Analogies almost universally accomplish nothing but creating arguments unrelated to the topic. Usually this is because, when we think of an analogy, we change something critical without explaining why we've changed it. In this case, the article compares living animals to living animals, while you have changed one side to a non-living material. The phrase "by that logic..." is a big red flag that this category of analogy is about to follow.
You may certainly argue that mass comparison among living organisms isn't useful or at least interesting in the context in which the article discusses it, but you haven't done that.
I'm on a deep strange trip into the differences between "animated" and "inanimated" entities with only the loose idea of "emergent phenomena" to "guide me" on this winding road
You may certainly argue that mass comparison among living organisms isn't useful or at least interesting in the context in which the article discusses it, but you haven't done that.