Humankind's 10 million year love affair with booze might end(economist.com)
economist.com
Humankind's 10 million year love affair with booze might end
https://www.economist.com/christmas-specials/2025/12/18/how-humankinds-10m-year-love-affair-with-booze-might-end
40 comments
Just to say that humans have only been here around 300,000 years. “Human-kind” is a stretch.
We've been harnessing fire for over 400,000 years
https://www.npr.org/2025/12/11/nx-s1-5640109/early-humans-fi...
> The discovery suggests early humans were making fire more than 350,000 years earlier than previously known.
> "For me, personally, it's the most exciting discovery of my 40-year career," Ashton said.
https://www.npr.org/2025/12/11/nx-s1-5640109/early-humans-fi...
> The discovery suggests early humans were making fire more than 350,000 years earlier than previously known.
> "For me, personally, it's the most exciting discovery of my 40-year career," Ashton said.
High calorie, high nutrition. It’s candy with nutrients and a deeper buzz. Survival food, low effort to consume, no cooking required, source grows in famines, doesn’t rot.
[deleted]
Not in my lifetime, that's for sure.
There's a paywall so I'm not sure what the article discusses, but humanity hasn't existed for anywhere close to 10M years.
A mutation in our ancestors 10 million years ago likely spread due ground fruit fermenting, becoming toxic to other creatures thus creating an ecological niche. So, even if they were not human it’s reasonable to say the love affair is that old and shared with other species.
“Ten million years ago a common ancestor of humans, chimpanzees and gorillas acquired a mutation that let them remove ethanol from the body more efficiently. This adaptation coincided with a change of habitat. Tropical forests were collapsing, notes Robin Dunbar of Oxford University. Some 90% of apes went extinct. One lineage survived by leaving the trees and foraging on the ground.
Whereas apes in trees gobbled fresh fruit, those on the ground found fallen fruit, which ferments. Thus, our ancestors may have acquired a taste for alcohol–which allowed them to use these scarce calories. This “drunken monkey” hypothesis suggests that a love of the smell and taste of alcohol, the sign of an energy-rich fruit, gave our ancestors an edge. Their chosen poison would have been fairly weak. A study of overripe wild Panamanian palm fruits found none stronger than 5% alcohol—about the same as a Heineken.“
“Ten million years ago a common ancestor of humans, chimpanzees and gorillas acquired a mutation that let them remove ethanol from the body more efficiently. This adaptation coincided with a change of habitat. Tropical forests were collapsing, notes Robin Dunbar of Oxford University. Some 90% of apes went extinct. One lineage survived by leaving the trees and foraging on the ground.
Whereas apes in trees gobbled fresh fruit, those on the ground found fallen fruit, which ferments. Thus, our ancestors may have acquired a taste for alcohol–which allowed them to use these scarce calories. This “drunken monkey” hypothesis suggests that a love of the smell and taste of alcohol, the sign of an energy-rich fruit, gave our ancestors an edge. Their chosen poison would have been fairly weak. A study of overripe wild Panamanian palm fruits found none stronger than 5% alcohol—about the same as a Heineken.“
There is that pet theory that alcohlism also converted us from nomads to agrarian societies as mead and bear are impractical to make year round while on the move.
> humanity hasn't existed for anywhere close to 10M years.
From the article:
" Humans, unusually, have a pair of enzymes that turf it out like night-club bouncers. Our ability to process alcohol has deep evolutionary roots. Ten million years ago a common ancestor of humans, chimpanzees and gorillas acquired a mutation that let them remove ethanol from the body more efficiently. This adaptation coincided with a change of habitat. Tropical forests were collapsing, notes Robin Dunbar of Oxford University. Some 90% of apes went extinct. One lineage survived by leaving the trees and foraging on the ground."
From the article:
" Humans, unusually, have a pair of enzymes that turf it out like night-club bouncers. Our ability to process alcohol has deep evolutionary roots. Ten million years ago a common ancestor of humans, chimpanzees and gorillas acquired a mutation that let them remove ethanol from the body more efficiently. This adaptation coincided with a change of habitat. Tropical forests were collapsing, notes Robin Dunbar of Oxford University. Some 90% of apes went extinct. One lineage survived by leaving the trees and foraging on the ground."
I haven’t read the whole thing, but it starts off talking about a gene mutation in our ancestors species 10 million years ago that lets us process alcohol. So they are taking a little artistic license.
[deleted]
It's just The Economist: they specialise in click bait written in a dry, British professor style.
Welcome to the world of headline writing.
https://archive.is/KVT11
Humanity's gene for processing alcohol has existed for 10M years, and that's what they are actually talking about.
https://archive.is/KVT11
Humanity's gene for processing alcohol has existed for 10M years, and that's what they are actually talking about.
clickbait 101
tldr; Our love affair with booze might be replaced by hi-tech alternatives
We already have GBL
So I just looked this up. It's a prodrug for GHB, which is a notoriously dangerous drug.
It's about the same danger as alcohol... Except that because it's taken as a powder, it's much easier to overdose. And it's also extremely dangerous to take with alcohol.
A better alternative to alcohol this isn't.
It's about the same danger as alcohol... Except that because it's taken as a powder, it's much easier to overdose. And it's also extremely dangerous to take with alcohol.
A better alternative to alcohol this isn't.
For anyone taking this comment seriously, please research and understand the potential long term impacts of GBL before going near it. It's neurotoxic and can cause brainfog and lowered cognitive ability. It's also lethal in the wrong dose, with a tiny margin for error.
It's by no means a safe alcohol replacement
It's by no means a safe alcohol replacement
Yeah so basically the same thing as alcohol
Your response feels like a gut-level averse reaction, not an actual weighing of the harms against alcohol, which is about the most harmful drug ever for every system in your body, and also has a relatively small margin between lethality and and recreational doses.
> which is about the most harmful drug ever for every system in your body
I am not saying that alcohol is good for you or anything, but that is not even wrong. It’s trivial to find drugs that kill you or nuke your liver if you get a few milligrams.
> also has a relatively small margin between lethality and and recreational doses.
Unless by "recreational dose" you mean a whole bottle of 40% ABV spirits, not really. And even then. IIRC the lethal dose is around 7g/kg, which is more than a pint of pure ethanol for someone weighting 70kg, or twice the amount of alcohol in the bottle. This is not a particularly small margin of error, particularly considering that the hypotheses were conservative.
It is possible to kill oneself with alcohol. It is nowhere near the dose commonly taken for recreative purposes.
I am not saying that alcohol is good for you or anything, but that is not even wrong. It’s trivial to find drugs that kill you or nuke your liver if you get a few milligrams.
> also has a relatively small margin between lethality and and recreational doses.
Unless by "recreational dose" you mean a whole bottle of 40% ABV spirits, not really. And even then. IIRC the lethal dose is around 7g/kg, which is more than a pint of pure ethanol for someone weighting 70kg, or twice the amount of alcohol in the bottle. This is not a particularly small margin of error, particularly considering that the hypotheses were conservative.
It is possible to kill oneself with alcohol. It is nowhere near the dose commonly taken for recreative purposes.
What a weird thing to say. There are many CNS depressants.
>GABA, which is part of the brain’s natural calming system, is strongly affected by alcohol. Scientists think this is the mechanism by which drinking can reduce stress and anxiety. GABA Labs, a firm based near London, is trying to develop a flavourless substance called Alcarelle that has a similar effect. Trials to show that it is safe could take years. But if they are successful, the firm will be able to market Alcarelle to drinks makers as a way to create soft drinks that mimic the buzzy feeling of booze, with none of the downside.
We already have GBL. It's semi-legal and feels like a long lasting ethanol. I tried it a couple times and thought it was boring. But yeah, we have plenty of alcohol alternatives already. Etizolam seltzers could be a thing.
We already have GBL. It's semi-legal and feels like a long lasting ethanol. I tried it a couple times and thought it was boring. But yeah, we have plenty of alcohol alternatives already. Etizolam seltzers could be a thing.
I guess my point was that you could have been huffing volatile coal tar derivatives since the 19th century, but that fact has not displaced alcohol.
The point of drinking is to get a buzz. Most alcoholic drinks taste bad anyway, and would not be consumed if not for that. The only people who would need a pill to stop after one drink are hardcore alcoholics. This guy is either really stupid, marketing for some upcoming product, or propagandizing against alcohol because they found it is actually good for you after all lol.
Don't speak for people. I don't like getting a buzz - I don't like anything at all that alters my mood chemically. I really dislike it as an idea, deeply. But I love one cocktail or one drink of Scotch or one beer, sipped casually - for the taste.
Same. There is some wine with amazing smell and taste.
Unfortunately it triggers my heartburn and I don't like getting a buzz, so I have to pass.
Also my wife doesn't like the smell so if I drink,she doesn't kiss me. Everything stacked against me! Lol
Also my wife doesn't like the smell so if I drink,she doesn't kiss me. Everything stacked against me! Lol
I'm off booze for almost a year yet can still drink a six-pack of 0-alcohol beer every night.
Congrats. I've gotta say that I think you are just in the habit of drinking beer for whatever reason. You could just as easily drink something that tastes better, like sparkling water. But whatever helps you beat the habit is good I guess.
I like the flavor of most cocktails, but it really isn't the alcohol that makes it taste good. There is a subtle medicinal flavor imparted by most forms of liquor but I never found myself craving that lol.
It’s funny how personal it is. I really hate the taste of alcohol and don’t even tend to like food cooked with alcohol (even if it has “cooked off” it clearly leaves a taste behind).
I tried drinking for a short while but I had to almost hold my nose and swallow it as if it were medicine.
I tried drinking for a short while but I had to almost hold my nose and swallow it as if it were medicine.
You're stating your opinions as fact. Personally I love the taste of many cocktails, wines, and beer. They taste good to me.
I think drinking for the buzz demonstrates an immaturity with alcohol consumption. One many have, but an immaturity nonetheless.
I think drinking for the buzz demonstrates an immaturity with alcohol consumption. One many have, but an immaturity nonetheless.
I do like the taste of the high-end stuff as well. But the point is precisely to get a buzz while not suffering the bad sides of the cheap stuff.
Otherwise there are plenty of very good drinks that have no alcohol, if you want to drink for taste, there is really no need to go for alcoholic stuff.
There is a lot of snobery around the expensive stuff precisely because you need to be wealthy enough to afford it. It is just another class signifier. People drinking those things like the fact that they can get buzzed while still enjoying the taste, outside of true alcoholics, everybody prefer that but they just can't afford it.
Making good alcohol is an art form. It is a very complex process that relies on quality inputs as well as mastery of a refined recipe. It is no a trivial endeavor and this why many of the good alcohols were produced/invented by monks and priest, they were the ones with enough time and ressources on their hands to focus on this unproductive pursuit. Nowadays the lines are blurred because it is commercialised and profitable but the consumers of the good stuff are very similar to the priests of old (high status/power), they just delegated the process thanks to their power afforded by money.
Otherwise there are plenty of very good drinks that have no alcohol, if you want to drink for taste, there is really no need to go for alcoholic stuff.
There is a lot of snobery around the expensive stuff precisely because you need to be wealthy enough to afford it. It is just another class signifier. People drinking those things like the fact that they can get buzzed while still enjoying the taste, outside of true alcoholics, everybody prefer that but they just can't afford it.
Making good alcohol is an art form. It is a very complex process that relies on quality inputs as well as mastery of a refined recipe. It is no a trivial endeavor and this why many of the good alcohols were produced/invented by monks and priest, they were the ones with enough time and ressources on their hands to focus on this unproductive pursuit. Nowadays the lines are blurred because it is commercialised and profitable but the consumers of the good stuff are very similar to the priests of old (high status/power), they just delegated the process thanks to their power afforded by money.
>You're stating your opinions as fact.
So what? I have an opinion, backed up by years of being in bars and talking to people who actually like to drink. If you need a disclaimer in a comment, maybe you need to go have a drink to take the edge off.
>I think drinking for the buzz demonstrates an immaturity with alcohol consumption. One many have, but an immaturity nonetheless.
People of all ages enjoy the effects of alcohol. I don't think many would consume it if not for those effects. The people you are calling immature, would call you a goober.
So what? I have an opinion, backed up by years of being in bars and talking to people who actually like to drink. If you need a disclaimer in a comment, maybe you need to go have a drink to take the edge off.
>I think drinking for the buzz demonstrates an immaturity with alcohol consumption. One many have, but an immaturity nonetheless.
People of all ages enjoy the effects of alcohol. I don't think many would consume it if not for those effects. The people you are calling immature, would call you a goober.
The tone of the GP and your comment, and wanting to drink for the buzz, are all arguably a little immature. But regardless: Maturity has nothing to do with age.
Regarding opinions: You're not defending the GP when you say "many". The GP implied "all" (or close to it). The GP was in fact overstepping the statement of opinion, whereas you are not.
Regarding opinions: You're not defending the GP when you say "many". The GP implied "all" (or close to it). The GP was in fact overstepping the statement of opinion, whereas you are not.
> The point of drinking is to get a buzz
Once a week I hit the local pub for exactly one pint. Usually preferring lower ABV. Why do I stop there? Anymore than that gives a buzz that I usually am not in the mood for. I’m sure one drink has some effect on me, but not enough to consciously realize it.
> Most alcoholic drinks taste bad anyway
Speak for yourself. Beer is hands down one of the tastiest damn drinks. I seriously love German and British styles for their flavor and low ABV. They make great casual drinks.
You don’t like alcohol. That’s fine. And, honestly, you’re likely healthier for it. But claiming that people drink just to get drunk - I stopped doing that in college.
Once a week I hit the local pub for exactly one pint. Usually preferring lower ABV. Why do I stop there? Anymore than that gives a buzz that I usually am not in the mood for. I’m sure one drink has some effect on me, but not enough to consciously realize it.
> Most alcoholic drinks taste bad anyway
Speak for yourself. Beer is hands down one of the tastiest damn drinks. I seriously love German and British styles for their flavor and low ABV. They make great casual drinks.
You don’t like alcohol. That’s fine. And, honestly, you’re likely healthier for it. But claiming that people drink just to get drunk - I stopped doing that in college.
I think you're crazy, but I guess there are people who drink piss so why should I be surprised that someone likes the taste of beer?
Seriously, many people who like alcohol have told me exactly what I just said. There are tastier drinks out there if you're after flavor. Alcohol is for getting a buzz, or fitting in with people who like the buzz.
I feel the same way about black coffee. Who would drink that if not for the caffeine? Better drinks are abundant.
Seriously, many people who like alcohol have told me exactly what I just said. There are tastier drinks out there if you're after flavor. Alcohol is for getting a buzz, or fitting in with people who like the buzz.
I feel the same way about black coffee. Who would drink that if not for the caffeine? Better drinks are abundant.
While I certainly drink coffee for the caffeine, black coffee is 100% my preference. Sugar in coffee tastes absolutely horrid to me. Milk is fine but it doesn’t do much for me.
People taste things differently and it’s at least partly genetic. See TAS2R38 for example [0]. It’s fascinating how we all perceive the world a little differently.
Years ago, long before I was of age, a science museum had a little demo on this (not sure if it was related to the aforementioned gene or not) using strips of paper with some chemical on it. Some people were pretty grossed out by the flavor. It didn’t bother other people at all, including myself.
On the flip side of things I’m highly sensitive to sweetness and find anything other than the smallest amounts to be off putting.
[0] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6949464/
People taste things differently and it’s at least partly genetic. See TAS2R38 for example [0]. It’s fascinating how we all perceive the world a little differently.
Years ago, long before I was of age, a science museum had a little demo on this (not sure if it was related to the aforementioned gene or not) using strips of paper with some chemical on it. Some people were pretty grossed out by the flavor. It didn’t bother other people at all, including myself.
On the flip side of things I’m highly sensitive to sweetness and find anything other than the smallest amounts to be off putting.
[0] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6949464/