Study: Alcohol is never good for people under 40 | Hacker News Reader

Study: Alcohol is never good for people under 40

thelancet.com

117 pointsRickJWagner114 comments

One possible benefit of alcohol is that it often brings people together as a social lubricant. As has become clear in studies lately, social isolation is extremely harmful to mental and even physical health. I wonder how the risk vs. reward looks for moderate drinking when you factor in the social effects.

In any case the old wisdom to never drink alone, and to drink in moderation, is probably good advice to follow.

Of course

Most research is blind to secondary effects and unintended consequences of removing said "bad" thing

It was the healthy part of cigarettes, too. Remember leaving a bar for a smoke? Cue ritual social exchange.

Yeah it's a good point, although it does seem like the dangers of smoking are worse than drinking.

I'd like to see an analysis of the risk vs. reward of drinking that factors in social effects. It would be really hard to do a good job of though, because the social effects are not linear, and you could always argue that a drinker could do something else that's social instead.

Maybe smoking even comes out ahead with moderation and the right context. Precolumbian americans seemed to use tobacco in a fairly safe and socially beneficial way.

Except drinking often makes people smoke, and/or engage in other unhealthy activities they otherwise don't do when sober.

True. It's a really complex thing to look at, totally idiosyncratic and affected by societal norms as well.

I remember when it was the healthy part of the your career - effectively getting a meeting with the C Suite because you went out with them for a smoke. (I've never smoked but I clearly remember this as an advantage for colleagues)

It was a major storyline in Friends as well.

Very good point, but one exception is that alcohol consumption has been a thing across many cultures for literally thousands of years.

I thing that it is important to eliminate peer pressure related binge drinking in teens and young adults but ultimately I think being drunk is practically a rite of passage for most people in the world at this point and that this isn't a bad thing.

We'll probably end up making some Star Trek type synthahol before we eliminate occasional alcohol consumption and I bet that something like 95+% population consumption of lab grown meat will happen before similar figures happen for alcohol.

There already are plenty of alternative "alcohols" many of which apparently have cleaner/less toxic metabolic paths (in humans). People experiment with them and you can read about them on various forums.

From what I've read most of them dont taste that good, or are expensive, hard to come by etc and theres no clear upgrade.

I totally get it. I never had cigarette or alcohol, and obviously it was hard for me to blend in to certain groups. But then I also found other groups through common interest where I could blend in- video games and even IRL. But still I feel not having cigarette or alcohol caused some opportunity losses.

I’m a nonsmoking teetotaler in my 60s, had a successful tech career, and was never hindered.

For many years in my career I didnt drink. Then for a handful of years I did. For the last 3ish I havnt. Career wasnt improved at all by drinking. I don't feel awkward going to a bar with work folks and ordering a diet coke. No one gives a shit.

A lot of people who drink socially only drink one drink over the course of a night. They could happily leave it if they didnt feel the social pressure to do it.

> I don't feel awkward going to a bar with work folks and ordering a diet coke. No one gives a shit.

I don't drink at all either. Always order a tea.

But whether give a shit depends on society. Chinese become either offended or very disappointed if you don't drink with them. They don't see it as individual choice, they see it as a statement that you don't like the host or the group.

Do you evaluate every activity in your live solely wether it helps your career?

Nope. But people were commenting on how drinking or not drinking impacted their career.

If you actually want to know thought, my life overall has gotten much better since I stopped drinking. The only thing I've lost if 3am drunken yelling about music with a few friends on a regular basis. Which I'll still partake in but just leave at 1 instead of 3.

No longer being hung over, no shame cycles and depression the day/s after drinking, significant extra cash in my pocket, and no more acting stupid while drinking is all a huge plus. My mood is actually steady for the first time as an adult and that is hugely valuable.

Perhaps a study of the health of societies that drink vs those that don't would be in order.

Anecdotally, I've noticed that people who don't drink at all tend to be more social in general, while people who often drink in social settings can find it hard to be social if they're not drunk (and often if both parties aren't drunk). Hence all the replies here that equate alcohol with being social and absence of alcohol with social isolation. Alcohol has become a crutch.

If you told a cocaine addict that cocaine was bad for them, and their response was "perhaps physically, but getting rid of cocaine and isolating myself socially would be bad for me to," it'd be a sign of how deep their addiction was. Alcohol is embedded in many people's lives, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing.

I've also found that trying to socialize with alcohol makes people much more prone to discord (including physical violence) than those who socialize without it. In a lot of ways it seems to function like other drugs - a shortcut that's easier but also inferior in the long term, more dangerous, and one that creates a dependency where people have a difficult time functioning in certain environments without it.

I once commented on Reddit that one beer per day theoretically makes you an alcoholic. To date that is my comment with the most down votes, with a net karma of minus several thousand points.

Apparently there is a large crowd out there for whom one beer per day is seen as perfectly acceptable.

Apparently there is a large crowd out there for whom one beer per day is seen as perfectly acceptable.

Regardless of judgement about what is "acceptable", the idea that a beer a day makes one an alcoholic severely downplays how serious alcoholism actually is.

Not to mention that a person being able to limit themselves a single beer each day pretty much rules out one of the main criteria of being an alcoholic, which is being unable to control how much a person drinks.

Hmm. I do see your point, but if anything I feel 'alcoholism' as a concept could use some 'downplaying'. Too many people think of an 'alcoholic' as, more or less, someone who has a red nose, looks homeless, and buys big cans of cheap beer or liquor.

Meanwhile, many people who are most certainly alcohol abusers tell themselves it's not a problem yet because they are 'not like that'.

I've talked to people who drank around the 'healthy limit' and still struggled because their intention was to not drink at all.

I quite like how generally speaking, our (or the more 'professional') views of addiction emphasize the subjectivity of it (while respecting the medical aspects).

A big issue with alcoholism is that nobody wakes up a 'serious' alcoholic. It's little steps, often with some big leaps along the way. Quite often, you don't realize you're addicted until well after you are. Making people aware that alcoholism is, usually, a sliding scale rather than some clear 'point' could lead to much more and better intervention before it gets too bad.

Huh? So people who can't sleep or feel uncomfortable without their evening beer aren't addicted, only because final stage alcoholism is a nightmare? Or alcoholism != alcohol addiction?

I didn't know what uncontrollable drinking is a necessity to diagnose alcoholism, but I'm luckily not involved in the topic. Do you have a reference to back that up?

Huh? So people who can't sleep or feel uncomfortable without their evening beer aren't addicted, only because final stage alcoholism is a nightmare? Or alcoholism != alcohol addiction?

I just don't see how a single beer, even every day, can be classified as alcoholism. A single beer is likely going to have a barely perceptible effect on all but the the most alcohol intolerant people out there. In the same way that a person who occasional takes a couple Tylenol wouldn't classify as being a drug addict.

I didn't know what uncontrollable drinking is a necessity to diagnose alcoholism, but I'm luckily not involved in the topic. Do you have a reference to back that up?

Pretty much every reference out there is going to include "inability to control consumption" as one of the main symptoms. But I'll pull one of the results I find off google.

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/3909-alcoholi...

In the section for "What are the symptoms of alcohol use disorder?" how many of those symptoms could be considered for someone drinking a single beer? Maybe "Having cravings for alcohol." and that's really it.

> I just don't see how a single beer, even every day, can be classified as alcoholism.

From what I understand it's the regularity and habituation that's the problem. For many one beer a day is not a problem ... as long as that behavior is not challenged in any way.

I observed that in two friends of mine, both who definitely do not show obvious signs of alcoholism.

But both were challenged to stop drinking (one due to pragnency, one due to being asked to by his SO). Both really struggled to cut out that one beer a day from their life.

The now-mother managed to do it, but was very open about that it was hard for her. The other guy failed.

(Is this anecdotal? Yes. Am I in any way qualified to talk about this? No.)

One of my close family members is in AA and I’ve been a few times myself.

They describe it more as once you start drinking you can’t stop.

> I once commented on Reddit that one beer per day theoretically makes you an alcoholic.

This is in fact the viewpoint held by many medical professionals who regularly deal with addiction and mental health. It’s not only the amount you take in, it’s the function it serves.

that's like saying that playing candy crush for a few minutes per day makes you addicted to games, or that buying a thing on Amazon every day makes you a shopoholic.

alcoholism is much more serious than a drink per day.

Are you using "drunk" as a term for not being sober, or "drunk" in the common usage where someone is noticeably impaired by the quantity of alcohol they have drank?

Because it's quite possible to drink alcohol without actually getting the point of stumbling or slurring your words noticeably.

Uh correlation and causation? Perhaps you've simply noticed that are good at socializing in general need feel less the need for alcohol to help them socialize because, well, they're already good at it

The way I see it as alcohol makes it easier to relax and open up social settings, but definitely not necessary. In my experience the hard part of loneliness is to get out of your house and put yourself in social situation at first place, and alcohol definitely doesn't help there.

I must say that I grow more and more tired of the way alcohol brings people together. obviously it brings everybody to the lowest common denominator - which is fun but also very shallow.

You don't need alcohol to have a social lubricant. In my culture where we don't drink alcohol, we gather over tea (or coffee). Healthy drinks and healthy gatherings.

Of course there’s not a need but for the people who use it they’re not drinking it for health and health gatherings. They’re drinking it for the courage it brings since they’re no longer “sober” them.

Since this is the original paper I'll put my comment here. I used to follow the literature on this subject up to a few years ago, the key issue was that most of the studies had bad datasets. It's one of those things where it's impossible to run a randomized controlled trial. As an example of the issues you would often find in studies, if you dug into the comparison population of non-drinkers it included people that were non drinkers because of severe health issues, severely skewing the data. The few papers that did serious data-cleaning efforts were mostly unequivocal about alcohol just being bad no matter what.

> The few papers that did serious data-cleaning efforts were mostly unequivocal about alcohol just being bad no matter what.

If you strictly look at it from a biological perspective isn't alcohol consumption pretty much short-term poisoning of your body to produce temporary good feelings? Is there any time where this would be good for the body and would have data to show it?

Sincerely wondering as that would be really interesting to read about. I have never really seen anything that implies it actually helps your body aside from the "drinking wine every once in a while is good for you".

Note: I also feel like this "unhealthy" argument can be true of anything. I.E. video games, sports, being exposed to people at a social event, etc. So I am not trying to argue that point. Just curious if there is any evidence suggesting alcohol may be good for your body -- from a biological perspective only.

> pretty much short-term poisoning

Do you even know what oxygen is? It's deadly to several life-forms

Exercise is short-term damage. Fever is "just a bit" of cooking you alive.

"Strictly from a biological experience" humans are the mammals that have the highest tolerance from alcohol (which evolved recently).

I guess I should have clarified that I was wondering from a human's biological perspective?

I don't quite understand why you are making these parallels to my question about any biological positives alcohol. Are you saying that alcohol is comparable to our need for controlled amounts of oxygen? Exercise clearly has some positive biological outcomes (stronger muscles, more resilient body systems, etc.). Does alcohol? And even with getting a fever you develop antibodies/tolerances (assuming you recover). Aside from tolerance to alcohol (which I am not sure why that would be useful) does alcohol provide any positive benefit to your body? I don't feel like any of the parallels you provided were useful to my question.

Again, I want to reiterate I was asking a question focusing on its benefits of the human body -- not trying to paint a narrative that alcohol is comprehensively bad. I really vibed with another comment that said alcohol can be a social stimulant and really can help people feel connected -- that's cool and I'm all about that.

But I want to reiterate my question: are there ever times when alcohol is actually good for your body?

> are there ever times when alcohol is actually good for your body?

The fact that we evolved tolerance to it probably means that there's at least a cost/benefit analysis there (see the sibling comment as well)

Off my head I'm not even sure how does alcohol tolerance compare with lactose tolerance (something with proven nutritional benefits), but I think it's a higher number

The reasons I heard about us developing alcohol tolerance was that it allowed our ancestors to eat ripe fruit that had fallen from the tree and begun fermenting, with the evolutionary advantages that

- they have higher calorie intake, especially if you can metabolize the alcohol into energy

- the alcohol kills pathogens that might have infected the fruit otherwise

- it probably also acted as a kind of mouthwash

- plus, in a hunter gatherer lifestyle where resources (including food and alcohol) are scarce, the possibility addiction is probably not at all as much of a problem

>"Strictly from a biological experience" humans are the mammals that have the highest tolerance from alcohol (which evolved recently).

it isn't just a tolerance. It is ability to use it as food, to metabolize it for energy. If i remember correctly our ape ancestors got it something like 8-10 million years ago. As i understand as a result they didn't necessarily had to climb the tree anymore for good fruit, the ones laying on the ground and already fermenting would do just fine (and even bring some pleasure :), and that possibly allowed to become more of a walking type than the tree climbing type.

Small amount of good alcohol, like a good wine, on the net seem to have positive effect. Yet those specific positive effects, like for example plague cleaning from the blood vessels, seem to not be of use to the people under 40, and thus net result for them is negative as even small amounts of alcohol do have some negative effects too.

Oh, that's a really cool perspective, I can understand how that would be useful!

Generally, I think the suggestion is that it might trigger a hormesis response: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis

This is an interesting link! If I understand it right, does the hormesis response in relation to alcohol mean that building tolerance to alcohol may improve one's tolerances to other toxins?

I think it's more that the repair mechanisms that are triggered by damage (from say, alcohol) tend to over-compensate. The net effect is that low level stress is necessary to keep the repair system maintaining everything properly. I'm not an expert though.

Note that what this article is saying:

> In all super-regions, among individuals aged 15–39 years, injuries accounted for the majority of alcohol-related DALYs in 2020.

And if we break down by type of injury and look at the top-listed cause,

> transport injuries comprised 25·9%

In other words, the reason why "alcohol is never good for people under 40" is largely because young people behave poorly when drinking--and they choose to drive when drunk.

A "career alcoholic" in their 40s will probably be much better at controlling their behavior than somebody who drinks the same amount in their 20s (Edit: to be clear, there can be multiple reasons for this--your brain chemistry can adapt to the alcohol, and you can also get wiser). When I see quoted figures like 1.75 standard drinks per day as being "NDE" for some people, I think, jeez, I would have problems sleeping if I did that, and I have reasonably high alcohol tolerance (due to sex, mass, and ancestry). Considering that the quoted figures are averages per day, it makes sense that a percentage of the injuries are from the days when you drink more than average. 1.75 drinks per day could mean 2 drinks during the week, and then 5 drinks on Friday and another 5 drinks on Saturday. The fact that for some people, averaging 1.75 drinks per day has the same health risk as a non-drinker is just downright mind boggling to me.

My takeaway here is that because injury is such a major factor, there are a lot of other public health policies that can improve outcomes besides just controlling the amount that people drink. It is, in fact, possible to create policies that affect how people behave when they are drunk.

Truly the best, and healthiest lifestyle would be to live in a climate controlled pod, alone, and eating a slurry of essential vitamins and minerals (made of bug protein, of course!).

Don't forget the electroshocks to stimulate your muscles.

"Alone" is not a healthy lifestyle, sociologically speaking.

Yep, you understood the comment.

You mean the iPod...

bug protein wouldn't be Kosher enough (animal-based), pea protein is the way tp go instead.

Do you mean vegan? Jews can eat meat iirc

Figuratively speaking not literally

Perhaps in the incredibly narrow view of physical health

And yet, I cannot think of a single time I've consumed alcohol and thought, "I'm doing this because it's good for my physical health"

Dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32102582

(Posted yesterday; 55 points, 21 comments)

As a line from a Woody Allen movie goes: “study finds one can live longer by never doing anything pleasurable”.

Couldn't the results be worded as "older people less likely to drink dangerously?" Which makes sense.

I suspect fewer 25 year olds are having a glass of wine with dinner and are more likely to go out to a bar where even if you only have one drink you're surrounded by people drinking dangerously.

I feel many posters here could avoid a lot of cognitive dissonance by accepting this: "Alcohol is bad for my body, but I enjoy its effects. This is my trade off to make and it is worth it to me."

Instead I see a lot of rationalizations about how drinking alcohol is inherently the right choice.

Everyone knows this. Most people pretend it isnt true or cling to one study that is cited often about some vague health benefits of a glass of wine a night.

Poisoning your body is bad for it. End of story.

The age old saying that “the dose makes the poison” comes to mind. Obviously binge drinking all the time is bad. Some studies have suggested any amount is bad, but the ones I’ve seen are less conclusive.

If you look at the "studies" there is exactly ONE that is cited over and over saying that a glass is healthy. There are dozens and dozens of studies saying no amount is healthy.

From a strictly physical health perspective this is surely true, from a social and psychological angle it's not as black and white

It’s good news that if you start drinking younger and manage to keep going through your 30s that you’ll finally see the benefits of it in middle age.

I have been drinking way too much in my younger life, and I always thought this is the most normal thing to do because (here in Germany) everyone was seemingly doing it, at least I thought so. But in fact there are whole societies where alcohol is tabu / almost never consumed (muslim countries) Or consumed very sparingly because you cannot get it in supermarkets and usual restaurants (Turkey).

One might say that those countries are dry and devoid of pleasure, and that might even be true. But I am wondering if these countries develop some deseases less often (colon cancer, high blood pressure, etc)

Looking back, I should have had less alcohol in my life, but I wouldn’t want to miss it either, in moderate amounts.

In countries like the US around a third of the adult population rarely or never drinks alcohol. But if you are a regular drinker you won't notice them because they won't be hanging around in bars.

The story, and the study, are terrible.

Chris Snowden demolishes it here: https://snowdon.substack.com/p/is-drinking-never-good-for-pe...

> Notice, by the way, that nobody involved in this research is recommending that teetotallers over the age of 40 should start drinking moderately, despite the study showing that this would improve their health. Even in the world of 'public health', fanaticism has its limits.

> there appears to be no protective effect at moderate rates ... (because) they associate alcohol consumption at any level with tuberculosis

> TB is not really an alcohol-related disease and is only viewed as such in this study because (a) drinking might weaken the immune system and (b) people who go to bars and clubs are more likely to catch an infectious disease. I kid you not.

Really

Bill '& Melinda' Gates giving alcohol consumption advice. I don't drink alcohol one year in every four, makes me appreciate booze more in the drinking years. The year off I'm usually more clear headed, probably an uptick in depressive periods depending on circumstances

What about ice cream?

Ice cream is very good

What about having fun and partying ?

You can have fun and party without drinking. Not that alcohol can't be fun, but maybe people rely on it a bit too much to loosen things up.

I’ve recently discovered Boba tea as a fun drink to get with other people.

Is it the ritual making it fun with other people? I think I'd prefer some black tea or coffee over boba

Not really...

Of course you can, I do a lot of activities with which don't require alcohol to have fun with others, but there are some great activities which are fun with drugs and or alcohol.

Dancing, karaoke, weddings, dinners...

I'm happy about this study because I'm currently in a country where Marijuarna is illegal for recreational use, I hope this study helps change that. Edibles have to be more healthy than wine.

I don't drink or consume any drug except caffeine, have been to all these things and had fun - sometimes more fun than the drinking participants.

Alcohol is just a cheat code for lowering your inhibitions and taking yourself less seriously (because your self control is turned off). I can respect doing that, but it is not at all required to drink or partake drugs (which I'm not fundamentally averse to either, to each their own) to lower your inhibitions. It just might take therapy if for... reasons...you are particularly self conscious like me

Curious how you know you had more fun than others?

Because I chatted to them afterwards about how nice the evening was and got various degrees of surprise from some of them (going from "uncomfortable" to "boring"). In the end, of the vibes aren't yours, you'll probably not have a good time

People who don’t drink or otherwise risk-averse bland people aren’t fun.

Equating non-drinkers with 'risk-averse bland people' is an attitude I mostly find among my friends with drinking problems.

Idk, i think my idea to climb a small 5c with headlights at 2 am was pretty fun, but those pesky drunks were too afraid even after i installed the top rope.

I though being drunk made you less scared, anecdotal evidence made me reconsider.

this is never actually said in the paper.

Yes, it is. In the results section where they provide a differential analysis of TMREL & NDE stratified by age levels and point out an inflection point for the >= 40 ranges.

The exact words are not mentioned, but that is the substantive result and analysis provided, albeit with more nuances and important points than merely this age distinction.

This HN posting probably used the title it did because regular media outlets are headlining it that way. I would agree that's not the most appropriate way to title an HN submission to direct research without such a title. Generally the title on a post here should match the article, at least as much as is practical.

At a minimum it could have kept in the spirit of the article to simply title the HN submission something like "Safety & benefits of alcohol consumption vary by age groups".

so, let me repeat, this is never said in the paper.

If you are going to be so obtusely literal minded as to demand a verbatim reproduction of the headline? Fine, sure, correct.

If, on the other hand, you mean whether or not the information necessary to evaluate the headline's statement is contained in the linked article, then yes it is, distinctly and clearly, in the results section.

Ooh, that "Findings" para hurt my brain more than the G&T I am just sipping. And I think that Bill & Melinda could have spent their money better.

Anything in moderation.

Platitude, not useful advice. In reality, all it takes for too many people to spiral into bad habits is to have just a little taste.

Okay, bad habits in moderation, everything else in excess.

How many is too many? I don't think adiction disorder it that common.

People have been consuming alcohol for a very long time. What you are describing is addiction and its part of our society. If not alcohol, its something else.

Hell, some people get addicted to work. Again, everything in moderation is a sound advice. If you can't drink or have reasons not to, don't. But you won' t get invited to parties if you started saying out loud what you write on HN.

Yeah, this kind of study is for me quite at the pinnacle of the western problem with science and medicine where mental health and subtle social well-being is just pushed under the rug. Do we get the same publicity towards antibiotics, which are also like not without their big drawbacks? Or any kind of "science" stamped drugs and treatment really. Humans have been consuming what we call bad bad drugs now since i believe earlier than writing, even other animals are doing it. Maybe you know, practice and evolution, has determined it had positive effects. And perhaps (wow big idea) over-consumption of alcohol is a symptom and not an isolated problem.

Oh yeah, this was financed by the B&M Gates foundation, explains some stuff about the pov. I'm not doubting the "internal" quality of this research, this is probably top notch statistics and data quality, but the philosophical ground and world view behind the institutions that produced it is so heavy at the same time.

I agree that this kind of article can be myopic (or used for myopic conclusions), but for the life of me I can't understand the hate Bill Gates and his foundation gets.

Well because it's the money and globalization talking. In the middle of all the conspiracy shit you find online, there is also a ton of subtle and well-documented journalistic work explaining how sure they've helped poor kids in africa (who's against that?), but at the same time they're really bad at making the people they help self-sufficient and independent from global powers (which are the reason for their problems in the first place). They are giving stuff, but they are never really giving away the real thing. Why would they actually? They were cynical and capitalistic enough to actually make a shitton of money by exploiting people in the first place for a big part of their career (Bill Gates). By now we understand pretty much how they think about society and about what's good and bad. They are still somehow advancing the agenda of globalization. If you don't understand this, you ought to read about leftist critics of western humanitarian orgs.

edit: see eg https://mondediplo.com/2022/07/11africa (sorry it's paywalled i'm looking into capturing it somewhere)

What is the "real thing" and how would one give it away?

The real thing is materialistic independence and you give it away by educating skilled workers giving away IP and financing locally operated factories and other infrastructures. But global power have institutional safeguards against this because then they'll push themselves into a bad corner negotiating for resources they need themselves.

I don't think its that simple. Not even close.

Yes, IP protectionism is a problem, and breaking IP sometimes is extremely beneficial (e.g. generic drugs). But that doesn't account for the underdevelopment of most countries. There are many factors involved -- geographical, historical, social, political and so on. Its a long discussion that is ill fitted to a comment box, but suffice to say B&M Gates isn't _the_ reason underdeveloped countries are that way.

This.

US - for example - might solve most of it's expensive drugs problem by simply licensing all relevant IP to India for a guarantee that they would be able to buy the drugs with up to 20% profit for the Indian seller after shipping, close an international deal, establish arbitrage and watch drug prices fall to <10% over a decade while Indians build up.

If they established a mutual research fund (possibly with EU and British ex-colonies), they would exceed the current rate of research at 70% of current funding (if the research is kept in the west, basically guaranteed saving - 30% feeds profits and marketing), but if they were to exploit lower Indian wages...

But this will never happen, because US is literally a business-interest device nowadays.

Yeah, i agree, but still, i believe we should even aim for higher standards than what you propose: actually licensing current relevant IP is not enough. At least in the sense that we actually have to develop IP that is small-scale operable, easily shareable, etc. Current techniques are mainly geared toward large scale, investment heavy and resource exploitative applications. It's a start to at least be open about these techniques and share them, but like the article i shared above explained, if you're sharing monoculture technology, you're actually not giving away resilience and robustness. Tons of our current technology has to be reevaluated because it optimized the wrong things.

In other words, you help them to the point where they can become viable competition. Can't have that.

You mean like this? https://www.gatesfoundation.org/our-work/programs/global-gro...

No, i mean like this https://archive.org/details/AK47AKMTechnicalDrawingsRussian/... ;)

I'm joking a bit, but really, i'm not talking about teaching arithmetic and giving away pencils (which again, is something which is progressive, but at the same time it's not hard), i'm talking about giving strategic knowledge that gives you negotiation power (not weapons particularly btw). Building up strategic independence for these territories.

Don't you have to teach people arithmetic before you can teach them to do complex manufacturing? It doesn't seem to me like most of Africa has the level of education necessary to sustain operations like these.

Yeah right, they barely have enough braincells to not basically do group sucide and have so much trouble behaving rationally, like you know posting cats on instagram. Dude. Everywhere in the world you can find people to organize elementary school, they have local intellectuals too. They have artisans, musicians, mechanics, farmers and markets, philosophers. It's disrespectful to consider that they have other problems for these kinds of job than financial and materialistic ones. No society is this dumb. And it's even also kind of dangerous, or at least not very culturally consensual, to come there grab small kids and with our best intentions teach them the western way. Maybe this won't be very well received. Maybe it really shouldn't be well received given all the mixup with evangelism (religious and cultural) that has taken place. Educating kids is a local matter and no one should be allowed to do more than help local people teach their kids. This is how you build trust and bidirectional/balanced relationships. Additionally, if you micro-manage people like that, they will still be vulnerable to another entity like you taking your place.

So i maintain my position: what matters is the actually hard stuff, all the manuals we have, annotated maps, high-quality data sources and costly laboratory machines. High level information about what's going on and basic means to act on that. They'll find out what to do and you will actually build a strong ally, not a puppet you have to take care of.

Nobody is saying they are incapable. I am incapable of running a nuclear power plant, or a modern pharmaceutical lab, even if you give me the manuals. I imagine you are too. Qualifying either of us to do those things would take years of education in the basics of both of those fields. That doesn't make us stupid or incompetent or backwards. It just means that we haven't had to learn those particular things.

Simple question: Have you ever seen an example of what you're describing work? If so, where?

Thanks for the Le Monde link, its an interesting read. Monoculture is a well known problem and hardly the invention of Gates' though.

"But they finance it" -- and that is bad. There are probably lobbies involved.

To short-circuit the discussion, the explanation is almost always money, and almost never some deep, sinister evil.

Awesome, first time I see a lmd link here on HN. I guess I'll read that article in my paper version today

"[global powers] are the reason for [poor kids in Africa] problems in the first place"

Why do you think that? Poverty existed before globalization.

I'm not sure if you're being falsely naive or not, but i'll assume the best and try to sum it up in a couple lines. But don't quote me on it, it's obviously gonna be butchered, this is a field of study and i'm very much not an expert at all. So first, we're not talking about poverty here, we're talking about relationships. "the problem" i'm talking about is the fact that most resources in say, african territories, are being exploited (in the technical sense) by foreign companies (oil, minerals, wood), which obviously pay some "local market price", but are inherently tied and beneficial to third-parties. This schema can be historically linked back to the classic european colonies. The states and institutions likewise. This link is done by studying the history of these institutions, the political forces and philosophical schools behind them (in this case liberal philosophy: supremacy of rationality, private property, kant, smith, the lumières). In this sense "the (global) economy" is not a somehow "natural" concept, it's only hegemonic. It has roots, was developed over some time period and acknowledging that you can then start to look into the lesser visible phenomenon (since it's hegemonic): who was doing something else, who adopted it late, what were the oppositions or where it has been externally forced upon (somewhat as a weapon, but i don't want a negative meaning, i'd rather call it "a tool of power"). In this sense, yes, tons of the big historical problems in the global south can be linked to a historically dominating relationship with the liberal school of thought (which has its epicenter/brain in the western world and which is thus inherently tied with their interests). You can also try to map it out not only geographically but also sociologically, but i'm gonna stop here because i'm mostly writing for myself rn i guess.

I mean we're not gonna have the debate on globalization here. At least acknowledge the pov. It is a coherent political view that you ought to know well the architecture of, if you're serious about thinking politics: it's the basis of all debate to have some level of understanding of the opposing positions and what kind of structures have been defending it (and what kind have not).

Africa can catapult itself out of poverty but the goods it sells on the international marketplace is automatically fixed by powerful Western countries. ex) Cotton. The African farmers cannot compete against US farmers which receive a generous subsidy.

We teach our kids that colonialism is over but its still going strong in Africa. France and Mali for instance.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com