Hacker News Reader

Comment by raverbashing | Hacker News Reader

> 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)

View on HN

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'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".

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.

>> 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.

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.

>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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com