That makes sense, as orientation and race one are born with and we are also not born to be bias against them but nurtured. Where is weight (which we are certainly nurtured with every marketing element we see) its also nature and evolution to in general be attracted or find pleasing healthy people since that results in healthier communities and off spring in general. The same goes for the others they mentioned such as disability. So while the nurture part could certainly change our genetic bias towards healthy people most likely will not. Hopefully the nurture part will since people are bias against people who are healthy but not peak perfection healthy.
i think there is a big argument that the rise of obesity specifically in America is in large part due to diet, heavy in sugars and corn syrup, in response to the "low-fat" fad and corn subsidies respectively. That coupled with the love of cars and sprawl, society in America leads to obesity unless you are wealthy and have time to exercise and can afford food without processed sugars and corn syrup.
Therefore, fat is more or less a signifier of class, just as race is, and the bias against fat people is more or less just a manifestation in part of how much we demonize the poor in this country.
Rich fat people exist, and are demonized too. Obesity is a result of overeating, and can be avoided even if you're poor. Rice and frozen bags of rich veggies are cheap.
A friend who studied developmental psych told me scientists are still far from reaching an agreement about the causal factors of homosexuality, that there's actually growing evidence that homosexuality is actually more correlated with one's environment during early (first 3-5 years) childhood. But since how one develops in early childhood is just as binding as the expressions of your genes, you might as well say you're born with your orientation.
Comments
That makes sense, as orientation and race one are born with and we are also not born to be bias against them but nurtured. Where is weight (which we are certainly nurtured with every marketing element we see) its also nature and evolution to in general be attracted or find pleasing healthy people since that results in healthier communities and off spring in general. The same goes for the others they mentioned such as disability. So while the nurture part could certainly change our genetic bias towards healthy people most likely will not. Hopefully the nurture part will since people are bias against people who are healthy but not peak perfection healthy.
i think there is a big argument that the rise of obesity specifically in America is in large part due to diet, heavy in sugars and corn syrup, in response to the "low-fat" fad and corn subsidies respectively. That coupled with the love of cars and sprawl, society in America leads to obesity unless you are wealthy and have time to exercise and can afford food without processed sugars and corn syrup.
Therefore, fat is more or less a signifier of class, just as race is, and the bias against fat people is more or less just a manifestation in part of how much we demonize the poor in this country.
Rich fat people exist, and are demonized too. Obesity is a result of overeating, and can be avoided even if you're poor. Rice and frozen bags of rich veggies are cheap.
A friend who studied developmental psych told me scientists are still far from reaching an agreement about the causal factors of homosexuality, that there's actually growing evidence that homosexuality is actually more correlated with one's environment during early (first 3-5 years) childhood. But since how one develops in early childhood is just as binding as the expressions of your genes, you might as well say you're born with your orientation.