Mildly interesting
-
FDR always seemed like something of a grandfather figure. I just (re) learned that he was only 63 when he died.
That means when Pearl Harbor happened he was still in his 50s. And he was only 50 when first elected.
I’m sure I knew that back when that would have sounded much older to me.
-
-
@jon-nyc said in Mildly interesting:
Not saying this is easy, and I don’t know if this is what he did. If it were me attempting this, I think I would do it in a tip-toe manner, without letting the heels touch the ground.
-
“The classic example of a hijack is masturbation,” Edward Slingerland tells me. We’re talking about all the evolutionary quirks that humans tend to exploit — the cases where we’re “built” for one purpose, but decide to put that structure to other uses. And masturbation is a classic example.
In this week’s Mini Philosophy interview, I spoke with Slingerland about his book Drunk, in which he outlines his “intoxication thesis.” Slingerland argues it’s quite common to think that getting drunk is an evolutionary mistake. Some early Homo sapiens drank too much fermented fruit juice and discovered it was pretty fun. So they told their mates and, altogether, they clinked their frothy ciders and sang bawdy songs about hunting and gathering. But the human brain and body were not built to get drunk. Alcohol is effectively a poison. Our bodies don’t like it — or so the argument goes.
The intoxication thesis says this is all wrong. For Slingerland, drinking alcohol and getting drunk are important to human well-being and complex societies. It might not be what evolution “intended,” but it’s certainly given us a reproductive and interspecies advantage.
So, how is getting drunk different from other “evolutionary mistakes”? And what possible benefits might getting drunk give us? Today, we find out.
———
Read the full article:
