Q. Your story on intoxication in animals makes me wonder: Do we as humans have an evolutionary attraction to alcohol or other intoxicants? If so, why?

Peter M.

Sy: Generally, intoxicants intoxicate because they (usually mildly, but sometimes dangerously) poison your brain. An impaired nervous system seldom improves your chance for survival. But substances with high alcoholic content may turn out to be extremely nutritious — which is why pen-tailed tree shrews favor fermented nectar from the bertam palm flower.

In Malaysian rainforests, these long-nosed, mouse-like little animals may imbibe the human equivalent of nine alcoholic drinks every night! German research published in 2008 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reveals that their favorite cocktail contains 3.8 percent alcohol (similar to beer). The bertam palm flower naturally possesses a previously undiscovered species of yeast, which ferments its nectar. The tree shrews purposely seek out the nectar with the highest alcohol content — but not for the buzz. They don’t seem to get drunk. There’s no swaying or stumbling even after returning for two or three servings a night. But the alcohol content, which they can easily smell — in fact, it smells like beer — signals that the nectar has reached its peak nutritive and caloric value. The plant, meanwhile, gets pollinated, and everyone is happy — but not too happy.

One biologist at the University of California, Berkeley was thrilled when the study was published. Robert Dudley says the findings support his theory that the human attraction to alcohol evolved from a time when, like tree shrews do today, our ancestors searched the trees for energy-rich plants, sniffing for the scent of alcohol to signal the most nutritious food. But like many adaptations that once held survival value — such as our love for fat and sugar — this one seems to have gone awry. Alas, humans simply can’t hold their liquor like the tiny tree shrews.

Q. In your column about eating bushmeat as a delicacy, which is causing the extinction of endangered wildlife, you suggest eating insects. Do you know any recipes for insects?

Maria J.

Liz: Not personally, as I eat insects raw. Or I did years ago, when I lived among the San/Bushman hunter-gatherers in the Kalahari Desert in Namibia. There, along with some of the women and children, I ate honey ants when they swarmed. Suddenly the air would be filled with flying ants and people would catch and eat them. You bite off the abdomen and toss the rest — no need for cooking. For some reason, the men didn’t do this, not from any taboo or anything, just lack of interest. I’m not sure why, because honey ants are sweet.

However, a number of websites now give recipes for insects, crickets being the favorites. Some diners also favor bee larvae, which when fried are said to taste like bacon. Cockroaches are said to have vitamin A, but they also contain some urea, so before you eat an insect, you should check its biochemical features. Purveyors of insects caution us to be sure the crickets and cockroaches are fresh when we buy them, so we should buy only from reputable dealers.

One sales pitch for insect-eating is that crickets are less fattening than beef. But perhaps the most important argument is that such a diet is infinitely sustainable, requires no chemicals or antibiotics, and doesn’t inflict the kind of trauma that slaughterhouses do on farm animals, because insects don’t have the same ability to realize what’s happening to them. Then, too, they can be raised economically. They don’t need buildings or stalls, and little if any equipment is needed. I’m not sure why everyone doesn’t eat them. We probably will when we understand the benefits.

Q. This decimation of wildlife (i.e. bushmeat as fashionable food) is little-known, as you mention in your article. Don’t you think the international wildlife groups should get involved?

Renee D.

Liz: I think they should get more involved, and the sooner the better; possibly, they want to. This may be difficult for them, though. They generally focus on such things as saving habitat and limitations for safari hunting, not so much on high-end restaurants and rich people out for a thrill. Also, some believe that bushmeat has cultural value, which they don’t want to criticize, and others believe that the bushmeat industry earns money for the country, and therefore may be acceptable.

Perhaps some animals (certain rats, for instance) have cultural value, but elephants and gorillas certainly don’t. And as for who makes the money, it’s the poachers and restaurant owners, not the general public.

Sy Montgomery and Elizabeth Marshall Thomas are naturalists and the authors of many books. Submit your questions about animals to syandlizletters@gmail.com.