One thing I've not seen mentioned in this thread is the enjoyment you can get from the wide expanse of flavours & mouthfeels of different alcoholic drinks. Most of the comments seem to be focussed on people drinking either to help with social anxiety or just to blot the world out, or as one poster put it "to dissociate with reality".
I really love exploring different drinks, mainly beers and spirits although I do still enjoy some wine. There is such a wide array available, it's a wonderful 'hobby'.
With cask beers you get the initial mouthfeel of what I think is the live yeast coupled with some natural carbonation; it's not at all like a gassy fizzy drink more like a gentle tingling over the mouth. Some beers then deliver 10-30 seconds of different malt flavours with some being very biscuity or others more chocolaty. There can then the several waves of hops coming over depending how it's brewed. With one mouthful you get to enjoy and savour all those flavours and textures for a good minute with a lingering taste lasting much longer, they ebb and flow like a roller-coaster.
Spirits and cocktails are the same, the depths of flavours can be absolutely wonderful. A well balanced Negroni for example can be a very complex drink.
I've found some alcohol free drinks than can be built up to be a little interesting, but nothing comes close for the expanse and depth. I presume that the alcohol is volatile and is a key part of driving the other flavours, perhaps in a similar way to salt is a flavour enhancer.
I drink alcohol because I enjoy the taste. I am now in the middle of "researching" different scotch from different parts of Scotland. Each scotch is very different from the other one. Last year I was "researching" beers.
I do have a counter anecdote here. I mostly gave up alcohol years ago for health reasons (I was never a "heavy" drinker but did enjoy it regularly) and I greatly miss the things the parent poster describes.
Once in a blue moon (at special events and such) I will drink an alcoholic beverage again, and while there are some I don't miss (like a Pilsner beer or Vodka) there are others I really do enjoy for their own sake (a particularly aromatic gin, an aged whisky, or an IPA).
The compromise I have is that I allow myself to enjoy these beverages sometimes on rare occasions, but in small quantities. Maybe 4 oz of beer, or 1 oz of liquor. If they were available without the negative health consequences or the intoxication effect, I would very much enjoy tasting them more frequently.
I posit you are particularly susceptible to the neurophysiological effects elicited by phytochemicals and other psychoactives in those specific beverages.
This may be simply due to genetics — maybe you have an under- or overactive neurotransmitter-metabolising enzyme oslt which is temporarily remediated by those drinks in a fashion which produces euphoria — but may also be mediated by diet, medications and even life experiences.
My experience has been that if I adjust my diet to remove all carbs, which is close to the diet that human beings evolved on, then any alcoholic beverage tastes like poison to me and the hangover comes on faster. The buzz is also worse -- just woozy and sick feeling. Once you clean up your diet you'll lose your taste for alcohol. Your body really can't tolerate alcohol in any amount and once you've eliminated the other junk in your diet and have a pure system then you'll notice how miserable alcohol makes you feel and how terrible it tastes.
If you go on any exclusion diet then I'd expect foods you're no longer accustomed to would affect you. I suspect that if a committed vegan were to eat a steak then they would have a variety of both mental and biological reactions.
Regarding your comment about removing carbs being the diet we evolved with, I always presumed that we had always eaten fruit and vegetables. Grains didn't become a significant part of our diet though until about 4,000 years ago with the introduction of bronze age agriculture.
There also seems to be what appears fairly solid evidence that animals, including humans, have sought out fermented fruit, about 1-3% alcohol, for millions of years. Wouldn't that be something we evolved on too?
I'm sure ancient humans ate fruit from time to time, but there are a few factors to consider:
1. ancient fruit was much different than modern fruit, which has been bred over a millennium to be larger, have fewer seeds, more sugar, etc. Ancient fruit would have been small, sour seedy stuff with lots rind compared to what we think of as fruit today.
2. ancient fruit would not only have been extremely seasonal (just a couple of months a year, and only then if you lived in the tropics) but humans would have had to compete with monkeys and parrots and squirrels and insects and scores of other animals to get the fruit -- and the monkeys and parrots would probably have the advantage...
3. the caloric return on eating fruit is not that great -- the alternative back in the ancient days was to kill one of the mega fauna (all of which humans drove to extinction because they hunted so much). One wooly mammoth contains enough calories to feed a large tribe for the better part of a year. In fact, anthropologists have noted that the remains of Home Erectus are universally found in conjunction with mammoth bones -- they apparently lived on nothing but mammoth for a million years.
4. ancient humans lived through ice ages -- they survived through a period roughly 30,000 to 20,000 years ago (Last Glacial Maximum) in which glaciers were a mile deep over what is currently Manhattan. All of Canada was covered in ice -- and yet the Inuit lived there for thousands of years through that ice age -- hundreds of generations. Obviously these people weren't eating any fruit while living on a glacier. Even today there are people groups who live in the far north, such as the Sami, who are almost exclusively carnivorous. In fact there are several know human populations that have been almost entirely carnivorous, such as the Maasai, who live off meat, blood, and milk, and the Comanche, who lived off nothing but Bison.
5. Fruit is almost entirely fiber and carbs, both of which can be entirely removed from the human diet without any negative consequence. I expect that ancient humans were absolute masters of their environments and understood the plant life around them extraordinarily well, but I expect that they lived by the dictum that "animals are food and plants are medicine". They would likely consume plants not for nourishment, but for some other effect.
That is ridiculous. Alcohol tastes like poison. It does not in any way enhance the flavor of any beverage. Small dilute amounts just are less noticable.
Depends on what you mean by "taste". Technically, spicy foods wouldn't taste any different if the spice chemical capsaicin were removed from it. And yet many people prefer spicy foods.
I disagree that it does not enhance the flavours, it is quite a significant factor IMHO.
Regarding it tasting like poison, I can't really comment on that other than to say I would think many people have a similar initial reaction to coffee or chilli for example. They bombard the senses and until you attune yourself in to them can be quite overwhelming.
Alcoholism is causing me to lose relationships with two family members, plus it has caused severe stress among many other of my family members. For a long time, because my wife barely drinks, and I barely drink, I was able to ignore the situation. However, it has recently become clear how much I've lost because of others' drinking problems. I don't think my situation is unusual, either. I suspect many of us have relatives who are alcoholics, and that most of us have found a way to avoid those people and to minimize their impacts on us. It's often easy to ignore the health impacts on those of us who don't even drink, and yet, it somehow spirals farther than I once thought possible.
I wish more people talked about how dangerous alcohol truly is. Yes, it can be perfectly fine to drink. However, it also commonly leads to severe outcomes that are often outside of our control, and that harm us even if we don't even drink alcohol.
> However, it also commonly leads to severe outcomes that are often outside of our control, and that harm us even if we don't even drink alcohol.
I was about to ask what harm you thought was caused (not in an argumentative way, just curious) when I remembered driving (among others, but that one is far more obvious). Yeah, duh.
Alcohol killed my dad. It's an absolutely horrific way to die. Your organs shut down one by one over an extremely painful two month period. Family members can do nothing except watch. You can't even donate part of your liver, medial ethics disallow any organ transplants for alcoholics unless you are really rich/powerful/politically connected. As soon as you see them with yellow skin (Jaundice), you know their fate is sealed.
My dad was so good at managing his alcoholism - didn't seem to have any problems with work or dui's, nobody thought they needed to intervene until it was too late. One day he just collapsed at work and was taken to the hospital.
Just yesterday a drunk driver rear ended me while I was stopped at a traffic light in the middle of the day. It was just a light tap on the bumper but the road has a 55 MPh speed limit. What if he hit me going 60? Would I still be alive today?
shouldn't there be some strong and measurable impact on muslim societies (which tend to drink no alcohol) compared to non-muslim societies (who tend to drink alcohol)? is saudi arabia governed smarter or are imams wiser than catholic priests? do they live or stay healthy for longer?
having said that I am personally going through some changes. and for some reason I observed the past weeks how I don't enjoy drinking alcohol anymore. not because of healthy considerations on a rational level but just the feeling it gives me. the buzz seems to be gone and instead I'm left with an unpleasant drowsiness that lingers for way too long. I have never been an excessive drinker. I'm wondering what caused this change as it seems to be stemming from a more fundamental neurological or physiological level. I got vaccinated this year more than ten times (especially recently) due to upcoming travels and I stopped drinking coffee three months ago. might one of this contribute?
something else to consider. the host of the podcast is affiliated with a nootropic company and advertises its products at the beginning of the clip. nootropics are generally about "take this pill every day and you will feel better". directly related is the idea of "don't do this any more and you'll feel better". I'd keep that in mind consuming the presented arguments.
If you wanted to scientifically study the effects of alcohol consumption among groups, you wouldn't take 5 people from one neighborhood, of one ethnicity, of one level of education, etc. and 5 people from a different neighborhood half way across the country of a totally different background, living under different circumstances, assign one group to drink, and call it a sound experiment. Similarly, alcohol consumption is not the only differentiator between Muslim and non-Muslim countries.
I’ve asked this repeatedly and never heard a good answer. The wealthiest countries are generally those that have _more_ cultural drinking (Germany South Korea Japan ) not less.
> The wealthiest countries are generally those that have _more_ cultural drinking
I don't think this is correct but I think I understand where you're coming from. Looking at the top 10 countries by alcohol consumption for 2019 (below), it seems there's a good mix of wealthy and not so wealthy countries.
Wealthier countries may seem to be bigger drinkers because they often have strong cultural exports (TV/music) and/or a strong tourism industry, exposing their drinking cultures to the outside world.
Top 10 Countries with the Highest Alcohol Consumption in 2019 (in liters of pure alcohol per capita):
My theory is that people in these countries are the opposite of drunk without alcohol, which is good for productivity, but needs compensation in social situations.
Congratulations. You’ve found your ideal dosage for your unique situation.
For many of us, one drink leads to more drinks at which point the physiological and psychological changes covered in the linked article become amplified.
The problem with the discussion is, most people here against alcohol sound to me like vegans. I mean, unable to discuss the "I only drink twice a week a beer" argument. To them even touching alcohol makes one a drunk-driver-wife-beater, deserving no less than high tower scorn. Not very helpful for an argument...
> … most people here against alcohol sound to me like vegans.
There’s a pretty big difference. Most people who drink don’t harm another living being, while those who eat animal products are supporting harm towards animals.
I understand the vegan perspective but not the perspective of the use who criticize causal drinking.
Killing perceived as causing “harm” (or not) is a somewhat non-trivial philosophical question. In an important sense, death is a social construct. From this point of view, the importance of one’s staying alive is measured by the impact on the society (starting with their family). The life of a chicken, therefore, doesn’t matter, with the exception when it is a pet. (At the same time, the life of a hen who is raising a flock of chicks is important.)
That’s quite a reductive view to justify hurting a living being. Harm literally means “ physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted” and a chicken whose throat is slit is clearly harmed. Animals don’t die instantly and it’s unreasonable to say “we aren’t harming a chicane by killing them if they didn’t produce value to society.”
I’d expect humans to have more empathy and not try or reason their way into needlessly killing a creature who doesn’t want to die.
Relying on booze to have a personality is where a lot of alcoholics start out. Not saying this is you, but it's worth keeping in mind if one beer starts becoming more.
You're medicating for stress and anxiety? That's another common way people start evolving alcoholics. Don't self medicate. It's dangerous and can lead to alcoholism. Far better to seek appropriate care from a professional.
The fact that alcohol is sold in stores en masse, but it's somehow so bad that it kills cells? If it is so bad, why isn't it banned in every country in the world?
Beer is even considered food in some countries. I don't see any evidence for his theories mentioned in the video.
Alcohol as a “cultural lubricant” has been with us for as long as humans have had oral histories passed down. The alcoholic beverage lobbies around the world are politically powerful and have very entrenched interests within countries.
The United States attempted to ban it during Prohibition. That social experiment lasted 13 years before it was repealed. If you’d like to understand what makes your proposal for a unilateral ban challenging in practice, understanding why Prohibition ultimately reverted to the previous status quo is a good starting point.
One reason why Prohibition didn't work (and why alcohol has been culturally significant for so long) is that alcoholic beverages are ridiculously easy to make. If you have fruit or grain, a container, and some time...
Attempting to regulate alcohol, as you note, is a fool’s errand.
Regulation isn’t the answer. It will take centuries of messaging and a shift in consumption patterns before it’s not profitable to commercially produce. Possibly.
Many of the comments here are making universal claims “for our species”, pointing out this isn’t the case “for me” is a reasonable refutation that doesn’t require belaboring the point that it is for the person.
The original piece that this entire thread is about links to multiple studies that support it's claims. OP's comment just says, "Well, I don't experience this, so I call BS". Sure, you don't, and that's fine (I'm happy that them and others in this thread have different experiences - good for them!), but that doesn't mean that we, nor even yourself, should immediately dismiss it entirely.
I'm an alcoholic, but thanks. Care to eschew your sarcasm and have a discussion about why we should use how OP's body responds to alcohol as the primary reason to cast this entire article (that came with cited studies) as "bullshit"? Because that's all my point was.
well then no beer for you - I understood wheel's point as mostly hinting at alcohol serving a purpose as a social lubricant. and that's pretty established and well-observable. doesn't form an imperative, though. to call "BS" on the podcast's content is of course a bit over the top.
The weird thing as I see it is that somehow the alcohol lobby has convinced an entire society that anyone who runs into severe consequences from routinely ingesting this drug (alcohol) is literally genetically deficient. Pretty much the opposite of the how people react to most drugs, for example opioid pain killers.
It's a very powerful psychological tool for promoting alcohol consumption and suppressing anti-alcohol messaging. It may even make some people continue drinking just to prove that they can "handle it" and are not genetic failures. Or even prevent people from admitting they decided to stop drinking, because someone may conclude that you are therefore genetically flawed (alcoholic).
This particular aspect is probably one of the things I hate most about our culture.
How do you propose to tell people that some people are predisposed to alcoholism and some are not, without some people taking it as a personal challenge? Should we suppress the facts?
Alcohol is the most harmful drug out there[1] - worse than heroin, crack cocaine, and all the rest. It boggles my mind how common it is, while genuinely useful drugs like psilocybin are still Schedule I and relegated to the shadows.
What a nonsense.. there are millions of people drinking alcohol sporadically and are doing fine. I don't think there are that many people sporadically consuming crack and are doing fine. Now I guess you can define harmful in many ways and I didn't read the study and probably won't.
The correct phrasing is, "Alcohol is the worst drug to be addicted to". Slightly different from OP, it just removes morality from the issue.
I definitely understand your apprehension to this idea, however, someone I know very intimately is an alcoholic. They've said this phrase to me before and it wasn't clear until they explained their position from their perspective:
There is no other drug that is as socially accepted and harmfully addictive as alcohol. Keep in mind that you can die from alcohol withdrawals and even without dying you might wish you had. The same drug that can do that is stocked on shelves, easily accessible, advertised on TV, and passed out for free at times. Additionally, addiction to alcohol is cyclical. Many people drink out of anxiety, that anxiety is cured while drunk until the person begins to sober up. Then the alcohol fuels more anxiety which continues the cycle.
This phrase isn't meant to discount the experience of other addicts but moreso to express the unique difficulty that alcoholics may experience in the world.
> And the National Drug Intelligence Center reports, “an estimated 6,222,000 U.S. residents aged 12 and older used crack at least once in their lifetime.” A lot of people have used crack, and a lot of those people do not fit the stereotypes about who uses or why.
There are all kinds of people in this world, and we all live very different lives.
What’s your point? A lot of people have tried crack and there are a lot of crack addicts. I calculated the numbers of Australia a few years ago. Something like 10% of people who try heroin become dependent. That number is like 0.1% or 0.01% for alcohol.
You are comparing people that used crack at least once in their lifetime with people who drink reasonable amounts of alcohol for decades. Then this comparison became basis for comparing effect of crack on people with the effect of alcohol in people. This is disingenuous.
I'm not sure that's the comparison that's being made. At least the phrasing suggests they think it's more ongoing than "at least once".
> If you're looking for people who use crack recreationally
That seems to suggest something more similar to consuming "reasonable amounts" for an extended period. I personally don't know how common that would be (since I don't tend to hang around kitchens in restaurants) but it does sound rather different from "people that used crack at least once in their lifetime".
Was about to say, I can see how one can try making a claim that alcohol is more harmful than cannabis l or even cocaine.
But crack and especially heroin (fentanyl would go here as well)? That instantly made me lose any belief in credibility of that reply, sadly. Anyone who has seen what those drugs end up doing to literally everyone who starts using them, it's not even close. And that's despite the fact that heavy alcoholism absolutely can churn out some extremely awful scenarios where people turn into monsters.
It's like hearing someone tell you with full-on seriousness that bicycles going at their typical speeds (15-20mph) colliding with pedestrians will cause more physical damage to pedestrians than a pickup truck going at its typical speed (45mph+).
That's more to do with the legal and cultural status of cocaine than its chemical properties. Illicit drug users tend to have difficulties to begin with, and the legal and financial consequences of using illegal drugs tend to worsen them. Also, crack tends to be cheaper than freebase, so a specific comparison is also being confounded by socioeconomic disparity.
> What a nonsense.. there are millions of people drinking alcohol sporadically and are doing fine. I don't think there are that many people sporadically consuming crack and are doing fine.
I don't know any numbers, but I do know there are people who consume crack recreationally and are doing fine. It's hard to compare to alcohol though, since alcohol is much more readily available and easier to get for a large amount of the population.
Alcohol is doing damage at scale vs crack which is doing damage to a much smaller set of individuals. See drunk driving deaths vs crack driving deaths.
It does if you look at it overall vs per capita. If crack was consumed at the scale of alcohol, yeah that’d be a big problem, but I think that’s obvious.
That paper doesn't really say how they computed the scores of the different drugs. Without that information it's hard to say how accurate the scoring is.
Anyone have their own cure for a hangover the following day after drinking heavily? My usual go-to is a 'Full English Breakfast' that has all the trimmings and it replaces lost electrolytes in my system and 'cures' me although it's only a band-aid solution.
There's nothing you can really do except wait a bad hangover out and let your body repair itself after essentially ingesting poison. Lucozade is another thing we have over here in the UK which is lauded as a 'curer' for hangovers. Apparently your blood sugar drops dramatically after imbibing heavily and glucose drinks bring your blood sugar back up quickly.
That and Solpadeine if you have a bad headache after (Solpadeine contains codeine which is a powerful analgesic).
The best cures, as usual, are preventative. In order of effectiveness, I have found these reduce hangovers:
1. Don't drink a lot quickly. If you never get to the point that the room starts spinning, then your body can roughly process the alcohol at the rate that you're consuming it. Avoid doing shots and sip cocktails slowly.
2. Sober up before going to bed. If you do get too drunk, spend an hour or two sobering up before going to bed. That will give your body time to process some of the alcohol and tell you what it needs—to pee, drink water, eat, etc. before you go unconscious.
3. Drink a fairly large electrolyte drink like Gatorade before going to bed. Much of the pain of a hangover comes from dehydration and other chemical imbalances from your body processing the alcohol while you sleep.
If you haven't done any of those and woke up with a hangover, it's too late. Your body has used all of its reserves processing the alcohol and you have signed up for pain.
Besides what others have said, drink plenty of water while you drink alcohol. I go for a 1:1 ratio (makes you pee a lot though) but it’s what keeps the dehydration from alcohol and ensuing headache under control.
> Lucozade is another thing we have over here in the UK which is lauded as a 'curer' for hangovers.
I’d recommend Lucozade Sport instead, for the electrolytes (It’s got what plants crave!).
Then, poached eggs, rashers, toast and some roasted or fried tomatoes. Throw in a chopped up habañero as well for flavour if your spice tolerance is up to it.
> Anyone have their own cure for a hangover the following day after drinking heavily?
A run. 45-60 minutes usually does the trick for me. I bring an electrolyte drink with me. It sucks, it's painful, by the nideay point I'm usually feeling pretty much normal.
That said, it's been a while since I woke up with a hangover. Having young kids, for me anyway, has been a great deterrent for drinking too much. They (correctly) don't give a shit if you're hungover, they're waking you up early I matter what.
There is an interesting now product called zBiotic that you could look into. You take it before drinking and it helps metabolize one of the alcohol byproducts that causes hangovers.
In my younger days I drank heavily and was often in hangover territory the next morning. As I ate during drinking the previous day I normally had an active culture yogurt with the food - eg spicy chicken with a cup of active culture yogurt. I found that it definitely lessened the severity of the hangover.
That alcohol reduces blood glucose is correct. I'm diabetic and wear a CGM and it's fascinating that I can drink a sugary beverage that would typically spike my blood sugar very hard, but if it has alcohol in it my level stays roughly the same or even drops. I have to be very careful about alcohol because too much too fast will drop me dangerously low.
(From my amateur understanding, the alcohol gets prioritized by your liver which stops dumping glucose.)
I use Double Wood for most of my simple supplements (Magnesium Threonate, Apigenin, etc). They (claim to) do a lot of quality testing and have great customer support.
Cure for hangover? Best cure is not drinking so much :)
The hangover is your body telling you you did something not entirely healthy. You might want to listen to it.
But if you must know: Drink water, that night, before going to bed. A good amount. Drink more water the morning after. A lot of your hangover is dehydration. Have a rich breakfast if you can eat it, or electrolytes (pedialyte etc) if you can't stomach the idea of eating.
But also, realize you've overdone it and learn something for the next time.
> The hangover is your body telling you you did something not entirely healthy. You might want to listen to it
Does that also apply to people who drive themselves to the limit in sports? For example many people who do marathons or Iron Man events will feel rough and likely have blisters and bruises for several days. Some people doing sports end up in hospital as a direct result.
Should they listen to the pain of their body and not push themselves?
[I'm saying this as Devil's advocate) to raise a point about your logic, not judging the health issues of hangovers vs exhaustion, blisters, and damaged joints etc]
> Should they listen to the pain of their body and not push themselves?
I don't know, let me think
> Some people doing sports end up in hospital as a direct result.
Oh, wait, I have an answer. I'm going to go with yes.
> I'm saying this as Devil's advocate
The devil has enough lawyers. A different profession might be a good choice.
Kidding aside: If you're actively damaging your body, you should think long and hard why you believe that's a good idea. However you're doing the damaging.
> Should they listen to the pain of their body and not push themselves?
Yes? It's well published science that a half marathon distance reaches the point of negative gains in running. Marathon runners therefore don't continually train at at marathon distances, typical training is in the 10-15k.
More casually, inactive and active recovery are very important to athletes
Having given up drinking for two years now, I can say with certainty that no amount of alcohol is healthy. Everything is better. I won't bore you with details, but absolutely every facet of my quality of life has improved. Never touching the stuff again.
I had been drinking more or less since I was a teenager (or pre-teen?), and I live in a drinking culture (i.e., Wisconsin), but I decided to quit drinking entirely 2 years ago when the pandemic got bad. I do understand why a lot of people went in the opposite direction, drinking more during the pandemic, because it's a natural coping mechanism, so I don't criticize that. I just personally felt it was important to keep my body as healthy as possible, especially before we had vaccines. It also helped the pocketbook in economically uncertain times to not spend any money on alcohol. Now, I don't even miss drinking anymore. (I definitely did miss it for a while afterward.) I think I used alcohol too much as a crutch, in order to "have fun". I'm rewiring my brain to stop thinking I need chemical supplements in order to have fun.
I'm not trying to preach, other than to say that it is possible to break from a habit of drinking and leave it behind, if you've considered that. To be sure, I wasn't ever technically an "alcoholic", just a... normal Wisconsinite LOL. (For a laugh, here's Lewis Black on drinking in Wisconsin https://youtu.be/9m-cQin1qKE )
To flip the question, why would you like a long and healthy life? Are you happy about the world you're sending your kids into? What do you tell them about the world?
I do want a long and healthy life. Yes, I am happy about the world I'm sending my kids into. I'll tell them the world is a wonderful miracle and our purpose is to contribute to its flourishing as much as possible.
But I know my limit. I know when I feel like having another "just because" is usually a big "okay enough now"
As I'm getting older I can't drink much anymore. But wine with dinner is almost a daily thing with my partner. One to two glasses only but anymore and I'll feel a bit "off" the next day.
Can you recommend some (non-weirs) in Europe? I used to buy some from the UK but after Brexit they stopped shipping to the EU and all the ones I find have this 'non-alcoholic flavour' that I can't pinpoint but ruins the experience to me. That or they are somewhat sweet, which I Hate.
Aldi brand non alcoholic ones are actually ok, and can hit the spot, but wouldn't call them 'good!
And forget about non-alcoholic wine, that shit is awful.
Being buying low alcoholic gin (Beefeater 20%) and whiskey (Ballantines 20%). They are ok. Not perfect, but they have enough 'zing' to make them pleasant.
The science has been in a long time that no amount of alcohol is healthy. Despite overwhelming experimental, historical and anecdotal evidence, 60% of Americans drink ~4 drinks per week - which luckily is on the decline.
Something is seriously wrong with humanity if poisoning ourselves regularly to dissociate with reality remains this popular as a core social component. People will point to all of the supposed "social lubricant" benefits etc... of drinking culture, but I'm not convinced it's anything but a band-aid on some combination of social anxiety and existential dread.
I fully support anyone doing whatever they like with their body, but we should be able to at least acknowledge that any alcohol in any amount is self destructive.
I say this as a former Beer and Whiskey nerd by the way.
Yeah, that was an interesting comment. I understand where they're coming from, but humans have been ingesting things - even beyond alcohol - to modify their reality for a very, very, very long time. I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with asking why it is that we have continued to do this, collectively, as a species, but I hesitate to suggest that it implies that there is "something wrong with humanity".
Maybe it's the fact that we all realize our mortality, and the benefit that it has on a species. Nature has built into us a few limiters to over-flourishing, like it has for many other species: a short life-span with expendable body components - we've overcome that with medicine and other life-extending tech. A disinterest in procreation - we're trending in that direction but the procreators are probably gonna win that battle. Limited resources - science is finding ways to exploit new resources while diminishing the quality of life for all.
I'm a drinker and proud of the contributions I still make to society, but also that I won't hang on for too long past my invitation to stay on this rock. There are people better than me who should occupy it.
They also sacrificed humans to their gods. The tenure of a bad habit is not an argument in favour of the habit. I recall ancient romans used lead to enhance the taste of wine, if that practice had persisted nobody today would advocate for it give what we now know (and they suspected) about the effects of lead.
And while we know that ancient civilisations drank alcohol, we don’t know how widespread or frequent it was, was it just an elite? Was it a very occasional ceremony (as some indigenous tribes still do, using psychoactive substances as part of group rituals once or twice per year)?
> They also sacrificed humans to their gods. The tenure of a bad habit is not an argument in favour of the habit.
But how certain are you that most of the problems that we struggle with today aren't a result of insufficient ritual sacrifice? Maybe we need to heed the lesson taught to us by the movie Cabin in the Woods.
Alcohol habits have varied immensely across times and cultures, both in terms of consumption and in beliefs about the effect of alcohol. There's plenty of room to change, even if you only think what has happened before is possible.
I suppose that having a small amount of silver or even just copper touching the water can seriously prolong its shelf life, so to say.
Also, putting sterilized water into airtight sterilized containers, as normally done with beer, works well. Carry a can of Liquid Death with you instead of a can of Bud, the weight is the same.
Alcohol has a diuretic effect. It makes the kidneys produce urine. Without access to actual clean water, it seems to me that drinking alcohol will just dehydrate the person even faster.
Humanity has been doing a lot of things for most part of these 8000 years, from casual genocide at wars to not washing hands before a meal. Much of it has changed in recent couple of centuries, with pretty obvious positive effects.
Humans have done a lot of things for thousands of years that modern sensibilities now find unsavory. Slavery, human sacrifice, purchasing a bride, and to a lesser extent religion in general.
According to the literal reading of the old testament, humanity did not even exist by then, and the world itself did not exist. There can't be a bad habit as old as 8000 years.
I think you mean "literalistic". When the plain words are plainly meant to be understood in a non-literal way, then to interpret them literally is in fact not to interpret them "literally". I use the word "literalistic" for the kind of moronic reasoning that assumes that if one of King David's psalms says that God will shelter you under his wings, then that means that God must have wings. Or when the author of The Song of Songs writes "Your eyes are the pools of Heshbon by the gate of Bath Rabbim" then that means that this woman's eyes are actually the pools of Heshbon by the gate of Bath Rabbim.
So if you're going to be a moron, then you can claim that the Bible teaches that the world was created in six days 6,000 years ago, with the light from distant stars already in transit.
There are so many things in our life that cause harm in any quantity. For instance, exposure to fine particulate is directly correlated with all cause mortality. Yet almost everyone drives or rides the subway, even though both activities expose you to fine particulate. For many, the benefits of transportation outweigh the negative health impact. Many feel the same way about alcohol.
I bet even with literally perfect lives humans would still drink alcohol and consume other drugs. It's a chemical you can ingest that gives you different experiences than you normally could or would. That will NEVER not be attractive to the human brain, even if you think that's irrational. Humans are curious creatures, and that curiosity includes the desire to understand dangerous or weird things.
I think there’s a second order effect here you’re not seeing. Social acceptance makes imbibing orders of magnitude less stressful and you can still call yourself a “normal” person while doing it. I think that makes a huge difference.
> biochemical augmentation will be just as accepted as electromechanical
I'm not sure that electromechanical modification is accepted today. Things like limb replacements are now accepted for those with injuries - but I don't think there is widespread acceptance of mechanical augmentation for _enhancement_. There is a grey area though for tool usage which is acceptable and what is "augmentation".
Is having a drink or two a week really measurably self-destructive? How does it measure compared to sitting at a desk all day, or putting mayo in your sandwiches?
Oh, all of us non-Californians know as well. The warning label is put on products nationally - probably not worth manufacturing a CA variant of product packaging in most cases.
> I fully support anyone doing whatever they like with their body, but we should be able to at least acknowledge that any alcohol in any amount is self destructive.
Yes. There is a related issue, which is that a lot of people just can't accept that something they like is actually detrimental. Since I've never drank, I never experienced this specific kind of cognitive dissonance (if you can even call it that), but I've seen in so many people, it's depressing. There are some things that I love despite knowing that they are bad for your health (like certain unhealhty foods), but I would hate to deceive myself about it (knowing that they are bad allows me to manage the risks, like being aware that I should reduce consumption if I'm indulging too much). But a lot of people have the exact opposite attitude. Which is curious, because the damages are some times very obvious.
> but we should be able to at least acknowledge that any alcohol in any amount is self destructive.
Is driving in any amount self-destructive? Eating bacon?
If we're going to call mildly (or moderately) unhealthy things "self-destructive", what term should we use for... well, truly self-destructive things?
> People will point to all of the supposed "social lubricant" benefits etc... of drinking culture, but I'm not convinced it's anything but a band-aid on some combination of social anxiety and existential dread.
If it's not alcohol it's drugs, if it's not drugs it's gambling. If it's not gambling it's approaching women at the bar. If it's not approaching women at the bar it's speeding.
People have a deep need to do something that entails risk or that it's frowned upon (or both).
Cultures where this doesn't happen such as Japan are essentially dying and going extinct and so is Europe and US aelbit at a slower rate. Will rightfully get replaced by cultures who DGAF and have a high turnover rate such as the Arab world, Indians and Sub-Saharan Africa
But every culture has been using intoxicants to change their head space for as far back as we can see. Everything from marijuana, alcohol, hallucinogens, dissociative, stimulants etc. as and everyday part of human life. Might we not have evolved to somewhat “require” it in some ways?
The flaw with that line of thinking is that we are not robots (LaMDA and Zuck, you can stop reading now).
We don't always (want to) make optimal decisions based only on how objectively healthy they are, and that's perfectly fine, and not really "self-destructive" in the sense you're implying. There's an adage somewhere about living health and becoming a beautiful, healthy corpse some day.
Alcohol is bad. Maybe cutting it entirely from your life will get you an average 0.56% increased life span. Will it be worth it?
This isn't to say being a drunkard is good, or that widespread alcohol consumption can't be a problem (see Russia's and native Americans' history).
I agree with this. If you're a regular social drinker it requires quite a bit of self-reflection and lifestyle adjustment to stop drinking entirely, which is the hurdle a lot of people face. But anecdotally/personally I find that it's immensely worth it.
Might still have a glass of bubbly in celebration of something or enjoy the occasional wine tour at a vineyard, but I have no real intent to continue drinking regularly. The health tradeoffs aren't worth it to me.
Note also that unfortunately it seems women are much more sensitive to the risks of alcohol than men. I'm not a big fan of this "mommy needs her wine" culture we have.
Alcohol doesn't help social anxiety except by social convention.
Society believes alcohol changes personality, and that drunk people are less themselves. Thus, they judge drunk people less harshly (including themselves).
But alcohol doesn't actually change personality. It only makes your brain work slower. It doesn't make it go anywhere it otherwise wouldn't, you just get there later.
What we've developed is a way to split up when we're accountable. I promise you that split is zero-sum: the more leniently they judge your social behaviour when drunk, the more harshly they judge it when you're sober.
Alcohol absolutely does help social anxiety by improving mood and lowering inhibitions on a brain chemistry level. There are plenty of factual and scientific reasons to dislike and discourage alcohol, the "it's all in your head dummy" angle isn't one of them.
If it was simply on a brain chemistry level, why does it work so differently in other times and places?
It's an example of bad high-status science suppressing good low-status science. Neurochemists asking, "Why does alcohol make us do this?" without checking with cultural anthropologists if it actually does make us do this, or if it just makes "WEIRD" people do it.
I did not say it was all in your head, by the way. The lower reaction times and slower thinking is obviously real (and present everywhere).
I understand your point and would have to read more deeply about it, but these things exist on a spectrum. Anxiety reduction, talkativeness, etc. might very well be socially induced with alcohol making you significantly more susceptible to the social cues. That isn't any more placebo than any mood altering substance.
I should join AA if I have social anxiety or existential dread? Considering GP's comment, this is a worthless response. Also it wouldn't even apply to people that don't drink, such as myself. I'm glad AA helped you but you chose the wrong comment to reply to.
Well, I've never done AA, but what does AA provide that would be beneficial more broadly? Community? Acceptance of high power? Repentance? Peer-commitments? Shared-experiences?
So maybe organized, community-oriented religion is the right suggestion? Or some secular organization devoted to community betterment?
Yes. The 12 steps are a self directed self paced investigation of self and/in society. The community is welcoming, with diverse backgrounds and experiences.
Humility, sharing of suffering and joy, laughter. YMMV
I'm somewhat familiar with the 12 steps. As far as I can tell the core premise is to give in to a "higher power." This feels very similar to a cult to me, in the sense that it's learned helplessness and that the only way you can ever have value is by giving in to the group/god/whatever. I am not saying 12 steps is a cult because it exists to help/cure addiction and it does so with mixed results. But the history of the program is very obviously centered around religion.
If you aren't already in such dire straits as to require this kind of help, it really seems like a form of self-harm to me. I've met many people who've gone through 12 steps. Some advocate for it, some protest it. I'm genuinely happy for people to get the help they need wherever they can find it. But I absolutely would not recommend it to someone that isn't already so desperate that they're willing to give up their autonomy because they don't know what else to do.
> Something is seriously wrong with humanity if poisoning ourselves regularly to dissociate with reality remains this popular as a core social component.
Yes something is deeply wrong with human nature, and human existence is largely suffering no matter how you try to mask it.
I agree that it's a bandaid but what solution are you proposing? There is of course the option to simply exit the game, but for various biological reasons this is a real challenge.
Poisoning ourselves regularly and feeling good doing it sounds like a reasonable compromise.
Sugar (in large amounts) isn't so great for you either ...
And caffeine from coffee/tea while fine in moderation, becomes really bad if abused as part of a pattern of chronic sleep deprivation which is really common.
I was just being a pedantic jerk reacting to: "no downsides."
There are often possible downsides to anything one can do ... but that doesn't mean it isn't something worth doing. I love to hike - I could break my ankle or fall of cliff - but that doesn't mean I should never hike.
Define "healthy". Breathing toxic fumes on the roadways isn't healthy, and yet most of us prefer to live near civilization. You can't exclude one side of a tradeoff, you have to measure them against each other.
Sounds like you are cherry picking the science, for example here is a cherry picked article by the Mayo Clinic [0]
Moderate alcohol consumption may provide some health benefits, such as:
- Reducing your risk of developing and dying of heart disease
- Possibly reducing your risk of ischemic stroke (when the arteries to your brain become narrowed or blocked, causing severely reduced blood flow)
- Possibly reducing your risk of diabetes
Thank you for the link, but it doesn't seem like it's answering my question? from your link:
"This study had various limitations that should be taken into account when interpreting the findings. First, we did not incorporate patterns of drinking, and therefore did not distinguish between individuals who infrequently engage in heavy episodic drinking and those who consume the same amount of alcohol over several days."
From what I'm reading it seems like the study was looking at habitual drinker, either drinking regularly or in big amount.
For those of us using the metric system, a standard drink is 14 grams of alcohol. Which is for instance one small beer with 4% alcohol volume: 330mL * 0.04 = 13.2 grams of alcohol.
Good luck with these calculations if you’re using imperial units. And you’re tipsy. But for metric countries it’s not too hard a calculation.
As a former alcoholic, ethanol is the worst garbage there is. You might as well hit your toes/whatever with a hammer - there's the pain, the near instant release of morphine and the (very long) hangover :D
It is in our nature to disassociate with reality/consciousness imo, for many of us it's too much to handle.
There are much better alternatives out there and I wish they weren't so demonized.
I am curious on how did they determine that the people who were studied only drank 1-2 drinks per night. Did they measure alcohol content in blood nightly ?
> Something is seriously wrong with humanity if poisoning ourselves regularly to dissociate with reality remains this popular as a core social component. People will point to all of the supposed "social lubricant" benefits etc... of drinking culture, but I'm not convinced it's anything but a band-aid on some combination of social anxiety and existential dread.
Incas drank alcohol regularly and I doubt they were stressed for their 9 to 5 job.
While this goes against the intent of the thread, I'll note that only buying a limited amount of lower gravity beer occasionally can be fairly effective in pacing yourself.
I really love exploring different drinks, mainly beers and spirits although I do still enjoy some wine. There is such a wide array available, it's a wonderful 'hobby'.
With cask beers you get the initial mouthfeel of what I think is the live yeast coupled with some natural carbonation; it's not at all like a gassy fizzy drink more like a gentle tingling over the mouth. Some beers then deliver 10-30 seconds of different malt flavours with some being very biscuity or others more chocolaty. There can then the several waves of hops coming over depending how it's brewed. With one mouthful you get to enjoy and savour all those flavours and textures for a good minute with a lingering taste lasting much longer, they ebb and flow like a roller-coaster.
Spirits and cocktails are the same, the depths of flavours can be absolutely wonderful. A well balanced Negroni for example can be a very complex drink.
I've found some alcohol free drinks than can be built up to be a little interesting, but nothing comes close for the expanse and depth. I presume that the alcohol is volatile and is a key part of driving the other flavours, perhaps in a similar way to salt is a flavour enhancer.