The great Australian kava debate

[Kojo Douglas]

Genetic sensitivity to alcohol as an explanation for alcoholism and alcohol related problems in indigenous communities has mostly been ruled out by anthropologists. Most of the reasons have been ascribed to socio-political resistance and coping with marginalization.

 

[Deactivated Account]

@nemo
I thought that they consumed that pituri weed before the European conquest of Australia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duboisia

Ive never heard of that being used which is certainly no reference. So much of their lives/culture & history was destroyed by early settlers god knows what happened 1000 years ago or 50 000 for that matter. As a kid i would just walk through the bush on our farm & collect their stone axes & spear heads, they are laying on the ground every where...i live in a city of 2.5 million & i can drive 40 mins out of town & show you an outcrop where they made these axes & spears on the river bank as its all still there on the ground, the council bull dozers come past twice a year making new fire breaks running over it all. But these places are everywhere, you just need the eye to know what to look for & then as you look more, hundreds appear right in front of you at your feet. 50 yards away is a river that would have been loaded with fresh water muscles & fish & in a climate designed for outdoor living. Again i digress.

 

[TheKavaSociety]

More on pituri: http://prehistoricdrugs.wordpress.com/2011/09/03/the-aboriginal-drug-pituri-2/

 

[Deactivated Account]

Genetic sensitivity to alcohol as an explanation for alcoholism and alcohol related problems in indigenous communities has mostly been ruled out by anthropologists. Most of the reasons have been ascribed to socio-political resistance and coping with marginalization.

I absolutely believe that mate. Too much too fast.

 

[Prince Philip]

Genetic sensitivity to alcohol as an explanation for alcoholism and alcohol related problems in indigenous communities has mostly been ruled out by anthropologists.

Has it been ruled out by biologists, though?

I ask because there's a very clear pattern with other things. E.g., within a generation of adopting a Westernized diet, you usually see about an 80% occurrence of diabetes and an epidemic of obesity that makes Americans look lithe.

 

[verticity]

Has it been ruled out by biologists, though?

I ask because there's a very clear pattern with other things. E.g., within a generation of adopting a Westernized diet, you usually see about an 80% occurrence of diabetes and an epidemic of obesity that makes Americans look lithe.

It's been speculated by some low carb advocates that that's because of a huge increase in the relative amount of carbohydrates when adopting the western diet, plus poverty, meaning the diet consists mainly of flour and sugar. Native Americans have a thing called fry bread, for example.

 

[The Kap'n]

@Henry I hope I don't step on any toes, but I edited the thread title to prevent newcomers from being confused.

 

[Deactivated Account]

Has it been ruled out by biologists, though?

I ask because there's a very clear pattern with other things. E.g., within a generation of adopting a Westernized diet, you usually see about an 80% occurrence of diabetes and an epidemic of obesity that makes Americans look lithe.

Just an observation. If you look at Nivans they are mostly very slim & whilst they dont seem (from my many observations) to have a high sugar diet, they certainly eat a lot of carbs. Compare Nivans to Samoans, Samoa supplies the All Blacks & Wallabies with rugby forwards...like being hit by a train. I know several samoan families here & they are all built like brick shithouses. Any Nivans i have met living in Aust are still as trim as ever.

 

[Kojo Douglas]

Oh boy, this is a complex subject. Human variation very much exists, and traits carry on within and between ethnic groups, just like they carry on within and between families.

Biologically, yes, alcoholism as a disease or sensitivity to alcohol have been ruled out as a cause of general alcohol dependency within an ethnic group. There have been countless bio-anthropological studies that have gone down to the genetics of it.

On the other hand, there is a field called epigenetic anthropology that looks at how genes can be "switched" on and off due to environmental factors. There have been no consistencies within ethnic groups, but there have been regional consistencies. The 80% increase in diabetes is a good example of that, but I would see it as more a maladaptive trait in a changing dietary landscape.

This is not to rule out susceptibilities based on genes within an ethnic group. Skin cancer among Caucasians in Australia and the American Southwest, for example, are clearly a result of having less melanin in our skin. We get plenty of Vitamin D, but also plenty of solar radiation. Sickle cells as an adaptation to malaria infested environments are another clear example (though not necessarily ethnic [because they don't produce phenotypes], but more region specific).

A very interesting debate. But there has never been conclusive evidence that shows alcohol sensitivity is higher among one ethnic group over another. I would imagine Kava is the same.

(I guess an obvious question is: does a gene for surviving in a landscape full of Kava have any reason to be selected over a gene that makes it difficult to survive in a landscape full of Kava?)

 

[Deactivated Account]

But there has never been conclusive evidence that shows alcohol sensitivity is higher among one ethnic group over another. I would imagine Kava is the same.

Well written mate. Clearly with only 230 odd years of white settlement in Australia genetic disposition for addictions cant be looked at i assume. I think (and i have no education or research) the problem in Australia is purely oppression & hopelessness. Drive a people down long enough & they will become what you say. We spend money, build houses & start schemes but we never seem to address the root cause & that is us. Its only an opinion though.

 

[Prince Philip]

(I guess an obvious question is: does a gene for surviving in a landscape full of Kava have any reason to be selected over a gene that makes it difficult to survive in a landscape full of Kava?)

Pure speculation here, but pathogenic and parasitic organisms tend to jump less and less as the species diverge. For example, I'm willing to bet that no one reading this have themselves had, nor their relatives, nor any friend or acquaintance, a case of Dutch Elm disease, or even feline leukemia. Before European colonization, humans were the only placental mammals on Australia, and people usually lived into their 80's, because infections were fairly rare.

One impact of a successful conquest of a bacterial infection is the Herxheimer reaction, or "herxing." When microorganisms die, they release endotoxins. I'm better at botany then zoology or microbiology, but I'm willing to bet these endotoxins are processed through the liver.

I'm probably wrong. Dammit, Jim, I'm a Prince Regent, not a doctor. I haven't studied liver function across continental ethnic groups. If such a difference were found, this is hypothetically an explanatory mechanism.

 

[verticity]

Pure speculation here, but pathogenic and parasitic organisms tend to jump less and less as the species diverge. For example, I'm willing to bet that no one reading this have themselves had, nor their relatives, nor any friend or acquaintance, a case of Dutch Elm disease, or even feline leukemia.

I have contracted monkeypox 10 times, and treated it 9 times.

 

[Kavo]

Reminds me of this little fragment:

If You Were King (The Dictator Syndrome)
Excerpted from chapter 5 of Why Government Doesn't Work, by Harry Browne

"Government grows also because well-meaning people like you and me believe it should do certain things that seem beyond controversy -- find a cure for cancer, stop air pollution, keep violence off television, hold back an aggressor in the Middle East -- something that everyone seems to agree should be done. Whatever the goal, it's easy to imagine that a single-minded government could achieve it.

I call this The Dictator Syndrome. You see suffering or danger, and in your imagination you see a government program eliminating it. But in the real world the program would operate as you expect only if you were an absolute dictator -- having at your disposal all of government's power to compel everyone to do things your way.

Just for a moment, think about something you wish the government would do and that nearly everyone would like to see happen -- provide swifter and surer punishment for criminals, teach children right and wrong, furnish health care to those who don't have it, bring peace to Bosnia, or whatever. Imagine a goal so important that it seems to justify using government's power to coerce.

And now, consider what will actually happen to your program.

To get it enacted you'll need political allies, since alone you have only limited influence. But other people will support your plan and work for it only if you modify it in dozens of ways that further their goals and satisfy their opinions.

Suppose you make the necessary compromises and amass enough support to pressure the politicians to vote for your revised program. Who will write the actual law? You? Of course not. It will be written by the same legislators and aides who created all the laws, programs, and problems you object to now. Each of them will compromise your program still further to satisfy his political supporters.

And if the law passes, who will administer it? You? Of course not. It will be implemented by bureaucrats --many of whom will use it to pursue goals quite different from what you had in mind. They won't care what your purpose was. It's their law now, and they'll use it to suit their objectives.

And, lastly, the new law probably will generate many disputes -- cases that must be settled in a courtroom. Who will decide those cases? You? Of course not. It will be the same judges who today rule according to their own beliefs, rather than by reference to the written law. A judge may even rule that your law means exactly the opposite of what you had intended.

By the time your program has run this gauntlet, it will be far bigger and far more expensive (in money and disrupted lives) than you had imagined. And it will have been twisted to satisfy many factions. In fact, your program may end up being the opposite of what you had intended.

In any case, you will have provided a new tool by which others can use government for their own ends."
--Browne, Harry, Why Government Doesn't Work, Chapter 5, "If You Were King (The Dictator Syndrome), St, Martin's Press, New York, NY, 1995, pp 20-21

....but wait Henry,isn't that how it works anyway? You should tune in to Question Time here on ABC or QandA and see how ridiculous our Pollies really are.

The Kava situation is like many we have and it was created through the same old dodgey Problem/Reaction/Solution scheme.
As Corey Taylor sings in Zzyzx Rd "They throw me a bone just to pick me dry"

If "Common Sense" prevailed then we'd not need so many so called Laws.....though "Common Sense" is even up for debate as to what Common means now...it has no real meaning anymore as we're inadvertently taught by Schools and peers to be separatists. What a mess we have allowed ourselves to become as a unified collective of Humans hey?

There is a bigger Agenda here and I see it like many do. Simply put, when we "ask" Politicians to change "Laws",we actually hand over our Power by acknowledging the "Law" as Power...and yes the only real thing they have over us is the Infrastructure we use to our advantage and we asked for it. That, and they have the men with guns and cuffs.
This is the major downfall with our race....we gave our power away in hope and trust it wouldn't be abused. In turn,we are made out to be the "abusers" and incapable of making our own decisions to do with our body and brain,whatever we seek. Nobody ever really thinks they are wrong,they think someone else is