3 ms·
In a vacuum, zero is best since it's a poison. But the real world is full of trade offs and confounders. Like the increased socialization with friends & co wor
by rKarpinski 3y ago
In a vacuum, zero is best since it's a poison.
But the real world is full of trade offs and confounders. Like the increased socialization with friends & co workers could have health benefits that outweigh the negatives of alcohol. Or that many people who drink nothing are ex-alcoholics.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- basil-rash 3y agoThe folks in so-called "blue zones" that live longer on average than anyone else in the world drink alcohol regularly yet moderately. https://www.wellandgood.com/alcohol-in-blue-zones/ https://www.wellandgood.com/alcohol-in-blue-zones/
- woleium 3y agoI read many of these blue zones are places where folks have lost everything and lied about their age in order to get old age benefit earlier. This is certainly true of the Japan and Spain locations
- soneca 3y agoNot only in a vacuum. In some contexts, like people who don’t drink already and still have a healthy social life (like myself), it is very much real world and zero is best. Considering only the contexts where you have trade offs and use it as public advice is plain wrong.
- the_af 3y agoOne important factor is that many alcoholic beverages taste great and are a way of enjoying life. I don't think "zero because that way you'll live longer" is the be-all end-all of arguments. What if the same hypothetical argument was made of sex [1], "don't do it and you'll live longer", would that be a pleasureable way of living a longer life? [1] which may not be true of humans, but it's not scifi either. Some species, like octopuses if I'm not mistaken, die after breeding (for the male this means "sometime after having sex", for the female it's more complicated).