🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1990Nov26.005512.16483@massey.ac.nz>, A.S.Chamove@massey.ac.nz (A.S. Chamove) writes:
> Rod
> 
> You say (about drinking alcohol) that
> 1--there is no sane reason for it
> 2--that it does nothing to promote survival
> 3--ideally no one would do it

That's right.


> 
> The interesting thing about alcohol drinking is 
> 1-that it is so universally performed
> 2-that so many sane people do it.

I agree with point #1; but what makes you think point #2 is true?


> 
> It has a lot of calories which are desirable in less-affluent countries.

Nutritionists used to call these "empty calories."  Dunno what they call
'em these days, but what's so good about them.  The metabolite of alcohol
(acetylaldehyde) is a potent free radical that does no one good.  In fact,
one of the interesting things you may observe about strict Mormons is that
they tend to look quite a bit younger than members of other religions their
own age.  Now, not all of this is due to the fact they (the strict ones)
don't drink alcohol, but that has a lot to do with it.


> It makes people feel good.

Short-term feelings of drug-induced well-being followed by the "hangover."


> It is relaxing.

In small amounts it acts as a stimulant, in larger doses it acts as a 
depressant, and in big, big doses it kills.


> It seems to have unspecified "beneficial" social properties.

Only in a "drug society" would anyone suggest such a sill thing.


> 
> It seems to me that people behave very sanely, and insane or irrational
> behaviour is quite rare.  OF course there is a lot of behaviour that

Obviously, you don't have freeways in New Zealand! <-;


> OTHERS do that does not act in our interest (someone drinking and then
> driving; someone making millions for themselves by cutting down the
> rainforest; someone trying to improve their scientific career by
> introducing African bees to South America).  I wonder if we understood
> behaviour rather more, if we could understand the reason/rationalle for
> even people who appear to go berzerk and kill several others apparently
> without cause.
> 

So, since when does an irrational act by one make an irrational act by
another "rational"?


> Arnold Chamove

OO
\/
Rod