Hacker News Reader

Without alcohol we wouldn't be here today or have any civilisation. How about that?

http://archive.onearth.org/blog/beer-saves-human-civilizatio...

(Not to mention how much good poetry -- e.g. from Rubayat to Baudelaire's, rock music, and such we would be missing. Nobody cares for tee-totalling rock bands...).

>the fact is, every time you drink something that's not water, you have the opportunity cost.

And every time you miss on something fun you also have an opportunity cost.

Now, if you legitimately don't like the taste or effects of wine, beer etc, more power to you. Or if you like them too much to drink in moderation. But if one likes them, to avoid casual drinking also comes at a cost.

There is no cost to avoiding casual drinking. You can still attend events, you can still hang with friends and you can still go to a bar (shocking).

Notice how you have no argument that can't be applied to say, heroin.

You can't seriously think that alcohol is healthier than water. And yes the comparison is valid for a drink of alcohol is a potential drink of water.

>There is no cost to avoiding casual drinking. You can still attend events, you can still hang with friends and you can still go to a bar (shocking).

No monetary cost. There is a fun and flavour cost. It seems that the fun factor never enters your calculations.

>Notice how you have no argument that can't be applied to say, heroin.

Except heroin is illegal and uncontrolled (can have any crap in it), so I wouldn't advice using it.

If we're talking about recreational drugs in general, they're also OK.

>You can't seriously think that alcohol is healthier than water

You can't seriously think that this is the be all end all comparison to settle the issue of whether one should drink alcohol.

>And yes the comparison is valid for a drink of alcohol is a potential drink of water.

First this is a false dichotomy, as large part of any alcoholic drink is water -- literally 90-95% of beer and wine for example.

Second, if I do drink my 2-3 litters of water recommended by the health authorities (and in pure water form), would that be enough to stop busting my balls and let me enjoy my beer/wine/etc? Or should I drink nothing but water, lest I miss this huge opportunity cost to drink more water?

Are juices allowed?

Now, here are two poems for you:

  You have to be always drunk. That’s all there is to it—
  it’s the only way. So as not to feel the horrible burden 
  of time that breaks your back and bends you to the earth, 
  you have to be continually drunk.

  But on what? Wine, poetry or virtue, as you wish. But be 
  drunk.

  And if sometimes, on the steps of a palace or the green 
  grass of a ditch, in the mournful solitude of your room, 
  you wake again, drunkenness already diminishing or gone, 
  ask the wind, the wave, the star, the bird, the clock, 
  everything that is flying, everything that is groaning, 
  everything that is rolling, everything that is singing, 
  everything that is speaking. . .ask what time it is and 
  wind, wave, star, bird, clock will answer you: “It is time 
  to be drunk! So as not to be the martyred slaves of time, 
  be drunk, be continually drunk! On wine, on poetry or on 
  virtue as you wish.”

  Charles Baudelaire, 1821 - 1867

  Ah, make the most of what we yet may spend, 
  Before we too into the Dust descend; 
  Dust into Dust, and under Dust to lie 
  Sans Wine, sans Song, sans Singer, and --sans End! 

  Omar Khayyam - 1120 A.C.E.

(And the second guy was even a medieval muslim...)

You're missing the point by bringing up irrelevant things like "fun." The legality is also irrelevant as that is a government thing that's outside the scope of the conversation.

The point is, water is healthier than alcohol. This is just common sense. The silly fun argument you're making has nothing to do with alcohol unless you're making the stupid assumption that you can't have fun and drink water.

The reality is this: alcohol is worse than water and alcohol is bad for you. That being said, it's not necessary to do only things that are good for you, but let's just rationalize things.

Juice is also worse than water, by the way. You can absolutely live a little, but don't try to overrationalize bad behavior. I eat candy, which is bad, and I won't argue candy is healthier than say, fruit, but it is what it is. people need facts and the fact is: candy is bad, and alcohol is bad in terms of your health. if it makes you happy, go for it, but it's not inherent in the substance.

yeesh. the fact that you're posting silly poems instead of constructing a solid argument is proof enough.

p.s. the fact that alcohol has water in it is irrelevant. if that is your argument, then i counter: why not just drink the water alone.

Diclaimer: I drink alcohol and drink various fruit juices and eat meat. Most of the evidence shows these have healthier alternatives, but I like variety for irrational reasons.

>You're missing the point by bringing up irrelevant things like "fun."

They are only "irrelevant" if one only makes decisions based on single one-track brain criterion: "healthy or not".

Which you tried to impose upon this conversation, but as it has been repeatedly pointed out, it's not the be all end all.

>The reality is this: alcohol is worse than water and alcohol is bad for you.

The reality is I could not care less.

>yeesh. the fact that you're posting silly poems instead of constructing a solid argument is proof enough.

An argument for what? That alcohol is healthier than water? That was never the point.

In fact, if we take it strictly, TFA is about alcohol. Why even bring up water in this thread?

There's no point in considering criteria that cannot be quantified.

The point is that alcohol is unhealthy. Unhealthiness is a relative term. Relative to the default, that is, water.

Anyway, you don't seem to have any evidence that alcohol is healthy compared to its downsides other than a silly notion of fun, something that's not exclusive to alcohol.

What does alcohol give you that water cannot? Nothing.

Social activities? Doesn't require alcohol.

A buzz? Doesn't require alcohol.

Going to a bar? Doesn't require alcohol.

Etc.

> There's no point in considering criteria that cannot be quantified.

Sure there is. You claimed that alcohol has no benefits over water. We don't need to quantify absolutely everything to dispute that absurd claim, but point out that the benefits exist.

> The point is that alcohol is unhealthy. Unhealthiness is a relative term. Relative to the default, that is, water.

Again - not true. Water cannot save you from cardiovascular disease. And water doesn't provide any sort of stress relief, taste, or enjoyment unless you're dehydrated.

> evidence that alcohol is healthy compared to its downsides

From the Harvard article I posted: "More than 100 prospective studies show an inverse association between moderate drinking and risk of heart attack, ischemic (clot-caused) stroke, peripheral vascular disease, sudden cardiac death, and death from all cardiovascular causes. (4) The effect is fairly consistent, corresponding to a 25 percent to 40 percent reduction in risk."

"For a 60-year-old man, a drink a day may offer protection against heart disease that is likely to outweigh potential harm (assuming he isn’t prone to alcoholism)."

> What does alcohol give you that water cannot? Nothing.

Not true and already covered.

> The reality is this: alcohol is worse than water and alcohol is bad for you.

Except if you're at risk of cardiovascular disease as I mentioned. Water cannot save you there. Why can't you agree? You're ignoring every opposing argument in this thread and making false statements like "alcohol has no benefits over water period".

wrong.

https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/155/9/827/58224/Water-O...

That doesn't prove I'm wrong. From your study:

> In summary, we report intriguing associations between the intake of fluids and the risk of coronary heart disease that are not obviously explained by confounding. Further research in other populations, possibly including experimental study designs, is necessary to decide whether the associations are causal.

Please also note another study which refutes the 15 year old one you posted and suggests you are wrong:

"In conclusion, this study revealed no statistically significant differences in the prevalence of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, myocardial infarction, and angina pectoris between people drinking or not drinking more water than the daily recommended amount. Even though interest in the effects of water has only recently increased, related studies are still insufficient." [1]

[1] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210909916...

>[5] improves mood

Do you really want to compare it to recreational use of alcohol in this aspect?

Yeah, let's do it. I assert water will improve your mood with no downsides when dehydrated.

http://www.menshealth.com/health/fastest-way-improve-mood

The parent asked you to compare it to alcoholic drinks, not compare it with lower intake of itself.

from a given level of hydration you can choose to drink more water or drink alcohol. i've covered one of the scenarios. at best both alcohol and water change your mood. of course as we all know what has a desirable mood change and the other doesn't at high consumption levels.

So you twist it to high consumption levels. What about moderate recreational usage as the parent suggested?

I don't need to cite the studies about harm from alcohol.

I was disputing your claim that "drinking has no benefits compared to water. period"

You're clearly wrong on that.

nope. water also reduces the risk of heart disease [1]

https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/155/9/827/58224/Water-O...

not to mention alcohol has many negative side effects you're not mentioning. it's a home run in favor of water. again, if it's so good for you, would you give it to a child? no, no you wouldn't. why? because overall you know intuitively it's not good for a child.

how about you show me all of the studies of all of the bad things alcohol does for you. water has no negative side effects, by the way. even if you're right (you're not), a small benefit is irrelevant. heroin also has benefits.

See my newer study above that refutes your old one.

I'm not refuting the negative side effects of alcohol. I'm disputing your ridiculous claim that alcohol has zero benefits over water.

No you don't give it to a child (illegal, they can't handle the effects, and it's not going to provide health benefits for them). That's silly. I wouldn't let them drive a car either but that doesn't mean a car provides no benefits. Plus, as one of my prior comments you ignored, alcohol can protect against cardiovascular disease for men 60+ and that benefit outweighs any negatives.

Water has no negative side effects? Yes clean water in non-toxic amounts yes that is correct to my knowledge.

However, "The World Health Organization says that every year more than 3.4 million people die as a result of water related diseases, making it the leading cause of disease and death around the world." [1]

A prior commenter pointed out how alcohol saved humanity by allowing drinkable water.

Alcohol could actually prevent 3.4 M deaths. It can prevent cardiovascular disease for many people. It provides fun/enjoyment/stress relief in moderation. Those are benefits.

Your claim that it provides zero benefits is ridiculous and incorrect. Alcohol is both a tonic and a poison.

[1] https://www.voanews.com/a/a-13-2005-03-17-voa34-67381152/274...