It's certainly a thing for owning apartments in a multi-apartment building. We call it Eigentümerversammlung and I hear they're quite the hassle to deal with, too. Kind of hard to avoid having to have, though

I second hedgehogs for Germany, they're so cute! Also, or squirrels are so different from the US kind, they're just unfortunately a lot shyer, too

Wait, you're the first person I see claim that the black panthers were anarcho-capitalist - usually the claim is anarchists. What makes you say that?

That's a very good point of course - brain drain is a problem and we shouldn't encourage it. I suppose I'd rather propose encouraging countries to offer refugees good educations. I am explicitly talking about jobs that require training and come with an expectation of a good life - I agree that the jobs in agriculture and slaughterhouses and such are inhumane.

I don't think we should tell people not to have children. I just think that we should stop telling them that putting more humans on this world is the moral option or their duty. I think we should at least encourage people thinking of having kids to consider the consequences that has, and then leave the choice to them.

I second the owlcats games, especially Pathfinder Kingmaker, which is less gory in theme, more exploration and kingdom building in addition to the adventuring

Was, Eulenbären auch? Das muss ich probieren!

Hab so das Gefühl, dass es fast noch mieser wäre, jetzt wo hinzuziehen, wo es besser ist, und dann die ganze Entwicklung wieder zu erleben. Teufel den man kennt und so...

Bike companies sell a much less expensive product and don't, I would assume, sell that much more of it than car companies do. Thus they have a lot less money to spend on lobbying efforts. Also, they don't tend to be well-known. My assumption is that having a base of support or popularity in the population, or at least having politicians be aware of your brand and your market share is important to have your voice heard in lobbying.

It also helps car companies that, as someone else mentioned, oil companies lobby with them. For many of the reasons we like the idea of bikes - they don't use oil, they are generally easy to fix, sustainable, last a while, etc., they are harder to lobby for, because they don't lobby with anyone and they'd have to lobby against the profit motive.

As for shoe companies, I'm not sure they would benefit from better walkability of cities. My feeling is, they make money mostly for aesthetic reasons or explicitly for gym shoes - neither of which would change much if people walked more. Their money is probably better spent on advertising.

Gewürze sind super, und Tee auch. Ich mag die Teeadventskalender, aber wenn man mehrere Leute beadventskalendert kann man sicher auch selbst ein paar Teesorten kaufen und verteilen

On the idea of consuming less resources being a waste of resources: Every one of us has a limited amount of mental energy. Most of us have to spend a lot of that on making a living. If we want to live perfectly moral lives, we can expend the rest of it doing that. But then that is the only thing we will change in the world. On the other hand, if we spend that energy on reforming policy and inspiring societal change, we may have further reaching effects. I don't think the former is necessarily the more moral choice, though it definitely is a moral one. In an ideal world, we'd all do both of course

Speaking from a US point of view, society is often structured in such a way that a lot of the solutions you offer are made significantly difficult for consumers, especially with lower income.

• sure, it'd be healthiest and best for the planet to eat vegan and cook at home, but if you have half an hour a day to find food you'll buy what's right there
• of course it's be healthiest to walk and bike wherever you need to go, and best for the planet to use public transport when you can't, but again, if you work two jobs far away, you do not have the luxury to consider these options. These people you can't convince by giving them even more work to do in their already full and arduous days. You convince them by giving them better options and taking the rich people to task more, proportionally to their strain on society.

People simply aren't well-enough off to be able to look beyond their own experience and want to improve the world as well. I think that's why we need to champion worker's rights as a big part of the push towards all this, too

I feel like this is the option that is most discussed in public discourse, which is the problem. If we discuss climate change through the lense of "Why don't people bike, since driving is bad for the planet?" rather than "What structural changes (bike lanes, public transit, car-free city centers, etc.) can we offer to encourage people to cycle more?" or even "What are the biggest transport-related emissions (private jets, flying in fresh fruit from halfway across the world, using trucks for shipping, etc.) and how can we work as a society to eliminate them?", then people will feel disenfranchised, and even if we all started cycling it wouldn't help nearly as much as if we tackled the bigger corporate issues. It's neither pragmatic nor fair to focus on individual action at the scale of single consumers.