The trouble with this (or at least, where it looks like you're about to go with this), is that your mother was right about that kind of argument. Essentially, the appeal to numbers is a form of an appeal to emotion - the argument that "everyone's doing it" didn't carry much weight with your mom, who undoubtedly went right to the mom playbook and asked you what you would do if everyone jumped off a bridge... ;)
More seriously, the fact that lots of people are doing it is not necessarily an indication of the rightness or wrongness of that thing. One of my philosophy professors once memorably labeled this sort of argument as the "eat sh*t" argument, since the form was identical to saying "Why not eat sh*t - after all, a hundred billion flies can't be wrong" ;)
“The graduate student asked: “Hundreds of thousands of scientists can’t be wrong, can they?” This question may be addressed as follows. First, any argument based on “counting heads” is fallacious. Philosophy professors instruct their students on various fallacies of human thought, one of which is the “fallacy of consensus.” In his book, Fundamentals of Critical Thinking, atheistic philosopher Paul Ricci discussed the “argument from consensus,” and explained its erroneous nature (1986, p. 175). Interestingly, however, in the pages prior to his discussion, Mr. Ricci offered the following as proof of evolution: “The reliability of evolution not only as a theory but as a principle of understanding is not contested by the vast majority of biologists, geologists, astronomers, and other scientists” (1986, p. 172, emp. added).
“Mr. Ricci fell victim to the very fallacy about which he tried to warn his readers—truth is not determined by popular opinion or majority vote.
“Often, scientific successes have occurred because researchers rebelled against the status quo. Sometimes consensual validation must be set aside for the sake of truth. If it is not, those of us who work in science shall become little more than cookie-cutter scientists rushing to fit into a predetermined mold. Nor should we believe that “science” provides the answer to every conceivable question.
To treat science as a secular substitute for God is not only naive, it is idolatry.... Science and technology are the activities of imperfect people. The tendencies to misuse and exploit for personal gain operate here as in every other department of life. But the answer to abuse is not disuse, but responsible use (Poole, 1990, p. 126).
Well, of course you're right in one sense. The fact that a lot of people do something is not necessarily an indication of its rightness. But it is true that better ideas tend to win out over time in the hearts and souls of people. That's why Christianity is the world's most followed religion, while nobody eats sh*t. At the very least, a curious and open mind would want to know why so many people follow it, and what they get from it.