Thread

California farmers are struggling to sell grapes as demand for wine drops

389 points · 987 comments · randycupertino

alexandre_m · 1790644533 · focus · HN ↗
> while young people are drinking less alcohol due to health and financial concerns
My observation is that gen-z spends less time socializing in real life, and drinking remains a social habit for the most part at a younger age. While they drink less, cannabis, vaping and psychedelics are on the rise.
It's a nice claim to say they are more responsible, but it tells an incomplete story.
1. 1-6 · 1790645754 · focus · HN ↗
  I may be old-fashioned but the substitute mind-altering drugs you're mentioning does not sound like a more responsible pathway.
  1. [deleted] · 1790646589 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
  2. onthrowaway457 · 1790646972 · focus · HN ↗
    I think that is the point parent is making
  3. asa123 · 1790646980 · focus · HN ↗
    it's really not
    looking from the tail end of the generation, many of my friends ( and also I ) were led to believe somehow that things like marijuana, psychedelics, non-Alcohol have such low consequences that are entirely a rounding error compared to alcohol. which is ...
    superkuh · 1790647395 · focus · HN ↗
    Indeed. Alcohol is so much more dangerous and damaging to peoples lives and the lives of those around them that it doesn't even compare. Alcohol would never be legal if discovered today. Compared to alcohol the risks of cannabis are a rounding error.
    But that's only because alcohol is so incredibly dangerous. There is real risk with inhaling particulates and burning gases into your lungs. And it should not be ignored. It's just that compared to the lives ended by alcohol it is a rounding error and that makes it seem safe. Neither are.
    djtango · 1790648307 · focus · HN ↗
    Alcohol is deeply deeply ingrained in society. (Almost) universally. It has been for thousands of years. I just don't think you can extricate history and culture from how we set policy and views on alcohol.
    While it may be rational to try to lump it with other newer dangerous substances, removing alcohol from humanity would be full on cultural erasure for many places. Not to mention to total destruction of entire industries that people's livelihoods depend on.
    I guess a way to think of it is - if it was part of culture for 1000s of years it'll probably take at least 100s of years to phase out.
    superkuh · 1790648564 · focus · HN ↗
    I agree. Individuals have the right to chose to damage their bodies if they wish. And laws already exist covering hurting other people while irresponsibly intoxicated. I see no reason to try to use state violence to prevent people from hurting themselves. This doesn't change that alcohol is a poison and seriously incapacitating compared to say, cannabis/THC.
    landdate · 1790651382 · focus · HN ↗
    No they don't. unless you think health care should be singularly the responsibility of the individual and we have no responsibility for caring for the sick or seriously injured even if they have lack the financial resources to cover expenses.
    sampullman · 1790658951 · focus · HN ↗
    That's a very slippery slope. What are you going to ban next, extreme sports? Running too fast? Eating french fries?
    landdate · 1790751428 · focus · HN ↗
    All these poisonous foods should be banned yes. The biggest killler in the US is obesity and we are here talking about individual rights. 1/3 of people aee obese, 2/3 are overweight, I am all for individual liberties but when you have this deadly of an epidiemic I become a lot more practical than idealistic.
    Rest of your comment is asinine and I won't bother to consider.
    sampullman · 1790965879 · focus · HN ↗
    It is at most as asinine as your comment.
    We could start trying to solve obesity through education and perhaps limiting advertising/marketing, rather than jumping to the massive of erosion of individual rights that you suggest.
    cgio · 1790649333 · focus · HN ↗
    Cannabis was the same to some extent. Psychedelics too in the context of rites.
    djtango · 1790666843 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes but not nearly in the way alcohol is.
    Alcohol used to be safer than water to drink for a period in time.
    landdate · 1790651248 · focus · HN ↗
    Alcohol is engrained because it was safe to drink because of the process of fermentation. However, it had much lower alcohol content and certaknly the hard liquors we know now were almost never at all drunk.
    Your comparing 1-2% alcohol consumed because the regular drinking water was not accessible and unsafe to 7%+ alcohol consumed for recreation. Disengenuous.
    hdgvhicv · 1790652556 · focus · HN ↗
    People have been drinking wine for 8000 years. Grapes ferment in the 10% abv range.
    <a href="https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1714728114" rel="nofollow">https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1714728114
    Some Roman wines were drunk undiluted in the 14% range
    <a href="https://penelope.uchicago.edu/encyclopaedia_romana/wine/vintage.html" rel="nofollow">https://penelope.uchicago.edu/encyclopaedia_romana/wine/vint...
    landdate · 1790814824 · focus · HN ↗
    By the wealthy. The average citizen or non citizen (who made up majority or close to at various points) was not drinking 14%. Its laughable you would believe fhat just because rhey found it. They also found some gold face masks, i guess they must have all been wearing gold masks then.
    evilduck · 1790656389 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    landdate · 1790814889 · focus · HN ↗
    it was diluted bubba
    evilduck · 1790950644 · focus · HN ↗
    Not for the purposes of safety and sanitation. You're clearly out of your depth.
    The_Blade · 1790651603 · focus · HN ↗
    there was some commentary on the amazing regenerative power of the liver on a post here a few days ago to this end. i did a little more homework and the way in which agricultural civlization and the ability of the liver to process ethanol evolved in parallel is profound. some settlement had a bumper crop of wheat enough to ferment over the winter and they were like, sheeeeeit and then the liver was like sheeeeeeeit
    we've been collectively alcoholic for 15000 years, turning the body's chemical filtration plant into the body's largest organ that is literally called the liver, and we're supposed to give it up in 20 years? bosh. flimshaw
    FlowingRiver · 1790658680 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't think we will give it up in the next 20 centuries.
    adrianN · 1790649154 · focus · HN ↗
    Alcohol is indeed dangerous, but I think it is misleading to compare the number of lives ended by alcohol to the number of lives ended by other recreational drugs just because there is a much larger number of people consuming alcohol. Almost everybody who consumes alcohol is not an alcoholic.
    8note · 1790649764 · focus · HN ↗
    you should go look back at profiling and optimization
    if you want to fix the most things with the least effort, you optimize the hot paths. in this case, thats alcohol and tabacco. they have the biggest opportunity
    hattmall · 1790651751 · focus · HN ↗
    That's dumb though because then you just push people to other things and you will see the same issues arise as consumption increases to alcohol levels and there's a reasonable probability they will be worse. Already the percent of fatal accidents involving active marijuana found in the blood stream is higher than alcohol car fatalities. 40% vs 30%. Homicides show a similar pattern. And marijuana consumption is only 17% vs 54%. All time high for MJ and near all time low for alcohol.
    literalAardvark · 1790653742 · focus · HN ↗
    Alcohol is consistently more dangerous statistically than most other things, I doubt lowering consumption is the driving factor behind the patterns you're mentioning.
    lobf · 1790665714 · focus · HN ↗
    What is “active marijuana?”
    adrianN · 1790701698 · focus · HN ↗
    I optimize the things where I get the most benefit per hour of work. Banning alcohol is so difficult politically that it’s not obvious that this is the best thing to work on to improve public health.
    laurencerowe · 1790668301 · focus · HN ↗
    Smoking kills several times more people per year than alcohol use. The CDC attributes 480k to smoking vs 178k from alcohol. People smoking cannibis likely smoke less than those smoking tobacco but it’s not safe. Maybe try edibles instead?
    <a href="https://archive.cdc.gov/www_cdc_gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/index.htm" rel="nofollow">https://archive.cdc.gov/www_cdc_gov/tobacco/data_statistics/...
    <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/facts-stats/index.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/facts-stats/index.html
    iambateman · 1790647406 · focus · HN ↗
    I’m in the same age group and I agree but I feel frustrated that our grandparents went with “marijuana is the gateway to hell” as the social message.
    I don’t know if there is responsible weed or psychedelic use (not my area) but I’m confident that responsible alcohol consumption exists.
    Though I doubt any of it is a net benefit to society.
    WalterBright · 1790648765 · focus · HN ↗
    I have a couple friends in their 60s who drank a single glass of wine every day, for decades. Then, they decided to stop. They were amazed at how much better they felt.
    Cannabis today is much stronger than it was in the 70s.
    hirvi74 · 1790649740 · focus · HN ↗
    Potency is an interesting subject because in theory one should have consume less amounts over the same time period for the same effect. In other words, smoking one potent joint, while carrying its own risks, is probably healthier than smoking n > 1 joints to get a similar effect.
    Cannabis, the literal plant, is strong than the 70s, but it's not like humans haven't been making concentrates (hash, resins, etc.) for 1000s of years.
    bunderbunder · 1790650390 · focus · HN ↗
    In places in the US where it’s now been decriminalized, it’s a completely different beast from what it was in the 70s. So much so that the potency of the plants kind of isn’t even relevant anymore for typical users. It’s a far cry from when I was a kid and there was peer pressure to keep taking hits from a joint of unknown potency at too quick a pace to do any sort of dose control.
    The people I know who are using it are buying it as tablets and gummies that come in 1mg increment doses, and taking exactly as much as they want to have, which typically isn’t much.
    Vape pens are presumably also more consistent and predictable, and seem to be taking over. I can’t even remember the last time I smelled actual weed smoke.
    It actually strikes me as much more healthy than alcohol culture, where dose control can still be a problem because it’s hard to tell how many units of alcohol the bartender put in your cocktail, and driving home afterward is still quite normalized.
    WalterBright · 1790651025 · focus · HN ↗
    I recall a "60 Minutes" segment on it asserting that cannabis today is much stronger.
    literalAardvark · 1790654123 · focus · HN ↗
    I think their argument is that while it's stronger (and it is), it's also more predictable and has safer and more predictable delivery mechanisms.
    Also, there are high grade derived products that do exactly what's on the label.
    For an example of reasonable use: if you want to lower anxiety a bit, which is a primary driver of alcohol use, you can now reliably get a high CBT strain, or CBT gummies, or CBT vapes, and they are generally less dangerous and less addictive than other chemical solutions.
    This would also hold for decriminalising party drugs. Most of the fentanyl deaths for instance are in people that didn't even know they're having fentanyl.
    bunderbunder · 1790689454 · focus · HN ↗
    Yeah, more or less. From what I can tell few people really want to just smoke the plant anymore. That makes the THC concentration in the plant itself less relevant to a discussion of potential harm of cannabis consumption. Because there’s some amount of remove between the production yield of the raw material and the potency of the finished consumer product.
    You can make an argument in the other for alcohol. Yeast can only ferment up to a certain alcohol concentration and then they die. But that doesn’t tell us much about the potency of consumer alcohol products because we have a variety of manufacturing processes for controlling alcohol concentration. These it’s less common, outside of home production, to just accept whatever unpredictable thing the yeast are doing and call it good.
    hattmall · 1790652117 · focus · HN ↗
    It's still inconsistent as fuck. There's no real industry standards and analysis. The same gummies from the same pack bought at a dispensary can vary wildly in my experience. Pens are a bit more consistent. But yeah not as variable as the bathtub gravity bong rips of random weed that people got from who knows where.
    Karrot_Kream · 1790665812 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes I find this a big difference in modern weed culture and alcohol culture. At my age most of my friends know their tolerance for weed quite well and we usually keep low dosage edibles around just to offer for friends who consume weed a couple times a year.
    literallywho · 1790655664 · focus · HN ↗
    Idk, when I was young I was drinking heavily, today I drink some beers and smoke weed and I feel I’m much better for it. It doesn’t ruin the next day and I can do more things. But you can definitely overdo it. Psychedelics definitely can mess with your head, though, if not careful.
  4. abrookewood · 1790648662 · focus · HN ↗
    All recreational drugs, legal or otherwise, are mind-altering.
  5. kelnos · 1790650184 · focus · HN ↗
    Alcohol is a mind-altering drug! And I expect it has worse long-term consequences than quite a few of the other drugs that have become more mainstream recently.
    tsunamifury · 1790657816 · focus · HN ↗
    No. As much as everyone wants to cheer on weed it’s long term biochemical and mental effects are very real.
    FlowingRiver · 1790658487 · focus · HN ↗
    This is an argument I have had on both sides. One side demonized it, the other said it could do no wrong.
    No, weed is not a one way path to a death sentence as you become a raving Satanist! But it also isn't harmless and there are things to keep an eye on, just because it doesn't kill you doesn't mean it gets the all clear.
    If you want to do it, go for it, but please be aware of the potential issues.
    rcxdude · 1790673641 · focus · HN ↗
    They are significant but so are those of alcohol. Most data indicates weed is safer. (This study puts it at about half in terms of harm to the user: <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285843262_Drug_harms_in_the_UK_A_multi-criterion_decision_analysis" rel="nofollow">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285843262_Drug_harm... . Alcohol ranks the highest in terms of harms to other but that is also a function of how widely it is used)
    hunterpayne · 1790673097 · focus · HN ↗
    Yea, but the currently popular drug with kids is a tranquilizer normally given to horses. I'm not sure you have these things in perspective.
    sfn42 · 1790675332 · focus · HN ↗
    Ketamine is also normally given to humans. It is used in hospitals as a sedative/anesthetic, and also in depression treatment.
    Used responsibly it's perfectly safe. Much less harmful than alcohol. I don't know why people assume that something is unsafe just because we give it to horses. Do you think people want to harm their horses?
  6. landdate · 1790650740 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    adventured · 1790651201 · focus · HN ↗
    The parent is clearly implying the more reponsible pathway is: neither.
    landdate · 1790651502 · focus · HN ↗
    i replied to wrong person my fault
    EA-3167 · 1790651643 · focus · HN ↗
    In the real world telling people to make the hard choice you support (such as abstinence only stances) makes a large majority dismiss you completely. It’s mostly self-serving sort of advice that might apply to individuals, but we already know you can enforce it on a society.
    landdate · 1790818681 · focus · HN ↗
    You can enforce it on society, by making it not a choice. Poison all alcohol thats used for industrial purposes and make drinking or possession of alcohol a capifal offense.
    The reason these things never work is they choose in between half measures. You want to stop something you stomp on its skull into its brains are leaking out onto the pavement and then you keep stomping until your whole shoe is covered a bloody mess of gray matter and bits of skull.
    tomhow · 1790842834 · focus · HN ↗
    We've banned this account. Please stop registering accounts to break the guidelines with.
    tsunamifury · 1790657954 · focus · HN ↗
    You really. Really really. Need to research the temperance movement and the utter disaster that it was.
    You’re regurgitation of propaganda here is so laughably missing the point.
    Downvote me if you want but look it up. The temperance movement and prohibition that followed was run by wealthy women who filled their time judging the lower classes and factory owners who wanted to end labor union meetings and continue to underpay workers in horrid conditions while blaming alcohol as the problem.
    Easily one of americas worst decisions and propaganda people like you still believe to this day.
    qmr · 1790663944 · focus · HN ↗
    Stop saying accident when you really mean crash. Especially in the context of drunk driving.
    Drunk driving is a conscious decision, not an accident.
    lh712 · 1790673263 · focus · HN ↗
    But that is also because it has been used much more often than other drugs. Don't get me wrong, I agree that alcohol has some very bad effects. But if you ban (or decrease consumption of) alcohol, but that gets compensated by an increase in the usage of other drugs (which I am not saying is inevitable), you might be trading a bad situation for something far worse.
    A personal anecdote. My extended family has a long history of substance abuse and addiction. Of course, historically the substance so abused has mostly been alcohol (and tobacco, but that is less harmful in this kind of sense), and I saw [both first-hand and second-hand] a lot of direct and indirect effects of it that were very harmful and destructive. But recently, with another family member, I also saw first-hand the effects of addiction to another drug, methamphetamine, with induced psychosis, and I would choose dealing with an alcohol addict over this a thousand times. At least an alcohol addict is unlikely to suddenly decide to murder you, or to jump out of window, or any such mad move, just because some demons tell them or they suddenly realize that you have been an alien or a reptilian all along, or any similar crazy thing [which is actually pretty horrific when you face it in a real life from a close person]. A drunk person is also much more easily defeated physically than somebody who is high on meth and has some psychotic episode. [Though I am aware that alcohol caused or catalyzed many violent attack and murders too, I am not trying to trivialize that.]
    mrob · 1790677309 · focus · HN ↗
    >alcohol's main mechanism is through depleting oxygen in the blood
    Blood oxygen is quickly and cheaply measured with a pulse oximeter, which shows this to be false. The primary mechanism of action of ethanol is increasing the sensitivity of some GABA receptors (similar to benzodiazepines and barbiturates). But ethanol has very complex pharmacology, which a huge number of other targets. See:
    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmacology_of_ethanol" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmacology_of_ethanol
    lh712 · 1790682952 · focus · HN ↗
    Yup. That original post had several factual errors.
    I am not a supporter of alcohol, but I find it kind of funny when some people demonize alcohol (which I agree is bad for one's health and has many negative externalities, but which has been used by our societies for millennia and its effects are relatively well understood, at least phenomenologically from extensive experience) and drop it in favor of much less understood and often much more dangerous drugs.
    landdate · 1790818164 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't use drugs, and if you are implying weed then you are out of your mind. I think weed should stay illegal as should all psychedelics. Don't put me in a box, I just despise alcohol because most other dangerously evil drugs aren't tolerated. Seeing people drink alcohol is like seeing someone on a crack pipe. Its wrong and disgusting and normal people are enranged at this intolerable behavior. Forced rehab for all alchys, druggies, and the like.
    Worst is all the nonsense that infiltrates society because of alcohol. How many people claiming rape or raping or whatever or bar fights or swerving jnto the road killing innocent people. Its a big mess and I am sick of this. No more. If you drink I don't care if you get water boarded, I will walk right past you, no sympathy except for those who seek help.
    lh712 · 1790863018 · focus · HN ↗
    I did not mean to imply anything about you specifically. I understand that it might have sounded that way, and for that I apologize.
    As for other points, I think you take that too emotionally for your own good. (It just clouds the judgement.) And this I am saying as somebody who (1) does not use drugs, and drinks alcohol very rarely, and (2) experienced negative externalities of drugs and alcohol abuse by other people firsthand, to quite an extreme level actually.
    To be honest, in principle, if done correctly, I would not be against banning and eradicating all (non-medicinal and non-scientific) use of drugs including alcohol. But one should keep in mind that these substances also play some beneficial roles in society (and for individuals). Among other things, they serve as a valve that allows people to "release pressure", and numb their dissatisfaction with circumstances of their life. In this way, the increase in the substance abuse is an indicator of wider dysfunction in our societies (although it is by no means directly related to it, since there are other factors). You close that valve completely, and the pressure might get released in way that is even more destructive.
    landdate · 1790751194 · focus · HN ↗
    Okay whatever, but the point is ut decreases oxygen to the brain and causes permanent brain damage.
    fragmede · 1790755680 · focus · HN ↗
    Don't drink alcohol if you don't want to, you can just say no. It doesn't cause permanent brain damage by decreasing oxygen to the brain though. The damage to the brain by alcohol from frequent repeated exposure to high doses which causes measurable brain damage comes from chemical effects. An occasional beer really isn't going to destroy your brain.
    landdate · 1790766151 · focus · HN ↗
    Okay, but you missed my larger point which was the deaths and violence and rape and crime caused by alcohol. If you alchys want to drink it should be far away from good law respecting citizens and you cant call the police if you get hurt while drinking or utilize the hralth care system.
    fragmede · 1790769923 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm not sure why you're making it personal and calling me an "alchy". Who are you really arguing with here? I'm not whoever wronged you, I'm just pointing out that it's not oxygen deprivation that causes brain damage from alcohol.
    landdate · 1790814032 · focus · HN ↗
    I get your point, but your missing mine. "He killed over a hundred people and also raped women and children" "Actually he didn't rape women, he only raped children." "okay he didn't rape women but anybody who supports him should die" "woah buddy why do you think i should die"
    obviously not to that level, but we are ralking about a serial killer of hundreds of thousands if not millions and untold amounts of rape and serious injury/accidents. i was wrong on one account but lets keep on the subject.
    landdate · 1790814287 · focus · HN ↗
    Regardless your prior claim about one berr not causing brain damage is categorically false. While I was wronf about mechanism its true, even drinking in moderation causes brain damage.
    <a href="https://www.health.harvard.edu/mind-and-mood/alcohol-even-in-moderation-could-harm-your-brain" rel="nofollow">https://www.health.harvard.edu/mind-and-mood/alcohol-even-in...
  7. johnnyanmac · 1790657786 · focus · HN ↗
    It's a tiny bit "healthier" (high people are much less dangerous than drunk people), but it's still not particularly responsible.
    But it is much cheaper. And Gen Z by necessity is more price sensitive than other generations.
2. breezybottom · 1790647543 · focus · HN ↗
  Your anecdote is meaningless. And you're the only one who said "responsible". It doesn't appear in the quote.
  1. s1artibartfast · 1790651389 · focus · HN ↗
    They didnt say it was in the article
    jjk166 · 1790657061 · focus · HN ↗
    > It's a nice claim to say
    kinda implies the claim was said
3. Reptur · 1790649637 · focus · HN ↗
  My guess people are more stressed. Gallup has Gen z drinking more spirits. Preferred drink Ages 18–34 Liquor / Spirits 38%, Beer 36%, Wine 24% <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/713534/americans-drinking-remains-record-low.aspx" rel="nofollow">https://news.gallup.com/poll/713534/americans-drinking-remai...
  1. noisy_boy · 1790655568 · focus · HN ↗
    Uneducated guess: wine is seen as more of an "older people's" drink making it uncool for gen-Z?
    klardotsh · 1790658817 · focus · HN ↗
    Or it's just bang-for-buck. If a bottle of vodka can be had for anywhere even vaguely in the ballpark of a bottle of wine (and at the grocery store scale, they often are: say, $15-20 for the wine and $20-30 for the vodka), then vodka (and maybe mixers) is gonna deliver a whole lot more intoxication per dollar.
    I guess I just wrote a much longer variation of "candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker", eh?
    (this is not drinking advice, folks: you'll do plenty more damage plenty faster with liquor, too)
    simoncion · 1790659405 · focus · HN ↗
    > ...you'll do plenty more damage plenty faster with liquor, too
    I'm skeptical. I don't see how there can be a meaningful difference [0] between a regular-strength sixteen ounce beer and one shot of regular-strength vodka mixed in with slightly less than sixteen ounces of water.
    I do agree that -because you're drinking far less fluid- it's far easier for those who aren't monitoring how much they drink to get massively intoxicated when drinking liquor rather than beer or wine.
    [0] ...other than taste, that is. Sixteen ounces of dilute vodka-water wouldn't be a joy to drink.
    notahacker · 1790664771 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't see people carefully mix their liquor in the exact same proportions as beer and then drinking at exactly the same rate, so your argument is about as relevant to real world drinking as "if you mix 5% strength beer with four parts water it's basically not going to get you drunk". With or without normal amounts of (typically sweet) mixer, spirits tend to lend themselves to faster consumption and the carbonation in beer also has the property of giving you that buzzy feeling (and that vomity feeling) earlier so you don't feel quite so much inclination to top up.
    simoncion · 1790668663 · focus · HN ↗
    ...did you bother to read my second paragraph?
    OneDeuxTriSeiGo · 1790676579 · focus · HN ↗
    Tbf I don't know many young people who'd pound screwdrivers. Like IDK how different things were in the past but back when I was in university (right up until covid) the drink of choice was straight liquor plus a chaser. Many a party were had around handles of whiskey, vodka, or rum with limited "mixing in".
    It was just outright more cost effective and as college students we just didn't have money for the alternative so most of the time it was hard liquor and maybe once a week we'd go out to drink and then it was mostly rail liquor mixed drinks or outright shots and shooters.
    simoncion · 1790682617 · focus · HN ↗
    > Tbf I don't know many young people who'd pound screwdrivers. ...
    Exactly. If you want to get fucked up, you drink it straight, or with minimal flavoring. If you want to drink on the cheap, you prep it in one of many "sane drinking" preparations, like a Screwdriver.
    notahacker · 1790677997 · focus · HN ↗
    One or more shots mixed with a small quantity of orange juice, typically served at between two and four times the alcohol concentration of beer and consumed at equivalent speed. What the hell do you think a Screwdriver is?
    Sure, I read your second paragraph, but as I pointed out in my own post, you might as well express skepticism that people harm themselves faster with beer than with shandy whilst treating not mixing beer with four parts water as edge case irresponsibility rather than how people actually drink it...
    simoncion · 1790682793 · focus · HN ↗
    > One or more shots mixed with a small quantity of orange juice...
    I used to be a serious drinker and remain an abstinent alcoholic, but your description obligates me to ask "What the fuck is wrong with kids these days?".
    > What the hell do you think a Screwdriver is?
    One shot of vodka in a standard-breakfast-sized glass of orange juice.
    > Sure, I read your second paragraph...
    I -uh- think that whomever you tend to drink with is way more hardcore than I was... and that's frightening.
    notahacker · 1790736404 · focus · HN ↗
    > One shot of vodka in a standard-breakfast-sized glass of orange juice.
    So about 1.5 fluid ounces of 40% strength vodka mixed with about 4 of orange juice; a little more alcohol than a regular beer at more than twice the strength.
    I think your evident belief you weren't drinking something twice the strength of beer proves my point entirely. And you may well have made the sensible decision to have stopped all that, but I assume at the time the notion of doubles and shots weren't alien to you or more moderate drinkers either.
    simoncion · 1790782021 · focus · HN ↗
    > ...mixed with about 4 of orange juice...
    In all my years, I've never known anyone who serves up breakfast OJ in four-ounce glasses. Twelve to sixteen is normal. I mean, shit, bro... you've seen a red Solo cup? The standard size for those is eighteen ounces.
    > ...I assume at the time the notion of doubles, shots... [was] alien to you...
    gestures back at this thread fork [0] you've probably not seen
    I stand by my claim that diluted drinks like Screwdrivers are what you drink if you want to get drunk on the cheap [1] and straight liquor is what you drink if you want to get fucked up. Your continued reference to careful measurement does make sense if the only drinking glasses you've ever had around you were four ounces and smaller.
    [0] <<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49890725">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49890725>
    [1] ...and if you're too strapped for cash to buy stuff like OJ, you cut it with tap water...
    TeMPOraL · 1790663610 · focus · HN ↗
    Probably, yeah. N=1 but that's what I remember from my university years. Wines were for dating; cheap beers and vodka with cola or juices was for general socializing.
    asdff · 1790664012 · focus · HN ↗
    This generation doesn't know about how to be a proper wino. Go and take a look at the $7.99 1.5L jug bottles of carlo rossi next time you are in the grocery store. You will notice they are covered in dust. The charles shaw at trader joes still moves though. It's up to 4 buck chuck now.
4. silisili · 1790649905 · focus · HN ↗
  That's what big tech wanted, looks like they succeeded. Hard to shove targeted ads into the eyeballs of people socializing with one another.
  1. teitoklien · 1790650628 · focus · HN ↗
    since when did everyone, ditch personal responsibility to the drain ? I understand that social media platforms are hardcore unethical with the way they prioritize screentime and addiction
    Over our wellbeing even at the cost of knowingly decreasing our attention spans with all the Shorts / Tiktok Algorithms.
    But we must also take personal responsibility, it costed me $2 (/year) to buy a screen time addiction removal app that works for my iPhone, iPad and even my linux machine with firefox browser, and to lock down every damn social media app in both intervention and absolute blocking ways, and it worked great !
    I moved from a screen time addiction of 9h / day to just using my phone in total for 2h out of which most of that is Phone Calls, Apple Music, and Booking Ubers. I was able to set free, and my life was better for it, because of my personal responsibility towards my own life.
    It doesnt cost much / almost nothing, to reclaim your life back, there will always be people / organizations trying to screw you over, they have always existed since time millenium , be it corrupt empires, cults and anti-social religions, horrible food, bad peer pressure in school leading to poor influence, bad habits picked up from parents/elders in a kid's life.
    The only consistent way that humans have been able to survive, thrive and personally excel in their own lives, against all odds of their society, family, and their sorroundings.
    Is PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. I sometimes feel many of us have given up on any outlook of fixing ourselves, i see it with my friends and my loved ones too, we have to make personal responsibility, popular again, if we want a better future.
    landdate · 1790650906 · focus · HN ↗
    Classic "personal responsibility" argument used to subjegate the masses.
    Individuals have personal responsibility, but the behaviour of a group of humans regresses towards the mean as it gets larger.
    You can't assume someone will get fat just because you offer highly addictive processwd food, but you can assume the population as a whlle will.
    teitoklien · 1790652337 · focus · HN ↗
    You mistook what I said, for saying nothing needs to be done regulatory, and everything is ok.
    What I said is, dont wait, for the government to come save you, regulations take a lot of time to happen, societal level malice/bad things take a decently long time to correct itself.
    So dont wait until then, life is too short to wait for the government to come save you. Save yourself ! atleast thats what I did.
    Folks can downvote me all the want, doesnt change , that personal responsibility is the only reliable way in this world to consistently lead a happier life.
    autoexec · 1790657333 · focus · HN ↗
    > personal responsibility is the only reliable way in this world to consistently lead a happier life.
    If there's a fight between you and a multinational corporation with hundreds of thousands of employees and trillions of dollars, and they're willing to devote more money that you'll ever see in your life towards manipulating you, lying to you, addicting you, removing alternatives, and making it harder for you to resist them, do you seriously think you're going to hold out? And even if you manage to do it, how long can you keep that up?
    We do need people to try to act responsibly, but we need corporations to act responsibly as well. Regulations make that possible. Until we get them, sure, resist all you can, while you can, but you will slip up or be worn down eventually. If not in one area of your life, then in another and another. You can't stay hypervigilant 100% of the time, and the stress of being hypervigilant will hurt you.
    As long as companies can continue to assault your well-being for their profits unchecked you're fighting a battle you can't win. Even if you manage to resist, not everyone can.
    specialist · 1790652526 · focus · HN ↗
    I prefer the notion of shared responsibility.
    cortesoft · 1790656843 · focus · HN ↗
    Personal responsibility is what you focus on when you are talking to an individual. If you are trying to make your life better, or someone you know's life better, it is great to talk about personal responsibility and making choices for your life.
    But that doesn't apply when we are talking about society wide shifts in behavior. It isn't like people suddenly got genetically better or worse at taking personal responsibility. If suddenly a lot fewer people are making healthy decisions, that isn't because we just happened to birth a bunch of people who don't take personal responsibility. Something has changed. Individuals have a lot of control over their own lives, but at a society level all of those individual decisions average out, and you are left with a representation of the effect of society.
    Systemic problems require systemic solutions.
    wredcoll · 1790659093 · focus · HN ↗
    Man, this was a really good response to that type of argument. I'm going to save it for later.
    sellmesoap · 1790717553 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes people can get swept up in things and be unaware of downstream consequences of their actions, but you can also become informed and decide to change your behavior, find ways to mitigate damage, or communicate with others the damage/solution. How easy to wave your hand at the government or a corporate entity and abdicate responsibility, the parent is correct; personal accountability is faster and more effective than government regulations that also have knock on effects. My regulation example would be how cars in north america became less popular when fuel economy regulations were applied to them, but not SUVs creating the monster car epidemic we all live in.
    johnnyanmac · 1790657509 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
  2. popularonion · 1790651444 · focus · HN ↗
    US politicians have been at war against teenage drinking since the 1980s when the minimum drinking age was raised. Gen Z social trends helped it along, but this is the desired outcome of bipartisan policy going back decades.
    californical · 1790653761 · focus · HN ↗
    More than half of Gen Z is over the legal drinking age now, I’m not sure teen drinking is it
    NewJazz · 1790655239 · focus · HN ↗
    But lower teen drinking can lead to lower lifelong drinking. Habits formed during those years have inertia.
    TeMPOraL · 1790662839 · focus · HN ↗
    With US legal drinking age being 21, this eats into drinking at university/drinking after work, which is very much where bulk of socializing for young adults happens. Can't imagine it's not hugely affecting adulthood habits.
    kortilla · 1790666568 · focus · HN ↗
    Eh, 21 limit was in place for all millennials and most of Gen X. And millennials drink like fish.
    seizethecheese · 1790654517 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    johnnyanmac · 1790657050 · focus · HN ↗
    All thanks to crashing the economy and making the act of spending $15 on a low quality beer untenable for young adults giving 60+% of their income to rent.
    Alcohol tax would have been a simpler and much less destructive means of achieving such a goal, but I guess breweries can't lobby when everything else is collapsing too.
    FlowingRiver · 1790657931 · focus · HN ↗
    When they introduced the higher alcohol tax here in Australia back in 2006(ish), all it did was push us to find ways to make it ourselves. Went from cheap to unbelievably cheap but completely unregulated. Who knows what the alcohol content of some of that stuff was. There are some vague fuzzy nights from that period.
    jeltz · 1790671706 · focus · HN ↗
    You see the same trend in countries without a crashing economy. The economy is not the main reason.
5. whatever1 · 1790650231 · focus · HN ↗
  It’s the tech wet dream. Come back from work (where you are doing some manual labor the LLMs cannot automate yet), consume content while the rented rob car takes you to your apartment, get some weed and immerse yourself in your consumption device (phone, tv whatever).
  Effectively every non sleeping minute of your life monetized by tech.
  1. Dylan16807 · 1790657907 · focus · HN ↗
    Doing a job that can't be automated sounds like the exact opposite of "monetized by tech" to me.
    And if "people be watching videos" was the wet dream of tech monetization, we wouldn't need to be worried about tech monetization.
    mschuster91 · 1790672850 · focus · HN ↗
    > Doing a job that can't be automated sounds like the exact opposite of "monetized by tech" to me.
    The number of these jobs is constantly shrinking, and a lot of jobs actually have people training AI models to replace them.
6. WheelsAtLarge · 1790650907 · focus · HN ↗
  I suspect this is temporary. I think eventually we'll see a wave of laws outlawing weed and psychedelics (again), and then alcohol will make a strong comeback. Booze has been part of civilization since the beginning. There’s even a theory that grains were domesticated so people could brew beer first, as opposed to making bread first. Also, there's talk that the new generation understands that alcohol is bad for your health, so they are stopping, but the reality is that we've known about alcohol's issues forever, yet people have not stopped. No way this will last.
  1. aprilthird2021 · 1790651801 · focus · HN ↗
    > there's talk that the new generation understands that alcohol is bad for your health, so they are stopping, but the reality is that we've known about alcohol's issues forever, yet people have not stopped. No way this will last.
    I never understood this logic. It can absolutely change. Tastes and habits do change in society sometimes forever. Just because people did a thing a long time ago and a tradition has lasted for thousands of years doesn't mean it will continue.
    hx8 · 1790653421 · focus · HN ↗
    Generally speaking, the longer something has been common the more time it will continue to be common. A fad vs a trend vs a tradition. Of course alcohol use can change. We see several cohorts with very low alcohol consumption. It's just that if we've been doing something for thousands of years, we're likely to continue to do it for thousands of years.
    This is far from the first fluctuation of alcohol consumption rates we have data for. This is a major trend that will last decades but not a march to long term 0.
    cortesoft · 1790656912 · focus · HN ↗
    Sure, but we see traditions that have lasted for centuries die out, too.
    hx8 · 1790698009 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, it happens. It's even happened with alcohol in certain population cohorts. I would just want to see stronger data before predicting alcohol consumption going to zero. Alcohol is a tradition lasting millenniums.
    margalabargala · 1790657935 · focus · HN ↗
    On one hand, tobacco smoking in the US has dropped to tiny amounts among youth.
    On the other hand, alcohol has already survived prohibition.
    llarsson · 1790661418 · focus · HN ↗
    I've read several threads about how cigarettes are making a comeback because it's perceived as more natural or less chemical than vapes. If you care about facts at all you will find it completely wrong and intensely stupid, of course, but you just never know how people will react and then counter-react.
  2. AngryData · 1790654479 · focus · HN ↗
    I doubt weed will be made illegal again. It also has a history dating back thousands of years and even in places where weed is still treated as dangerous as things like heroin, has failed to really control its usage. It grows in pretty much any climate and can be consumed in "raw" form, so supply control is impossible.
    pjc50 · 1790676279 · focus · HN ↗
    It's still illegal federally in the US! It's illegal in many European countries and the UK. The places which have legalized it exist in a fragile state that could very easily be washed away with a moral panic again.
    I would be more willing to bet on someone trying Prohibition 2.0 again.
  3. FlowingRiver · 1790658103 · focus · HN ↗
    This is a shoot from the hip idea. Speaking to younger folks, it seems to be much more cultural/social change rather than anything to do with health.
    This might be an odd fluctuation to do with the first primarily social media generation? Don't know but that is just how I have seen it.
    You are probably right about banning weed/vapes. They don't have anywhere near the same indoctrination into the structures of commerce and power that alcohol has.
7. aprilthird2021 · 1790651620 · focus · HN ↗
  You're right, but the idea that "Oh I'm not drinking it's just not healthy" is more common among younger people I've noticed than it was around people who were older when I was very young. I meet many young people whose main two activities are overworking and overly gymming/fitness activities. Such people drink a lot less than normal.
8. hdgvhicv · 1790652910 · focus · HN ↗
  U.K. figures of amount drunk at aged 25 has fallen
  Born 1940s, about 14u/week. 1960s about 12u, By 1980s dropped to 10u, and by 2000 down to about 7-8.
  1. tonyedgecombe · 1790661601 · focus · HN ↗
    It does feel like young people are more likely to go to a coffee shop than a pub if they want to socialise.
9. theholygrail · 1790654981 · focus · HN ↗
  Yeah, and a lot of them still drink. They just don't buy wine.
  The grocery-store bottle lost to seltzers and stuff that comes in a can. That's a worse problem for a grape grower than people being sober.
  1. eastbound · 1790659674 · focus · HN ↗
    Also fitness. The Covid "sheltered" population is also the Instagram generation, it's easier to get inspired, feel pressure from social media, or find information about how to become muscular. It's at odds with drinking.
    TJSomething · 1790660311 · focus · HN ↗
    There could be a link there. I've known people with eating disorders who only drink spirits because of the calorie content.
    littlecranky67 · 1790663767 · focus · HN ↗
    Ubiquitous cameras and social media surely play a role. Each and all of your drunk stupidities can and will get recorded and posted to your social group for eternal humiliation.
    hunterpayne · 1790672507 · focus · HN ↗
    This I think is the key here. The traits I would associate with Millennials and Gen Z are all related to reacting to being watched all the time. And while alcohol can help a bit with anxiety, zero tolerance for just being a kid breeds a culture where doing anything that can be clipped is a bad idea. Basically, they are boring kids because anything at all that can be used against them is. I really feel sorry for them. If time machines existed and they could see how kids behaved in the past, I think they would destroy all their phones and computers immediately.
10. tarkin2 · 1790655682 · focus · HN ↗
  Is beer drinking also on the decline?
  Or are we saying that wine drinking is significantly more social than beer drinking?
  It's "interesting" that this new isolationist culture we've built for ourselves is causing economic problems
  1. margalabargala · 1790657863 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, beer drinking is also on the decline.
  2. distances · 1790663889 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, beer is down too, and these are global trends.
    In Germany beer is down 20% in a decade, and 33% since 2000.
    <a href="https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/4628/umfrage/entwicklung-des-bierverbrauchs-pro-kopf-in-deutschland-seit-2000/" rel="nofollow">https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/4628/umfrage/...
  3. gniv · 1790689270 · focus · HN ↗
    Based on the large selection of no-alcohol beers I'm seeing I would say yes.
11. smolder · 1790658086 · focus · HN ↗
  Wine is also sweet and sweetness is unhealthy. Part of the Gen Z crowd that doesn't give a shit about wine is correctly disillusioned with flawed culture. We don't live in a world where you can get by growing grapes and making wine at your small vineyard. It's industrial. There is no bottle of wine actually worth $1000 to anyone with a sense of pragmatism and the fact such expensive wine exists just turns people off from caring about wine. A lot of societal ills come from the fact that we have old people unwilling to change running the world. Gen Z is doing okay considering the rent-laden prison they grew up in.
  1. askjdfksdbfhk · 1790659113 · focus · HN ↗
    >Wine is also sweet and sweetness is unhealthy.
    Scrunching up my face trying to figure out how to respond to this...
    I think you are right that a lot of the wine which people consume, the mega industrial mass volume stuff sold in supermarkets, is a bit sweet, although often not by a lot--Josh and Bota Box, two of the biggest brands, have like 5-10 g/L of sugar. Stuff like La Marca Prosecco and Barefoot Pink Moscato is noticeably sweeter.
    However, in general, I don't think it's fair to say "wine is sweet". Wine in general is not sweet outside of certain styles that are intended to be so. If you grow grapes, crush them, and ferment them, the fermentation will generally run until the yeast run out of sugar, leaving only trace amounts behind.
    I've noticed that a lot of people who don't have that much experience with wine will tend to mis-identify things as sweetness when they're really noticing some other aspect of the wine.
    smolder · 1790766237 · focus · HN ↗
    Sorry, but you're wrong that wine isn't overwhelmingly sweet. The standard is about 15% alcohol and lots of sugar that has not been turned into alcohol. There are dry versions, but they are rare, just like dry hard ciders are rare. Sugary shit is what sells to the fat gluttons who prop up the industry.
12. lwansbrough · 1790658366 · focus · HN ↗
  About Here did a good video on what they think the "problem" is with Gen Z (hint: they're a product of the environment they have inherited)
  <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmLO69c_fyw" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmLO69c_fyw
  I'm using night life as a stand in for drinking, but I think it's closely related.
  1. hunterpayne · 1790672890 · focus · HN ↗
    A big part of the increases in door costs are from two sources. Lower bar sales and a dramatic increase in the fees for DJs over the last 15 years. Also, taxes from city counsels, higher energy costs (speakers use lots of power), and the youth having less disposable income are also part of it. Basically, its a case of "its not one thing, its everything".
    lwansbrough · 1790675387 · focus · HN ↗
    Some would argue those are all connected.
    <a href="https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-everything/" rel="nofollow">https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-every...
13. fzeindl · 1790658996 · focus · HN ↗
  > My observation is that gen-z spends less time socializing in real life…
  A barkeeper from a prestigious, world class cocktail bar around the corner told me that it really is more about health/alcohol.
  He had a group the other day of 20 young people and 18 of them ordered non-alcoholic drinks. He is desperate about his profession.
  1. refactor_master · 1790660218 · focus · HN ↗
    My take is that people “these days” just don’t want to put in the time, money or effort in socializing, especially with new groups of people. Be it dating, meetups or other social gatherings with strangers, it’s about giving as little as you can, in case the event turns out to be a dud. Why risk paying for 2 beers when you could buy one tea for less?
    Now, how can I be so sure? Because I’ve been starving at some of these events, whereas others can seemingly call a single slice of pizza dinner.
    There’s most definitely a health aspect in there too, but I don’t think it paints the whole story.
    dmantis · 1790670348 · focus · HN ↗
    I dunno. I don't drink, but I do put time and effort to socialize.
    It's just not related to drug consuming acts and more about sports, poker, board games, etc.
    I believe that drug-related communications are flawed and closer to animal level than to actually joyful ones. It's better to have a maturity and social skills to communicate, joke and maintain a conversation with interesting people without stimulators.
    I'm not from the US though so it's not about the US social scene which is mainly discussed here.
    anal_reactor · 1790680133 · focus · HN ↗
    > closer to animal level than to actually joyful ones
    That's exactly the point. To experience animalistic joy, rather than the socially-conditioned one.
    > It's better to have a maturity and social skills
    That's a very silly argument because it doesn't take into account the fact that a day has 24 hours and also people have different natural abilities. Imagine telling a kid with Down Syndrome "come on, you can do it, PhD in physics ain't that difficult".
    dmantis · 1790681088 · focus · HN ↗
    > That's a very silly argument
    I disagree.
    Communication is a skill like everything else. Having a constant workaround just reduces your ability to be good at it. Why would a healthy young adult make his own skills worse?
    You can either get short-term gains with long-term worsening of your daily life by being incapable of new connections and genuine communications or cut the short-term low-level improvements, suffer for a year or two, learn a bit and have a better life for years to come.
    It's like going to gym or do other sports. It's often hard and unpleasant at the start, but the more you're doing it, the fitter you are and the more benefits you bring to yourself in the long-term.
    anal_reactor · 1790688339 · focus · HN ↗
    You don't understand my core premise that given finite lifespan and finite attention, one can learn only a finite amount of things. People have shit to do and they cannot fit one more responsibility into their calendars. Not to mention that it takes two to tango so if you want to be fun and interesting while sober, you also need to convince your friends to also be sober so it's not all awkward.
    It's really difficult to square the circle that being sober improves your communication skills long-term yet somehow young people have worse communication skills and less friends that previous generations of alcohlics.
    dmantis · 1790688812 · focus · HN ↗
    > somehow young people have worse communication skills and less friends
    I have a feeling that many young people sit behind the screen all the time.
    My argument doesn't work if you don't even try to socialize.
    anal_reactor · 1790691401 · focus · HN ↗
    > My point doesn't work if you don't even try to socialize.
    Yeah exactly. Alcohol makes it easier to start and then continue.
  2. Xirdus · 1790660599 · focus · HN ↗
    I and virtually everyone in my generation have been constantly lectured throughout almost entire education about the dangers of smoking and drinking. As a result, while we smoke and drink heavily, it's not even close to our parents. So it makes perfect sense that the next generation, who were not only lectured their whole life but also didn't grow up surrounded by people smoking everywhere and drinking all the time, overwhelmingly avoided picking up these habits at all.
  3. CTDOCodebases · 1790661673 · focus · HN ↗
    I would agree with his opinion. You can see it with the increase of non-alcoholic wine and beer.
  4. sneak · 1790661998 · focus · HN ↗
    Alcohol is one of the worst recreational drugs. Internet natives grew up with more access to information and less draconian drug laws than their predecessors.
    In the 90s, MDMA got senators’ panties in a twist. Now, there are multiple 100k+ MDMA-focused events in the western USA annually.
  5. whiteblossom · 1790663815 · focus · HN ↗
    I could see it being a mix of both factors. Cash-strapped antisocial members staying at home, and the more outgoing career-focused gen-z members going out but trying to protect their sleep quality. feel like i know a decent amount of people in both of these buckets
  6. Majikujanisch · 1790666214 · focus · HN ↗
    I mean, i am about to marry in about 2 months and have no one to invite as i never was able to socialize with anyone outside of school (and since then 5 years passed) and if they mostly have a unhealty relation to alcohol so i don't want to do something with them. I have like 1-2 friends that i can smoke with and also only know them because of that, we game in out free time and only meet to hand over some herbs. I would love to go out and meet new peers but i cannot without drinking and after spending like 60-70% on rent there is not enough to spend 6-8€ on a WATER.
14. BLKNSLVR · 1790659516 · focus · HN ↗
  My observation is that the young people who do drink aren't going for beers and wines, which are tastes that can take time to acquire, they're going for sweet liquors and premix cans of fizz.
  Getting Gen-z to even get close enough to the glass to smell a nice red is a challenge. And when they do, they seem to recoil rapidly.
  Anecdata only.
  1. friendzis · 1790660541 · focus · HN ↗
    > they're going for sweet liquors and premix cans of fizz.
    Not surprising, sweetness literally mutes palate sensitivity. Genzers are the most sugar addicted generation, from a very young age. It would not surprise me to see research in some future that this massive early life sugar exposure comes with muted development of taste.
  2. willtemperley · 1790660970 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm not surprised.
    There's untold levels of chemicals in wine. Organic wine is BS in Europe, organic vineyards actually use more chemicals like giant quantities of copper sulphate. The US is actually a lot better than Europe in this regard.
    Source: My father owned a vineyard in France before he keeled over with a subarachnoid haematoma after drinking 3 glasses of Rose at lunchtime.
    anonzzzies · 1790661756 · focus · HN ↗
    And these things were cause and effect by some proof? Because there are plenty people who drink a bottle of white, red and/or rose for lunch here their entire lives to old age.
    lukan · 1790661947 · focus · HN ↗
    " Because there are plenty people who drink a bottle of white, red and/or rose for lunch here their entire lives."
    No one doubts that, but statistics are pretty clear, that those who do not do that, have a longer life.
    anonzzzies · 1790662674 · focus · HN ↗
    But is that alcohol or the other chemicals was my point; GP seem to imply it was the other chemicals; I doubt that. But yes, no alcohol would on average make you live longer.
    willtemperley · 1790664362 · focus · HN ↗
    > GP seem to imply it was the other chemicals
    I didn't draw any conclusions or make a link, you assumed the link.
    Let's look at some evidence instead. There are very high levels of TFA in wine:
    <a href="https://www.pan-europe.info/press-releases/2025/04/study-reveals-alarming-surge-forever-chemical-tfa-european-wine" rel="nofollow">https://www.pan-europe.info/press-releases/2025/04/study-rev...
    It'll be decades before we know the true effects of the chemicals other than alcohol that are evidently present in wine, but TFA is known to pose serious health risks.
    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trifluoroacetic_acid" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trifluoroacetic_acid
    I find there's a lot of cognitive dissonance in people who are partial to a bottle or two, they tend to hang on to the myths that it's good for them.
    sillyfluke · 1790665155 · focus · HN ↗
    Not the parent, but I have heard of this as well.[0] The advice in the article is to try to drink wine that is 2010 or older.
    But I do raise my eyebrow at the suggestion that US wine is somehow in a better situation and am not inclined to believe it unless someone provides sources.
    [0] "Alarming’ increase in levels of forever chemical TFA found in European wines"
    <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/apr/23/alarming-increase-forever-chemical-tfa-european-wines" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/apr/23/alarming...
    willtemperley · 1790666695 · focus · HN ↗
    The labelling standards are a lot stricter in the US:
    <a href="https://www.winespectator.com/articles/us-and-europe-have-different-definitions-of-organic-wine-46432" rel="nofollow">https://www.winespectator.com/articles/us-and-europe-have-di...
    sillyfluke · 1790668527 · focus · HN ↗
    Thanks, it'd be interesting if there was an empirical testing study that reflected how much the labeling prevents the chemical contamination like the one observed in europe.
    jjgreen · 1790670726 · focus · HN ↗
    Do they? Or does it just seem like it?
    willtemperley · 1790662469 · focus · HN ↗
    The point is the chemical levels in the wine. The anecdote about my father is just that. Please don’t trivialise that just to point score, it’s bad taste.
    I used the anecdote to illustrate I have some experience in the wine industry, having worked hands on for a few years. My father studied chemistry at Cambridge so his understanding of wine chemistry is, or was, expert level.
    I’d say the burden of proof is on you though, can you supply epidemiological evidence that wine isn’t harmful to health, if you’re going to advocate for the alcohol industry?
    anonzzzies · 1790662736 · focus · HN ↗
    > Please don’t trivialise that just to point score, it’s bad taste.
    Apologies; that was not my intention; I was reacting to your chemicals claim only.
    I am not advocating; I am saying that I don’t believe it’s the other chemicals, it’s just alcohol, which is the poison in wine. They have 0.0 wine here which is just real wine with the alcohol removed after; that has then, I assume, the same chemicals and drinking that is harmful?
    chopin · 1790675673 · focus · HN ↗
    It's harmful as it tastes awful. At least compared to a good traditional wine.
    moooo99 · 1790664456 · focus · HN ↗
    > I’d say the burden of proof is on you though, can you supply epidemiological evidence that wine isn’t harmful to health, if you’re going to advocate for the alcohol industry
    I do not think anyone would argue that alcohol consumption is good for your health, regardless of what kind of alcohol.
    tsunamifury · 1790667558 · focus · HN ↗
    The burden is never on the person not making the claim. Come on man.
    willtemperley · 1790668460 · focus · HN ↗
    They're making a far stronger counter claim:
    > there are plenty people who drink a bottle of white, red and/or rose for lunch here their entire lives to old age.
    froddd · 1790661923 · focus · HN ↗
    Do you have a source for those claims?
    The “source” you do mention seems rather anecdotal, and linking it to the discussed topic requires a fair number of other assumptions, too.
    sillyfluke · 1790664928 · focus · HN ↗
    Not the parent, but I have heard of this as well.[0] The advice in the article is to try to drink wine that is 2010 or older.
    But I do raise my eyebrow at the suggestion that US wine is somehow in a better situation and am not inclined to believe it unless someone provides sources.
    [0] "Alarming’ increase in levels of forever chemical TFA found in European wines"
    <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/apr/23/alarming-increase-forever-chemical-tfa-european-wines" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/apr/23/alarming...
    willtemperley · 1790665224 · focus · HN ↗
    I told an anecdote for illustrative purposes and made no explicit links. Others have assumed the link however.
    My purpose was to draw people's attention to some lesser known aspects of the wine industry which I think are consequential, and I was illustrating I have some insignts into this that people that haven't worked in the industry probbaly don't.
    TeMPOraL · 1790662054 · focus · HN ↗
    That's true of organic food in general.
    tpm · 1790663860 · focus · HN ↗
    You can't generalise from one wineyard in one country, but you know that. And France is hardly an organic wine leader.
    Copper sulphate is a fungicide used for centuries and is pretty safe (so safe that my chemical engineer father was willing to use it in his otherwise completely sans-chemicals garden). Organic wine not only does not use (other) fungicides and herbicides; it also does not use other chemicals and processes in later stages of winemaking.
    GJim · 1790669630 · focus · HN ↗
    > There's untold levels of chemicals in wine.
    Such as dihydrogen monoxide?
    ricardobayes · 1790671811 · focus · HN ↗
    My grandfather used to burn sulphur strips to clean the glass demijohns. I guess this is why most wine carry a sulphate allergy label these days. Apart from this, I don't recall any other "chemical" being used, other than sugar.
    Of course, this was decades ago and today would be called "artisanal" wine making.
    tpm · 1790673307 · focus · HN ↗
    > I guess this is why most wine carry a sulphate allergy label these days.
    Partly. There is some natural level of sulfites present in wines - very dependent on the terroir, and then the rest comes during the manufacturing process; some sulfites may be added directly so the wine does not spoil.
    There are wines that do not contain any added sulfites and even then may cause trouble to the sensitive persons if the sulfur content of soil is naturally high. Some manufacturers therefore also add info about total measured sulfite content to the label.
    And nowadays, not only demijohns or wooden barrels are used to hold wine; of course stainless steel vessels, but also concrete vessels and even things like the Georgian qvevri underground clay vessels or amphorae are having a comeback.
    ButlerianJihad · 1791106917 · focus · HN ↗
    I hope wines don't contain enough sulfates to trigger "allergies" because it would actually be toxic.
    Sulfites and sulfates are very different, though related, and the sulfites are the things in question that have required warning labels.
    bawolff · 1790671866 · focus · HN ↗
    > There's untold levels of chemicals in wine
    Most notably the chemical alcohol is known to cause all sorts of health problems and is present in wine.
    If you are going to talk about "chemicals", you should be more specific. Most chemicals are harmless, some aren't.
    willtemperley · 1790674474 · focus · HN ↗
    You are correct of course.
    You could also have just glanced at the rest of the thread where I've given far more specific evidence.
    I'm rather glad I've drawn people's attention to the issue, despite having to endure extremely patronising comments like yours.
    Second, I clearly have skin-in-the-game here because you did read the first comment, so everyone that thinks it's OK to make jokes like the dihydrongen monoxide one (well done that was clever in 2015) can go forth and multiply.
    bawolff · 1790692155 · focus · HN ↗
    > You could also have just glanced at the rest of the thread where I've given far more specific evidence.
    You have not. Maybe you think you have, but just linking to the name of a chemical is not a cogent argument that that chemical in the quantities present in wine, are harmful in any way, and certainly not an argument for it being more harmful than the primary ingredient.
    > having to endure extremely patronising comments
    Apparently not patronising enough...
    > so everyone that thinks it's OK to make jokes like the dihydrongen monoxide one
    You really believe that alcohol is equivalent to water in its toxicity?
    Look, i'm sorry for your loss. However you are basically spreading pseudo-science here. Doing so has potential to harm a lot of other people too.
    willtemperley · 1790745358 · focus · HN ↗
    > You really believe that alcohol is equivalent to water in its toxicity?
    No! At what point did I imply that? Can you please stop trolling.
    Again, go back and read the links that were posted by both myself and some others. Or do some research yourself.
  3. DaedalusII · 1790661429 · focus · HN ↗
    roy lee, the founder of cluely got lost his spot in harvard because he was caught "sneaking out" of a high school field trip
    if you played hooky on a high school field trip in 80s or 90s you would probably not lose your college admission to harvard
    this police state attitude completely sterilizes young people socially, their parents regulate behaviour and monitor people with airtags and life360
    apical_dendrite · 1790663118 · focus · HN ↗
    Is there an independent source for this story? The guy is not exactly a reliable narrator.
    vasco · 1790663444 · focus · HN ↗
    What does police have to do with a field trip? What are you guys doing in the states?
    jonasdegendt · 1790673412 · focus · HN ↗
    There was no police involved. The police state attitude verbiage used by the OP refers to the constant monitoring of children and teens, by parents or other guardians, using things such as Apple FindMy to the point where teens can’t be mischievous to the degree they were able to in the past.
    There’s also the implication that the repercussions are worse.
    a_bonobo · 1790663470 · focus · HN ↗
    Lord Byron famously had a tame pet bear at university; he did it because the rules forbade pet dogs explicitly. The police state has been going for a while :)
    timoshishi · 1790666250 · focus · HN ↗
    Apparently until recently there was no rule about skinning bears in the dorms at Cornell. Kids at college can still be kids, at least until the administration catches wind of it
    <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/cornell-university-students-killed-bear-skinned-inside-dorm-rcna230570" rel="nofollow">https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/cornell-university-stud...
  4. moooo99 · 1790664323 · focus · HN ↗
    > My observation is that the young people who do drink aren't going for beers and wines, which are tastes that can take time to acquire, they're going for sweet liquors and premix cans of fizz.
    Born in 1999, I qualify as GenZ. All my peers drink beer, which is unsurprising given the strong cultural presence. But more and more people have been moving to alcohol free beer, which is becoming more and more widespread. Loads of breweries reacted and started with alcohol free beers, even the ones you would have never expected, like Augustiner Bräu in Munich.
    Pretty much all surveying data for my home country for the last few years suggests that GenZ is just drinking less alcohol overall. While there probably are some shifts within the consuming population, that does not fully explain the shift away from the alcoholic staples.
  5. hiimkeks · 1790668271 · focus · HN ↗
    [always_has_been.jpg]
    Before 2004 Germany had a %vol limit for selling alcohol to 16 year olds. In 2004 they changed the law such that it is not based on percentage, but whether it contains distilled alcohol to prevent under 18 year olds from drinking sweet alcopops, which apparently was a big thing back then.
15. topkai22 · 1790661795 · focus · HN ↗
  There is a good annual survey on substance use that essentially confirms your observations- the monitoring the future survey (<a href="https://monitoringthefuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/mtfpanel2026.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://monitoringthefuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/m...)
16. thefourthchime · 1790661830 · focus · HN ↗
  I don't think the science is settled, but the idea that there's a lot more to do at home to stay occupied and entertained rather than going outside is factually true.
  When I was growing up, there were only a handful of channels and then cable. Compared to what we have now, that was the Dark Ages. There's so much you can do on a screen now that's compelling.
  Infinite scrolling on Shorts, YouTube, video games, social media, hanging out with people online, chatrooms—combine that with Uber Eats, and you can do whatever you want.
  The one thing that will make you want to go out is, of course, meeting someone to have sex with, but that's become weaponized, especially for young adults.
  Boys being called creepy and predatory for making the wrong move was always an issue, but now you can be shamed online with a video as proof. Why take the risk when you can meet somebody online?
  1. watwut · 1790662949 · focus · HN ↗
    If there is a creepy video as a result, the "move" was likely creepy.
    thefourthchime · 1790664030 · focus · HN ↗
    The move is only creepy if the interest is one way.
    This is why the memes of some guy talking to a coworker is considered sexual assault, where if Tom Brady does it, it’s considered cute flirtation
    shshsjsj · 1790664434 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    watwut · 1790668099 · focus · HN ↗
    Except you made that up.
    Mountain_Skies · 1790668634 · focus · HN ↗
    It's a common meme. You can disagree with the validity of the meme but not with the existence of it.
    <a href="https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1663497-hello-human-resources" rel="nofollow">https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1663497-hello-human-resource...
    moate · 1790696872 · focus · HN ↗
    The above statement can be read as disagreeing with the validity of the statement. IDK why OP would try to refute a meme's existence and not the sentence the meme semes to be supporting. Why did you believe that was their intent?
    gilrain · 1790683208 · focus · HN ↗
    Actually, most women don't like being assaulted, regardless of the attractiveness of the assaulter.
    It's really gross that you think of women as so alien and inhuman, because this is very obvious human behavior.
    matkoniecz · 1790664310 · focus · HN ↗
    Selective editing can achieve very impressive effects, add some lying to it and you can have utterly misleading video with very limited effort.
    stefanfisk · 1790666133 · focus · HN ↗
    If you like reading sci-fi, I’d really recommend <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_(novel)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_(novel) to get some perspective on the extreme of a life where everything you do is potentially visible to any and everyone around you.
    kortilla · 1790666250 · focus · HN ↗
    The reality is that most awkwardness comes across as creepy. Lots of people are awkward, especially young people. They shouldn’t be shamed for it.
    watwut · 1790668022 · focus · HN ↗
    Frankly, I am waaay past this bullshit argument. No, awkward does not come across as creepy on itself. Yes, it is possible for an awkward guy to be creepy, harasser or abuser.
    It is never ending cycle of "they do not understand social", "you are infantilizing them by explaining them social explicitly" while the same guys are perfectly charismatic to anyone with actual power or friends.
    laughing_man · 1790680429 · focus · HN ↗
    Awkwardness doesn't come across as creepy to you, but it may to other people. The vast majority of men aren't harassers or abusers, but a lot of women revel in the power to label them "creepy".
    If I were young I would stick to dating apps exclusively, since everyone on the app has already signaled a receptiveness to advances.
    watwut · 1790694695 · focus · HN ↗
    Vast majority of men are not accused of being creepy. I also dont know what "women in power" have to do with dating or hook ups, are you trying to hit on a boss or something?
    And I mean, yes, obviously if you are looking for hookup, you should go to where hookup looking people go. That is not something specific to modern society.
    laughing_man · 1790703098 · focus · HN ↗
    I said nothing about "women in power".
    norome · 1790669943 · focus · HN ↗
    what i've derived from my north american anecdata is that any kind of flirtation or even just talking to a stranger about a neutral topic is increasingly automatically graded as creepy. I'd say the social fabric has simply degraded to the point that people have forgotten how to talk to one another, social atrophy i guess. In my northern europe experience women deflect attention with much less fearfulness, and I'd say people just have much higher trust towards one another.
    croon · 1790676058 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm too old, and my kids too young, so the current landscape is foreign to me.
    As an outside observer, could it be that manosphere influence has an undue effect on young mens behavior, which (if true) would indeed be creepy for a lot of (most?) women, regardless if the execution is awkward or not.
    I was certainly awkward in my teens/young adulthood, but in my singular experience, the maturity and confidence didn't come from acting cocky or showing off, but just treating anyone I had an interest in as a person first and foremost, and being comfortable and even open about my awkwardness and shortcomings.
    That did wonders. Also accepting that a rejection doesn't mean a personal slight to you, nor a failure in appreciation of you from her, but merely a lack of mutual interest, which is also fine.
  2. doikor · 1790663135 · focus · HN ↗
    One big problem is a camera in everyone’s pocket together with a culture of posting everything online.
    In an environment like that getting drunk just isn’t very good for your life/career. Even something as small as going to the dance floor when you are not really good at it takes a lot more from you when there is 5 cameras recording you the moment you look stupid/funny dancing.
  3. VerifiedReports · 1790663242 · focus · HN ↗
    There are chatrooms again?
    Y-bar · 1790664116 · focus · HN ↗
    They moved to places like WhatsApp and Discord I believe.
    jeltz · 1790671227 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, they are on Discord.
    VerifiedReports · 1790689942 · focus · HN ↗
    Ah OK.
  4. metalliqaz · 1790700744 · focus · HN ↗
    My pet theory is that this is also the reason for the plunge in murder rates.
17. watwut · 1790662709 · focus · HN ↗
  Afaik, they also commit less crimes and get less pregnant as teenagers. They are overall more responsible then the generation that complains about them.
  1. TeMPOraL · 1790663204 · focus · HN ↗
    Question is, is it being responsible, or apathetic and lethargic? How do you distinguish responsible character from clinical depression?
    erxam · 1790692087 · focus · HN ↗
    > How do you distinguish responsible character from clinical depression?
    By how much work you get done. That's it. You can be the saddest sack of shit in the whole wide world and, as long as you keep being productive, nobody will notice.
    At my worst, I kept grinding even though I was one step away from jumping off the nearest bridge so nobody could tell I was this depressed.
    watwut · 1790694830 · focus · HN ↗
    We know their attitudes too, yes they are being responsible.
    But also, violence, unsafe sex and excessive risk taking are all reactions to mental health problem. People engage in them to make whatever issue they have feel better.
18. infinite-hugs · 1790662852 · focus · HN ↗
  I wonder also if Covid exasperated that for some too.
19. infinite_spin · 1790665908 · focus · HN ↗
  Anecdotal experience tells me that they're just better at hiding it than previous generations. Gen-z is depressed, and depressed people reach for drugs and alcohol to cope. I think we're going to find that the data on this has been manipulated.
20. mschuster91 · 1790672601 · focus · HN ↗
  > While they drink less, cannabis, vaping and psychedelics are on the rise.
  All of these are cheap. As long as you got a garden and it's legal, growing weed is ridiculously easy - it's literally called weed because it thrives pretty much anywhere. Vapes are much cheaper than cigarettes (eh, we'll see how long that lasts and authorities crack down on shops selling smuggled / greymarket vapes...).
  In contrast, going out and getting drunk to the point of getting decently hammered can easily cost you 100€ and more here in Germany, and we have low alcohol taxes...
  1. foobiekr · 1790699064 · focus · HN ↗
    People are not growing their own anything at all scale necessary to be responsible for the decline.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.