2 ms·

>Ask a Parisian what they would think about an apartment that didn’t have heat. Those Parisians are sure spoiled and fragile! My wife’s family in Mexico doesn’t

>Ask a Parisian what they would think about an apartment that didn’t have heat. Those Parisians are sure spoiled and fragile! My wife’s family in Mexico doesn’t have heat in their house. I guess they are less fragile than Parisians. What an absurd comment to make. Of course Parisians have heaters - it reaches low temperatures there in the winter. It doesn't reach those temperatures in most parts of Mexico. I've lived through 115 degree summers in Texas. Of course we have air conditioning here, because it's necessary. But we aren't talking about Texas, we're talking about Seattle, where the ambient indoor temperature is 78 degrees. I wouldn't say someone is fragile for not wanting to live in 115 degrees without A/C, but yes, if you think 78 degrees is "way too hot" as some of the comments in this thread say, you are fragile. >People in the places you mentioned don’t choose to be without heat or air conditioning because they want to, it’s generally because either the climate is less extreme and more comfortable or because they can’t afford it. No, you have no idea what you're talking about. I've also lived in Singapore where the temperature averages 90ish degrees every day with near 100% humidity. Even among those who can afford it, most choose to forgo A/C because it simply isn't necessary. Even those who do choose to purchase an A/C do not turn it on because most find the addition of A/C to make rooms uncomfortably cold. This also goes for the portions of central and eastern Europe that I've lived in, as well as the portions of S. America I've visited. The human body is perfectly capable of being very comfortable at 75-80 degrees ambient temperature. Furthermore, your entire second paragraph hinges on the hypothetical "if cost were no object", which is absurd. The entire point of non-A/C buildings (like the one that this entire thread is about) is that they reduce cost (both monetarily and environmentally). The cost is the entire point. My original comment wasn't referring to to the 'fragility' of being personally unadjusted to other temperatures. It was referring to the 'fragility' of a mindset that apparently cannot entertain the mere idea that it is possible to be adjusted to those temperatures, and are apparently so triggered by such an idea that they make comments such as yours.

ubernostrum 8y ago
I've said this before, but: It's not really useful to make this type of comment. The sneering at, say, European "so-called heat waves" where temperatures are comparable to an average summer day in many parts of the US fails to take into account that sustained temperatures at those levels, in places unaccustomed to them, can indeed easily be fatal, and do not represent a failure of the residents to adapt. Rather, they occur because the residents have adapted -- to the recent-historical climate of their region! In Europe, one big killer is buildings which were designed on the assumption that, even after a rare hot day, things would cool off significantly at night and buildings could shed heat. Sustained higher-than-planned temperatures take away that ability to shed heat overnight, so instead buildings retain heat, and keep getting blasted each day, and that is when people start dying. Even here in the US you can see this. I live in the SF Bay area, in an un-air-conditioned building. Most of the time, I don't need A/C, because I'm in an east-facing apartment that can cool off through the afternoon once the sun's no longer coming directly in, especially with windows open and a bit of breeze, and then become downright chilly at night. But sometimes we now get sustained high temperatures for days on end, and when that happens people really do start dying here (and I turn on a portable A/C unit, leave it running 24 hours, and even sleep on the couch to be in front of it at night).

ubernostrum 8y ago

I've said this before, but: It's not really useful to make this type of comment. The sneering at, say, European "so-called heat waves" where temperatures are comparable to an average summer day in many parts of the US fails to take into account that sustained temperatures at those levels, in places unaccustomed to them, can indeed easily be fatal, and do not represent a failure of the residents to adapt. Rather, they occur because the residents have adapted -- to the recent-historical climate of their region! In Europe, one big killer is buildings which were designed on the assumption that, even after a rare hot day, things would cool off significantly at night and buildings could shed heat. Sustained higher-than-planned temperatures take away that ability to shed heat overnight, so instead buildings retain heat, and keep getting blasted each day, and that is when people start dying. Even here in the US you can see this. I live in the SF Bay area, in an un-air-conditioned building. Most of the time, I don't need A/C, because I'm in an east-facing apartment that can cool off through the afternoon once the sun's no longer coming directly in, especially with windows open and a bit of breeze, and then become downright chilly at night. But sometimes we now get sustained high temperatures for days on end, and when that happens people really do start dying here (and I turn on a portable A/C unit, leave it running 24 hours, and even sleep on the couch to be in front of it at night).