The TV series was probably before your time. It way a sitcom about a fellow who held laziness in highest esteem. I was thinking (in nearby thread) about what size animals might spend the least time feeding (working). How this might differ for different feeding styles. So (as is my style) I sent a cold 'provocative' email to a leader in that research area. It may not be a topic of interest here. Heck, I seem to be able to dredge up little interest in 'amazing animals'. But, as long as a few folks realize that biology is hugely variable and possibly comprehensible, it's not all for nothing I guess. This is what's wrong with education. It is ought not be memorizing for exams. It ought to be 'wow, wow and more wow' because that gets folks interested. Once that happens, a much more effective mind pathway can open. That things ought to be fun is close to theme of that TV show, as well as I can remember.
I suspect the efficient animal size question is closely tied to thermoregulation type. Reptiles tend not to need much to eat at all. I once read that fish can convert half of what they eat into body mass; for mammals it's 10%.
or perhaps brains are wired differently, and what one person finds exciting, another finds boring. did you sign up for bob's transmission class? he is pretty wow, wow, wow! the life of riley was a good show, but i think the point was, he could never achieve the laziness he desired. iirc.
Activity of various species is also dependent on the environment. Koalas in Australia are only active 4 hours a day - enough to eat eucalyptus leaves, which provide little energy. Galapagos tortoises are active less than 8 hours a day, which is dependent on ambient temps and food availability.
2 pm, almost time for tea and Midsomer Murders on the telly Yeah, I think we're just as smart and industrious as we need to be, for as long as needed. That need can vary, a lot though: depending, if you're OCD vs let-it-slide.
