Jabberwocky blog: Gimme That Beat Boys to Free My Soul ...

Here is another news item shamelessly copied, this time from National Geographic (February 18, 2005). [There's some original stuff in the works on unrelated subjects.] Below concerns the impact of an omnivorous diet. I am not a vegetarian although I like to keep interspecies cannibalism down to a dull roar as much as possible. It's also hard not to notice that people who, beyond the issue of driven necessity ie. starvation or compassion, make a general habit of killing higher mammals are very unlikely to be anarchists in spirit or in practice.

Meat-eating has effected the evolution of the human body, scientists reported today at the American Association for the Advancement of Science's annual meeting in Washington, D.C.

Our fondness for a juicy steak triggered a number of adaptations over countless generations. For instance, our jaws have gotten smaller, and we have an improved ability to process cholesterol and fat.

Our taste for meat has also led us into some trouble—our teeth are too big for our downsized jaws and most of us need dental work.

"It's really amazing what we know now that we didn't know 15 or 20 years ago," said Mark Teaford, a professor at Baltimore's Johns Hopkins University. Teaford helped organize a panel discussion on human diet from a number of perspectives:

• How did the ability to eat meat shape the evolution of humans?
• What can we learn about early humans from tooth shape?

Carnivorous humans go back a long way. Stone tools for butchering meat, and animal bones with corresponding cut marks on them, first appear in the fossil record about 2.5 million years ago.

How Did Meat-Eating Start?

Some early humans may have started eating meat as a way to survive within their own ecological niche.

Competition from other species may be a key element of natural selection that has molded anatomy and behavior, according to Craig B. Stanford, an ecologist at the University of Southern California (USC).

Stanford has spent years visiting the Bwindi Impenetrable Forest National Park in Uganda, Africa, studying the relationship between mountain gorillas and chimpanzees.

"It's the only forest where mountain gorillas and chimps both live," he said. "We're trying to understand the ecological relationship—do they compete for food, for nesting sites?"

The key difference between chimps and gorillas ecologically is that chimps eat meat and gorillas don't. A total herbivore is able to coexist with an omnivore because they have significantly different diets.

From there we can extrapolate back to what two species of early humans may have done vis-à-vis each other two or three million years ago," Stanford said.

When humans switched to meat-eating, they triggered a genetic change that enabled better processing of fats, said Stanford, who has worked extensively with gerontologist Caleb Finch of USC.

"We have an obsession today with fat and cholesterol because we can go to the market and stuff ourselves with it," Stanford said. "But as a species we are relatively immune to the harmful effects of fat and cholesterol. Compared to the great apes, we can handle a diet that's high in fat and cholesterol, and the great apes cannot.

"Even though we have all these problems in terms of heart disease as we get older, if you give a gorilla a diet that a meat-loving man might eat in Western society, that gorilla will die when it's in its twenties; a normal life span might be 50. They just can't handle that kind of diet."

Diet and Teeth

Tool-use no doubt helped early humans in butchering their dinners. But there is evidence that the advance to cooking and using knives and forks is leading to crooked teeth and facial dwarfing in humans.

Today it's relatively rare for someone to have perfectly straight teeth (without having been to the orthodontist). Our wisdom teeth don't have room to fit in the jaw and sometimes don't form at all, and the propensity to develop gum disease is on the increase.

"Virtually any mammalian jaw in the wild that you look at will be a perfect occlusion—a very nice Hollywood-style dentition," said Peter Lucas, the author of Dental Functional Morphology and a visiting professor at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. "But when it comes to humans, the ideal occlusion [the way teeth fit together] is virtually never seen. It's really the only body part that regularly needs attention and surgery."

Lucas argues that the mechanical process of chewing, combined with the physical properties of foods in the diet, will drive tooth, jaw, and body size, particularly in human evolution.

Essentially, by cooking our food, thereby making it softer, we no longer need teeth big enough to chow down on really tough particles. By using knives and forks to cut food into smaller pieces, we no longer need a large enough jaw to cram in big hunks of food.

"We're evolving to eat mush," said Bernard Wood, a paleoanthropologist at George Washington University.

As one commentator {on the forum " Bread and Roses "} pointed out, this would make another case for national dental coverage.

From the Humane Society of the United States ... it seems that after some wrangling last fall the Horse Slaughter Prevention Act has actually been passed.

In a key victory for protecting American horses from slaughter, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 503, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, by a vote of 263 to 146 on Sept. 7.

Passage of the bill marks a historic moment in a groundswell effort to ban the slaughter of American horses for human consumption abroad. More than 20,000 individuals told the HSUS that they called their representatives in the days leading up to the vote, urging their support of the bill. The callers added their voices to more than 500 organizations and editorial boards across the nation that have been calling for an end to the practice.

The legislation, which enjoyed more than 200 cosponsors and bipartisan support, was designed to stop the slaughter of nearly 100,000 American horses annually in three foreign-owned slaughter plants in the United States. Their meat is shipped overseas, primarily to France, Belgium and Japan, where it is considered a delicacy.

The Bill was originally introduced by members from both sides of the lower house, which probably demonstrates that, for good OR ill, there really isn't that much difference between political parties. Where have we heard that before? Opposition to the bill tended to focus on it's supposed impracticalities "what are we going to do with all those extra horses",etc. and naturally on the motives of the Anti Slaughter Coalition, whose board of directors did NOT include any vegetarians. Similar comments were seen during the run-up to the successful passage of proposition six in California in 1998. Last heard the "Hoofpac" legislation resulted in a fifty percent decrease in theft while, since that time, the general size of horse related industries increased by ten percent. Theft was a factor aiding the original campaign both in California and across the US. Stealing horses and selling to slaughterhouses appears to be a problem both in America and in Europe. A defense group in England reported that some of their members have been beaten up by thieves ... Naturally, the Bush administration which undercut the "Wild horse Annie" bill passed back in the seventies, is opposed to this legislation ... no guff.

In the days leading up to the vote, the opposition stepped up efforts to defend the slaughter industry, but two amendments that would have gutted the bill were defeated in votes (Goodlatte Amendment | King Amendment), and the day went to horses, lauded as an icon and symbol of American heritage.

"The horse is tied to the spirit of the American frontier," Rep. Whitfield told the house in debate. "Most importantly, the horse is a companion."

With the majority of Americans and the U.S. House of Representatives on the record supporting a permanent ban on horse slaughter, the Senate will now take up the bill for consideration.

“Horse slaughter is simply indefensible, and polls show that the vast majority of Americans agree,” HSUS President and CEO Wayne Pacelle said. “As we build on today’s successful vote and take the debate to the Senate, we urge humane-minded citizens to call and write their senators and get this legislation passed once and for all.”

Attempts by the US Department of Agriculture to circumvent this enactment by amendment were also defeated in March. At least that's what it appears. I suspect this thing isn't over yet. From "HorseTalk" a New Zealand equestrian group.

Two of three slaughter plants in the US have already been forced to suspend operations recently. The two Texas plants stopped slaughtering horses for human consumption after an appellate court upheld a State law making it illegal to sell, possess and transport horsemeat for sale for human consumption.

Since then, the remaining Illinois plant has been killing about 1000 horses a week.

United States District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, in a 51-page decision released today, held that the slaughter of horses in America violates federal law. Her ruling effectively blocks the US Department of Agriculture from providing horse meat inspections for a fee.

The decision by the USDA to provide inspection services for a fee had, in the opinion of animal rights groups, circumvented a Congressionally approved 2005 amendment that cut federal funding for the required inspections.

That decision had been expected to stop slaughter for human consumption, but the USDA accepted a proposal that it be paid to provide the mandatory inspections.

Judge Kollar-Kotelly, in her opinion issued in response to a lawsuit filed in February 2006 by the Society for Animal Protective Legislation (SAPL) and other humane organisations and individuals, ruled that the USDA violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to conduct an environmental impact review of its decision to allow the continuation of horse slaughter.

Animal welfare groups that took the legal action were quick to claims victory.

"Tonight, after years of legislation and litigation, America's three horse slaughterhouses can no longer kill horses for human consumption," said Chris Heyde, deputy legislative director for the Society for Animal Protective Legislation.

"We call on Illinois-based Cavel International to work with the humane and rescue communities to find permanent, safe homes for the hundreds of horses who were slated for slaughter, to give them a second chance at life.

"The American public has overwhelmingly opposed the slaughter of America's horses for human consumption and now the courts have declared horse slaughter to be illegal," adds Heyde.

Closer to home the Canadian Horse Defense Coalition works to achieve a similar ban in this country. Their site reviews rescue work, in particular finding places for PMU foals, opposition to the destruction of wild horses in the prairies and BC and opposition to the Canadian horsemeat industry ( we are one of the major suppliers to countries like Japan ). I couldn't find any mention of rodeos in general although this site gives a list of 167 organizations worldwide working against events like the Calgary Stampede. They are supported by significant groups like the Canadian and American Humane societies. Affiliates of the CHDC include major industry organizations such as the Horseman's Benevolent Society and the Ontario Equestrian Federation.

Shag notes: I think something fairly important is being demonstrated here for anarchists who do not share the unusual personal interests chronicled within this blog. If a significant minority of people are determined to change public policy (ie. state policy) then the best way forward is to put equal pressure on legislative members and not fall into the trap of "just vote for so and so and they'll take care of things". Now if the energy and organization and "good ol' yankee know how" put into HR 503 could be applied to things like a national health service then we would start to see America at its best. That may not sound like anarchism; well, sometimes practicality has to take precedence over ideology.

Now what say we end this lesson with a few words from scripture. From the King James, Book of Job, Chapter 39, beginning at line 19: