Comment author: Unnamed 20 January 2013 05:46:27AM 3 points [-]

Does increasing the tax on alcohol count? I'm in favor of that (at least in the US), for basically the reasons given by Mark Kleiman here. Problem drinkers are a relatively small fraction of the population but they account for a relatively large fraction of the alcohol market - one statistic that Kleiman mentions elsewhere is that (in the US) half of all alcohol is consumed by people who average 4 or more drinks per day.

Comment author: Spectral_Dragon 20 January 2013 07:18:28PM 1 point [-]

It's one of the more effective ways of lowering consumption. It's not the problem drinkers that cause the worst effect though - it's the casual drinkers that cause the most damage (for example by overestimating themselves and driving). Taxes would still work on most groups, so yes, it definitely counts.

Comment author: Wakarimahen 20 January 2013 06:46:08AM *  3 points [-]

Alcohol causes temporary loss of motor control and some brain functions, and this is exactly the point. Any mistakes can be blamed on 'being drunk', and thus people are able to cast of the shackles of social inhibition, and enjoy themselves more unimpeded. Our society is rather oppressive when it comes to making mistakes or looking 'low status' in normal situations, so alcohol is the perfect way for many people to compensate, and allow themselves temporary spans of time where they're less afraid to make mistakes or look incompetent (and I would argue this general fear of making mistakes or looking incompetent is one of the main plagues in society, preventing all sorts of people from improving their lives).

Call it placebo if you want, but placebo is great if it works. Anything is great if it works.

Comment author: Spectral_Dragon 20 January 2013 07:14:13PM 0 points [-]

I've never noticed it used as an excuse, and to me that seems a lot like saying "I was biased!", to cast away blame. Though I have a different frame of reference - here you're accountable for anything you do, sober or drunk, including making mistakes/looking incompetent. Where is the line drawn where you can just shrug off any blame? I can't think of any rational reason to want to drink, then, unless you want to... Act incompetently and get away with it? Is this then a good thing?

I agree on the placebo bit, anyway.

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 20 January 2013 07:15:43AM *  7 points [-]

That "offers little to no positive effects" comment suggests to me that you have limited personal experience with alcohol. The primary benefit I (and I think most drinkers my age) derive from alcohol is social: it helps me make new friends and connect more closely to existing friends. Lots of people drink, and it's easier to become friends with those people if you also drink. If that isn't enough LW lingo for you, drinking is a Schelling point.

Also, what do people have against placebo effects? Quoting myself seems dangerously egotistical, but "a placebo effect is still an effect." Maybe someone should write a top-level post about this.

Comment author: Spectral_Dragon 20 January 2013 06:51:18PM 0 points [-]

I've had enough experience to compare interactions with and without alcohol, and I've noticed it's much more difficult to connect with anyone who's been drinking, even if I've also been. Merely personal, but with no alcohol in my regular life, I still gain friends easily, now having gained far above my Dunbar's Number. Have you tested if it actually is more difficult if all parties are sober?

I'm against this particular one, since as a placebo, something lacking the negative effects while achieving the positive placebo effects would be much more awesome.

Comment author: Spectral_Dragon 20 January 2013 02:27:37AM 0 points [-]

I'm curious about the general stance towards alcohol, from Lesswrong. It (1) lowers the quality of life, and life expectancy (3rd highest cause of preventable death in the US), for almost all people drinking, or closely linked to people who drink, (2) costs a fair bit (The money spent per year in europe on alcohol-related damages could fund a manned mission to mars), (3) and offers little to no positive effects (Only proven short-term effects are temporary loss of motor control and some brain functions like balance and memory, anything else seems to be a placebo).

So, I'd like to know if you're for or against limiting alcohol (through laws lowering sales, altering public opinion etc.) and why.

Submitting...

Comment author: pleeppleep 12 January 2013 06:52:37PM 1 point [-]

I'm really not sure if the fact that he wanted to die makes it better or worse...

Comment author: Spectral_Dragon 12 January 2013 10:56:52PM 1 point [-]

Here, we fight for as long and happy lives as possible for as many as possible, no? Just imagine how bad your life is if you ACTIVELY want to reduce your lifespan. An experienced negative QALY. So I say worse. It's one of the most horrible things you could ever experience. I've heard it said that a life barely worth living, is still worth living, here. So, a life not worth living...

Comment author: Spectral_Dragon 03 December 2012 09:52:03PM 0 points [-]

As there seems to be no evidence pointing to deadly diseases, AI, or anything on that particular day, I'm of the opinion that the closest thing to an apocalypse will be rioting due to the fact that we are scared. The earth won't explode or anything (likely) but I'll still be staying indoors to avoid the potential insanity. It'll be just like friday 13, only bigger.

Comment author: mytyde 20 November 2012 05:39:57PM *  0 points [-]

You might not think the economic value was so low if you had children in school, were going to have children, were a child yourself, had significant health expenses, had a criminal record, were poor, or are going to get old eventually.

Economic value pays for the cultural value.

Comment author: Spectral_Dragon 20 November 2012 08:28:51PM 1 point [-]

I was basing it on what this seemed to be aimed at - single males in working age with nothing keeping them anywhere else. For younger people, you're right, it's great - my education has so far not cost me a thing, including uni, they're supposed to build more student corridors, and it's a really calm city. Sweden has free healthcare, and great welfare in general.

Update: Wonderful for people up to 25, fairly meh for working age, but there's a larger city within commute range (20 minutes by train), so it's definitely not too bad. But I've yet to hear of anyone with any considerable wealth being from here.

Comment author: Spectral_Dragon 20 November 2012 05:19:03PM 4 points [-]

Lund, Sweden - despite not living here that long, just a few months, I've gotten a good grip of it. Pros: Massive university that serves as an intellectual meetingplace, everything from feminism to transhumanism in unofficial lectures, a particle accelerator is being built if you're into that kind of thing, and it's possible to get EVERYWHERE with a bike.

Cons: Difficult to get anywhere fast with a car, the weather can be less than enjoyable, housing prices are fairly high and we might be heading for an economical crash soon, and it would likely seem quite different moving here from outside europe.

In short: Economical value low, cultural value high.

In response to Dying Outside
Comment author: Spectral_Dragon 19 November 2012 10:47:06PM 4 points [-]

Inspiring words. Something I wish I would be able to write if such a fate ever befell me. I didn't really know who you were before, but now, you're among those I'd like to emulate whenever life gets hard. Best of luck with your life. Keep fighting.

Comment author: Spectral_Dragon 17 November 2012 12:20:40PM *  0 points [-]

Transitional species, Winston Rowntree

I couldn't just quote a part of this, as any one good quote would drag half the comic with it. It deserves reading, though.

Comment author: Spectral_Dragon 17 November 2012 12:24:16PM *  1 point [-]

Misclicking like a madman today, Transitional species, Winston Rowntree is one massive, awesome quote. Only one part wouldn't do it justice, unfortunately.

View more: Prev | Next