Originally Posted by
Eroica 
There is no evolutionary advantage to drinking huge amounts of alcohol. IMO, the majority of people from any given culture will never consume the amount of alcohol that alcoholics are accustomed to drinking, so drinking should play no part in who is weeded out.
Also, every one becomes at risk for alcohol-related disease if they drink more than 2-3 drinks a day, even if they're not an alcoholic.
There is an evolutionary advantage to drinking: it's a social tool. Having a family group and friends is biologically useful; it keeps us safe from attack, and allows us to meet people with whom we can reproduce. And social bonds are cemented by having a good time together, which means to some extent drinking can be encouraged. The genetics allowing addiction at lower rates of consumption then come into play. Those people start drinking more, become more likely to develop alcohol-related disease, are in generally poorer health and therefore less likely to have children (and those children are likely to be in poorer health. Plus we know addiction is at least partially genetic). Multiply over generations and voila, you have what Katie was talking about.
And don't underestimate that biologic need to have a group: how many here started drinking a little bit because their friends were drinking and they wanted to be part of the group?
(I am not a nerd. I am not a nerd. I am not a nerd. Just because I figure out the chemistry of my DOCs and ponder the evolutionary functions of alcohol does not make.... damn. I'm a nerd.)
