"The differences are dramatic. After tracking thousands of civil servants for decades, Marmot was able to demonstrate that between the ages of 40 and 64, workers at the bottom of the hierarchy had a mortality rate four times higher than that of people at the top. Even after accounting for genetic risks and behaviors like smoking and binge drinking, civil servants at the bottom of the pecking order still had nearly double the mortality rate of those at the top."
"Under Pressure: The Search for a Stress Vaccine" http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/07/ff_stress_cure/all/1
It was interesting that most of the commenters were opposed to the idea of a stress vaccine, though their reasons didn't seem very good.
I'm wondering whether the vaccine would mean that people would be more inclined to accept low status (it's less painful) or less inclined to accept low status (more energy, less pessimism.)
I also wonder how much of the stress from low status is from objectively worse conditions (less benign stimulus, worse schedules, more noise, etc.) as distinct from less control, and whether there's a physical basis for the inclination to crank up stress on subordinates.
This thread is for the discussion of Less Wrong topics that have not appeared in recent posts. If a discussion gets unwieldy, celebrate by turning it into a top-level post.