Deme

I have built a wooden frame with an emergency blanket on it that I lift onto the window when needed. It lets some light in, but no thermal radiation. The silver side on the outside reflects heat, while the golden side lets thermal radiation pass through to the outside. The problem with aluminium foil was that it also kept heat in, and also it was annoyingly noisy when ventilating the room.

Still doesn’t stop the surrounding walls from soaking up heat.

laughs (cries) in tiny student apartment, facing the afternoon sun, without AC in a northern european country where buildings are designed for optimal heat retention

As of writing this (at midnight), the temperature in my room is currently 27.5°C.

https://ourworldindata.org/wild-mammals-birds-biomass

I don’t think that anyone in this chain of replies has argued for flat out ending all animal meat production. Sure, plenty of vegans are motivated primarily by animal ethics and thus want to categorically ban growing animals for food, but here almost everyone seems to be talking about the sustainability aspect of modern mass animal agriculture, myself included. Although less ethical scruples is a welcome byproduct in my opinion.

I’ll take lab grown meat seriously when it’s been proven to be financially competetive and most importantly scalable. Technofixes have a bad track record of turning out to be mostly just investor bait. Kinda like all the bullshit high-flying transportation concepts as solutions to problems where just slightly better urban planning and prioritizing public transit, cycling etc. would work wonders.

Plant based food on the other hand has been most of what we have been eating for most of history. It wasn’t that long ago when meat was still considered a relative delicacy, back when scarcity necessitated efficiency. That’s the kind of efficient, sustainable, healthy and local (so logistically simple) food production system we should try to strive for in my opinion.

Our economic systems only work with infinite growth because otherwise what would be the point of lending money if it won’t grow interest. It’s essentially a giant pyramid scheme. And that requires new blood to provide labour and consumers. This is incredibly dumb on a finite planet with limited resources, but that’s mainstream economics for you.

Also if the population shrinks too fast, then the pyramid becomes unstable with not enough younger people to take care of all the old people (while also maintaining the economy).

That resource and logistics management problem is a direct result of people eating so much meat, the production of which is inherently inefficient for the purposes of feeding people. Of all the resources that we spend on maintaining and growing an animal, we only get back what goes into growing its muscles. The vast majority is wasted in maintaining the animal so that it doesn’t shrivel up and die before slaughter. Scale back meat production and you get a lot more food for a lot less resources, energy and land. You can’t get that efficiency otherwise. It’s precisely about what we eat.

I’m almost impressed by how much completely unsubstantiated ad hominem you managed to cram in there. Personally I couldn’t have guessed any of that from the comment you replied to. But if you wish to be taken seriously, maybe focus instead on the actual arguments next time.

Adhering to the treaty would result in there only being half as much anti-personel mines for civilians to step onto after the war, so it would still be doing something very positive. That being said, I do understand the reasons for withdrawing from the treaty. I miss the optimistic world where the treaty was drafted up, when it briefly seemed that most issues could be solved with multilateral international cooperation :(