked because people get angry saying things like how do you suppose you got to write that message.. like then I have to apologize and cower away and thank the God of mass production and beg for forgiveness or something.
I mean, if we were really smart and were really progressing we wouldn't need all this artificial stuff. I personally reckon that making a move back to the hunter gatherers way could be a journey that we could take. Not saying chuck it all out and set it on fire and going around like a maniac desperately searching for something to victimize. I believe we are smarter than that.
I wish the science and technology part of UA-cam interconnected more; this would be a perfect video to make a shout-out to futurism UA-camrs (or just be self-referential) to show cool and efficient ways of balancing this equation out. SFIA comes to mind.
The scales of balance tip, though we tipped that shit a while ago. Can they add atmosphere emissions because byproduct is still product.
Yes, I don't know about that kind of work at the concrete industry.Aggregates are a key component of concrete and they're counting them separate
These other products, considered man-made, are merely reconstituted and re-arranged from their natural forms, and displace little more volume than they always have.
Steel is distilled, concrete is simply reformulated, no greater volume induced except from air entrainment.
These naturally occurring substances are not displacing us.
These other plantae, considered natural, are merely reconstituted and re-arranged from their natural forms, and displace little more volume than they always have.
Nitrogen is distilled, Carbon and minerals is simply reformulated, no greater volume are except from air entrainment.
These naturally occurring substances are not displacing us.
Babygirl the same applies to plants too and anything else that is biomass
@@DavidHughey-xu2ce that's what I said. Why reply to me ?
@@DavidHughey-xu2ce I'm not a girl. And these other materials ALL have a natural mechanism by which they get broken down. Iron rusts, asphalt crumbles, concrete weathers and dissolves via acidic precipitation, but MOST plastic does NOT.
@@DavidHughey-xu2ce Thats why they're filling the oceans, our bloodstreams and landfills.
Anton, this analysis is based on weight, which is the scientific default measurement system, but if calculated by volume plastic would win hands down, on this ball of limited volume.
AND doesn't occur naturally, therefore cannot be processed naturally.
Hi Anton; I love your channel but I have to take issue with a couple of points. First you claim that the world will run out of oil in the next 100 years. This claim has been made repeatedly over the last 100 years, and yet we have access to more oil today than we did then. So a prediction that has always been wrong is most likely not a solid prediction, or at least should be thrown out there cautiously. Malthus first made his predictions about the world running out of resources soon after the American Revolution -- yet we have access to far more resources per person today than we did when he first made that prediction, in spite of a vastly larger population.
The other issue is that the info-graphic performed a bit of slight of hand in so much as it is showing mass as a volume. Things like metals, bricks and concrete are far more dense than most -- if not all -- life forms. Showing them as a volume vastly inflates the apparent impact. Also given that most of them (metals, bricks and aggregates like concrete) are merely rearrangements of materials which exist naturally in the the earth, suggesting that they are "human made" is not quite accurate. They were not created out of "whole cloth", but merely reorganized existing raw materials to suit our needs.
It is deceptive. Biomass is given as drymass to make it look smaller. Also, it seems they are comparing the biomass alive at a certain point to all artefacts produced since 1900 - like comparing your salary to your neighbours savings.
Good you are pointing out the difference in density. Organisms weigh around 1g/cm^3, iron 7,8g/cm^3.
Scary not to think how the impact on the life of all we build will impact life on the planet even if we stopped all building today.
Nature would reclaim the earth. It’d take a while, but it’d be very, very hard to mess things up so bad that it couldn’t someday repair itself.
@@oberonpanopticonYour statement makes it sound as if everything would be fine. We are very much capable of eventually turning our planet into a Venus or Mars copy. We probably already have the means of doing so if we really wanted to.
Humanity, like a bushfire or a flash in the pan, releasing all that pent up energy.
Fun Fact: We have emitted around 2500 Gt of CO2 between 1850-2022. Excluding pre-1850 emissions and emissions from land use changes like deforestation.
Which used to be organic matter.
@@kti5682 that was traped safely under ground
There should be a cube for my mother in law.
It would outweigh all the plants and animals, such an outlier does not provide meaningful scientific data, hence, was excluded
Murican? Thought so. How'd I know? You guess
lol
There is not a cube large enough to represent that mass
@@hah-vj7hc
Body mass statistics?
This is a great resource, not least because it is so easy to understand.
Sadly though, it further demonstrates the monstrosity that human kind as a species and puts into perspective the enormity of the problems we face.
The only cube I would add to these is the proportion of biomass which crosses over into techno mass by virtue of its being grown exclusively to feed ourselves and the animals we keep for our sustenance. That way we could see how the biomass really shrinks over time.
I live in an area where agriculture is the biggest industry. To visitors from the city, the green landscape and the clean air feels refreshing and natural. It's not. It's just as much part of what Bob Marley referred to as "Babylon" as a city skyscraper.
The cube for natural wild spaces, with a biosphere which is free from human intervention is actually terrifyingly small.
Let's not pull any punches here. Obsessing about 1.5° of global warming is a key indicator of the state we are in but while we allow industrialists and politicians the luxury of procrastination, the human population is growing and the destruction is accelerating.
I'm too old for it to matter much. If one was watching the foresighted naturalists of the mid 70's like David Attenborough and Jacques Cousteau, who presented not only the wonders of wild life but also the dangers of the destruction already apparent, then the trajectory for mankind was obvious even for a teenager with no science training at all.
How sad.
Since humans are part of life and the universe, all that humans have made is made by life.
Capitalist overproduction
Did you thumbs up your own stupid comment?
Better than standing in a bread line for your cricket paste bread.
@@sadwingsraging3044 Better than selling your children to the company that makes cricket paste bread.
@@sadwingsraging3044 why are you angry?
@@sarkolas stacking Commies has always been and will always be God's work.
There actually already 500 years of confirmed oil reserves (more years if human population starts to decline around 2050 as expect). So, that should be factored in your comments, e.g., about asphalt roads and other things that require petroleum. Just like all the Malthusian bunk that people somehow still believe, fear of running out of petroleum needs to be debunked.
I am not worried about running out. I am worried about the consequences of burning it all.
I'll have to look into this, but since aggregate is used in concrete and roadways/parking lots...it would seem that it would need to be subtracted from the concrete and asphalt totals...
Very good! Congratulations for the video!
I had been thinking that measuring the temperature was being unduly influenced by heat island effects in cities. But just the sheer mass of concrete, aggerate and asphalt makes me consider global warming is happening because so much mass is not vegetation.
Luca is probably just the first randomly assembled blob of proteins that happened to create the code for self-replication.
Sounds like humans are pretty awesome!
Unimantic's platform is definitely catching my attention, I'll be looking into them further)))
Not so sure about replacing asphalt roads. Asphalt based mixtures are highly recyclable.
They said that the amount of concrete and asphalt can weiegh as much as a mountain range. I've even heard it claimed that this redistribution of weight is affecting the earth's rotation axis by a degree or two.
It's not quite that heavy. What is that heavy is all the extra fresh water from melting ice and that is what is knocking the Earth's axis off kilter. Look at a map of the axial procession and about the '90s it makes a right angle turn. We are lucky that it's lessening the tilt at the moment. If it turned the other way we'd be in even bigger trouble.
@SAOS451316 sorry I don't see how a liquid that is affected by the moon's gravity has more of an effect than giant cities sitting on tectonic plates.
@@johnnyirish7940 The cities are also affected by the Moon's tidal forces but they are solid not liquid and also much less massive than oceans. The center of balance is what's being thrown off, you see. As the ice melts the water is distributed around the landmasses which are not symmetrical at all, thus changing our planet's center of mass ever so slightly. This is then an issue of angular momentum and the planet is pulled around to compensate. Despite the great mass of a whole planet, Earth is in many ways quite delicate. Look at what happened to Mars: Olympus Mons grew so large it turned the crust around and became equatorial.
Edit: Also cities are nothing compared to how big tectonic plates are. Our tallest building isn't even 1km tall but the plates are dozens of kilometers thick and are quite solid. A metric ton of rock is smaller than you might expect.
@SAOS451316 all that water in the ocean is pulled outwards at the equator due to the earth spin and the moon gravity. At such a scale fluid conform to those forces, stone does not. The plates are just gaint scabs of solid rocks floating on molten rock, it is the land masses moving that causes the drift. Next you'll be trying to tell me a melting northpole is to blame when it's basically free floating.
@@johnnyirish7940 You may notice that the planet is an oblate spheroid no matter what the current plate configuration is and you may notice that despite being solid glaciers literally flow.
Greenland and Canada beg to differ on your sarcastic comment about ice melting, never mind Antarctica. I'm not sure what your confusion is when changing angular momentum of fluids is intuitive and can be shown with a glass of water. It's easy to lose a sense of scale with very large things but you're a couple orders of magnitude off here.
Seeing the things we produced in these amounts, it should be clear that errosion of them therefor will have longterm effects. Much we dig up and convert, but in the end the weather/entrophy will degrade stuff and particles/molecules/chips break landing in the end on the seafloor.
One thing often also neglected are overlapping effects. We can ofcause stop producing certain substances with longterm detremental effects to the environment or our health, but we mostly are not able to take them out of rotation on a short timescale so the existing once would stop spreading those detremental effects.
Seeing this i am glad i live in europe where building regulations deny us to build scyscrapers just anywhere. Still looking at how our rural communities have all developed economic zones for companies and what not, i can see us here being part of a problem.
Very cool visualization
In the year by year timelaps, another comparison nice to have would be, if we could see how much of what biomass categories would deminish since 1900. Not sure we could have relyable numbers for that, but it would help to see and simplyfy trends that way, There are already timelapses out there for the increase of farm animals, so putting that in there as well could show coralations.
Imagine how the weight distribution goes over time as we move these materials across the globe. Some plates are pushed down a lot harder i guess!
Probably insignificant in most cases, but I strongly suspect dams & reservoirs can be significant.
The mass's of water behind the dams in Santa Clara California....might they contribute to earthquake activity?
No idea. 🙂
Wouldn't be the first time we discovered significant side effects to "harmless" technology. (Well, besides the immediate environmental harm...but, ya know....)
New York sinking already. Heavy tall skyscrapers.
Highly interesting! Thank you very much Anton for mention this!
An interesting take indeed... but some of the estimations seems a off, and you need to take time into account - biomass is in a constant cycle of life and death. Technomass, with a few exceptions, breaks down in surprisingly fast when we look at geological timespans.
Yes humans have created a lot of stuff and the way we spend our ressources is completely insane, but we already knew that. But you should be carefull not to maje any specific conclusions based solely on these data.
Why are we comparing natural biomass to human produced inanimate mass? If we were to compare inanimate mass produced by nonhuman actions, you would add up all the volcanism, erosion, evaporative depositions, etc. And then there are organic processes such as solid accumulation and calcium carbonate deposition on the seafloor. It is a silly comparison and seemingly designed to compare unlike things to produce a scary looking outcome
Plus comparing an “educated” guess instantaneous level for biomass with 120+ years of technomass (and ignoring recycling of that mass into other forms of mass) seems somewhat disingenuous.
So the idea is, on average, there's an inverse relationship between the two categories. Human production is exploitative and destructive. In our ever-accelerating race to chew through and sort all of this geology, those meager cubes will be collateral damage. We'll end up maintaining the bare-minimum, profitable, necessary non-human biomass into the future. We may have been born into a paradise, but we don't need a planet sized garden to do what a few industrial farms can belt out for a profit! The rest will make a worthy sacrifice on the altar of capitalism!
Wow this video is kinda of horrifying... Thank you for the perspective Anton
does the biomass measurement include the dead, or just the living, or maybe just for the whole of Earth history?
Yeah i was curious about that too. There is no way there is more plastic than biomass on earth.
There are data credits on the website If You're interested.
It's a snapshot of the present state.
The same. What is dead becomes food for bacteria, fungi or other life forms.
@@zombieGI Just go down to the average beach anywhere in the wold and count the bits of plastic washing up. Just dissect a sea bird and count the bits of plastic in the gullet. I would believe it.
It's just the beginning
The beginning of the end more like. The biosphere is finite and human greed is a bottomless pit. Something will have to give.
Ive heard something like this before. Something like, the bodyweight of a human over a lifetime fundamentally converts more energy in a system then the sun does with the same time and weight of a human.
You wrote "Ive heard something like this before. Something like, the bodyweight of a human over a lifetime fundamentally converts more energy in a system then the sun does with the same time and weight of a human." This video by anton that shows that everything that humans made exceeds the mass of the biopshere, doesn't have anything to do with what you said. The latter is a good illustration of our abuse of our environment while the former is a good illustration of the fact that evolution makes machines that are efficient in terms of energy usage, The sun does not need to be efficient. It just needs a lot of mass to make energy.
Hey, Anton. Would it be possible to add these shorter videos to the UA-cam Music app - podcast episode section? I would love to be able to listen to these videos with my screen off; saving some battery 🔋 and some data 👍🏼
FOSS
Technomass for the win!
The title reminded me of the Third Rock from the Sun episode where the aliens come for the world supply of stuff.
If we count the things humans made, i will add the things the biosphere made outside living things, like calcium carbonate deposits or mollecular OXIGEN (This is in the range of petatons, and constantly reused and created). Oil is also a byproduct of life
Was there any mention of coral reefs?
Not directly. The coral organism would be lumped in with the classification they are part of.
That doesnt included everything made by humans before 6000 years. Most of which is either buried or under the silt in the oceans. 400ft+ of ocean covers a lot land and previous civilisations.
I read that even in the deepest boreholes we find insane numbers of living microbiota. Does this study take into account all possible sub surface microbial life?
This strikes me as a pretty weird way of looking at things. (We humans do like to flatter ourselves as being far more powerful and consequential than we actually are, don't we?)
A lot of what humans do (that is documented here) is to move non-biological matter around and remixing it in novel ways. As a proportion of, say, the non-biological mass in the earth's crust, the big cubes here are piddly. Moreover, even if you looked only at the non-living portions of the earth's crust that are themselves biological in origin: all the ancient limestone, chalk, marble, coal & petroleum deposits and their more recent versions like coral reefs and peat bogs, these too are likely to be pretty massive (and would be a better benchmark for assessing the overall "physical" footprint of humans - the focus here - as distinct from our "ecological" footprint, which is a distinctly different thing).
Admittedly, some of the non-biological mass we've moved around (think of aggregates) are barely transformed, while others are refined in ways that (at least for a time best measured on human rather than geological scales) are taken out of what might be called "bio-available resources" (I'm thinking mostly of plastics and concrete here, but bricks and other such building materials probably belong there as well).
Leaving aside the fact that a lot of that pre-transformation material was never likely to be particularly hospitable to hosting a vigorous, dense biome had it been left in situ, the analysis reported here actually passes over what is probably the most important bio-displacement we ARE responsible for, namely agriculture and the replacement of dense, complex, plant-based biomes with more biological fragile monocultures.
So: there are a LOT of interesting ideas here, but I doubt these findings are as meaningful as might appear to be the case at first glance...
Are the sizes of the cubes proportional to the mass? Were the specific gravities considered?
Cubes are terrible items for visualisation because its hard to assess differences in volume compared to differences in lengths. But if these data were presented as bar charts nobody would get excited about it.
i like the logarithmic maps of the universe better than the absolute ones they are far more easier to follow
How does our technomass compare to the portion of dirt/soil/sand that has been created by life?
I REALLY had No idea that we have done so much damage! Thanks again for another eye opener!
In what sense is this damage? I see houses and railways and roads.
does the lime in concrete count as biomass or technomass?
biomass means living organisms by definition, therefore lime in concrete surely goes under technomass category.
@@woutsia the limestone was created by a biological process, though.
@@that44rdv4rk: I don't think the biomass includes the deceased.
Interestingly most of the man made mass has doubled in volume since 1990, so in less than 35 years.
Greetings from the BIG SKY of Montana . I was looking at my tools, today. There's a lot of them.
The perfect benchmark for the Anthropocene.
The road to an ecumenopolis is apparently paved in asphalt funnily enough.
Thanks
Both moving and concerning.
Thank for sharing this, Anton.
wow, theres a lot of people in the comments trying to use science to explain away why this graphic is so horrifying. in terms of the relationship between the things we make and the things that live, maybe the things we make shouldnt be at the cost of the things that live, and maybe our heavy bias on cars, oil, and singular crops/livestock animal cultures are actually a bad thing in the context of everything and not just the relationship of things on a single graph! we dont need rampant consumerism, or wasteful industries, or market stock lead ventures, or wars industrial military complex to dictate how this graph will look in another few decades.
Slapping Anton now😊
5:40 "Especially after WWII, things escalate really quickly" :-D as if the WWII wasn't enough escalation
Shithropocene, a new word I learned a week ago.
So much talk on YT about an impending human population collapse and the problems that will bring. Meanwhile, few address the calamity our excessive population bestows on our beautiful planet right now.
You are one of the humans i look up to.
Fascinating! 😮
The only cube I miss is food. Maybe both for humans and our livestock to compare.
Tyranid watching the part about Gigatons of biomass: drools