My understanding is that studies showed that drinking before a certain age (on average of course) has a high chance of causing physiological brain deterioration, but I haven’t done any recent research to see if this was still a thing. The age requirement is the government not trusting their citizens not to damage themselves.
The incoherence is still there.
Not trusted not to damage themselves with alcool, but trusted to be given weapons and sent to the far side of the world where quite a few people would love to get their heads or, barring that, at least kill them?
From the little research I’ve done, soldiers have greater chances of dying violently, being maimed, of remaining traumatised years after their service, and of killing themselves once back home (apparently more kill themselves after than are killed in action by enemy bullets [1]).
How is letting them enlist not letting them damage themselves?
It isn’t, because the average age of the enlisted soldier is less than 21. So if they actually went all the way and bothered being aligned with themselves and their supposed values, they’d bar anyone less than 21 from joining the army and lose many, many, of what are probably the most easy to recruit recruits.
It’s just hypocrisy dressed up in fine rags.
[1]: https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/mental-healt...
What does society lose if enlisting before 21 is banned? Most of its recruits. The military would be in ruins, the strength of the country on the battlefield in jeopardy.
What does society lose if drinking before 21 is banned? Some revenue for brewing companies and associated tax income, which are easily compensated by having saved significant amounts of brain cells in young adults to have an impact on the economy for generations.
Everything government is a tradeoff. And in politics. And in life.
However, pretending that preserving these precious young people even against themselves is of the utmost importance while still making such tradeoffs is hypocrisy.
There’s no shame in making such a choice, and wether or not it is a wrong one is a whole other matter.
The hypocrisy lies in pretending it isn’t what it is.
Also, other countries have an average age of 28 for their soldiers. And given that apparently the brain’s functions, and particularly the prefrontal cortex, aren’t all finished until 25[1], it seems like a sensible thing to wait a few years before relying on their judgement on how to apply the use of lethal force in more than stressful environments.
But then again, if one were to be cynical, one could say it makes them all the more easier to recruit.
[1]: https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?Con...
Let's not assume the drinking age is anything to do with evidence.
It's also a top public spending priority: https://www.athleticbusiness.com/college/the-highest-paid-pu...
My college gives a presentation to freshman that essentially says "we know you're going to drink, so please drink responsibly and take care of yourself." And I personally think this is much better than telling kids to not drink underage.
It reminds me of parents who teach their kids abstinence and then are shocked to find them pregnant.