Humankind's 10 million year love affair with booze might end
economist.com
economist.com
https://www.npr.org/2025/12/11/nx-s1-5640109/early-humans-fi...
> The discovery suggests early humans were making fire more than 350,000 years earlier than previously known.
> "For me, personally, it's the most exciting discovery of my 40-year career," Ashton said.
From the article:
" Humans, unusually, have a pair of enzymes that turf it out like night-club bouncers. Our ability to process alcohol has deep evolutionary roots. Ten million years ago a common ancestor of humans, chimpanzees and gorillas acquired a mutation that let them remove ethanol from the body more efficiently. This adaptation coincided with a change of habitat. Tropical forests were collapsing, notes Robin Dunbar of Oxford University. Some 90% of apes went extinct. One lineage survived by leaving the trees and foraging on the ground."
Humanity's gene for processing alcohol has existed for 10M years, and that's what they are actually talking about.
“Ten million years ago a common ancestor of humans, chimpanzees and gorillas acquired a mutation that let them remove ethanol from the body more efficiently. This adaptation coincided with a change of habitat. Tropical forests were collapsing, notes Robin Dunbar of Oxford University. Some 90% of apes went extinct. One lineage survived by leaving the trees and foraging on the ground.
Whereas apes in trees gobbled fresh fruit, those on the ground found fallen fruit, which ferments. Thus, our ancestors may have acquired a taste for alcohol–which allowed them to use these scarce calories. This “drunken monkey” hypothesis suggests that a love of the smell and taste of alcohol, the sign of an energy-rich fruit, gave our ancestors an edge. Their chosen poison would have been fairly weak. A study of overripe wild Panamanian palm fruits found none stronger than 5% alcohol—about the same as a Heineken.“
It's by no means a safe alcohol replacement
I am not saying that alcohol is good for you or anything, but that is not even wrong. It’s trivial to find drugs that kill you or nuke your liver if you get a few milligrams.
> also has a relatively small margin between lethality and and recreational doses.
Unless by "recreational dose" you mean a whole bottle of 40% ABV spirits, not really. And even then. IIRC the lethal dose is around 7g/kg, which is more than a pint of pure ethanol for someone weighting 70kg, or twice the amount of alcohol in the bottle. This is not a particularly small margin of error, particularly considering that the hypotheses were conservative.
It is possible to kill oneself with alcohol. It is nowhere near the dose commonly taken for recreative purposes.
We already have GBL. It's semi-legal and feels like a long lasting ethanol. I tried it a couple times and thought it was boring. But yeah, we have plenty of alcohol alternatives already. Etizolam seltzers could be a thing.
It's about the same danger as alcohol... Except that because it's taken as a powder, it's much easier to overdose. And it's also extremely dangerous to take with alcohol.
A better alternative to alcohol this isn't.
I think drinking for the buzz demonstrates an immaturity with alcohol consumption. One many have, but an immaturity nonetheless.
Otherwise there are plenty of very good drinks that have no alcohol, if you want to drink for taste, there is really no need to go for alcoholic stuff.
There is a lot of snobery around the expensive stuff precisely because you need to be wealthy enough to afford it. It is just another class signifier. People drinking those things like the fact that they can get buzzed while still enjoying the taste, outside of true alcoholics, everybody prefer that but they just can't afford it.
Making good alcohol is an art form. It is a very complex process that relies on quality inputs as well as mastery of a refined recipe. It is no a trivial endeavor and this why many of the good alcohols were produced/invented by monks and priest, they were the ones with enough time and ressources on their hands to focus on this unproductive pursuit. Nowadays the lines are blurred because it is commercialised and profitable but the consumers of the good stuff are very similar to the priests of old (high status/power), they just delegated the process thanks to their power afforded by money.
So what? I have an opinion, backed up by years of being in bars and talking to people who actually like to drink. If you need a disclaimer in a comment, maybe you need to go have a drink to take the edge off.
>I think drinking for the buzz demonstrates an immaturity with alcohol consumption. One many have, but an immaturity nonetheless.
People of all ages enjoy the effects of alcohol. I don't think many would consume it if not for those effects. The people you are calling immature, would call you a goober.
Regarding opinions: You're not defending the GP when you say "many". The GP implied "all" (or close to it). The GP was in fact overstepping the statement of opinion, whereas you are not.
I tried drinking for a short while but I had to almost hold my nose and swallow it as if it were medicine.
Also my wife doesn't like the smell so if I drink,she doesn't kiss me. Everything stacked against me! Lol
Once a week I hit the local pub for exactly one pint. Usually preferring lower ABV. Why do I stop there? Anymore than that gives a buzz that I usually am not in the mood for. I’m sure one drink has some effect on me, but not enough to consciously realize it.
> Most alcoholic drinks taste bad anyway
Speak for yourself. Beer is hands down one of the tastiest damn drinks. I seriously love German and British styles for their flavor and low ABV. They make great casual drinks.
You don’t like alcohol. That’s fine. And, honestly, you’re likely healthier for it. But claiming that people drink just to get drunk - I stopped doing that in college.
Seriously, many people who like alcohol have told me exactly what I just said. There are tastier drinks out there if you're after flavor. Alcohol is for getting a buzz, or fitting in with people who like the buzz.
I feel the same way about black coffee. Who would drink that if not for the caffeine? Better drinks are abundant.
People taste things differently and it’s at least partly genetic. See TAS2R38 for example [0]. It’s fascinating how we all perceive the world a little differently.
Years ago, long before I was of age, a science museum had a little demo on this (not sure if it was related to the aforementioned gene or not) using strips of paper with some chemical on it. Some people were pretty grossed out by the flavor. It didn’t bother other people at all, including myself.
On the flip side of things I’m highly sensitive to sweetness and find anything other than the smallest amounts to be off putting.