Denormalisation of alcohol

[xenon]

The need to get off one's face or chemically altered even to a small degree is an ancient universal human trate. Even some other species do it. For all this talk of problem drinking, how terrible drunk people are etc. Sometimes you just need to slide into tempory oblivion or approach and have a peak at it from a safe distance.

 

[Silas Loom]

Here inparticular, UK in general.

If you do a poll, options for previous and current behaviour might be interesting.

 

[newme]

Stops supermarkets from making booze a loss leader and a larder staple, encourages people to think of drinking as something which is mainly done in the special circumstances of a pub visit.

What if you don't like pubs? Most of the ones round here closed because all they did was sell drink and then there was absolutely nothing to do except buy more booze and drink it. The ones that didn't are now all food based and then they want to turn the table. Just seems like its more designed to keep some pubs open people like rather than anything else. If we were having a BBQ at home with a bunch of people its no less social but we get charged more cos we are not using a pub?

Also sounds like it would encourage more having a pint at lunchtime where people are in work.

 

[Silas Loom]

The need to get off one's face or chemically altered even to a small degree is an ancient universal human trate. Even some other species do it. For all this talk of problem drinking, how terrible drunk people are etc. Sometimes you just need to slide into tempory oblivion or approach and have a peak at it from a safe distance.

Some evolutionary biologist or other (maybe Jared Diamond?) has a theory that drinking and other drug taking is a display of ability to sustain damage from poisoning while remaining upright, and cognitive disturbance while still being able to function, so it signals status within the group and viability as a mate without requiring an actual fight or other dangerous task.

 

[Silas Loom]

What if you don't like pubs? Most of the ones round here closed because all they did was sell drink and then there was absolutely nothing to do except buy more booze and drink it. The ones that didn't are now all food based and then they want to turn the table. Just seems like its more designed to keep some pubs open people like rather than anything else. If we were having a BBQ at home with a bunch of people its no less social but we get charged more cos we are not using a pub?

Also sounds like it would encourage more having a pint at lunchtime where people are in work.

All fair points, this is LT’s scheme and I’m open to it mainly as a sugarer of the retail clampdown pill.

 

[seeformiles]

Curious to know how many people drink at home on the regular. And whether that means a glass of wine couple of times a week or passing out on the sofa pissed.

I drink at home 99% of the time and brew most of what I drink. I come from a family of alcoholics (dad, grandad, brother) and on my Ma’s side, everyone drinks heavily but are functional/unaffected by it. I fall somewhere between the two and have to be vigilant that I don’t fall into the former camp. I have very much inherited my Ma’s ability to drink vast quantities with little effect and have stopped going out to pubs as, in public, as such consumption can be quite alarming (& expensive). I drink every day but have put strict limits on it - almost like a measured dose of medicine. Takes the conviviality out of it but that’s OK since its treated like the hard drug it is and medicalising it makes me face it head on.

 

[xenon]

I will do a thread. In K&S and anonymous.

 

[PTK]

.

 

[Sue]

What if you don't like pubs? Most of the ones round here closed because all they did was sell drink and then there was absolutely nothing to do except buy more booze and drink it. The ones that didn't are now all food based and then they want to turn the table. Just seems like its more designed to keep some pubs open people like rather than anything else. If we were having a BBQ at home with a bunch of people its no less social but we get charged more cos we are not using a pub?

And that's a good thing surely?

 

[PTK]

Some evolutionary biologist or other (maybe Jared Diamond?) has a theory that drinking and other drug taking is a display of ability to sustain damage from poisoning while remaining upright, and cognitive disturbance while still being able to function, so it signals status within the group and viability as a mate without requiring an actual fight or other dangerous task.

That sounds like a load of old bollocks to me, as usual with many of the claims of "evolutionary psychology" which amount to "just so" stories.

 

[story]

Some evolutionary biologist or other (maybe Jared Diamond?) has a theory that drinking and other drug taking is a display of ability to sustain damage from poisoning while remaining upright, and cognitive disturbance while still being able to function, so it signals status within the group and viability as a mate without requiring an actual fight or other dangerous task.

Well that’s obviously bollocks isn’t it. If self sustained damage signals status and fertility, why would we do it in a way that impairs judgement. People would be carving patterns onto their faces, inserting stones under the skin, engaging in elaborate rituals involve pain etc.

Oh, wait....
And you need your wits about you to undertake such practice.

Impaired judgment doesn't indicate high status, quite the reverse. I can’t imagine our ancestors had enormous respect for the staggering drunk any more than we do.

Altered states is about access to alternative realities, the spirit realm etc. Traditionally even tobacco is about entering an altered state for spiritual reasons.

Alcohol was probably always about celebration, feasting etc.

 

[PTK]

I drink at home 99% of the time and brew most of what I drink. I come from a family of alcoholics (dad, grandad, brother) and on my Ma’s side, everyone drinks heavily but are functional/unaffected by it. I fall somewhere between the two and have to be vigilant that I don’t fall into the former camp. I have very much inherited my Ma’s ability to drink vast quantities with little effect and have stopped going out to pubs as, in public, as such consumption can be quite alarming (& expensive). I drink every day but have put strict limits on it - almost like a measured dose of medicine. Takes the conviviality out of it but that’s OK since its treated like the hard drug it is and medicalising it makes me face it head on.

Forgive me for a personal question. Did this "ability to drink vast quantities with little effect" have no damaging effects on health?

 

[Silas Loom]

That sounds like a load of old bollocks to me, as usual with many of the claims of "evolutionary psychology" which amount to "just so" stories.

It’s a satisfactory explanation for why moderately dangerous behaviour confers evolutionary advantage both on the displaying individual and on the group as a whole.

 

[Silas Loom]

Well that’s obviously bollocks isn’t it. If self sustained damage signals status and fertility, why would we do it in a way that impairs judgement. People would be carving patterns onto their faces, inserting stones under the skin, engaging in elaborate rituals involve pain etc.

Oh, wait....
And you need your wits about you to undertake such practice.

Impaired judgment doesn't indicate high status, quite the reverse. I can’t imagine our ancestors had enormously respect for the staggering drunk any more thank we do.

Altered states about access to alternative realities, the spirit realm etc. Traditionally even tobacco is about entering an altered state for spiritual reasons.

Alcohol was probably always about celebration, feasting etc

Oh, well, if we’re invoking the spirit realm, then we’re into the territory of how shamanic fraudsters manipulate younger tribespeople into doing what serves those in power. Which also confers selective advantage, of course.

 

[PTK]

It’s a satisfactory explanation for why moderately dangerous behaviour confers evolutionary advantage both on the displaying individual and on the group as a whole.

Is there any evidence for this claim?
Do those who engage in moderately dangerous behaviour produce more children?

 

[Silas Loom]

Is there any evidence for this claim?
Do those who engage in moderately dangerous behaviour produce more children?

The point is that those who demonstrate their ability to take pain though fighting or really dangerous stuff risk death and therefore removal from the gene pool. Using - instead - careful doses of poisons like ethanol and/or piercings and suchlike, per story, is safer, and allows the people who have demonstrated their suitability for matehood to live long enough to sprog.

 

[story]

It’s a satisfactory explanation for why moderately dangerous behaviour confers evolutionary advantage both on the displaying individual and on the group as a whole.

Sure but not with impaired judgement involved. Alcohol impairs judgement. Impaired judgement means you make bad decisions about your ability in a fight, who to mate with, whether not to lead your tribe towards the cliff.

I’m not buying it, it seems stupid to me.

Would you rather follow the drunk leader or the sober leader?

 

[story]

The point is that those who demonstrate their ability to take pain though fighting or really dangerous stuff risk death and therefore removal from the gene pool. Using careful doses of poisons like ethanol and/or piercings and suchlike, per story, is safer, and allows the people who have demonstrated their suitability for matehood to live long enough to sprog.

Oh right, so it’s a culling process, a kind of winnowing out.

So people who are drunk make stupid decisions that result in death, hence removing them from the gene pool. Gotcha.

 

[xenon]

Posted a home drinking poll / discussion here:

https://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/drinking-at-home.384383/#post-18558786

 

[Silas Loom]

Sure but not with impaired judgement involved. Alcohol impairs judgement. Impaired judgement means you make bad decisions about your ability in a fight, who to mate with, whether not to lead your tribe towards the cliff.

I’m not buying it, it seems stupid to me.

Would you rather follow the drunk leader or the sober leader?

It makes more sense when alcohol is restricted to rituals or at least special occasions, where the leader proves his or her ability not to be overly befuddled by fermented tree sap. I agree that modern consumption habits look like a decisive reproductive disbenefit, but the same is true of fats and sugar.

 

[xenon]

As an aside, one thing I really miss, as a result of working from home for a few years now. Is that drink after work. Especially during the summer. Just being out and around strangers, enjoying that unwinding buffer zone where you don't have to be any where in particular.

Alcohol need not be intrinsic to that I suppose but it never occurred / apealed to just stop for a coffee or something.

 

[Silas Loom]

Oh right, so it’s a culling process, a kind of winnowing out.

So people who are drunk make stupid decisions that result in death, hence removing them from the gene pool. Gotcha.

Quite the reverse, but I think you do actually get the point and are just cavilling now because you don’t like evolutionary advantage theories. They’re not to everyone’s taste, and they can take people down some very weird rabbit holes w/r/t sexual dimorphism. I just happen to like this particular one.

 

[story]

It makes more sense when alcohol is restricted to rituals or at least special occasions, where the leader proves his or her ability not to be overly befuddled by fermented tree sap. I agree that modern consumption habits look like a decisive reproductive disbenefit, but the same is true of fats and sugar.

So only the leader or the priest are allowed to drink?
I’m not buying it, that makes no sense. I reckon alcohol has always been used communally.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

Would you rather follow the drunk leader or the sober leader?

hmm. who won the 2019 general election?

 

[story]

Quite the reverse, but I think you do actually get the point and are just cavilling now because you don’t like evolutionary advantage theories. They’re not to everyone’s taste, and they can take people down some very weird rabbit holes w/r/t sexual dimorphism. I just happen to like this particular one.

Actually I do like evolutionary advantage theories, but this one makes no sense to me.

 

[Silas Loom]

So only the leader all the priest is allowed to drink?
I’m not buying it, that makes no sense. I reckon alcohol has always been used communally.

I’m not saying that at all, no.

 

[PTK]

Sure but not with impaired judgement involved. Alcohol impairs judgement. Impaired judgement means you make bad decisions about your ability in a fight, who to mate with, whether not to lead your tribe towards the cliff.

I’m not buying it, it seems stupid to me.

Would you rather follow the drunk leader or the sober leader?

.

 

[xenon]

Sure but not with impaired judgement involved. Alcohol impairs judgement. Impaired judgement means you make bad decisions about your ability in a fight, who to mate with, whether not to lead your tribe towards the cliff.

I’m not buying it, it seems stupid to me.

Would you rather follow the drunk leader or the sober leader?

Rather depends where you're going. If we're all drunk and it's into battle or version thereof. YSWIM. Drunk.

 

[story]

I’m not saying that at all, no.

It makes more sense when alcohol is restricted to rituals or at least special occasions, where the leader proves his or her ability not to be overly befuddled by fermented tree sap. I agree that modern consumption habits look like a decisive reproductive disbenefit, but the same is true of fats and sugar.

It’s exactly what you said , the bit where you said “where the leader proves his or her ability not to be overly befuddled by fermented tree sap”.

 

[PTK]

Quite the reverse, but I think you do actually get the point and are just cavilling now because you don’t like evolutionary advantage theories. They’re not to everyone’s taste, and they can take people down some very weird rabbit holes w/r/t sexual dimorphism. I just happen to like this particular one.

There is absolutely no evidence for the claim, which makes it more like a superstition.