SomeoneSomewhere

Pushing up the price of oil and stopping production could actually be carbon negative.

Aluminium is cheaper and lighter.

This seems to suggest that the metal-air transmission is virtually identical between the two, and cites some sources: https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/255731/copper-or-aluminum-heatsink

Is that not because the copper holds more heat, so stays hot for longer at the same dissipation?

Copper has more mass, heat capacity, and thermal conductivity per litre.

Is aluminium actually more effective as a dissipation surface? I hadn't heard that.

But that's kind of the point of the OP in the first place. End all suffering, wait not that suffering.

Cycling and rowing machines are probably the only practical options for that - they both have intentional friction brakes to dissipate energy, because they are actually efficient enough to need them.

Treadmills still need to put power in because of the friction, and most weight or spring machines rely on you absorbing the energy you just put in (unless you drop the weights...)

So is the original meme.

I was more thinking of the PETA-style can't-harm-one-animal-hair issue. The people who get upset if you trap rats that are eating native birds; that kind of thing.

In rough order of plausibility:

• End human-caused human suffering

• End human-caused human-or-animal suffering

• End anything-caused human suffering

• End anything-caused human-or-animal suffering

It's still cheaper for me to get a pepperoni pizza than one without. The raw material cost of the meat isn't always that significant especially when distributors get involved.

I would argue that 'end' implies 'all', aka 'eliminate suffering'.

If it said 'reduce suffering' or 'minimise suffering' that would be different.

End deliberately human caused suffering is not the same as end all suffering.

End all suffering implies preventing all animals starving or eating each other. Or animal genocide so nothing is left to suffer.

It recognizes Zionism as Israel’s foundational ideology that has created and maintains an apartheid regime between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. It further affirms the right to self-determination and liberation of the Palestinian people and supports

the establishment of a “single democratic Palestinian State in all of historic Palestine, with Jerusalem as its capital.” This effectively would eradicate the State of Israel.

I am not sure these two are fundamentally the same.

"Palestine should exist as a state" does not necessarily imply "Israel should not exist as a state".