New genetic study confirms that alcohol is a direct cause of cancer

I.e. People who drink, smoke.

> Chinese were first to rely on fermented grains to be food at least 6k years ago.

Not really. We found vessels that are that old, and that contained fermented grain, the rest is extrapolation. There is also evidence of some kind of beer making in Egypt not that long afterwards. Fermented things are present in almost any culture you could care to have a look at, even the remotest Amazonian tribes.

> solution? favor those who could consume it to avoid starvation, but would not touch it otherwise because it is so unpleasant (instant hangover).

6k years is awfully short for evolution to drive out a bit of genotype in a whole population. Also, again the same thing was happening in Egypt at around the same time, and we don’t have any proof that it did not happen elsewhere as well.

Also, a pet peeve of mine: evolution is not sentient. There is no being that “favor” or drive to extinction according to a pre-existing plan.

> Meanwhile brewing alcohol only started maybe 3k years ago in north western Europe so they are still figuring it out.

It does not work like that, there is no line in the sand for evolution to have worked instead of being “figuring it out”.

For some versions of a gene to be selected, you also need a driving force, in the form of either improved fitness in some environments, or the number of children. Alcohol causing a tiny increase in absolute terms of some specific types of cancers, that are not all that likely to kill someone before they reproduce, seems quite unlikely to be that driving force.

OTOH, alcohol is well known to increase social contacts, which is likely to result in more offsprings (see e.g. studies on alcohol consumption and teenage pregnancy rates).

Overall, this theory sounds truthy and consistent with a pop-culture understanding of evolution, but is not quite consistent with our understanding of history or biology.

I am not advocating this in any way of course, just pointing out why getting drunk might have evolutionary benefits besides not starving to death.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_Church#H...

1- Of all the people I know where I grew up in the arab country, probably only 2-3 drunk. This does correlate with the data [1]. But those 2-3 people did drink heavily. Could you back your personal experience with some stats?

2- Alcohol in the arab world has a different meaning. In the arab world it would be more like: "hey there is this poison, let's drink to forget about my issues and lets do that in hiding". While in the western world, it's more "let's meet for a drink and have a little fun".

3- There is no drinking culture in the arab world. This is because there are limited number of bars/pubs and people do not consume it openly. Not in weddings, gatherings or barbeques. A minority will come already drunk to a wedding (see point 1)

4- Islam is big on forbiding Alcohol. Not only that, but there is this idea that alcohol can stay up to 40 days in your body (never verfied this claim). Hence why a lot of people who actually drink, stop drinking 40 days before Ramadan starts. While a lot of muslims don't pray, the majority do fast and hold onto Ramadan. Bars and Pubs actually close a month before Ramadan too. The drinkers I knew, did actually follow this rule.

5- Yes, I know, you probably knew that guy in high school who was an arab and a heavy drinker. And that is correct. But the data and what I've seen in arab countries correlate more with point 1 above. Alcohol is so frowned upon, that even people who like to drink don't want to show it to their kids or neighbors. It's rare to have an arab family buy alcohol and put it in the fridge. Alcohol is also not available in supermarkets or anywhere except in bars. I lived in >1mil city and we had 3 bars.

6- There is a weird association in arab countries between Alcohol and Violance/Agression. WHich is some time true.

I never understood this obssession with Alcohol. Because I just wasn't used to it. It's so bizzare that I had to explain myself all the time on why I'm not drinking.

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/alcohol-consumption

Drinking != excessive consumption. Telling us drinking is not stigmatized, is meaningless.

This would not happen elsewhere, and thus, is a valid question. Would this effect, uniquely, reported numbers in China?

Thus the parent post made a sensible logical point.

The social credit system is somewhat unique, and it is not a stretch to say drinking to excess may not be regarded as a favorable characteristic. This may disincentivize individuals from reporting the behavior. I am similarly curious, and fail to see how this is derogatory to either the Chinese government or its people.

I know I've heard the phrases "mouth cancer" and "skin cancer". The former probably in connection with chewing tobacco.

I genuinely don't know the answer to whether mouthwash could be harmful, assuming one doesn't swallow. But I've thought of the question before.

But if people didn't age, then there would still be a base rate of mortality from illness and accidents, and so for any arbitrary probability (99.9%, etc) there would be a maximum age that one could reasonably expect to live to.

For instance, if the only thing people ever died of was car accidents, at a rate of 20 per 100,000 people per year, then it would still be very unlikely for anyone to live more than 20,000 years. That's a long time, but it's not millions or billions of years, much less eternity.

Furthermore, if nothing but accidents killed people we might become extremely conservative and do practically nothing for thousands of years. Do I want to use the stairs and risk 99% of my potential lifespan?

So maybe one could say that biology and even physics don't ensure death, probability does.