Ranting to /dev/null

You've made this statement before. Now, I want to know how you go propose going about the problem of obesity.

I wonder which is the cause and which the effect between obesity and poverty.

The "problem of obesity" is that, surprise surprise, it's expensive to eat healthy food. Historically, this meant that most people simply didn't have enough to eat, and people starved a lot. Today, though most people in this country can afford to keep body and soul together, the percentage of people who can afford to eat a healthy diet is about the same as it was in antiquity: a minority. When you've discovered the means to make healthy food as cheap as processed sugar, the problem might solve itself, but not until then.

As to cause and effect: I think they're mutually reinforcing, because health is necessary for getting and keeping ahead. A person with the intelligence and character to do well might never get to do so if they're sick all the time. Obesity lowers one's overall level of health and increases the risks for any number of debilitating diseases, making it even harder to eat the food necessary to avoid obesity.

Even worse, if you grow up obese it's much harder to shake obesity than if you put on a few pounds later in life. Once your body image is established, you're kinda stuck with it. So if your parents are poor, you're likely to grow up obese, which means you're less likely to be able to attain a level of income which would prevent obesity in yourself and your children.

All of these things are clearly only potentials and probabilities, not set-in-stone truths. Being skinny doesn't make you rich any more than being fat makes you poor, there's just a trend associated there. If one looked at the average BMI index for US Senators and Congressmen, I'll bet it's lower than the average BMI for welfare moms.

I have heard of studies that conclude that, all things being equal, attractive people are happier, have more stable relationships, and find more professional success in life than people who are not attractive. Could be people's reactions to them (impressions are everything) or confidence that comes with a healthy self-image (I know I am tons more confident when I feel I'm having a good hair day or my clothes go together than not).

So maybe that's part of the effect side.

Becca: Yeah, I've seen those. But part of what tends to make people "attractive" tends to be things which signify affluence. For example, even as late as 19th century China, long fingernails were considered attractive, for they were a sign that you didn't have to do manual labor. Similarly, in medieval and early-modern Europe, it was considered attractive for women to be on the volumptuous side (though far from obese), because that meant you were getting enough to eat, whereas today the opposite is true.

Being attractive costs money, and not just in cloths and cosmetics. It indicates available time and means. There's obviously some negative feedback here: in an age when everyone generally gets sufficient calories to reach their natural height, being tall is more a product of genes than environment, yet tall people generally wind up making more and being more influential than shorter people who would otherwise be their socio-economic peers.

Remember, all, that I'm merely being descriptive here. I'm offering no opinions as to whether I think things ought to be this way, simply describing the way that I perceive things to be in fact.