That title distills a reasonably non-contradictory article down into something nonsensical. Oddly, the URL seems to be coherent and reflective of the article.<p>"human-race-just-001-of-all-life-but-has-destroyed-over-80-of-wild-mammals-study"<p>This suggests the title "Human race just 0.01% of all life but has destroyed over 80% of wild mammals" might be a better one.
>Of all the mammals on Earth, 96% are livestock and humans, only 4% are wild mammals
>70% of birds are chickens and other poultry<p>The articles fails to mention the obvious fact that these ratios are shifted because we breed more livestock animals, not because we kill wild ones.<p>>All life on Earth is made up of 82% plants and found in 86% on land 1% in the oceans<p>Which is also a completely wrong statement. Anyone with a highschool diploma knows that the ocean contains a huge amount of biomass, probably larger than all terrestrial life combined.<p>The article seems to be taking the position that we should only have an effect on the environment proportional to our biomass ratio with other mammals. I don't understand this idea. Are they saying more humans should die, or that more animals should die? What kind of ratio are they optimizing for?