| ▲ | jvican 2 hours ago |
| I think nobody would argue drinking a lot of alcohol, or substantial alcohol, is detrimental for health. The question being argued is whether drinking a small amount of alcohol is detrimental to your health. This is a different matter altogether. We, humans, have been drinking alcohol for millenia. I'm skeptical to the idea that a small amount, say, a glass of wine for lunch every day or so, can harm us, especially for active individuals. There has been a natural selection process for us to adapt. I believe what Taleb is doing here is of great public value, and I commend him for that. |
|
| ▲ | nialse an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| I spent some time working with CBT for alcohol use disorder, mainly treating "active individuals". I've heard your line of reasoning many times. No level of alcohol consumption is considered risk free from a scientific point of view, at least the view of the senior researchers and professors I worked quite closely with. So, I don't think this is providing "great public value", on the contrary I would suggest spending time with the research and treatment of the many individuals starting out thinking that "a glass of wine for lunch every day or so" can't "harm us". |
| |
| ▲ | throw1234567891 30 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > No level of alcohol consumption is considered risk free from a scientific point of view From scientific point of view life leads to death in 100% of cases. | | |
| ▲ | nialse 22 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I love the sock puppet throwaway account trolling here. There are risks getting out of bed in the morning, but there are greater risks NOT getting out of bed in the morning. Risk is apparently a very difficult subject. | | |
| |
| ▲ | paganel 35 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | From a certain point on we must start being adults again and become aware that some health risks are worth the price when it comes to drinking a glass or two of wine/beer every-once in a while. Because wine/beer have helped us become more of a social animal over the millennia, i.e. have helped us become humans, and suddenly reversing that for the sake of, I don't know, 6 months-a year of prolonged living in their late 70s - the 80s is not worth it. With that said, I'm fully aware that excessive alcohol intake (i.e. alcoholism) has been destroying lives for millennia, too, but that's what life is, we can't turn it into this aseptic thing where every risk is accounted for. |
|
|
| ▲ | epolanski 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| There is no evidence either small quantities of tobacco or most drugs harm you either. People that want to drink will find excuses to do so. |
| |
| ▲ | jvican 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Maybe — I haven't looked at the evidence. But, alcohol is something that has been present in our ancestral environment (e.g. fermented fruits). If anyone's telling me, our bodies didn't learn to at least tolerate small amounts of it without any major side effects, I'm going to be asking a lot of follow-up questions. I think it's much easier to argue this case than, say, tobacco or "drugs", which are arguably more recent inventions, depending on your exact definition of drug. | | |
| ▲ | Ekaros an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Same logic applies to heavy metal like lead and others. Also cyanide and arsenic. And so on. We still actively avoid them. Just because we can tolerate them via various process does not mean it wouldn't be better to avoid them altogether and minimise exposure. | |
| ▲ | epolanski an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Smoked meat has been a staple of human diet for millenia. It's cancerous. |
| |
| ▲ | graemep an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Which "drugs"? The problem with highly addictive things is people do not stop at small quantities. | | |
| ▲ | epolanski an hour ago | parent [-] | | If alcohol was invented today, people would be like "no way we allow a juice that makes you happy, stupid, aggressive and endangers yourself and others and has high addictive levels". |
|
|
