by gg3 » Fri 21 Dec 2007, 09:10:36
.
.
Good question and good topic, Narz!
First of all, "all things in moderation," even smoking, drinking, and so on (as for staying up to 4AM, some of us are naturally nocturnal!).
A pint of micro-brew over dinner is hardly enough to do damage. Yet I always wondered what, exactly, people found appealing about drinking so much that they got stupid, and then drinking even more to the point where they would throw up. "Hey ol' pal, let's go have a good puke!"
Part of this, as Pixie pointed out, is a reaction to stress. Consumption of food, alcohol, tobacco, etc., increases when an individual is under stress. Some of this has to do with overt coping mechanisms: consumption of caffeinated beverages in order to keep up with a workload is a key example. Some of this has to do with the homeostatic nature of organisms: the more you get wound up at work, the more you need to do something (via whatever means your culture provides) to wind down after work, in order to maintain a basic equilibrium.
Part of it has to do with advertising, and more specifically with the need of capitalist economies to maintain constant growth. Thus, products of all kinds, and the consumption patterns associated with them, tend to be designed to produce a constant increase in consumption levels to the point where immoderate behavior becomes normalized, and with it the harms that go along with. The one-car household gives way to the two- and three-car household; the sedan gives way to the SUV; coffee becomes "instant;" tobacco use changes from cigars and pipes to cigarettes (the equivalent of instant coffee); the size of the house itself doubles from 1200 to 2400 square feet; the increase in house size spawns an increase in furniture and appliances; and so on. Meanwhile financial pressure increases, job stress increases, and alcohol consumption increases in an attempt to deal with the stress.
All of this is "good" for the economy, but bad for the humans and life on Earth at-large. Thus we can reasonably conclude that "the economy" and "humans and other life on Earth" have, after the point where basic human comforts are attained, opposing needs and goals.