Unlike monkey’s, humans who rank low in the hierarchy almost always have a disproportionate share of disease
To really address the poor health of the poor, we would have to uproot the stressors involved in low rank rather than give people more money. This is relevant to an even larger depressing thought. Do low-ranking monkeys have a disproportionate share of disease, more stress-related disease? And the answer was, “Well, it’s actually not that simple.” It depends on the sort of society the animal lives in, its personal experience of that society, its coping skills, its personality, the availability of social support. Change some of those variables and the rank/health gradient can shift in the exact opposite direction. This is the sort of finding that primatologists revel in—look how complicated and subtle my animals are.
So poor humans have a disproportionate share of disease? The answer was “Yes, yes, over and over.” Regardless of gender or age or race. In societies with universal health care and those without. In societies that are ethnically homogenous and those rife with ethnic tensions. In societies in which illiteracy is widespread and those in which it has been virtually banished. In those in which infant mortality has been plummeting and in some wealthy, industrialized societies in which rates have inexcusably been climbing. And in societies in which the central mythology is a capitalist credo of “Living well is the best revenge” and those in which it is a socialist anthem of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
References
- Sapolsky, Robert. (2004). Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers Chapter 17. The View from the Bottom (p. 536). New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company.
Metadata
Type:🔴 Tags: Biology / Neuroscience / Psychology / Neuropsychology / Social Psychology / Medicine / Politics / Economics Status:☀️