The inverse law of matter/Survival of the smallest

When dealing with units of matter, it seems, there appears to be an inverse relationship between the size of the unit and its abundance.  For example, there are more electrons than atoms, more atoms than molecules, more molecules than solar systems, more stars than galaxies, more galaxies than universes.  Now, we are only dealing with categories, not specific named entities.  For example, there is only one Peter Margolies, a specific named entity.   There may also be exceptions to this rule.  For example, there may be some subatomic particles that are very rare.  However, for the most part, the rule appears to hold...It is easy to see, mathematically, why this law would hold, at least where larger units of matter are composed of smaller units of matter.  Molecules, for example are composed for several atoms.  Thus, if M stands for molecules, and A stands for atoms, M + XA where X is greater than one.  Thus, there must be X times as many atoms as molecules.  The planet earth is composed of trillions and trillions of molecules, and thus X trillions and trillions of atoms.  As for survival of the smallest, it is clearly easier to break a clump of molecules, say a glass jar, than the molecules themselves, and even more difficult to destroy the atom.  Which is not to say it is impossible, take nuclear fission or fusion.
As for living things, the inverse relationship between size and number usually holds?  Why you might ask? Because big things generally eat smaller things.  And thus smaller things have to reproduce at a greater rate to avoid extinction.  Thus, if a cow needs to eat one billion blades of grass per month to stay alive, each blade must reproduce at a rate greater than a billion per month if the grass is to avoid extinction.  Granted, individual blades don't reproduce on their own, and factory farmed cows are generally fed a diet of corn for most of their lives, but you know what I mean. If a cats must eat 20 mice per year to survive, mice must reproduce at a greater rate than cats to remain on this earth.  Once again, we feed most cats factory farmed chicken, corn and other animal byproducts, but you know what I mean.   Of course, there are countless exceptions to this general rule, many caused by the hubris of the human race. We have pushed many animals smaller than us to the brink of extinction.  However, it is usually harder to kill a germ, which we can't see, than a chicken.  There is lysol, which kills germs, but it took thousands of years for humans to evolve to the point that they could produce lysol.  It is generally agreed that life evolved from tiny single celled or multicelled creatures, and such creatures have been found surviving in high pressure or extraordinarily hot conditions that would melt the hardiest among us. It appears reasonable to conclude that bacteria would be the last to perish due to a cataclysmic event, such as a meteor impact.  As for atoms, it is generally agreed that most survive in tact for billions of years.  The heavier atoms are "cooked" stars.  It is indeed quite fascinating that all that we touch and see comes from stars, and if we could trace the life of a given atom through the eons, it would be quite an adventure.  Too bad they don't realize what wonderful existences they lead.