What is this literal global agenda?
I love a good weekend drink as much as the next person but it’s very obvious that alcohol is literal poison and best to be avoided. That conclusion doesn’t require a bunch of health organizations to conspire.
I love a good weekend drink as much as the next person but it’s very obvious that alcohol is literal poison and best to be avoided. That conclusion doesn’t require a bunch of health organizations to conspire.
Faulty logic. Practically everything can be a poison. The poison is the dose. There is no argument that heavy alcohol use is detrimental to your health. There is still quite a bit of argument whether or not moderate alcohol use has benefits. And where are the benefits? Does it benefit the human as a whole as in- the benefits in one area (anti coagulant, anti inflammatory) outweigh the additional risks of (throat cancer, breast cancer)?
Doesn't seem obvious to me. You should conduct a study where you simply proclaim things as obvious.
The Earth is obviously flat, just look at it. /s
It's basically "some bureaucrats want to secure funds for their agencies and have some global mission to justify them, so they invent new targets when the previous ones have dragged too long, so like the "war on drugs", "war on fat", etc. before, you now have more "war on alcohol", etc. And since those control a lot of money, and public policy, they get to decide where grants go, and you get to up your chances of a career if you go along. Plus all the private interests that can be attached to that (e.g. selling non-alcoholic versions of beverages, etc).
>but it’s very obvious that alcohol is literal poison and best to be avoided
No, it's not "very obvious" at all. It's just the residuals of the tee-totaling puritanical view of alcohol ("it must be bad!"), or considering alcoholics at the canonical example of what happens when you consume alcohol (and not e.g. the blue zone diets, where people live more than anybody else on the planet on average, and still regularly consume alcohol). In other words, it's as obvious as "fat makes us fat".
Science is not about accepting some "obvious", it's about investigating what's actually the case.
And there's the historical perspective:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/09/3-questi...
Or:
To our fruit-eating primate ancestors swinging through the trees, however, the ethanol in rotting fruit would have had three other appealing characteristics. First, it has a strong, distinctive smell that makes the fruit easy to locate. Second, it’s easier to digest, allowing animals to get more of a commodity that was precious back then: calories. Third, its antiseptic qualities repel microbes that might sicken a primate. Millions of years ago one of them developed a taste for fruit that had fallen from the tree. “Our ape ancestors started eating fermented fruits on the forest floor, and that made all the difference,” says Nathaniel Dominy, a biological anthropologist at Dartmouth College. “We’re preadapted for consuming alcohol.”
I understand its utility as a social lubricant. My guess is that’s why it has persisted for thousands of years. But don’t you think alcohol is a societal net negative?
If it helps people party, mingle, and eventually create babies, it's a net positive for the survival of the species...
Also, some things can still be positive by fiat, even if the logistics (e.g. re health) are against them.
We're not on this planet just to live as long as we can. That's not a goal in itself. There might not be a goal in the end too -- e.g. it all might be meaningless.
In any case, if we're here to enjoy our stay, and alcohol (or e.g. taking risks) is part of that, then those things are good for us, even if it means we lose some years to them.
If one is overtly optimiziming for health and longevity, drinking is a bad idea.
If one is optimizing for enjoyment, drink.
And of course there is a middle ground. Although I would say that alchohol is specifically designed to remove the middle ground (drinking alchohol dehydrates you, so you drink more, etc).
Anyway, I appreciate your stance and find it to be the most honest pro-alchohol comment thus far.
And why not?
>I’m quite sure the babies will get made just fine without alcohol.
Yes, but would they be as happy once they rich drinking age?
Millenia of civilization says: "no".
At worst, they'd found some other mind-altering substitute.
In any quantity? Prove it
The problem is everything is a poison in quantity. Moderation is key with anything.
The agenda was clearly indicated. Please reread my parent post, Reduce alcohol consumption.
We consume many extremely dangerous poisons throughout the day and there is not a ton of research of the effects of those molecules. Or there is and almost no follow up action.
Any increase in social behaviors are vastly outweighed by anti-social behavior.
I agree with you on stress reduction but that is a dangerous, dangerous game.
> DESTROYS
Stop with the hyperbole. No it doesn’t and google doesn’t bring up good sound science, it brings up clickbait, “experts”, and tons of hearsay/case study. Real science on moderate drinking is hard to perform, because there are so many other factors at play..... such as genetics, diet, exercise, smoking, air pollution, water pollution, antibiotics, The proliferation of sugar and refined grains, the over use of pharmaceuticals, persistent inorganic compounds, insecticides, herbicides, fertilizers, growth hormones, and radiation. But concentrate on negative aspects of alcohol because it seems to fit your agenda. Meanwhile there are millions of happy people who have good friends, sleep well, have a great job, eat healthy, have decent monetary stream and can have a drink or two without turning in to a sloppy abusive mess. People who drink alcohol in moderation tend with live longer than abstinent sober people... how do I know that? I googled it
I’m all for the hedonistic rationalization for alcohol. We all need a release. But it is disingenuous to say alcohol has any positive effects beyond that. It is no different than sugar in that regard. My Saturday night cheat meal is filled with both, and I always look forward to it. But I don’t try and pretend that it’s in any way good for me (beyond psychological).
To that end, I completly agree with you that there are plenty of people who enjoy a few drinks without any real damage. I'm saying classify alchohol for what it it. The tobacco and sugar (4,5) lobbies love to pretend that they are something which they are not to sway public opinion. That is dangerous to society.
1. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/acer.12006 2. https://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Sleep-Unlocking-Dreams/dp/1501... 3. https://peterattiamd.com/matthewwalker1/ 4. http://sugarscience.ucsf.edu/sugar-papers-reveal-industry-ro... 5. https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/coca-cola-funds-sc...
But it's not a sleep aid. Seriously. The idea of a nightcap has been thoroughly debunked.
Alcohol is a sedative, being sedated is not the same as being asleep. I'd suggest looking in to Dr. Matthew Walker's research on the effects of alcohol and sleep if you want to have a clearer picture.
>my wife and I will surely share a bottle of wine tonight at dinner
For example, many people will have found wives because of alcohol, which acts as a 'social lubricant'. Having a wife is good for one's health, etc.
I'm really curious how this is obvious and how you know it. Anything is literally poison if consume too much of it. Even water [1].
Do we really need to compare deaths and injuries from self-inflicted water intoxication to that of alchohol?
"X isn't bad because literally anything can be bad in some scenario! If you eat too many bean sprouts you'll choke and die, so it must be fine to eat arsenic, right??"