I read an article today preaching the dangers that alcohol poses to human health on a global scale, which suggested that the World Health Organization consider issuing some sort of mandate attempting to reign in the problem. According to the article, American alcohol consumption is relatively mild at an average 9.4 liters of ethyl alcohol per year (about two bottles of wine a week). However, in places like Moldova, the average is twice that, and people - beginning at age 16 - consume on average the equivalent of a bottle of wine every other day. Factoring in all causes of death that pass a laugh-test connection with alcohol consumption (including, e.g., cardio-vascular diseases, auto accidents, violence), the article opines that alcohol causes more deaths and represents a greater threat than any other factor to the human condition, including obesity and cigarettes. The kicker on the article is the suggestion that there should be an international convention on alcohol regulation, under which the problem can be addressed.
I'm sure you're not surprised to find that I think it's all a bunch of horseshit.
Humanity has been getting drunk since before the dawn of recorded time. Although the earliest chemically-confirmed beer traces (from Iran) are only about 3,300 years old, safe to say that man was drinking the sauce long before then. The consensus oldest surviving work of literature ever discovered is the Epic of Gilgamesh, circa 2100 BC. A central plot element is King Gilgamesh having to deal with Enkidu, who's causing problems for the good people of Uruk because - among other reasons - he's hammered. The oldest human residential site discovery by archaeologists is Jericho, near the West Bank, which dates back almost to the Holocene era, or about 11,000 years. Evidence suggests that the residents of Jericho were drinking beer at least 6,000 years ago. Some of the earliest non-literary written materials we've discovered include beer recipes and beer trade records. Some of the earliest religous records we've discovered, a Sumarian poem honoring the goddess Ninkasi, contains a beer recipe.
All in all, safe to say that man started brewing the brew about twenty minutes after he figured out how to use a container to store liquids. And we've been using containers to store liquids for a long time. Makes sense too: don't really need to find (or - ultimately - build) containers to store WATER. Why bother. That shit is everywhere. Build your hut by a river and you've got an endless supply. Booze, on the other hand, is worth holding on to.
This trend his persisted through the ages. Ever wonder why the cultivation of grains is so widespread in the world? Beans are just as nutritional and at least as easy to grow. Beans are also much MUCH easier to get from the field to the table, since the hulling process - google it - is relatively easy for beans, and much more difficult for grains. But fermenting grains gets you beer. Fermenting beans just gets you soy sauce or miso. Think it's coincidence that people have always leaned towards grains?
Most people don't realize that when Dr. Louis Pasteur was looking for a way to keep liquid foods from spoiling (pasteurization), he wasn't looking for a way to keep MILK fresh. Incidentally, his method of keeping beer fresh by heating it to kill the bacteria - perfected by Pasteur in 1862 - was being used in simpler form by the Chinese to keep wine fresh as early as the 12th Century, and had spread to Japan by at least as early as the 16th Century. Moving forward through history, see if you can separate the development of industrial refrigeration from alcohol production. 'Cuz you can't. Ideas to keep things cold were certainly there, but it was the need to make and distribute booze that got the ideas off the drawing boards.
People can (and will) talk endlessly about divinity and about angels meeting apes. But for my money, the desire for and act of intoxication is the second-most significant driving force in human social, economic, and scientific development, behind only armed conflict. And this extends far beyond alcohol, of course. Ever heard of the pharmaceutical company Merck? It spent 160 years as an uremarkable family-owned store-front pharmacy in Darmstad before they isolated morphine and started industrial production in 1827. They've done some other things since then. How about the beverage company Coca-Cola? Early (1886) recipes really had only three primary ingredients: water, cocaine, and caffeine. They did okay as a business. On the whole, does this trend really seem like something that you're going to have any success in halting?
Any attempt to reign in man's desire for and act of intoxication with booze is destined for failure or disaster. It's not going to work, except to help build empires for certain families (specifically including those with names like 'Kennedy' and 'Roosevelt.') If it does work, it just means that people are going to turn to even less healthy methods to meet the desire for and act of intoxication. Islam bans intoxication from fermented products. Think it's a coincidence that Muslim regions have been the world capital of opium production since the 7th Century, including (much later) recreational use? (The Koran, by the way, was developed and written from about 611 to 632.)
Of course, there is no cure for stupid, and no lack for either recycling of old ideas, or for crusaders wanting to save us all from ourselves. But how about if we try to focus on scaling back things we have a prayer on? Alcohol use (which somebody, somewhere will inevitably describe as ABuse, regardless of how moderate it might be) is part of the human condition. It predates metalworking ferchrissake, and is a lot more fun for the user. There's nothing the WHO might say or do that's gonna make even a little bit of difference.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Thursday, February 2, 2012
The Election Year
I think it's awesome that American culture generates a billion dollars of commerce every four years, solely to use mass media to inform and educate the public about the merits of political candidates. Wonderful that we care so much about full disclosure and analysis of our prospective leaders that we go to the lengths we do. Seriously, try to get away from the political storm, even for a day, and even this early in the election year, and see if you make it. By the time November rolls around, we're going to know absolutely every gritty detail about the history and politics of the Republican candidate. Isn't our system great?
Ironically - and I think this is a point worth seriously considering - we might at that time know even less about Barack Obama than we think we know now. That seems like it might suggest something important, doesn't it?
Whatever. Political commercial season sucks, since no political candidate yet - despite cumulative millions spent on devising campaign strategies - has figured out how to make a decent political campaign commercial. (Which also seems like it might suggest something, eh?) Nothing like months of 30-second spots, ten times a day, of being told ugly details of someone you're never going to meet, and who your vote doesn't get elected anyway. (Google 'electoral college.') But its IMPORTANT that you listen to them as they talk about 'the issues.' Yay, us!
For what it's worth, and (hopefully) resolving my civic analytical duties regarding who gets elected, and why: Hythloday Today officially extends endorsement to... Mitt Romney.
Honestly, my political views - particularly regarding social services - are aligned substantially further to the right than his. But under the current political climate, there is no way that any of the further-right candidates would defeat Obama in November. I'm not a Gingrich fan to start with, but you only need to poke around a little before you realize the field day that the news media will have with him as an opponent to Obama. All in all, he's a worse candidate than McCain was, because at least you could be confident who McCain was really representing, and predict which way he would jump. Newt, not so much. Romney, in contrast, is going to get grilled on a lot of issues (read: the Mormon thing), but I think he'll hold up better, based on charisma, personal success record, and the ability to project strength and authority. Newt always comes across to me as slightly apologetic, which is not going to work.
And the bottom line is that Romney is the furthest to the left of the candidates from the right, which makes him able to court the largest segment of the vote. Those ads you hear about how Obama is praying that Newt wins the Republican nomination? They got a point. If Newt wins the nomination, Barack will be turning cartwheels in the hallways, because the absolute truth is that Barack will garner a hell of a lot more of that middle-ground split than Newt can possibly hope for.
Newt cannot beat Obama. It really is that simple.
Besides which, the new wave of social conservative theory really is the best reasonable hope for the United States right now. Any political science sophomore can tell you about the progression of the right towards the left over time. At this point, I honestly don't think Barack gives a shit what changes get made to Obamacare. He managed to move our system SUBSTANTIALLY to the left. As a political scientist, he also knows that it's almost impossible for the right to get that ground back. Things will be massaged, policies and programs might be axed, but some of it is going to persist forever. The United States has passed national healthcare. He gets to claim that legacy. That's been the steady-left shift that's been going on since 1776.
We don't have a lot of history to use as an analytic sample for the shift from republicanism to democracy (and I'm talking now about the literal political systems, not about the American parties, although I suppose it applies to them as well). But we got thousands of years about the broader shift towards liberalism, including the concurrent grown of socialist policies. Despotisms, to organized monarchies, to republics, and the first rumblings of true democracy; got libraries filled with that shit. And just looking at generalities, looks like a big part of the survival of nations comes from how those in control (typically the right; being in control is why they're conservative) manage that trend toward to left. Historically speaking, either the system changes to allow liberization to happen slowly and progressively (as has happened in the United States for over 200 years), or else you get sudden increasinly violent fits, fires, and riots when the pressure builds, and it happens suddenly. Personally, I think the best thing for us to do is to keep the progression going as smoothly as possible.
Along those lines, and for mostly economic reasons, the best thing for the United States right now is a centrist President. Somebody who can at least get everyone at the table to address the issues, and agree that EVERYBODY is going to need to give ALOT before acceptable solutions are reached. Get everyone on the same page, so even if the system does absolutely suck, and even if everybody knows you're completely full of shit, at least people know what the system is and what it's going to be. Get rid of the political uncertainty and start agreeing on what we both know the end result is going to be, so commerce can start happening with confidence again.
We're already totally fucked on the budget thing. Really: raise your hand if you ever honestly and realistically believed that the United States will EVER pass a balanced budget. Have you looked around lately? Are we really that far removed from 'Idiocracy' these days? We're not going to tighten our belts now, preemptively. We're going to put it if off until sometime later when we might finally be left with no other choice, no one else to blame, and no one else to rob. The best we can really hope for right now is to stop using up all the other choices, scapegoats, and victims so quickly. Let's keep ourselves a little time to find new choices, scapegoats, and other victims, like we always have in the past.
The United States government will continue to run in the red. But that's life. Lets acknowledge that our politics are going to run at a loss, and do what we can to get our ECONOMY strong enough for the excesses of our government be manageable. If we get politics stable, and get commerce running smoothly, it will be able to keep the flow going. Some bubbles will burst here and there (same as always), but hopefully not so seriously nor so frequently as to crash the system, and we will all keep whistling along until the (already worthless) dollar can be phased out for something else. All we need is to find that something else; something that we can bring ourselves to believe is more valuable. Which is actually a pretty tall order.
In the meantime, lets keep the system under control, limit the wars and the riots to something that can be contained, and we'll all just keep on keeping on, at least (hopefully) for the duration of my lifetime. By then, I'll have prepared my children to prosper in the course of their lifetimes, just like my parents taught me what I needed to proper in this one.
Mitt seems like the right guy to keep things under control for the next four years, while we all do the best we can and wait to see what happens next.
Ironically - and I think this is a point worth seriously considering - we might at that time know even less about Barack Obama than we think we know now. That seems like it might suggest something important, doesn't it?
Whatever. Political commercial season sucks, since no political candidate yet - despite cumulative millions spent on devising campaign strategies - has figured out how to make a decent political campaign commercial. (Which also seems like it might suggest something, eh?) Nothing like months of 30-second spots, ten times a day, of being told ugly details of someone you're never going to meet, and who your vote doesn't get elected anyway. (Google 'electoral college.') But its IMPORTANT that you listen to them as they talk about 'the issues.' Yay, us!
For what it's worth, and (hopefully) resolving my civic analytical duties regarding who gets elected, and why: Hythloday Today officially extends endorsement to... Mitt Romney.
Honestly, my political views - particularly regarding social services - are aligned substantially further to the right than his. But under the current political climate, there is no way that any of the further-right candidates would defeat Obama in November. I'm not a Gingrich fan to start with, but you only need to poke around a little before you realize the field day that the news media will have with him as an opponent to Obama. All in all, he's a worse candidate than McCain was, because at least you could be confident who McCain was really representing, and predict which way he would jump. Newt, not so much. Romney, in contrast, is going to get grilled on a lot of issues (read: the Mormon thing), but I think he'll hold up better, based on charisma, personal success record, and the ability to project strength and authority. Newt always comes across to me as slightly apologetic, which is not going to work.
And the bottom line is that Romney is the furthest to the left of the candidates from the right, which makes him able to court the largest segment of the vote. Those ads you hear about how Obama is praying that Newt wins the Republican nomination? They got a point. If Newt wins the nomination, Barack will be turning cartwheels in the hallways, because the absolute truth is that Barack will garner a hell of a lot more of that middle-ground split than Newt can possibly hope for.
Newt cannot beat Obama. It really is that simple.
Besides which, the new wave of social conservative theory really is the best reasonable hope for the United States right now. Any political science sophomore can tell you about the progression of the right towards the left over time. At this point, I honestly don't think Barack gives a shit what changes get made to Obamacare. He managed to move our system SUBSTANTIALLY to the left. As a political scientist, he also knows that it's almost impossible for the right to get that ground back. Things will be massaged, policies and programs might be axed, but some of it is going to persist forever. The United States has passed national healthcare. He gets to claim that legacy. That's been the steady-left shift that's been going on since 1776.
We don't have a lot of history to use as an analytic sample for the shift from republicanism to democracy (and I'm talking now about the literal political systems, not about the American parties, although I suppose it applies to them as well). But we got thousands of years about the broader shift towards liberalism, including the concurrent grown of socialist policies. Despotisms, to organized monarchies, to republics, and the first rumblings of true democracy; got libraries filled with that shit. And just looking at generalities, looks like a big part of the survival of nations comes from how those in control (typically the right; being in control is why they're conservative) manage that trend toward to left. Historically speaking, either the system changes to allow liberization to happen slowly and progressively (as has happened in the United States for over 200 years), or else you get sudden increasinly violent fits, fires, and riots when the pressure builds, and it happens suddenly. Personally, I think the best thing for us to do is to keep the progression going as smoothly as possible.
Along those lines, and for mostly economic reasons, the best thing for the United States right now is a centrist President. Somebody who can at least get everyone at the table to address the issues, and agree that EVERYBODY is going to need to give ALOT before acceptable solutions are reached. Get everyone on the same page, so even if the system does absolutely suck, and even if everybody knows you're completely full of shit, at least people know what the system is and what it's going to be. Get rid of the political uncertainty and start agreeing on what we both know the end result is going to be, so commerce can start happening with confidence again.
We're already totally fucked on the budget thing. Really: raise your hand if you ever honestly and realistically believed that the United States will EVER pass a balanced budget. Have you looked around lately? Are we really that far removed from 'Idiocracy' these days? We're not going to tighten our belts now, preemptively. We're going to put it if off until sometime later when we might finally be left with no other choice, no one else to blame, and no one else to rob. The best we can really hope for right now is to stop using up all the other choices, scapegoats, and victims so quickly. Let's keep ourselves a little time to find new choices, scapegoats, and other victims, like we always have in the past.
The United States government will continue to run in the red. But that's life. Lets acknowledge that our politics are going to run at a loss, and do what we can to get our ECONOMY strong enough for the excesses of our government be manageable. If we get politics stable, and get commerce running smoothly, it will be able to keep the flow going. Some bubbles will burst here and there (same as always), but hopefully not so seriously nor so frequently as to crash the system, and we will all keep whistling along until the (already worthless) dollar can be phased out for something else. All we need is to find that something else; something that we can bring ourselves to believe is more valuable. Which is actually a pretty tall order.
In the meantime, lets keep the system under control, limit the wars and the riots to something that can be contained, and we'll all just keep on keeping on, at least (hopefully) for the duration of my lifetime. By then, I'll have prepared my children to prosper in the course of their lifetimes, just like my parents taught me what I needed to proper in this one.
Mitt seems like the right guy to keep things under control for the next four years, while we all do the best we can and wait to see what happens next.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)