25 countries that drink most alcoholic drinks in the world (Rediff)

there is nothing like a couple of shots of vodka when it's -25 outside.
 
And climate factor too. Muhammad forbade alcohol, but climatic factors in Arabia are not suitable, especially for spirits. On the other hand general opinion is that people need alcohol to survive the cold weather in the northern areas.
Some people can come to this conclusion knowing drinking habits of Finns and Russians.
 
Surprisingly it is hard to find alcoholism statistics. I remember seeing one some time ago. It was showing more alcoholics in Northern Europe than by Mediterranean Sea. It is with agreement with spread of farming from south to north which brought first alcohol with it. People around Mediterranean had more time "getting used to" distractive effect of alcohol, and can deal with it much better. For the same reason, it does most devastation for Natives of North America and Australian Aborigines, it also affects Black Americans more than whites. Pretty much it correlates with history of farming.

LeBrok, you shouldn't, but you surprized me again!:)

You present like always some naturalistic conspiracy theory :)

Yet a little more, and I'll start to belive that you treat people like animals or robots. :)

As you not see in this examples, theory of alcohol devastation dosn't work.
This statistics which showed us Garrik, are giving a lot to thinking about.

It seems, like alcohol have nothing to do with lack of development, economic
growth, prosperity, inventions, military or economic superiority, and inteligence.
It seems to be rather helpfull, than devastating! :LOL:
All the more so, that in the past europeans were much more drinking than today.
It is really amaizing. :rolleyes:
 
Alcohol has definite benefits. Alcoholism does not.

I don't have the time to do the research for you, but just look up the toll that alcoholism takes in terms of lost hours of work and the effects of that on the economy. Then factor in the added costs in medical care. It not only damages the liver; there are also connections to bladder cancer, especially in combination with tobacco use, and other cancers as well. How about the devastation it causes in families through lost wages for food and shelter, or spousal and child abuse ranging from physical assaults to sexual assaults. Then factor in chromosomal damage or damage to children in the womb. There is a reason that women are told not to consume alcohol, or at least not very much alcohol during pregnancy. Also, how can you possibly say there is no tie to depression. Forget all the studies, of which there are many, anybody over 18 should now this just by personal experience alone. Sometimes it's situational, the loss of a job, a spouse, a child, sometimes it's clinical depression which may have genetic roots. Either way, for those who cannot handle alcohol, it's a slide into alcoholism.

Consuming some alcohol can indeed be beneficial in a society. Having a big proportion of people in a culture who can't handle alcohol isn't beneficial to the individuals or their culture as a whole.
 
LeBrok, you shouldn't, but you surprized me again!:)

You present like always some naturalistic conspiracy theory :)

Yet a little more, and I'll start to belive that you treat people like animals or robots. :)

As you not see in this examples, theory of alcohol devastation dosn't work.
This statistics which showed us Garrik, are giving a lot to thinking about.

It seems, like alcohol have nothing to do with lack of development, economic
growth, prosperity, inventions, military or economic superiority, and inteligence.
It seems to be rather helpfull, than devastating! :LOL:
All the more so, that in the past europeans were much more drinking than today.
It is really amaizing. :rolleyes:
Ignorance is a bliss.
http://www.ibtimes.com/native-americans-tragedy-alcoholism-214046
 
Alcohol has definite benefits. Alcoholism does not. I don't have the time to do the research for you, but just look up the toll that alcoholism takes in terms of lost hours of work and the effects of that on the economy. Then factor in the added costs in medical care. It not only damages the liver; there are also connections to bladder cancer, especially in combination with tobacco use, and other cancers as well. How about the devastation it causes in families through lost wages for food and shelter, or spousal and child abuse ranging from physical assaults to sexual assaults. Then factor in chromosomal damage or damage to children in the womb. There is a reason that women are told not to consume alcohol, or at least not very much alcohol during pregnancy. Also, how can you possibly say there is no tie to depression. Forget all the studies, of which there are many, anybody over 18 should now this just by personal experience alone. Sometimes it's situational, the loss of a job, a spouse, a child, sometimes it's clinical depression which may have genetic roots. Either way, for those who cannot handle alcohol, it's a slide into alcoholism. Consuming some alcohol can indeed be beneficial in a society. Having a big proportion of people in a culture who can't handle alcohol isn't beneficial to the individuals or their culture as a whole.


You really doesn't get it!?!
rolleyes.gif
laughing.gif


(p.s. all what you Angela said is true,
and I am agree with that. Personally,
I am not drinking almost at all...)


Ignorance is a bliss.

Probably Thomas Gray was right...
037.gif

But you didn't get it either...
rolleyes.gif
laughing.gif
 
You really doesn't get it!?!
rolleyes.gif
laughing.gif


(p.s. all what you Angela said is true,
and I am agree with that. Personally,
I am not drinking almost at all...)




Probably Thomas Gray was right...
037.gif

But you didn't get it either...
rolleyes.gif
laughing.gif

You have yet to make a logical point, either because you don't have one or because you can't communicate it. If it's the latter, perhaps it's because of problems using the English language. Given that perhaps this is a language issue, I'll give it one more try.

What is your explanation for the fact that although alcohol is equally available in all European countries, some countries have very large portions of their population who regularly drink themselves insensible, with all the attendant ills personally and societally, and others do not?

You seem to reject that there is a genetic component related to ancient populations. So, what is it? Higher levels of depression and mental health disorders and people are self-medicating? Lack of self-control? Bad parenting? What?
 
You have yet to make a logical point, either because you don't have one or because you can't communicate it. If it's the latter, perhaps it's because of problems using the English language. Given that perhaps this is a language issue, I'll give it one more try.

It was partialy a situational irony (which should be not explaining) - and this was the principal point, because:

- At first glance, it seems, that worldly drink-champions conquerd the world and created the most advanced civilization.
- The most poorest and not developed countries have the lowest drink-ratings.
- So - reference to LeBrok mention about alcohol who had degradating infuence on some populations - it isn't the factor who decided about populations development.
- It seems to be totaly differet - drunkards were creative, developmental, expansionist and prosperious, but abstinents were backward, much less creative with decline culture.

- So, the drinking is not most important factor, which population is more advanced, and which is not,
which is devastated, and which is not. Then conclusion, which was making Lebrok is not correct - if it
would be correct, whities from Europe shold be the most degradated people in the world, and most
uncivilized, most unhappy and most backwarded people in the planet. But we aren't.

What is your explanation for the fact that although alcohol is equally available in all European countries, some countries have very large portions of their population who regularly drink themselves insensible, with all the attendant ills personally and societally, and others do not?

Free will, local customs, fashion and so on.

Maybe this was good for europeans, that we have the highest level of consuming an alcohol,
because idiots died because of drinking, and more intelligent people could live and developed.

This is some kind of natural selecion, which you are liking so much... (y)

You seem to reject that there is a genetic component related to ancient populations.

It may be, or not - it doenst matter, because drinking wasn't for europeans so bad.
And if wasn't for europeans, the same is according to the others. So, once more I'll
repeat: chempions of drinking created the most advanced civilization, so blaming the
alcohol for the failors of the others is nonsensical, and bring to mind exuses of toper... :rolleyes:
 
It was partialy a situational irony (which should be not explaining) - and this was the principal point, because:

- At first glance, it seems, that worldly drink-champions conquerd the world and created the most advanced civilization.
- The most poorest and not developed countries have the lowest drink-ratings.
- So - reference to LeBrok mention about alcohol who had degradating infuence on some populations - it isn't the factor who decided about populations development.
- It seems to be totaly differet - drunkards were creative, developmental, expansionist and prosperious, but abstinents were backward, much less creative with decline culture.

- So, the drinking is not most important factor, which population is more advanced, and which is not,
which is devastated, and which is not. Then conclusion, which was making Lebrok is not correct - if it
would be correct, whities from Europe shold be the most degradated people in the world, and most
uncivilized, most unhappy and most backwarded people in the planet. But we aren't.



Free will, local customs, fashion and so on.

Maybe this was good for europeans, that we have the highest level of consuming an alcohol,
because idiots died because of drinking, and more intelligent people could live and developed.

This is some kind of natural selecion, which you are liking so much... (y)


Doesn't your mother always tell you to think before you open your mouth?

Isn't it obvious that it is not about alcohol per se, but the amount and way of drinking. Don't you really see a difference between an occasional drink and drinking to oblivion every day till death?






It may be, or not - it doenst matter, because drinking wasn't for europeans so bad.
And if wasn't for europeans, the same is according to the others. So, once more I'll
repeat: chempions of drinking created the most advanced civilization, so blaming the
alcohol for the failors of the others is nonsensical, and bring to mind exuses of toper... :rolleyes:
Europeans are not the drinking champions, the hunter gatherers like prairie Indians and Australian Aborigines are. Check the statistics. And how is the life going for them?
 
Doesn't your mother always tell you to think before you open your mouth?

No, she's dead.

Isn't it obvious that it is not about alcohol per se, but the amount and way of drinking. Don't you really see a difference between an occasional drink and drinking to oblivion every day till death?

As I said, it was a little ironic.

Europeans are not the drinking champions, the hunter gatherers like prairie Indians and Australian Aborigines are. Check the statistics. And how is the life going for them?

But I was talking aspecially about this simples added by Garrick.

Polish and russian peasents still can blame polish nobility from before
300 years that they make them drink (what wasn't actually true even
then) even if they are not descendants of peasants! If someone want
blame something or someone he always can do that... For Indians and
Aborigines is only one simple thing which can changed their life - stop
drinking. This is not so hard... But if they want drink - you are from free
world, so you should respect their wishes... (y)
 

This thread has been viewed 24716 times.

Back
Top