This is the kind of ignorant comment we thankfully see less and less.

You can no longer shift your activities when the weather reaches 35C (95f) every day for weeks without noticeably cooling down in the night.

And even if activity shifting was possible, which again, it is not anymore, the authoritative, fatalistic poverty mindset required to demand that one does not actively cool during hot hours is a European mentality not many other cultures, if any, understand.

Where is the 'ignorance'? People have lived and trived in places with prolonged 35C stretches for millenia before airco.

I do not 'demand' you do the same. I just point out that there were options besides cancelling the meeting, some involved airco, LSE has airconditioned meeting rooms, admittedly without the gorgeous historic atmosphere, some didn't.

The ignorant part is claiming we have workable alternatives to AC. Now you one-up your previous statement by claiming people thrive(d) in these temperatures. Even if you had mistaken thrive for survive, it would still be incorrect, indicated by excess mortality during high temperatures.

I'd grant you that you didn't explicitly advocated for restrictive AC regulation, but I claim your dismissive attitude is implicitly part of the reason AC regulation remains restrictive.

People 'thrived', not just 'survived' in e.g. the Mediterranean long before AC.

I speculate the restriction on AC in that conference room is because it is a unique historic location they want to preserve, not some ideological anti-AC dogma.

Thing is that the median person used to be able to own a house with walls of relatively thick stone instead of being forced to live in bug nests designed for energy efficiency (mostly keeping heat, not warding it off) instead of human comfort.

I’m sorry you think heatwaves now are the same as twenty years ago.