Hacker News Reader

Comment by Marwy | Hacker News Reader

That's great news actually, and I hope scientist will keep studying this topic. We need less drinkers, not more, even if the dosage is moderate.

View on HN

Why do we need fewer drinkers?

> Why do we need fewer drinkers?

“We know that alcohol-fuelled harm costs society about £21 billion a year and are determined to reduce this burden to taxpayers. The rise in admissions is very concerning and we are taking action to tackle cheap and harmful alcohol.”

UK Department of Health, October 2014

Total NHS budget in 2014 was around £104 billion.

For comparison, UK defence budget was £33 billion.

So we need fewer drinkers at the high risk end (more than 50 units per week) and fewer drinkers at the increased risk end (less than 50 but more than about 21 units per week).

Neither of these are light to moderate, which is what the title is talking about. You said that we need fewer moderate deinkers. So, why do we need fewer moderate drinkers?

I would guess because almost all heavy drinkers used to be moderate drinkers

edit: Not siding with him, just guessing his opinion

Yep, but remember that all heavy drinkers used to be milk-only drinkers also.

>We know that alcohol-fuelled harm costs society about £21 billion a year and are determined to reduce this burden to taxpayers

So you tax it, like Canada does. It's partly why our beer/wine/liquor is relatively expensive.

We know that cars kill over 30,000 people a year in the US, and 500,000 people on Earth, every single year. Therefore, we should stigmatize responsible, considerate drivers.

Because drinking causes more problems than it solves.

> We need less drinkers, not more, even if the dosage is moderate

Why? Because you don't like it?

I'd say the fact that humans metabolize alcohol (have evolved it) it's a pretty good hint that there was an evolutionary pressure selecting for it.

I'd also hope for more study, but it's not like moderate uses of alcohol are significantly bad (as opposed to a high consumption, of course)

>> it's a pretty good hint that there was an evolutionary pressure selecting for it

Or it is just a random mutation that we never got rid of. It could be either way.

A random mutation that suffers no evolutionary pressure is usually spread randomly across the population. Eye color for example.

As opposed of something that gives an advantage (like lactose tolerance or falciform anemia) which usually spreads quickly, while those that don't have that advantage died out.

It might look entirely different if you take social pressure into account as well.

When our ancestors climbed down from their trees, they also started eating windfall. Ripe fruits tend to ferment. This is the reason why most carnivores can’t metabolize alcohol, while humans and other herbi-/omnivores can. The evolutionary pressure was to be able to eat more.

It seems more likely to me that it evolved accidentally and we later began drinking alcohol, given how long evolution takes and that we have probably been making alcohol for only 10s of thousands of years.

It seems more likely to me that it evolved accidentally

It is a complex metabolic pathway. My half-educated guess would be that it could not be a result of a mutation.

>I'd say the fact that humans metabolize alcohol (have evolved it) it's a pretty good hint that there was an evolutionary pressure selecting for it.

I think this was something to do with the dark ages when in the western world, drinking water with alcohol was better than drinking water with bacteria and other pathogens.

Over in the east, alcohol tolerance is a lot lower (see 'asian blush') because they boiled water and drank tea instead.

This is what I've always understood - if anyone knows otherwise, I'd be happy to stand corrected.

I'm not sure if this study, or any comments here mentions asians or different ethnicities at all.

There was an article on HN yesterday called "the medieval beer myth" or something like that.

> I think this was something to do with the dark ages when in the western world, drinking water with alcohol was better than drinking water with bacteria and other pathogens.

I've read recently that this has been debunked. See http://leslefts.blogspot.com.au/2013/11/the-great-medieval-w....

Edit: As pointed out by thisjepisje, it was on HN - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9031856

I'd say the fact that humans metabolize alcohol (have evolved it) it's a pretty good hint that there was an evolutionary pressure selecting for it.

I'm not sure about evolutionary reason "for" drinking. As I understand, when alcohol is digested, the body switches to metabolising it immediately. So, yes, there is a pathway, but it can be argued that alcohol is recognised as toxin, so the evolutionary pressure was to get it out of the system ASAP. Therefore, it is metabolized, but still "bad for you".

I'd say the fact that humans can cure other humans from 3rd degree burns does not make jumping into fire a beneficial.

We have only started system biology research, we barely started to realise we have more bacteria than our own cells and we have absolutely no clue how alcohol or any other metabolites affect those bacteria.

I believe any of high energy density foods (meat, sugar, alcohol, processed grains) have only short term benefits.

Sure, there was evolutionary pressure for it because fermentation products exist in nature and omnivores like humans are going to end up consuming them incidentally.

By these downvotes I'd guess a lot of you like drinking, huh. Never thought I'd struck your cord.

"We need _fewer irresponsible_ drinkers", or even better "We need _less irresponsible drinking_"

FTFY.

Fewer* drinkers. Perhaps you could spend more time understanding the English language rather than offering baseless implications that suggest people who drink are a problem for society.

Drinking is a great social lubricant if you are introverted. Without it, many of the social groups in security and programming that I have participated in would have ceased to exist. Bonding over laughs while having a pint is not something to pretend is irrelevant.

> Drinking is a great social lubricant if you are introverted.

I used to drink a bit and this was a common refrain in groups of drinkers, especially heavy drinkers. The reality is a bit more depressing - this justifies drinking that is covering up real problems.

Now I stopped drinking and, after an adjustment period, I have a much better and more satisfying social life. A social life that revolves around doing positive things - fitness, creativity, learning.

One difference I notice is the sense of humour - we laugh, but not at people and we don't exclude people from our groups. And we speak more freely without having to worry that someone will suddenly react badly and start throwing around insults to defend themselves... about grammar, say.

>The reality is a bit more depressing

I'm glad you're able to identify "reality" and explain it to the rest of us, wandering around in a fog.

>A social life that revolves around doing positive things - fitness, creativity, learning.

My social life revolves around fitness, creativity, learning and some occasional social drinking the inevitably ends up being a good time with people I love. None of those things are precluded by drinking.

Between the comments here and on the sports article a few weeks back, I've learned this community is oddly concerned about and sometimes nasty towards things other people might happen to find enjoyable, and enjoy explaining how they're "wrong".

It sounds like you were just an alcoholic or at least hanging out with alcoholics. I have never had any issues with having to walk on eggshells or have friends have outbursts. We only have one or two drinks so what you described is a non issue.

> Fewer* drinkers

I hate this. Less now means fewer whether you like it or not. Language changes and no amount of pedantry will stop it

Nope, you're describing a mistake grade school children have made for many years. It used to be corrected by high school, but failing education systems have led to confusion between discrete sets and continuous sets. Let's not try to defend ignorance.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com