Something You Should Know - The Serious Problems with AI & Why Humans Drink Alcohol

Episode Date: March 19, 2026

Junk mail seems like a relic of another era. Physical ads showing up in your mailbox feel easy to ignore in a world dominated by digital marketing. Yet companies still spend billions sending those mailers every year. Why? Because for certain groups of people, those pieces of mail are surprisingly effective — far more than you might expect. https://www.uspsoig.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-01/RISC-WP-20-009.pdf Artificial intelligence is suddenly everywhere — writing emails, answering questions, summarizing documents, and even helping people make decisions. But should we trust it? Linguist Emily Bender, a professor at the University of Washington and one of the world’s leading voices urging caution about AI hype, argues that we may be misunderstanding what these systems actually do. Named to the inaugural TIME 100 list of the most influential people in AI, she explains why tools like ChatGPT can appear intelligent while operating very differently from human thinking. She is co-author of The AI Con: How to Fight Big Tech’s Hype and Create the Future We Want (https://amzn.to/3P1v6tn) and she offers an important perspective on how we should — and shouldn’t — rely on AI. Humans have been drinking alcohol for thousands of years, and despite the well-known risks, it remains deeply embedded in cultures around the world. Why do people drink in the first place? Is alcohol simply a dangerous toxin, or does it serve psychological or social purposes that help explain its enduring appeal? Dr. Charles Knowles, Professor of Surgery at Queen Mary University of London and Chief Academic Officer at Cleveland Clinic London, brings both scientific expertise and personal experience to the discussion. Having struggled with alcohol dependency himself, he explores what alcohol does inside the body and brain, why some people develop problems while others do not, and how our culture shapes the way we think about drinking. He is the author of Why We Drink Too Much: The Impact of Alcohol on Our Bodies and Culture (https://amzn.to/4b8HHCd). Razor blades are small, simple pieces of metal — yet they often cost far more than people expect. You may even notice they’re locked behind glass at many stores. Why are they so expensive, and why haven’t competitors driven prices down? Several companies have tried to disrupt the razor business but it hasn't gone as well as many consumers hoped. https://www.forbes.com/sites/andriacheng/2018/01/24/pgs-gillette-woes-have-translated-to-this-good-news-for-consumers/ PLEASE SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS POCKET HOSE: Text SYSK to 64000 for your two free gifts with the purchase of any Pocket Hose Ballistic hose! DUTCH: If your pet is still scratching and you’ve tried everything at the pet store –it’s time to stop guessing and go prescription.Support us and use code SYSK for $40 off your membership at ⁠https://Dutch.com⁠ RULA: Thousands of people are already using Rula to get affordable, high-quality therapy that’s actually covered by insurance. Visit ⁠https://Rula.com/sysk⁠ to get started. QUINCE: Don't keep settling for clothes that don't last! Go to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://Quince.dom/sysk ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Now available in Canada, too! SHOPIFY: See less carts go abandoned with Shopify and their Shop Pay button! Sign up for your $1 per month trail and start selling today at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://Shopify.com/sysk⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ EXPEDITION UNKOWN: We love the Expedition Unknown podcast from Discovery! Listen wherever you get your podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When WestJet first took flight in 1996, the vibes were a bit different. People thought denim on denim was peak fashion, inline skates were everywhere, and two out of three women rocked, the Rachel. While those things stayed in the 90s, one thing that hasn't is that fuzzy feeling you get when WestJet welcomes you on board. Here's to WestJetting since 96. Travel back in time with us and actually travel with us at westjet.com slash 30 years. Today on something you should know,

why some companies still send physical junk mail, and who actually likes to read it? Then, AI. What's behind this new wave of technology? What is powering this wave is not major breakthroughs in technology. What is powering the rate wave is enormous amounts of capital, and these companies aren't making money. They are basically telling us we have to use it

because they have invested so much money in it. Also, why razor blades are so expensive. And the story of alcohol, and why so many people drink it. The production of alcohol, dating about 15,000 years, coincides with when we first started to live in groups, having to socially interact with other people. One wonders whether alcohol's fulfilled a purpose, really, since that early time.

All this today on Something You Should Know. You know, I'm a sucker for a good mystery. Like, in the 1950s, a flight from New York to Minneapolis just disembark. disappeared over Lake Michigan. No wreckage, no answers. Or the Dietlove Pass incident, a group of experienced hikers found dead under circumstances so strange, people still debate what really happened. There's a podcast called Expedition Unknown from Discovery, hosted by Josh Gates, and this is what he does. He doesn't just tell these stories. He goes there. He's hunted for priceless artifacts stolen by the Nazis in World War II. He's traced the final flight of a pilot

who vanished mid-mission and searched the Great Lakes for a ship that disappeared without a trace. If you love the unanswered questions of history, you know, the stuff that makes you lean in, you're going to love this. Travel the globe with Josh Gates as he investigates humanity's greatest feats and most iconic legends. Listen to Expedition Unknown, wherever you get your podcasts. Something you should know. Fascinating Intel, the world's top experts, and practical

advice you can use in your life. Today, something you should know with Mike Carruthers. So you probably get junk mail and you may have wondered why? Who reads junk mail? Well, you'd be surprised. And that's why we're going

to start by talking about junk mail on this episode of Something you should know. Hi, I'm Mike Herr Rothers. And yeah, people often complain about junk mail, and you might assume that younger generations, Gen Zs and millennials, really hate junk mail, but marketing research shows that Gen Z and millennials often pay more attention to physical male than older generations do, largely because they grew up in a world flooded with digital ads. When everything online is competing for your attention, a fuller. physical piece of mail can actually stand out. In fact, surveys from the U.S. Postal Service

found that younger consumers are more likely to read advertising mail and view it as more trustworthy than digital ads. One reason is simple. Digital ads feel disposable, but a physical catalog or a postcard feels more tangible, and it tends to stick around on the counter or the table longer than an email stays in your inbox. So, while junk mail may seem like an outdated marketing tool, for many companies it's actually a way to cut through the digital noise. And that's why you still get junk mail. And it's something you should know.

It seems like everyone is talking about AI, artificial intelligence, what it can do, what it might become, how it's going to change the world. but the conversation you are about to hear looks at artificial intelligence from a very different angle. The concern isn't that AI will suddenly become conscious and take over the planet. The concern is almost the opposite, that AI isn't actually thinking at all, at least not the way many people believe it is.

And misunderstanding that may be where the real risk lies. My guest argues that much of the excitement around artificial intelligence intelligence is built on a fundamental misunderstanding of what these systems actually do, and what they don't do, and what's driving all the hype. And essentially, what's driving all the hype is money. Emily Bender is Professor of Linguistics at the University of Washington. She was named in the inaugural Time 100 list of the Most Influential People in AI. She's co-author of a book called The AI Con, How to Fight Big Text Hype and Create the Future We Want.

Hi, Emily, welcome to something you should know. I'm so glad to be here. Thank you for having me on. So first, I think we need to define what AI hype is, because I'm not sure it's a term that people hear a lot, or I don't actually think I've heard it before I saw the cover of your book. So what is AI hype in a couple of sentences? Yeah, so it is hype about AI, and I'd love to try to define AI as well, but hype is this like salesmanship, the sense that if you don't get on board, you are going to be missing out, you've got to jump on the train with everybody else without necessarily there being a real there there. Well, there certainly has been a lot of AI hype. I mean, there's a million books and podcasts.

I mean, we've had several guests on who've written books about AI and how to use it and what it's good for and all of that. and we hear a lot that it's taking over jobs and that, but there does seem, from people who use it, there does seem to be some sense that it really is pretty wonderful, that some of the things it seems to do are great. Well, so we have to talk about what it is, though, because the term artificial intelligence doesn't refer to a coherent set of technologies. The main thing that everyone is super excited about right now is chatbots, or you might call them, conversation simulators, and they are systems designed to mimic the way we use language in many different domains of activity. And so it seems like we have systems that can do many different things, but actually what we have is a system that mimics the way we use language.

Well, it may do that, but it seems like the experience of using it is that it's more than that, that it's deeper than that, that it's doing a lot of things. Well, so what do you have in mind? Well, from my own experience of using it and the way I use it, it seems as if it's looking for information that can help me. It's synthesizing that information. It's writing it in a way if I ask it to make it more effective. It seems like it's doing a lot of things, not just mimicking language. Unfortunately, it's designed to look like it's doing that.

There's a system addition called RAG, which is retrieval augmented generation. where you put a query into one of these systems, and the first thing that happens is that your input is turned into a web search, and then documents come back, just the way web searches work in general. And then the system is prompted to basically produce something that looks like a summary of the documents that came back to you. But there's no accountability there, there's no reliability there, and it's not searching the whole internet anymore than an old-fashioned search engine does.

But it's certainly giving me information, it would seem, that I would have trouble coming up with myself or would certainly take a lot longer because it seems to be able to understand what I mean when I want to find out this information, whereas Google, if I'm not using the right words in the right order, I could get a completely different set of websites to look at. And Google doesn't synthesize the websites. It just gives me a list of websites. Yeah, well, actually, unfortunately,

now they do the synthesis thing in their AI overview. That's true, yes. Yeah. But if we want to distinguish sort of old-fashioned web search from the so-called AI search or chat interface, the big difference is that, yes, the way you interact with it is instead of putting in some keywords that you hope will match the documents you're looking for, you phrase the question the way you might ask a person who could understand you. and that helps create the illusion that the system you are interacting with does understand you.

But fundamentally, these systems are just set up to repeatedly answer the question, what is a likely next word? And what is a likely next word given that question as input and the various documents that the web search returned, produces something that looks like an answer and is very easy to accept as an answer, but we are then cut off from really important sense-making work, where we understand where information is coming from, why somebody may have put those particular pieces of information together, and how to situate all of that in our understanding of the information landscape.

And is that really all bad? Unfortunately, yes. One of the examples I like to use is imagine you have a medical query, and let's say you're expecting a child and you discover that they are likely to have clubfoot. So how do I treat clubfoot? And if you put that into an old-fashioned web search, and you got back answers or not answers, but actually links to the Mayo Clinic and a local university medical center and something called WebMD and Dr. Oz's website and a chat room, you probably already have opinions about many of those sites. And if like me, the Mayo Clinic to you is associated in your mind with cancer, you might go, wait,

what's this got to do with cancer? But also I think of them as like a respectable institution. So I'm going to go see why they might be talking about Clubfoot. And anything in the chat room I'm going to take with a grain of salt, but it is extremely valuable to connect with other parents who are going through the same thing. Right? If instead I put this into a chat bot and I get back something that might have come from one of any of those sources, I don't know where it came from, so I don't know how to situate it.

I am cut off from my ability to sort of continually build up my understanding of these different sources and cut off from the chance to connect with those other people. In your query, though, you could tell ChatGBTGPT, please source all your information, please give me links to those sources, and then you get the summary from ChatGPT, and now you can go look at all the links to where it came from. So there's no guarantee that the summary is an accurate representation of those links,

so you are better off not reading it and just doing the old-fashioned source, old-fashioned search. Rather than getting the idea of in the summary where it might have dropped a negation or put some word emphasis or whatever it is because there's no accountability there. It has no understanding of what it is processing. It is just giving you likely next words given that input. But you're making the assumption that if I read it, I believe it and therefore I shouldn't read it. But it seems to me I should read everything and then make my own determination. I believe it is important to read many different things. but I think it is dangerous to read things that nobody has any accountability for.

So go read those different sources. Go read a summary that a person has produced. But this synthetic output that we actually can't locate in the information landscape because it comes from nowhere is just misleading. Well, I like that. It does. It comes from nowhere. Like you can't point out, well, where did you, how did you arrive at that?

In fact, you could ask the same question tomorrow and get a completely different answer. Exactly. And you can input into the chat bot. How did you get to that? And it will give you an answer, but that answer is not truthful, right? It's just more likely next words. And so you can go down a big rabbit hole that way. But most likely next, it's most likely next words and not truthful aren't mutually exclusive. It could be truthful and it could be just next words. Exactly. So if what comes out is truthful or valuable, that is also by chance. If what comes out is incorrect, harmful, or just misleading, equally by chance. And in neither case, is there any accountability? And so do you then dismiss all of this technology? Do you not use chat GPT or any of the other chatbots because of what you're saying? For many reasons, I do my very best not to consume any synthetic media.

And defined synthetic media. So synthetic media is text extruded from one of these chatbots or the images that someone has produced using a text to image system, the fake videos that are made. I don't want to spend time on things that don't reflect the either artistic effort of a person drawing an image or the thought processes and accountability of someone writing text. So I want to explain how I use chat GPT and get your views on that. The game begins in three, two, one. Ready or not too, here I come, only in theaters Friday.

After surviving one deadly game, Grace and her sister Faith must now face off against four rival families in a fresh round of blood and games filled with more action, scares, laughs, and combustions. Starring Samara Weaving, Catherine Newton, Sarah Michelle, Geller and Elijah Wood. Ready or not too, here I come. Only in theaters Friday. Get tickets now. In communities across Canada, hourly Amazon employees earn an average of over $24.50 an hour. Employees also have the opportunity to grow their skills and their paycheck by enrolling in free skills training programs for in-demand fields like software development and information technology. Learn more at aboutamazon.ca.

So, Emily, when I do this podcast, one of the things I do is I write introductions to the segments, usually after the segment is over, so I know what I'm introducing. And sometimes, you know, some days I just don't have it. It just doesn't come out right or I'm not explaining it well. So I'll write a pretty crappy intro and then feed it into chat sheet BT and say, make this better, make this more compelling, make this more intriguing, make this snapier, whatever I say. And sometimes, man, it comes out with something that is really good.

And I think, wow, I wish I had thought to say that, but didn't. And so I'll use it. I'll use some of it. Sometimes I don't use any of it because I think mine was better. But, boy, sometimes it really hits it out of the park. Yeah. As you might guess, I have some objections to that. And I sure hope that you don't do it for this segment.

And by the time listeners are hearing this, they will have heard whatever it was, right? But I, so for one thing, you've been doing this show for a long time. You didn't use chat GPT before November 30th, 2022, because it wasn't there. So this is something you can do, but it's also a practice skill. And I think every time we do the cognitive offloading of using some system to do something, instead of doing it ourselves, we lose that opportunity to practice. We also lose the opportunity to really hone our own unique voices and sort of end up towards this average, which I think is really quite bland. And then on top of that, every time we use these systems, we help build the case for training the next large model, for building the next hyperscale data center with all of the economic labor and environmental impacts that goes entail.

But maybe I wasn't clear, but I do do it myself. I then ask it to see if it could be better. If you took this and then rewrote it, what would it look like? And sometimes I use some of what it gives me. Sometimes I don't. But I at least have like another collaborator in the room. And it's not a medical thing. No one's going to die from this.

But sometimes it comes up with a better way of saying what I was trying to say. So you can look at the output and recognize, yes, that expresses the meaning I was trying to express. But I think that every time we say this machine, which is making paper mache out of input of many, many people's words, some of which are people we respect, some of which are people we really don't, is better than us. We are sort of reinforcing the idea that we need this kind of assistance, that we can't, you

know, day in and day out, hone our own craft, make it better on our own. And I also object to calling it a collaborator because it's not, right? That's a that's a personification or an anthropomorphization of a system that is just a bunch of math processing a bunch of words, most of which were stolen. Stolen from where? Just scraped without consent. My co-author Alex Hanna likes to phrase it is they grabbed everything that wasn't nailed down on the internet. And there's a bunch of of ongoing lawsuits about copyright, for example, is this an okay to, okay way to appropriate people's words and work, right? And if you find that it has a nice turn of phrase that's coming out of the system, and you really like the way that was said, wouldn't it be so much better if you could

have seen that turn of phrase in its original context and be able to credit the actual author of it, rather than saying, oh, I like that one. Thanks, chat, GPT. So, Emily, your views on this run contrary to what an awful lot of people are saying. And it in some ways feels like you're trying to stop a wave that you'll, you just, you can't stop. Thank you. That's a, thank you. That's a new way of phrasing the inevitability argument. What is powering this wave is not major breakthroughs in technology. What is powering the rate wave is enormous amounts of capital that have been invested. And these companies aren't making money. So they have to push at us every single minute, like every time you open your computer, there's the sparkle emoji.

I see it right now on Zoom. I'll see it on my email and so on and so on. And they're basically telling us we have to use it because they have invested so much money in it. Well, that I get. Yeah. And that's certainly concerning. But one doesn't negate the other. I mean, just because they're trying to make money at it doesn't mean it's no good. So the thing that I'm trying to push back on is this idea that this is technological progress, and that is why we all have to get on board. I don't think it's progress, and I don't think that technological progress is the only kind of progress we should be focused on. The scholar Chris Gilliard refers to these as technologies of isolation. That basically anything that encourages us to turn towards machines and towards these products

rather than towards each other and towards strengthening community and connection is anti-progress, really. So given where we are though, what is your, if you could wave a magic wand, what would you want to have happen given that we're this far down the road? So wish number one would be that any company that sets up a synthetic media extruding machine, be a text image video, is fully accountable for everything that comes out of that machine. So if it gives out medical misinformation, medical malpractice. If it gives out libel, they are, you know, accountable for libel as well and so on. Step number one. Step number two, I would love for everyone to remember that they have their own expertise and to take pride in that expertise and not fall for the marketing that says the computer is better at this than you are. Is there, because it would seem to me that there are some relatively simple, low consequence, low risk things that I could spend a long time searching various websites for when ChatGPT could probably give me a

a quick answer, it's not major and consequential, and I can get on with my day. And it seems like that's not a bad thing. So I think that the muscle that we build and maintain when we do web searches, even if it's not consequential, is important. This ability to say, is that a good source for that information? And if we only exercise that muscle on sort of the high stakes questions, we're going to have a much harder time doing it well. So this sounds vaguely like, and I know what you're going to say, but I'm going to ask it anyway. You know, you could sort of make the parallel argument that this is kind of like when the calculator showed up. And people thought, oh, no, kids are going to get really stupid now. They're not going to have to add and

subtract anymore because we've got this machine. But humans adapt. And somehow it worked out. And No one's complaining about the calculator anymore. So one thing about a calculator is that it's going to be consistently accurate, right? And I believe that even now in school, you do a lot of your math education with no calculators allowed. And then when you move on to something like algebra, when you're no longer focused on this arithmetic, then it's like, okay, you can use a calculator for the arithmetic because we're focusing on this other thing. And that is predicated on, A, understanding what it is the calculator is doing so that you can, you know, if the output doesn't look right, you can backtrack and see, oh, yeah, I put an extra zero there. That's why that makes no sense. And on the calculator being reliable, which these large language models, the synthetic text extruding machines are fundamentally unreliable because what they are doing is repeatedly answering the question, what's a likely next word? And that's it. Has there been, though, has there been any kind of research when you say they're not reliable, but how often they are wrong? So you'd have to zoom in on a specific area of concern because one of the problems here is that these are being sold as everything machines.

You can ask it any question. Even questions that don't make sense and so therefore should not be answerable, you will still usually get an answer out of the system. If you try to design an evaluation around, okay, what percent of the time is it right? What percent of what time? Where a calculator, there's a specific spec that we expect all calculators to adhere to, and they do. And the first minute you see a calculator that is not accurate, you toss it out, right? How is using chat GPT for finding information any worse than just using Google or any search engine to, find other websites that have information that may just be as unreliable as what

chat GPT gives you. I mean, how is that any different? People have criticized that saying, Dr. Google, meaning using Google for medical advice, is a bad idea. That, I think, is actually a slightly different thing because Google in its original form was directing you to sites. And so the accountability lies with the sites that you landed on. and then Google has accountability for how they are ranking those outputs.

And that's what a lot of what their algorithm is. The problem with Dr. Google is that a person who's experiencing a medical concern can easily end up worrying themselves by looking at very many things because they don't have the expertise to navigate that kind of information. Where you go to a medical professional, they are trained to do that navigation and also find out more, do the tests, and so on. This is, I think, made worse by the chatbots because you can very easily that the user interface of it allows you to express your question and then

receive something that you are ready to take in as an answer and then become even more convinced. Well, I've really enjoyed this because so much of the conversation about chat GPT and those kinds of AI tools and just AI in general is that it's this great revolution that it really is helpful and useful. And like with so many other things in life, there's another side to the story. And you've presented that side really, really well. I've been speaking with Emily Bender. She's co-author of the book, The A.I. Khan, how to fight big tech's hype and create the future we want. There's a link to her book in the show notes. Emily, thank you very much. Thank you so much. It's been a really interesting conversation.

At Desjardin, our business is helping yours. We are here to support your business through every stage of growth, from your first pitch to your first acquisition. Whether it's improving cash flow or exploring investment banking solutions, with Desjardin business, it's all under one roof. So join the more than 400,000 Canadian entrepreneurs who already count on us, and contact Desjardin today. We'd love to talk.

You don't need AI agents, which may sound weird coming from Service Now, the leader in AI agents. The truth is, AI agents need you. Sure, they'll process, predict, even get work done autonomously. But they don't dream,

read a room, rally a team, and they certainly don't have shower thoughts, pivotal hallway chats, or big ideas. People do. And people, when given the best AI platform, they're freed up to do the fulfilling work they want to do.

To see how ServiceNow puts AI to work for people, visit servicenow.com. Few topics, stronger opinions than alcohol. Some people enjoy it, some avoid it completely, and most of us have heard the warnings about the health risks. In fact, attitudes towards drinking seem to be shifting. Alcohol consumption in the U.S. is at an historic low, with about 54% of Americans saying they drink today, compared with 67% just a few years ago. Yet alcohol is still deeply woven into our culture, from celebrations and socializing to business dinners and dating.

So why do we drink at all? Why is alcohol so powerful socially, culturally, and biologically, and why do so many people end up drinking more than they intended to? My guest has a fascinating perspective on this, both as a physician and as someone who has struggled with alcohol personally. Dr. Charles Knowles is Professor of Surgery at Queen Mary University London, and Chief Academic Officer at Cleveland Clinic London. His book, titled Why We Drink Too Much, The Impact of Alcohol on Our Bodies and Culture, explores the science, psychology, and social forces behind drinking, and why alcohol continues to have such a powerful grip on society.

Hey, Dr. Knowles, welcome to something you should know. Mike, thank you very much for having me on. So first of all, I think most people are aware that there are not a lot of health benefits to drinking, but there is some confusion because there is some talk that, well, maybe a little wine, a glass of wine might be good for you. Or maybe it's just not really bad for you. And then there are people who say, you know, alcohol is poison from start to finish and you just shouldn't drink at all. So where are you on this? Well, I think the first thing to say is that I'm not anti-alcohol.

I think alcohol's been with us in society for a very, very long time. We've been deliberately manufacturing it for 15,000 years. And there's a reason for that, and that is that people, many people, gain enjoyment from drinking. And that's why it's proved so enduringly popular. In regard to the consumption question and the amounts that you mention, I don't agree that alcohol is solely a poison. People say this, and it is a popular way of looking at alcohol and its consumption. But the truth is, if it were just a poison, we wouldn't do it.

I think what has changed is an appreciation of the health consequences of alcohol. And here I'm talking more about the long-term health consequences rather than problems of dependence and mental health, particularly in relation to heart disease, cancer, obesity, etc. And actually, the data that underpin those observations have been around a very long time. For instance, alcohol has been a class one carcinogen since the 1990s. But I think people are coming to realise that more and to critically evaluate their relationship with alcohol as they evaluate their health in general. Well, the idea that alcohol is a carcinogen certainly scares a lot of people.

And I think ultimately people who drink, who enjoy having a drink, wonder how much is too much. And if it's a carcinogen, it seems like, well, you would be better not to put any carcinogen into your body. So what's the answer here? Let's just start with the carcinogenesis. So as a class one carcinogen, it's up there with smoking, espestos, radiation, et cetera, and we've known that since studies in the 1970s.

In regard to that, the most important cancer is breast cancer. And it's relevant to mention this because it's probably the only health consequence that is associated with an appreciable increase in risk, even whilst drinking a very small amount of alcohol, i.e. below the government recommended limits of safe consumption. So for a woman, even drinking one small glass of wine every day will increase the risk of breast cancer. That's also partially true for stroke.

Most of the other health consequences only occur with heavier consumption, as a general rule, unless a person is also a stroke. obese, in which case some of those effects are synergistic. Well, you've mentioned what is considered the limit to safe drinking. What is that? What is the limit? What is considered safe? Well, that depends where you are in the world, Mike.

So rather inconveniently and confusingly, both the definition of a unit of alcohol and the safe limits vary country by country, and they vary by about a factor of three. They also vary by men and women. Some countries have the same limits for men and women, and some have different ones. And this is what makes it problematic for an individual to determine whether they're drinking excessively either on a weekly basis or on an episodic basis, which we mostly call binge drinking. Well, we must know, though, that there's a line somewhere that's based on science rather than where you live. That's actually not entirely true. I mean, there is a line, if you put that line at consumption level of 30 plus units a week,

which would be 20 standard US drinks, then clearly that is a line where the majority of people were they to consume that would incur health effects from alcohol. But, I mean, it's not a straightforward relationship at all. I mean, you and I both know people who drink very heavily and have no health consequences from it. So as an individual, it's only a question of probabilities. So is there any good news about alcohol? This idea that, you know, a little wine is actually good for you, but I think that's kind of been debunked. But is there any good news about it?

Well, it's not entirely debunked. Actually, it is a true observation. that a small glass of wine or a small amount of alcohol in another form, taken daily, at least in white European populations, results in a lower risk of having what's called a myocardial infarction, a heart attack. But this doesn't hold true for anything else. There are arguable data on Alzheimer's disease and on several other rarer diseases like kidney cancer, where it may also be protective. But the World Health Organization and any doctor you talk to would basically tell you that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption. The other thing that people hear is that drinking

alcohol kills brain cells. True or false? True-ish. Certainly heavy chronic alcohol consumption is related to a loss in volume of gray matter, which is where the majority of the cell bodies of our nerves are in the brain. And it also alters something called white matter connectivity, which are the main connections between areas of the brain. The question really is not so much

whether that occurs, it does occur. And there are elegant studies in journals like nature that show that from UK Biobank data and other sources. But whether it's significant in terms of one's mental functioning. Clearly, in a minority of people,

it's very significant. significant for their mental functioning. And there are conditions like wet brain that result with very heavy alcohol consumption, particularly in relation to vitamin B deficiency. But for the rest of us, it's a bit of a lottery, to be perfectly honest. The vast majority of people probably drinking within reasonable limits will not experience a loss in brain cells that will be clinically apparent. What about the difference between heart and? alcohol and wine. There's always been that argument that wine, and maybe beer as well, because it has less alcohol and it has other things in it that, does the body care or is alcohol alcohol?

Alcohol is alcohol, on the whole. I mean, people who drink spirits may tend to drink more alcohol, in which case that matters. But in the most part, it doesn't matter what form you take alcohol in. In fact, the stomach best absorbs alcohol in the sort of wine range. So you could argue that you get more bang for your buck in terms of alcohol in the bloodstream by drinking wine than drinking something that's either stronger or weaker. But the sort of mythology around wine being better for your health than, for instance, other drinks is just simply not true. And I guess it has a lot to do with the amount of alcohol. That's kind of what people think that a hard liquor has more alcohol in it, so it must be worse for you. It's more of a math thing than it is science.

Well, it may also be a velocity aspect so that obviously you can drink more alcohol faster as spirits than you tend to drink as beer. and that's important because the liver can metabolize a certain amount of alcohol in an hour. And so if you drink more rapidly, then more alcohol appears in the bloodstream than if you drink more slowly. So, I mean, certainly my experience, Mike, when I was drinking, and I wasn't really a spirit drinker much at the time. But funnily enough, when I was in the US, because I didn't much like the beer, I would tend to drink spirits. and certainly that didn't result in a great outcome as a general rule. And you don't drink now? I haven't drunk for 10 years.

And that's because? That's because I developed dependence and significant mental health problems from drinking, and I had to stop. And before those 10 years, I spent seven years trying to stop. Which brings up that whole issue of, you know, some people seem to be able to have. a glass of wine with dinner and that's fine and they're done and they don't need any more. And other people can't even understand how that could be possible that once you start, it's

very hard to stop. Yes. I mean, I'm one of those people who used to watch people drinking one glass of wine for hours in a pub and just think, what are they doing here? Because for me, I always drank for the effect of alcohol on my brain. I didn't drink to sip a glass of wine socially. My book, of course, covers in great detail what differs in terms of risk of people developing that loss of control for alcohol, which only a minority do to a level of dependence

versus much of the population who, as you say, can just take it or leave it. But I notice that when I drink and I'm a wine drinker, it's very easy for me not to to drink at all. But if I have a glass, I'm probably going to have another one. Well, Mike, I don't know about your, you may just choose to have another one and that may be a perfectly reasonable decision in your particular instance. But there are people like me whose experience has been, you have one glass of wine and then it's a bottle of wine and then it's another bottle of wine. And in fact, I measured my alcohol consumption when I drank wine in bottles rather than glasses.

What does the science say? Not just your, well, your personal story is interesting too and plays a part. But people who don't have a problem with drinking can look at people who do have a drinking problem and not understand, well, why don't you just stop? If it's such a problem, why don't you stop or stop sooner, have a couple of drinks and call it a day? and there's an intellectual understanding that problem drinking is a real, real problem. But it's hard to put yourself in that place because if you don't have that problem, it's hard to understand that problem.

You don't in the sense drink your way to being an alcoholic who differ to start with. Now, part of that's genetic. And in fact, alcoholism is 50% heritable, for instance. but a great deal of it is based on the environment you've grown up in, particularly during early childhood, and to do with psychological drivers that push towards self-medication. The big ones there that I have, for instance, are ADHD, depression and neuroticism. There are even stronger drivers like post-traumatic stress disorder. 68% of Vietnam veterans have a substance misuse problem and the majority of that is alcohol, for instance,

but also schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, impulsive disorders, certain other personality types. Those are the things that drive abnormal alcohol consumption and dependence. So if you grew up at a household where there was a lot of drinking, that makes you more likely to drink just like smoking, if your parents smoked, you're more likely to smoke. If your parents drink, you're more likely to drink. That's not entirely true. The age of first drinking is important. So if you start drinking before the age of 14, for instance, then that has a difference between, say, starting after the age of 18 or 21. But there's not strong evidence that being from a drinking household makes a difference over and above that.

Alcohol has certainly served a purpose in society in that it lowers inhibitions. It's a focal point for socializing. It has had positive social effects as well as some pretty devastating negative effects. Yes, and I mean this has been extensively studied. I mean, from a historical perspective, actually the deliberate production of alcohol,

fermentation dating about 15,000 years coincides pretty accurately with when we first started to live in groups. So around that period of time with early agricultural practices, people would congregate and live in early civilizations of about 100 to 150 people. And one can speculate that that's no coincidence. And I mean, back in those days, there were no mobile phones or board games or anything else to play, sitting around the campfire, having to socially interact with other people, one wonders whether alcohol's fulfilled a purpose really since that early time. And of course, that's another really important driver, that people who have a drive to consume alcohol to make them more socially fit. And by that, I mean to be able to engage with other human beings

in a manner that fulfills your own self-esteem, then that's an extremely strong driver of consumption. Yeah, because if you remember back to your first drink, it probably tasted terrible. I mean, if you're a kid and you sip whiskey, it's not going to taste good. So why would you ever want it again? But, you know, peer pressure and the results of feeling that buzz,

they're pretty strong drivers. Well, here I think this is where you can get some inkling of where your life is going to go from an early age, that if alcohol is an immediate solution when you're young and you first try it, I think your cards may be dealt for later in life. I mean, there's an adage that you sometimes hear that it, If alcohol is a problem, then you're in with a chance. If it's your solution, then you've already lost. And for me, for example, as a child, when I first tasted it, I loved it.

I'd had three pints of beer by the time I was extracted at the age of 13 within an hour. And that was my experience from the age of 17, away at boarding school, not terribly popular, slightly nerdy, bullied individual. Alcohol was a revelation for me. It was a solution to all my problems. It is such an interesting topic because it affects some people, as it has affected you and your life, so severely. And yet other people, as we spoke about,

you know, the woman who has a glass of wine and can nurse it for hours and never has a problem. It's so weird. It's so strange. Well, if you look at the stats, about two to three percent of Western populations, like the U.S. and the UK, for example, will develop medically diagnosed alcohol dependence like me, what in old man's terms was called alcoholism. It is important to note, though, and highly topical at the moment, the same. the subject to what's called grey area drinking.

I don't know if you've heard of that, Mike. I have, yeah, but I don't know much about it. So gray area drinking is not a medical term, is the first thing to say. But it probably affects about 20% of the population. And these are people, particularly the people who are reviewing their relationship in adulthood now with alcohol. And there are many, many groups worldwide community groups for gray area drinking and people who are looking at changing that relationship.

And what typifies grey area drinking compared with dependence is that the situation has reached one of what's described as hazardous alcohol use rather than harmful alcohol use. So it's a person who worries that those harms may be coming down the line. It's I haven't crashed the car yet. I haven't lost my job yet because I've turned up. with hangovers. I haven't, you know, had problems with my obesity yet, but worrying about things like your appearance, about performance at work, relationships, the amount of money is spending on

alcohol, but the yet to happen. And at the same time, the realization that when you then try to stop or modify consumption, that habit isn't as easy to break as you'd thought. So if you don't mind me asking, what caused you to stop? Why did you finally stop drinking? So after my last night of drinking, which followed 24 hours after sitting with a gun and a bottle of Bacardi and considering taking my own life, I woke up in the morning kneeling on the floor to any God that would listen with alcohol withdrawal, and I reached the point where I realized I could never drink again. I just was sick and tired of being sick and tired. And that often actually is the way it is.

Well, you certainly have a unique and interesting perspective on this topic, and I appreciate you sharing it and sharing your personal story as well. I've been talking with Dr. Charles Knowles. He is a professor of surgery at Queen Mary University of London and Chief Academic Officer at Cleveland Clinic London. And his book is called Why We Drink Too Much, the impact of alcohol on our bodies and culture. And there's a link to his book in the show notes.

Thank you, Doctor. Thank you very much, Mike, for having me on. You don't have to go back too far to remember when the razor blade market was totally dominated by two brands, Schick and Gillette. And razor blades were very expensive, costing 20 bucks for just a few blades. Then, you may recall that,

Dollar Shave Club, and Harry showed up and promised to make razor blades cheap. And for a while, it looked like they might. Dollar Shave Club launched in 2012 with the slogan, Great Razors for a dollar a month. Harry's followed soon after that, selling directly to consumers by subscription, which cut out retail markups and forced the big brands to respond. Gillette even cut some prices by about 12% as these newcomers grab some significant market share.

But Razor Blade prices never really dropped the way people expected. Why? Well, because these disruptors eventually became part of the system. Unilever bought Dollar Shave Club for a billion dollars. Harry's almost sold out to Gillette, but that was blocked by regulators. And it's important to consider that the Razor Blade business is a difficult business to break into, with high manufacturing barriers. So the Razor Revolution did happen. It just didn't cut prices the way people had hoped.

And that is something you should know. Hey, you'd be doing me a big favor by telling some people, or even just one person, about this podcast and getting them to give it a try and listen. It's a great way to spread the word and help our audience grow, which we always need. I'm Mike Carruthers. Thanks for listening today to something.

you should know. Oh, the Regency Era. You might know it as the time when Bridgeton takes place, or the time when Jane Austen wrote her books. But the Regency Era was also an explosive time of social change, sex scandals, and maybe the worst king in British history. And on the Vulgar History podcast,

we're going to be looking at the balls, the gowns, and all the scandal of the Regency era. Vulgar History is a women's history podcast, and our Regency Era series will be focusing on the most rebellious women of this time. That includes Jane Austen herself, who is maybe more radical than you might have thought. We'll also be talking about queer icons like Anne Lister,

scientists like Mary Anning and Ada Lovelace, as well as other scandalous actresses, royal mistresses, rebellious princesses, and other lesser-known figures who made history happen in England in the Regency era. Listen to vulgar history wherever you get podcasts. If Bravo drama, pop culture, chaos, and honest takes are your love language, you'll want All About Ter H podcast in your feed.

Hosted by Roxanne and Chantelle, this show breaks down Real Housewives reality TV and the moments everyone's group chat is arguing about. Roxanne's been spilling Bravo T's since 2010, and yes, we've interviewed Housewives Royalty like Countess Lewann and Teresa Judey's. Smart Recaps, Insider Energy, and Zero Fluff. Listen to All About Tier H podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen. episodes weekly.