Post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacy. The defense rests.
From what we know about the impact on health of stress (and low status is a proven major cause of stress), it's hardly a radical leap.
Low status is a relative value.
Look at trends over time. It's pretty hard to dispute the evidence.
Originally Posted by Ivy
Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.
I meant prosperity in its most basic, simple definition as the opposite of material poverty or destitution.
If the poorest in the most inequitable society are "better off" than the poorest of an equitable society, all other things being equal and no extrenuous variables, is the inequitable society superior?
If not why not?
It would depend on the culture of these people.
On the one hand, inequity can breed a sense of injustice and envy. At an extreme, that could manifest itself as social unrest and disorder.
On the other hand, if the culture is one of order and hierarchy and tradition, where everyone has their place, then their situation would be superior to the equitable society's. In other words, all else being equal, the benefits of an equitable society would be obsolete.
(And I assume we're talking about social equity, not monetary equity, because the latter poses no dilema)
"OMG I FEEEEEEEEEL SO INTENSELY ABOUT EVERYTHING OMG OMG OMG GET ME A XANAX" -Priam (ENFP impersonation)
If we're talking social, political, financial, educational equity, then yes equity in society would be ideal on paper but in practice there is the lingering fact that there will always be certain people that just can't be happy unless there is someone else squirming underneath their feet. There are also other problems like forcing lazy people to be motivated to achieve high levels of success in [insert important life area here] whilst forcing driven people to be satisfied with an average (but equitable) success in [insert important life area here].
People are too diverse to support any real form of equity in society, but an ideal society would at least provide acceptable minimum standards for things like health care, education, financial stability. Thus the minimum should provide a way for every citizen to experience an acceptable quality of life but achieving beyond those minimums should be left up to the individual. This of course will likely never happen because in addition to being diverse people tend to be selfish, stubborn, delusional, and adverse to change.
Although I suspect we might all get to see how the world governments intend to define equality when certain resources like fresh air and water start to become extremely scarce and populations explode far beyond the resources available to maintain them. Who will get to have children? Who will get to have fresh water? Who will get to go to school? Who will get access to healthcare, food, etc.
I suspect a sustainable model of an "equitable" government in the future might not look anything like the way some people probably envision it now.