The Cult of Pain
24Rafael Harth
1Seth Herd
3Rafael Harth
13cdt
84Fabien Roger
28DanielFilan
17eniteris
13habryka
18Ben
7Fabien Roger
8habryka
15Tao Lin
4clone of saturn
5Vaniver
2Seth Herd
-1Canaletto
13Martin Sustrik
2Sherrinford
19Martin Sustrik
7Sherrinford
11Jiro
2Sherrinford
4Jiro
2Seth Herd
2[comment deleted]
2Seth Herd
9[anonymous]
5Purplehermann
7brambleboy
6zimtkerl
5Sabiola
4Martin Randall
4Said Achmiz
3Martin Randall
4Douglas_Knight
4ProgramCrafter
20xA
-1Shankar Sivarajan
New Comment
Strong-downvoted this post because it doesn't provide any evidence for what it's arguing for, and also because it seems like a pretty safe take on LessWrong (which ups my standards for what I consider worthwhile a bit -- like I'd be more sympathetic to a zero-evidence post if the take were more out there). As is, it's firmly in the "I want to see less of this" category.
Also I live in Europe and don't have an AC because installing one properly is expensive and portable ones are annoying, and it altogether doesn't seem worth it.
Portable AC is not annoying in any way I can perceive? My climates have not been very hot, but I consider AC to be a major factor in my quality of life and a wonder of the modern world. It sounds like you are expressing some of the evidence you find lacking. I personally had no idea that Europeans thought this way, which makes this an informative post for me as an American.
You didn't say if you think this post is wrong or merely that this was already obvious to you. Or perhaps you think it's half right and obvious?
Roughly the liberal half of Americans expressed some of this attitude, including some of them forgoing AC. But most do not. The ideological climate is different than expressed in this post. So I'm curious about your impression of the European attitude.
Reporting personal impressions of attitudes is evidence of a sort. Survey responses are just about as difficult to interpret IMO.
Portable AC is not annoying in any way I can perceive? My climates have not been very hot, but I consider AC to be a major factor in my quality of life
It's annoying for me because
- it's very loud (I bought a cheap model last time, probably expensive ones are less loud)
- sealing up the window is a pain
- once you seal up the window, you are limited in how much you can open it
I was still considering doing it; if I had foreseen how long the heatwave lasts, I'd have probably done it. But I don't consider it to be a huge deal.
You didn't say if you think this post is wrong or merely that this was already obvious to you. Or perhaps you think it's half right and obvious?
I think the general phenomenon of people suffering unnecessarily because they feel like it makes them virtuous is almost certainly real. I don't know how much of it applies to air conditioners. It wouldn't surprise me if it were a big part of the story, but it also wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't. I don't think it's that rare to have a general phenomenon and expect it to apply in a specific case, but then when you look at the data, that's not really born out, for whatever reason. I feel like I've seen this pattern a few times, where someone takes popular rationalist idea and asserts that it applies to situation X, and then someone else looks at the actual evidence and it turns out it doesn't really check out. (Arguably that was the case with the other air conditioner debate, although people still debated how much the data bore out the original take after the fact iirc. (To be clear, john used air conditioners to make a different point about consumer stupidity, not the principle of self-harm that's articulated here.))
Reporting personal impressions of attitudes is evidence of a sort. Survey responses are just about as difficult to interpret IMO.
I agree, but here I come back to, this is just not new at all. I'm pretty sure I've seen this general principle articulated somewhere in the sequences. Like if I had never heard of this principle, then it would be different. but if you're not saying anything new, and you're not being quantitative, what's the point? Especially on a topic where there is lots of relevant data you could dig up, it would just be a lot more effort.
air conditioning remains a taboo
Is this a common idea? I've never heard anyone advance the argument that people should go without AC during heatwaves to help the climate. I have heard people suggest using less AC but that's not quite the same argument, is it?
I'm not sure how this idea connects to the rest of the argument in your post - that lack of AC is caused by degrowth and is rooted in zero-sum thinking across humans. I was under the impression that the lack of AC was an implementation issue (retrofitting is expensive).
A fun related anecdote: the French and English wikipedia pages for air conditioning have very different vibes. After explaining the history and technology behind air conditioning:
- the English page first goes into impact, starting with positive impact on health: "The August 2003 France heatwave resulted in approximately 15,000 deaths, where 80% of the victims were over 75 years old. In response, the French government required all retirement homes to have at least one air-conditioned room at 25 °C (77 °F) per floor during heatwaves" and only then mentioning electricity consumption and various CFC issues.
- the French page has an extensive "downsides" section, followed by a section on legislation. It mentions heat-waves only to explain how air conditioning makes things worse by increasing average (outside) temperature, and how one should not use AC to bring temperature below 26C during heat waves.
4Actually I think the numbers are comparable.
The WHO issued a statement (August 2024) that ~175k people die per year in Europe due to heat (between 2000-2019, statement with source, based off a 2021 study, for reference, they also estimate ~660k cold-related deaths per year).
For other studies, we have two from Nature (2023, summer 2022), which give estimates of ~50k and ~60k heat-related deaths (I assume most heat related deaths take place during the summer). The Lancet has a study (2024) that finds that between 1991 and 2020, there was a median of ~40k heat-related deaths (and ~360k cold-related deaths) per year.
For gun deaths, the CDC (via Pew) states ~45k gun-related deaths in the USA in 2023, so a comparable number, although slightly less.
Of course, Europe has about twice the population as the USA, so one should make per capita adjustments accordingly.
things worse by increasing average (outside) temperature
The effect of this clearly must be miniscule? Like, everything that uses N watts makes the outside hotter, but that heat dissipates almost immediately outside?
I thought the same thing. But looking at it, its still mostly wrong, but it is slightly less crazy than it first sounds.
I compared the watts per square meter coming down from sunlight (about 1000 at sea level according to the top google hit) and compared it to the watts of an air con system, 3000 acordong to some google hit (in the long run it will only heat the outside by its power consumption, although in the short term the heat from your house will add more), then we see the ac is like another 3 square meters of sun light.
So if you live somewhere where the density of dwellings is low, say a detached house with garden, then 3 extra square meters is nothing compared the square meter-age you already cover. But if you live in a 20 story appartment building in a city centre surroudned by similar buildings, and everyone runs ac, then maybe the 'dwellings per square meter' will be high enough that the ac will be adding energy that is non-negligable compared to the solar energy. (If we took +15% as our 'non negligable' threshold then the critical density is about 0.05 dwellings per square meter. Meaning in 100 square meters we have 5 dwellings adding 15 effective sunlight meters.) So maybe in Singapore this actually matters a little.
It still seems weird to single out ac though. The heat dissipated by driving a car through the city is surely much larger.
I tracked down the original source from the Wikipedia page. The average increase is much smaller than the headline number of "up to 2.5C" and is closer to 0.4C. I think the rough order of magnitude checks out (see Ben's comment for more details) since an increase by 0.4C means a 0.005 increase in power (if Claude's math is correct).
Hmm, I still don't believe this. An AC is still ultimately hooked up to a single 240V outlet and so simply can't consume that much power (usually maxxing out at 3000W, and almost always more like 1500W).
And ultimately the only thing that matters here is power consumption, which basically all gets converted into heat. I would be surprised if AC ends up more than 50% of power consumption, and 0.4C would still mean that electrical power consumption would be increasing ambient temperature by a full degree, which doesn't seem realistic to me.
No, AC actually moves 2-3x as much heat as it's input power, so a 1500W AC will extract an additional 3000W from inside and dump 4500W outside
The cooled indoor air also makes its way outside after not very long though, so this should mostly cancel out over the course of a day, leaving just the power consumption of the AC.
And ultimately the only thing that matters here is power consumption,
Why? I think this is measuring exterior temperature, not the average of exterior and interior temperature. If cooling is set to a comfortable temperature and only run on heat wave days, then you should expect the heat wave days to also have a boost from the thermal mass of interior temperature, and there could be other indirect effects.
[Like, I would buy that power consumption dominates. But the only thing? Seems premature.]
I would be surprised if AC ends up more than 50% of power consumption
It does in Texas during heat waves (focusing only on peak demand, which seems fair). Texas is, of course, hotter than Europe (and places even hotter than Texas have even higher cooling costs).
This is what I was thinking. In a city in the summer there might be almost as much indoor space as outdoor space at ground level. The temporary change in outside temperature would then be almost as much as the reduction indoors, right?
I don't really have a good sense nor am I doing the math for indoor versus outdoor space or how rapidly air moves through cities. I still suspect this concern is largely illusory and another justification for the cult of pain. But I do want to think about the physics correctly.
Except 1000 nm lasers pointed at the sky, they dump around half of the energy they consume into the space.
It's an attitude issue. Here's what o3 says on the topic:
- Using air-conditioning in Germany is legal but “socially and regulatorily expensive.” No one will fine you for cooling your flat, yet the combination of permits, energy-saving rules, consumer advice and cultural scepticism means AC is de facto discouraged.
- Using air-conditioning in Switzerland isn’t illegal, but fixed systems face planning red tape, efficiency tests and social scepticism. Portable units are easy to buy, yet electricity prices and cultural norms keep usage modest.
- Using air-conditioning in France is legal but socially and regulatorily “expensive.” Expect red tape when you want a fixed unit, behavioural rules (doors shut, 26 °C set-point in public offices), and mixed social signals ranging from environmental self-restraint to calls for wider cooling access as heatwaves intensify.
- Using air-conditioning in the UK is perfectly legal, but planning rules, inspection obligations, cultural frugality and voluntary “close-the-door” norms make it socially and administratively expensive.
2Would you please provide some references for these claims? For Germany, my assessment is the following:
- The permit requirements do not seem to be against AC in particular (perplexity link), but arise from all kinds of reasons like monument protection. You may find this annoying, excessive or wrong, but if some people have a preference for conserving old buildings, that is certainly different from a "cult of pain".
- As part of policies to increase energy efficiency, you may get subsidies for installing an AC unit (depending on the use case), here is a website by Bosch explaining the cases.
- Side note: In Germany, electricity is expensive; however, you can use your rooftop photovoltaics electricity for your electricity consumption including AC (which is cheaper than electricity from the grid and often coincides with times of high temperatures).
- Which consumer advice speaks against AC? The Verbraucherzentrale (German "consumer advice centers", associations that provide advisory services under a government mandate.) gives advices on what to take into account when buying an AC. They add a cost-benefit advice by noting that a fan can be much cheaper, due to high electricity prices (here, here).
- I don't see how the "Cultural scepticism" point could be verifiable, and in particular how to distinguish it from a lack of knowledge about AC units.
Here's a nice article from Kevin Kohler from yesteday (apparently, everyone was waiting for the heat wave to subside before writing). https://machinocene.substack.com/p/make-europe-cool-again
He gives two concrete examples:
-
Paris https://machinocene.substack.com/i/167478538/paris-mandated-reduction-of-house-energy-consumption "As of 2018, in Paris, an estimated 54% of primary residences in the private sector carry an energy grade of E, F or G. Meaning owners are under great pressure to decrease their energy usage. An installed AC unit raises the assessed kWh/m²/year, which can tip a property into a lower DPE class (for example, from E to F). So, landlords avoid installing AC to protect their DPE ratings and there is even anecdotal evidence of some owners removing old AC units to improve a property’s efficiency [to escape severe consequences including not being able to rent out]."
-
Geneva https://machinocene.substack.com/i/167478538/geneva-bureaucratic-deterrence-of-ac-installments "Based on Art. 22B the Canton of Geneva’s energy law any fixed AC requires an exceptional permit to be installed. The law mandates that a “real need” for cooling be demonstrated and that the project is designed to minimize energy use and is integrated into the building’s overall energy concept. In practice, this means that all feasible passive cooling measures (insulation, shading, natural ventilation) must be fully implemented before an AC can be considered. Only if those measures cannot ensure a minimal summer comfort, can an AC permit be sought, and even then, an additional “proof of necessity” (e.g. a medical certificate) must be provided."
I am personally living in Zurich. Similar problems here. Add to that that: a.) Switzerland is the country with the highest rental rate (most people do not own their flats) 2.) in the cities, it is a renter's market (insufficient supply, landlords are choosing the tenants rather than other way round) not really putting you into a position to make demands 3.) approving an AC unit would likely require a permission from the landlord, who in turn would want it to be approved by other tenants in the same building etc. Heck, it's hard to even get AC in the office spaces here.
Thanks. The French example sounds like a regulatory definitions problem? I do not know the motivation for the Geneva one. I do not see how this substantiates the cultural scepticism point, and there seem to be many explanations that are more likely than a "cult of pain". Your point about Zurich demonstrates that innovations and changes in buildings are often complex due to institutions, laws and market environments.
If a "cult of pain" or a positive attitude towards suffering was the driver behind European policies, I would expect to see policy documents approving e.g. of death during heatwaves. Instead, EU documents usually emphasize this as a severe problem and a motivation to promote climate adaptation policy (see e.g. this one by the EEA).
I agree that thinking about positive-sum situations as zero-sum is bad, but one should be cautious about assuming other people's motivations. You make the strong claim that the policies that you list as examples are motivated by a cult of pain that developed due to a moral heuristic that developed during Malthusian times. This seems strange because there are more recent developments that should have a stronger, or at least equal impression on moral intuitions, like the suffering during the industrial revolution, or carbon emissions and climate change. The "cult of pain" explanation does not seem like a straightforward explanation for what you see as irrational collective/societal behavior.
Your question about "Germans silently suffering in their overheated apartments with no air conditioning" seems to be why they have no AC units. Possible answers are: because of the typical problems in housing markets, because of imperfect regulation, because of high electricity prices, because heat waves were perceived as less of a problem a while ago. Who said he or she does not own an AC unit in order to do "repentance for the carbon footprint of their holiday in Turkey the other year"?
Of course there are people who "believe in degrowth", but it is not a dominant attitude. The European Commission, for example, framed the European Green Deal as a "growth strategy that protects the climate".
1If you are not Scott, remember "the purpose of a system is what it does". Someone may not say outright "I want you to feel pain", yet may still treat people's pain as very unimportant when implementing policy.
I won’t discuss tpoasiwid here, but I note that your claim is completely different from alleging that (1) there is a cult of pain that (2) is rooted in ethics that developed in malthusian times and (3) now drives policy choices. If everything that is relevant is tpoasiwid, then we do not need to claim anything about motivations driving policies.
"The purpose of a system is what it does" doesn't mean that motivations don't exist. It does mean that motivations are often illegible. If people behave as if they think suffering is important, and they say things that are roughly along those lines, looking for a smoking gun where someone actually goes on record as saying that in a precise way isn't going to be very useful.
I would contend status—not money— is often zero sum, the Malthusian instinct might actually be accurate there. It's when a person extends that instinct to positive sum games it stops yielding reliable predictions.
I'm tired of arguments that hand-wave away whole ideologies as the result of simple biases without any substantial engagement with their beliefs. You can find plenty of essays by critical theorists arguing that people believe in capitalism because of greed, propaganda, racism, etc. and I don't find them convincing for the same reason.
The first paragraph of this article led me to believe that the piece is referring to an attitude that is typical of most European people. Yet, AC units or multiple fans are quite common in Southern European households, offices and shops, where temperatures are quite high during summer. Not only that, but there are cultural norms or preventive measures in place: for example, shops used to close (some still do) during the hottest hours of the day in Spain and Italy, and fresh water is freely and readily available at public fountains in many Italian cities.
I live in Germany, and here I get the feeling that "extremely hot summer days" simply weren't the norm, and now that summers are getting warmer everybody is a bit unprepared. But I don't get the feeling that AC units are taboo for everybody: surely there are people that have their motivations not to use an AC unit at all, but also people that would gladly take the chance to be able to work or simply rest in a cooler room and resort to AC if that was the only possible option.
Overall, I get the impression that this post was written with a very specific subset of German/European persons in mind, and it depicts something different from my experience.
In the Netherlands where I live, people mostly think AC at home is too expensive for that one week a year when we'd use it.
Tell a spiritual person that embryo selection could help eliminate the most severe genetic disorders, and you’d be told that you are trying to interfere with God’s plan. God manifests Himself through people, all kinds of people, including those who suffer, and eliminating people of one kind would mean diminishing God.
Or you may be told some other bullshit, but the gist will be unmistakable: The pain is good. Do not dare to fight it!
I believe that at least one spiritual person told you this at least once, but as a statement about spiritual people, it's false.
The most recent US survey on Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) I found was Pew 2005, Reproductive Genetic Testing: What America Thinks. Table 3.2 seems most relevant:
Percentage of Approval for PGD by Purpose and Demographic Characteristics
For testing for fatal childhood diseases, respondents who approved:
- Total: 67.6%
- No religion: 79.9%
- Protestant (excluding Evangelical and Fundamentalist): 73.5% - highest religious grouping
- Protestant (Evangelical and Fundamentalist): 48.6% - lowest religious grouping
Putting aside the distinction between "spiritual" and "religious", tell a spiritual person in 2005 that embryo selection could help eliminate the most severe genetic disorders, and the most likely response was approval. Since then I understand that PGD has become better known, more common, and more popular.
My sense is that religious opposition to killing embryos (considered as abortion) is the dominant concern. See for example Dignitas Personae, section 22. This is different to the claimed "pain is good" or "God's plan" argument. A "pain is good" argument implies opposition to anesthetics, for example, which is extremely rare.
Putting aside the distinction between “spiritual” and “religious”, tell a spiritual person in 2005 that embryo selection could help eliminate the most severe genetic disorders, and the most likely response was approval.
Seems false. (Linked forum has quite a few religious/“spiritual” people, and they do not seem to approve of embryo selection at all. For, uh, pretty obvious reasons.)
My sense is that religious opposition to killing embryos (considered as abortion) is the dominant concern. See for example Dignitas Personae, section 22.
Exactly—but this contradicts the claim about “mostly likely response” being “approval”!
The forum thread also has people who think killing surplus IVF embryos is permissible. I don't know the spiritual or religious beliefs of the participants. So this is not evidence I can use as to the overall rate of approval.
I think survey data is stronger evidence than a forum thread. I found later surveys from 2020+ on gene editing and PES that were similar, religious affiliation is correlated with disapproval but eliminating serious disease remains popular, along with IVF.
Re: contradiction, my claim is that, for religious people who disapprove, abortion concerns are more common than "pain is good". That's fully compatible with approval being the most common response in the Pew 2005 survey results.
I think that these are good examples of zero-sum thinking and I think it's good to think about where zero-sum thinking comes from, but I don't think it comes from Malthusian conditions.
Some fundamental resources are zero-sum and some are not. An instinct that everything is zero-sum sounds pretty maladaptive to me. Hunter-gatherers experienced feast and famine. Calories at a feast are not zero-sum. Stored farmer calories are closer to zero-sum. Land for wheat cultivation is close to zero-sum, but land for rice cultivation has output highly dependent on labor input.
The cult of pain has another component: not searching for solutions which might work better.
Speaking of air cooling, if conditioning raises outdoors temperature too much, it does not mean that other solutions do too! Perhaps one could almost-freeze water in unpopulated area at the same elevation[1] as the city, and then bring it in, as an emergency cooling mechanism; I believe human lives saved would be worth it.
- ^
to reduce transportation energy losses
I moved to a country and culture with a romanticism of socialism and similar ascetics but have found it these traits to much more rationally informed than I would have originally given credit for - there was an awareness of the supply chains that source energy and a consequent ability to articulate the impact to there ethic rather than solidarity for its own sake.
That being said - its my suspicion - that a portion of the input that drives this zero sum mindset, where not appropriate, is the consequence of under-estimating individual agency of individual actors working outside of dominant power structures. The cultural solution to fixing the environment is so often abstinence and protest, rather than, lets say, getting a finding an open hard problem impacting the feasibility and costs in current 'green solutions', and implementing the solution. The perception so often seems to be that to exercise our moral muscles we need to limit our own agency and channel it towards limiting that of others: rather than expanding the corpus of available solutions or, quite frankly, going outside your home with a trash picker and cleaning up for its own sake. This under-confidence humans have I think is a result of heavy disillusionment with social systems and the absence of shared and coherent moral value system. That's just a guess, though.
Worse then merely immoral, "air con" is considered American. The proud people of Europe would die first.
Curated and popular this week
