Posts Tagged ‘Beer’
“Alcohol may be man’s worst enemy, but the Bible says love your enemy”*…
It turns out, Andrew Coletti reports, that alcohol is consumed widely in nature– and may have played a role in human evolution…
… There’s something charmingly funny about the image of an animal drinking alcohol; it seems so incongruously humanlike. Some documentaries that show wild animals getting drunk off boozy rotten fruit, like this one from Botswana, use music and narration to emphasize the unexpected comedy of the scene. Scientists once believed that such behavior was random and accidental, especially in species not closely related to humans and other great apes. But more recent studies paint a very different picture. A research review published in October 2024 in Trends in Ecology & Evolution found that wherever ethanol—the active ingredient in alcoholic beverages—occurs in nature, it is routinely consumed by a variety of species, from insects and birds to rodents and monkeys.
In nature, “ethanol ingestion is far more common than was previously thought,” says Anna Bowland, a Ph.D. student in bioscience at the University of Exeter, England, who worked on the review. The paper cites research mainly from tropical regions like Central America and Southeast Asia, where yeast and bacteria ferment the natural sugars in fruit and nectar into ethanol in the hot sun. But a similar effect has also been observed in completely different environments. In Finland, when wild berries thaw in the warm sun after being bruised by frost, “they ferment quite quickly,” says Bowland. “And then as the birds come and feed on them, they’re ingesting alcohol.”
Because animals that feed on fruit and nectar ingest more ethanol on average, many of them show evolutionary adaptations to tolerate it. The review cites a study from the rainforests of Malaysia, which found that arboreal mammals like treeshrews, lorises, and squirrels regularly feed on fermented palm nectar with an alcohol concentration as high as 3.8 percent, comparable to a light beer. But intriguingly, says Bowland, “they don’t—in our anthropogenic sense—seem to get drunk,” meaning that they don’t display behaviors associated with inebriation in humans, like drowsiness or reduced motor skills. This suggests that treeshrews are particularly good at metabolizing ethanol.
Bowland explains that from an evolutionary standpoint, “it’s not beneficial for [animals] to get drunk, because that can lead to predation and injury and reduce survival, so they might not pass on their genes.” Animals that feed on a boozy food source have a better chance of survival if they can hold their liquor, so the presence of ethanol creates evolutionary pressure for tolerance….
… Another prominent example is the great apes. “Humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas—we all possess a mutation in one of our genes that greatly increases the rate at which we can metabolize and break down ethanol,” says Bowland, thanks to a digestive enzyme called ADH4. While other primates like Central American spider monkeys consume ethanol in fruit, and may, like fruit flies, be drawn to the smell, apes are particularly efficient at processing it. This has led some researchers to propose that the human fondness for ethanol goes back long before deliberate brewing and fermenting, to a dietary shift in our common ancestor with other apes.
Robert Dudley, a professor of Integrative Biology at the University of California, Berkeley, explored the evolutionary origins of human alcohol consumption in his book The Drunken Monkey Hypothesis. “Primates are ancestrally fruit-eaters, going back 45 million years,” says Dudley, based on evidence like the shape of their teeth. In modern apes, fruit still makes up 60 to 80 percent of the diet for chimpanzees and 90 percent for gibbons. According to Dudley, who was not affiliated with the 2024 study, genetic analysis of ADH4 in early apes shows that the enzyme became 20 times better at degrading ethanol about 12 million years ago. “This is right when the great apes are coming out of the trees and going bipedal, walking around, and, we think, now going after more ripe fruit crops that have already fallen down,” he says. Other foods becoming scarce, as well as the increased availability of fermenting fruit on the ground, may have increased pressure for prehistoric primates to adapt to an ethanol-rich source of nutrients.
“We’ve evolved with this molecule,” Dudley says of ethanol. His research suggests that the scent of ethanol “acts as a long-distance sensory cue” for primates, alerting them to the presence of edible fruit hidden among dense foliage. “Where there’s ethanol, there has to be sugar,” Dudley explains, and the scent of ethanol might even allow monkeys and apes to “assess individual fruits without wasting time biting into them.” Dudley also suggests that ethanol-rich fruit may stimulate the appetite of wild primates, encouraging them to take as much advantage of the available nutrition as possible. He compares this with the “aperitif effect” observed in humans, where consuming alcohol before a meal leads to increased food consumption, perhaps due to the stimulation of brain areas that regulate feeding behavior…
… Bowland is hopeful that her review will encourage further research into the interactions between animals and ethanol. Dudley agrees. “I think that the nice thing about that paper [is it] just points out the ubiquity of ethanol,” he says of the 2024 review. Ethanol is just a part of nature, found wherever there is sugar and microbes to ferment it. And while there’s still much to be explored, one thing is clear: If there’s anything that truly separates human beings from animals, it’s not alcohol…
No “dry January” in much of the animal kindom: “The Booze-Soaked Lives of Wild Animals,” from @aoofficial.bsky.social.
Apposite (or many better said, subsequent): “Peeing is contagious in chimpanzees, study suggests.”
* Frank Sinatra
###
As we investigate intoxicants, we might recall that it was on this date in 1935 that the beer can (created by the American Can Co.) was introduced by the Gottfried Krueger Brewing Company of Newark, New Jersey. Made of tin, it weighed 4 ounces– still lighter than glass bottles– and required a “churchkey” opener. Pabst, based in Milwaukee, followed quickly, introducing their own (“Blue Ribbon”) line of canned beer later in the year.
“I’m more American than apple pie. I’m like apple pie, with a hot dog in it.”*…
From Kelsey McKinney and the invaluable Defector.com, investigative reporting at its most trenchant: just how many hot dogs do Americans eat?…
Last summer, my friend Dana brought me a very important question. She and some friends had been debating all weekend whether or not a certain officially reported number could possibly be true. Could I report it out? Could I find out whether there were lies afoot and frauds being perpetrated? As a good friend, I promised that I would try. And here I am, a mere 10 months later, trying.
The issue is this: The National Hot Dog and Sausage Council puts out a figure each year claiming to be the number of hot dogs an American eats annually.
I will give you a second to think about how many hot dogs this might be.
…
have asked this question at every party I have been to in the last 10 months, and most people give an answer somewhere between five and 25. I, a lover of hot dogs, guessed 30 when first faced with this question. It is still nowhere near the number the National Hot Dog and Sausage Council claims.
The National Hot Dog and Sausage Council (from here on out referred to as Big Hot Dog) claims that the average American eats … 70 hot dogs a year… To be clear, this number includes only hot dogs. It does not include bratwursts or sausages or those mini dogs that can be rolled up in pigs-in-a-blanket. It does not include veggie dogs. It is only hot dogs that Big Hot Dog claims we are each eating 70 of every single year…
I emailed Eric Mittenthal, president of Big Hot Dog, last May to ask him where this number comes from and he said, “The number is an estimate based on the sales data we have.” OK, yes. I figured that much. I tried to ask follow-up questions, but they were left unanswered. So we are forced to try to confirm this figure using our powers of deduction. It is important that we do because this number is cited left and right. In the past five years, Big Hot Dog’s numbers have been quoted by Newsweek, and USA Today, and Time and a dozen other major publications. But are they … real?
Seventy hot dogs per American x 341,362,543 Americans = nearly 23.9 BILLION hot dogs per year…
How many dogs do Americans down? Read on to find out: “Big Hot Dog Must Tell The Truth,” (gift article) @mckinneykelsey @DefectorMedia.
* Stephen Colbert
###
As we pass the mustard, we might note that today is “New Beers Eve,” the day before National Beer Day in the U.S.– a commemoration of the date (in 1933) that the Cullen–Harrison Act came into effect, legalizing the sale of 3.2% alcohol beer in the U.S.– which presaged the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment (on December 5, 1933) via the ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment, and the end of Prohibition.
“My favorite food from my homeland is Guinness. My second choice is Guinness. My third choice – would have to be Guinness.”*…
As Will O’Brien explains, Ireland’s most famous brewery has been ahead of the curve for 250 years…
Taken over its entire history, Guinness may just be the most successful company Ireland has ever produced. In 1930, it was the seventh largest company in Britain or Ireland. It is one of our oldest companies of note. Considering that it predates the Bank of Ireland and the State itself, it could even be said that Guinness is the longest-running successful large institution in Ireland.
The key to Guinness’ robustness has been innovation. Through a series of key innovations, Guinness was able to stay on top despite (among other things) a famine, mass emigration, two World Wars, a civil war, and the changeover from British to sovereign rule. Guinness is responsible for changes in workplace relations, several foundational advances in the physics of brewing, and even the famous Student’s t-test in statistics. Indeed, Guinness has been one of the key drivers of innovation in Ireland.
…
A determined founder began Guinness with a vision and took a bold decision with a 9000-year lease. The company then started a brewery which defied nearly every norm in workplace relations. They used the scientific method to radically rethink how beer is brewed and served, and created a world-class brand & marketing operation.
When Guinness released a subtly different pint glass several years ago, traditionalists decried it as blasphemous. The irony is that the brewery that creates this drink has eschewed tradition for over 250 years…
Lessons are where one finds them: “No Great Stagnation in Guinness,” from @willobri.
* Peter O’Toole
###
As we contemplate continuity, we might recall that it was on this date in 1903 that the first U.S. patent for instant coffee (No. 735,777) was issued to Satori Kato of Chicago, Illinois. The application was filed in April of 1901, when his Kato Coffee Company introduced the product at the Pam-American Exposition in Buffalo.
“Society gives legitimacy and society can take it away”*…
Yesterday’s post featured an argument that attention (which social, economic, and commercial discourse increasingly treat as a limited resource) is not in fact scarce at all, and indeed, that it is dehumanizing to think of it in that way.
Today’s offering nominates a different kind of scarcity as worthy of our thought…
Legitimacy is a pattern of higher-order acceptance. An outcome in some social context is legitimate if the people in that social context broadly accept and play their part in enacting that outcome, and each individual person does so because they expect everyone else to do the same.
Legitimacy is a phenomenon that arises naturally in coordination games. If you’re not in a coordination game, there’s no reason to act according to your expectation of how other people will act, and so legitimacy is not important. But as we have seen, coordination games are everywhere in society, and so legitimacy turns out to be quite important indeed. In almost any environment with coordination games that exists for long enough, there inevitably emerge some mechanisms that can choose which decision to take. These mechanisms are powered by an established culture that everyone pays attention to these mechanisms and (usually) does what they say. Each person reasons that because everyone else follows these mechanisms, if they do something different they will only create conflict and suffer, or at least be left in a lonely forked ecosystem all by themselves. If a mechanism successfully has the ability to make these choices, then that mechanism has legitimacy.
…
There are many different ways in which legitimacy can come about. In general, legitimacy arises because the thing that gains legitimacy is psychologically appealing to most people. But of course, people’s psychological intuitions can be quite complex. It is impossible to make a full listing of theories of legitimacy, but we can start with a few:
Legitimacy by brute force: someone convinces everyone that they are powerful enough to impose their will and resisting them will be very hard. This drives most people to submit because each person expects that everyone elsewill be too scared to resist as well.
Legitimacy by continuity: if something was legitimate at time T, it is by default legitimate at time T+1.
Legitimacy by fairness: something can become legitimate because it satisfies an intuitive notion of fairness. See also: my post on credible neutrality, though note that this is not the only kind of fairness.
Legitimacy by process: if a process is legitimate, the outputs of that process gain legitimacy (eg. laws passed by democracies are sometimes described in this way).
Legitimacy by performance: if the outputs of a process lead to results that satisfy people, then that process can gain legitimacy (eg. successful dictatorships are sometimes described in this way).
Legitimacy by participation: if people participate in choosing an outcome, they are more likely to consider it legitimate. This is similar to fairness, but not quite: it rests on a psychological desire to be consistent with your previous actions.
Note that legitimacy is a descriptive concept; something can be legitimate even if you personally think that it is horrible. That said, if enough people think that an outcome is horrible, there is a higher chance that some event will happen in the future that will cause that legitimacy to go away, often at first gradually, then suddenly…
The co-founder of Etherium, Vitalik Butarin (@VitalikButerin) on why “The Most Important Scarce Resource is Legitimacy.” Whatever one’s feeling about cryptocurrency, it’s eminently worthy of reading in full… and of submitting to the same sort of questioning that L.M. Sarcasas mustered yesterday,
* Willis Harman
###
As we channel John Locke, we might recall that it was on thus date in 1933 that the the Cullen–Harrison Act, legalizing the sale of beer (after 14 years of Prohibition), came into force. Americans celebrated by consuming 1.5 million barrels of beer that day.
The Cullen-Harrison Act was not the official end of prohibition in the U.S., but it did redefine an “intoxicating beverage” under the Volstead Act (which was created in 1919 to carry out the intent of the 18th Amendment– and was fully repealed later in 1933).
During Prohibition, while alcohol consumption fell initially, it pretty briskly returned to 60-70% of its pre-Volstead Act levels. Indeed, it was in 1923 that the invented word “scofflaw” was introduced to the American vocabulary. Created to mean “a lawless drinker of illegally made or illegally obtained liquor,” it gained wide usage through Prohibition, and survives to day, referring to those who ignore/break minor laws that are infrequently enforced… which is to say, laws that rely on legitimacy for their effectiveness.











You must be logged in to post a comment.