Cheating Darwin

So I have been reading the latest edition of Vanity Fair, guest edited by Bono himself, which probably explains the less than stellar quality of some of the articles. It has been really hard to get through. Try as Bono might to celebrate the triumphs of Africa, there just isn't enough there. If Tunisia, a country that has been run by a succession of "benevolent dictators" is being held up as a model of Africa's future, you can't help but be troubled. And then not a single article manged to avoid the discussion of the diseases that have ravaged Africa over the generations.

I remember learning about Darwin and Malthus in high school. If you believe in both survival of the fittest and that population growth rapidly outstrips food production, then I wonder if epidemic disease is a way to shift populations, weed out the weak, and restore the balance between human populations and available resources. You see this often in the animal world, particularly with deer populations. If deer populations rise to an unsupportable level, many deer begin suffering from wasting disease and the population balance is restored within a couple seasons. Perhaps this is what Mother Nature is trying to do? But if it is...

1. Why is it that Africa is bearing the brunt of the burden?
2. What is our moral responsibility to alleviate these epidemics? Can we find a real cure or are we merely postponing an eventual and inevitable population shake out?
3. Are humans really capable of circumventing Darwinian logic?

If it is in fact possible to cheat evolution does that mean the creationists have it? Does it mean that Darwin was wrong? Or is cheating evolution simply mean that it is the fittest that do survive?

Fatty

Why is it that today fatness, plumpness, and obesity are associated with the poor and less educated? It wasn't always like that. I still remember reading Anne of Green Gables when I was younger. Anne wished she had dimpled arms like Diana. I remember looking at my own arms and wondering where the dimples were supposed to be. So back in the day being rounder was not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it was apparently a somewhat attractive quality. Maybe because plumpness connoted good health and wealth during a time when food was relatively scarce?

I guess what provoked this question for me was the very obese woman on the bus back to Boston yesterday. If I were hazarding a guess I would say she was morbidly obese. When I saw her, there were a couple things that ran through my head... things like, I hope I don't have to sit next to her (I like having my space) and why doesn't she take better care of herself and "white trash". But then I immediately felt guilty because there are plenty of people who are obese through no fault of their own, merely a cruel genetic trick and where do I get off judging people on their appearances. Then I felt worse when I heard other people whispering and snickering about her. Afterall, what I was doing wasn't much better...

But I wonder when exactly did obesity and income/education become so correlated? Is it that overly processed foods are expensive relative to fresh, healthy foods? Is it that gym access is expensive and not available to all? Is it that the poor and less educated have to work more jobs and more hours and don't have the time to take care of themselves? Fast food is always a quick and easy option.

My own gut reaction to obesity makes me wonder if there isn't a form of discrimination more insidious than racism. Racism is not acceptable to broader society, but I am inclined to think that weightism is sadly somehow more acceptable.