Archive for the ‘politics’ Category

“We’re all in this together” is what the UK prime minister tells us as he continues to tout out the same old line that the economy’s not his fault and it’s all down to the mess left by the last administration. Partisan politics gets a little boring when it’s so obviously untrue, Britain’s path through the current depression could have been better laid in 2008 but it’s a global recession caused by industry wide provision of sub-prime mortgages and dissemination of toxic debt. The Conservative/Liberal party’s policy of cutting back on all areas of public spending, raising taxes and increasing the retirement age are all strategies which would work in theory. Unfortunately the economy doesn’t respond well to a political agenda as opposed to thorough economic modelling and putting all these strategies in place in one fell swoop won’t, indeed can’t do what is expected of them. What happens is that they become a portmanteau of punishment directed at us, the humble citizen (we aught to remind government that we citizens will be voters and constituents in about three years and we’re not happy).

So, instead of punitively taxing banks and investment houses they are rewarded while the poorest, least economically empowered are seeing their meagre incomes reduced yet further. Instead of pulling us out of the current economic mire by the time of the next election Britain is instead facing a double dip recession which will continue well into the next administration’s purview.

Most economists would agree that the way to work ourselves out of this would be to reduce fuel prices across the board, making manufacture and transportation more affordable. Reduce, not increase VAT and income tax. People spend more when they have more money and goods are cheaper, this spending will stimulate the economy, create jobs and therefore reduce the amount necessary to spend on pensions and unemployment benefits, and generate more money for the treasury’s coffers. Increasing taxes would ideologically create more money for the government, however, in reality, people with less money facing higher prices spend less.

So, while ministers chant the mantra “we’re all in this together” and “the previous government’s mis-management…” what they’re actually doing is continuing to reward the people who caused the mess by punishing the victims of their avarice and rapacious greed.

We’re told “The Banks say we need to do this” or “The Banks are threatening more gloom if we don’t do that.” And we’re so inculcated that they’re the experts and they know best that we kowtow to their demands while they sit high on the hog after causing every recession, depression and bust that’s ever existed. If they’re the experts, how come they get it wrong every five to ten years? The last time the economy was as bad as it is today it took a conflict on a global scale to give people enough jobs to work out of it and while Europe and Asia were decimated a select few made a lot of money.

Alfred P Sloan said that “If you do it right 51 percent of the time you will end up a hero.” In economics you only have to be right in your judgment 51% of the time to become rich. That means that you only need the wit to spell your own name correctly on three consecutive occasions and the ability to toss a coin to make it big on Wall Street. The fact that banks don’t seem able to make money under these circumstances should have us all significantly more worried than we actually are!

The problem is that experts become complacent; they use their judgment and experience to inform them what they think should happen, not what will happen. This has been borne out in scientific study.Philip Tetlock reports in his book Expert Political Judgment that when experts, lay people and a chimpanzee were set tasks to see how well they could judge the future an ape throwing darts could do as well as or even better than one of these so called experts. Aside from the health and safety issues involved, would you like to see the world’s economic strategies dictated by a primate playing bar-room games? No-one would like it but it might actually be better for us!

Bitter Tears For The Dear Leader

Posted: December 19, 2011 in economics, politics

We in the west assume that all these tears being wept for Kim Jong Il must be of the crocodile variety, empty propaganda or fake tears being shed for fear of imprisonment or deportation to some snowbound labour camp where the chief of the labours are simply to stay alive. However, there may be genuine feeling behind the tears being shed today. 
When any dictator or tyrant dies there are always public outpourings of emotion, we privileged, demand economy First World residents couldn’t understand. We are able to publicly criticise our leaders, point out their faults and failings and get rid of them when they’re past their usefulness. In totalitarian states the population don’t get that luxury. If they have the feeling that their Supreme Leader is somehow faulty there is no way for them to share these opinions and, separate from others, they cannot know that they are not alone. Like children kept under the strict control of a domineering parent or religion, free thought is atrophied and a naive credulity often takes its place.
So, the tears may in fact be real, as when Stalin died there were genuine tears of grief, certainly, but, after having been kept with their faces under a jackboot for so long there are other reasons to cry. The patriarch instills his cult so thoroughly that the uncertainty and doubt that come with the vacuum of such a personality’s absence throws the nation into a miasma of fear, mistrust and anxiety. In a Stalinist monarchy such as North Korea one can imagine the transfer of power to be relatively transparent: The names remain the same, simply transpose an Il for an Un and carry on as normal. In other counties the death of a similar leader would naturally result in a civil war. And as you can see in the civil wars that have existed in Somalia,The Congo and Rwanda those wars are filthier, more violent, sadistic and brutal than national wars seem to be.
That fear, terror no less is exactly what the leaders, while alive, want. As a part of their warped, megalomaniac hegemonic process the seek to terrify their minions into blind obedience through the implicit threat of what will be the result if any action is taken to depose them: They are the capo dei capi because they are ordained by their singular ability to control their nation state. The fact that these are failing states is often used to their advantage as opposed to their detriment as one might suppose. Kim Jong Il inculcated his people to believe that their unremitting hunger, forced voluntary labour and lack of resources and energy was a consequence of the constant siege that was being waged defending North Korea from the south, and most importantly the United States. Should people ever question why the food that was provided to them came in sacks marked with Old Glory the truth, that the country was kept from complete collapse by the supply of international aid, they were told it was a quaking States’ tribute paid to Il to appease him and stay his hand from delivering his final masterstroke against the decadent west.
Now that power is gone and the stability that came with the Dear Leader is gone so the future without him is a very scary place. We all fear the unknown but in North Korea the unknown of the future is virtually unknowable, making it scarier yet.
So don’t suppose that those tears are anything less than genuine, just don’t think that they are for Kim Jong Il. They’re not, they’re tears of fear, paranoia and for a future which had always been prescribed but now leads only to an uncertain fate

As we are coming to the end of the first decade of the twenty first century the way we appear to other people and how it affects our standing in society is just as important as ever, indeed with photo-sharing, tagging and commenting through media that is as available in Timbuktu as it is next door we have never before been exposed to such scrutiny regarding out appearance and how we present ourselves to the world but the University of Bristol information is being discovered about the interesting history of style, culture and the place of personal appearance within it.

Archaeology professor João Zilhão at Bristol University has discovered evidence that the use of cosmetics goes back not only to our early human ancestors but even to our pre-human antecedents, the Neanderthals. Not only did they have make-up but they produced the compacts in which to store it which were found, along with other artefacts, in Neanderthal burials. These toiletries were manufactured from drilled sea shells which were found up to 60km inland, indicating both trade and organised migration where objects considered valuable would be retained and used or exchanged. It was known that shell had been used for adornment since prehistory but Zilhao’s more recently discovered artefacts show that they were also used to keep pigments and coloured clays which were perfect for personal decoration.

So it seems that adorning the body in order to present a more attractive profile or impress our social status upon our peers through our outward appearance isn’t just a very old idea, it’s an idea that goes back to before we even existed as human beings. The first humans existed in Europe from 40,000 years ago while Neanderthals existed in Europe from 50,000 years ago and although they co-existed it had previously been believed they kept to their own regions and the only contact they had with one another was confrontational. However there is evidence now that the two societies not only shared culture and goods but may have even occasionally interbred. A child’s remains, found in Lagar Velho, Portugal which have been dated to 24,500 years ago show evidence of mixed Neanderthal-human parentage which, while certainly proving genetic exchange, would also lend strength to the theory that cultural exchange took place between the earliest European inhabitants.

Because Neanderthal fossilized remains were the first European to be found, they were presumed to be closer to our primate ancestors , that is they were thought to be nearer primates and the missing link. However, since evidence now shows that Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons, that is modern humans, exchanged culture, goods and it seems, affection then the differences between them and us were in fact very slight. Things like made objects and cosmetics had been thought to be only within the realm of the human, neanderthals were assumed to be ‘cavemen’; troglodytes who merely grunted at one-another and threw sticks and rocks at passing animals yet what little evidence there is for this attitude is rapidly diminishing as we learn more about them. We see they had cosmetics which denote culture and they made cases to put them in which indicates they were capable of forward planning, invention and manufacture of products and sensed that items thad value and should be kept, developing a method and items by which to do so.

Neolithic ‘cave’ man not only seems never to have actually lived in any caves but he now proves to have had culture, religion and medicine, as evidence in herbal preparations found with bodily remains, remains which also show that he could perform successful surgery including trepanning, surgery to release pressure on the brain to relieve epilepsy, and release evil spirits by boring a hole in the skull. Considering these advances in science and religion it seems strange that we should believe these proto-humans as amoral savages who could only say ‘Ug’. Developing religion, decorating themselves and their surroundings with magical symbols and drawings, often with outstanding accuracy as found in preserved cave paintings and caring for the sick while only communicating with one another through rudimentary grunts and gestures seems barely possible. Indeed, the trachea and larynx wouldn’t have evolved to an advanced state if its practical application was only to be later realised by Cro-Magnon man who subsequently used their ability to control the voice-box to develop complex language. It’s far more likely that the larynx would have needed to develop as greater requirements were made of it, as language and the needs of the speaker developed the structure of the throat would have needed to keep pace with it, rather than the converse.

It seems that while couture models are sometimes and unkindly regarded as being little more than clothes horses, parading up and down wearing too much make-up and clad in clothes that only exist to display the social status of the wearer they are, in reality, engaging in activity which is older than man himself, activity which can be seen to have been concomitant with advances in science, language, art and culture, advances by which we define ourselves as human.

But if we are going to regard models as mere vehicles for the clothes that designers produce how have they become both the victim and villain in the war on fat? An issue, alongside global climate change, that seems set to become one of the pivotal developmental concerns of the early twenty first century while one half of the world’s population seems to be suffering from an “obesity epidemic” while the other half face issues of clean water and trying to find enough food to feed themselves from one day to the next.

Recently, Kate Moss repeated the mantra which has been picked up as the motto for the pro-anorexia movement that “Nothing tastes as good as thin feels”, a sentiment that at the time obviously sent the tabloids into a moral outrage about how icons such as her could make such comments because it’s clear that super skinny models are to blame for making young girls anorexic. Except the problem of obesity is far more common and threatening more lives in the west than the problem of a relatively few girls taking skipping lunch to its illogical conclusion.

It’s easy to blame slender models for the apparent increase in childhood anorexia and eating disorders as well as body dysmorphia but that’s simply shooting at the most obvious target until the evidence is looked into a little more deeply.

Designers use extremely thin models for their haute couture ranges and runway shows it’s true but what girls are interested in high end fashion when most girls’ pocket money will barely stretch to buying more than a few bits from Primark, let alone investing in fashion titles such as Vogue or Harpers?

With mass media sources propagating the notion that obesity, while being undesirable, is a normal aspect of the human condition and the very fat are something of a curiosity as they draw our attention whether we like to admit it or not. For example, looking at TV scheduling any week you will be almost certain to find documentaries entitled “Superfat versus Superskinny” “My Big Fat Diet Show” “The Biggest Looser” among many others.

Our government tries to encourage us to eat healthily and people know that to have a health and fitness are associated with a slender body but the message carried in schemes such as the ‘five a day’ initiative is not getting across. In a recent survey in Scotland it was revealed that some parents thought that a can of Coke or a bag of chips counted toward their ‘five a day’.

Governmental initiatives are trying to convince us that obesity is becoming an epidemic and but information is so thin on the ground it should come as no surprise that children are confusing the message and becoming dangerously thin while there’s a constant stream of information telling us ‘Britain’s getting fatter, loose more weight’. These mixed messages are exacerbated by advertising and fast food retailers who give their products a healthy looking name or provide carrot sticks instead of fries with their children’s meals yet put so much fat into meals such as their Caesar salads that they contain more calories than their chicken sandwiches.

The root of many of the problems that we face in regard to our size can be blamed on our love of convenience, a trait which can also be traced back to our pre-human antecedents. Our ancestors were inclined, when food was plentiful, to eat as much as they liked and not stray too far from the source, logical if you don’t know when this time of plenty might suddenly dry up. However, in the post industrial age this ability to put our hands on food as soon as we desire it together with a disinclination to undue effort means that the ready-meal is now king.

The prevalence of ready-meals, take-aways and fast food has meant that, for many people, cooking is no longer a skill that they posses. It’s always so much easier to take something out of the freezer and put it in the microwave for 5 minutes. We no longer know what goes into our food and very often simply look at non-standardised icons and emblems to discern whether food is healthy or not. We no longer know how much salt sugar or fat we ingest, all of which play a detriment to health when over consumed and all are routinely added to processed foods to preserve and add flavour, moisture and texture to foods with a reduced nutritional value which also end up costing many times more than the component fresh ingredients would if bought separately from the same store.

Cooking, an ability once strongly associated with the ability to create fire, is now regarded as something of a hobby or relaxing pastime, as an event which again is suitable to watch on TV, much like a sport or a unusual activity. Cookery is seen as something other people do and no longer something that we are required to do on a more than daily basis. We watch celebrities do it badly and ordinary folk do it well, we are told that if we want to try any of the recipes we can look on the website. But how many of us do? On average it is reckoned that on average we each know three or four recipes, consequently we only buy the ingredients that are necessary for those meals so it is unlikely we are going to be able to dash off something new unless it happens to contain ingredients we already have or the process and presentation of the dish on TV is so impressive, so memorable, that we simply can’t help ourselves but go and re-create it. Unless it’s available as a ready-meal.

Some TV chefs adopt a vendetta against processed food and try to encourage us to start cooking again yet, as viewers, we passively watch with a gimlet eye as a worthy crusader’s stunt is stymied by mothers who believe in their children’s right to choose chips over crushed baby new potatoes and burgers over broccoli. We want choice, we want convenience, we want to be healthy and we want it to taste good with the minimum amount of effort. What we get is marketing instead of information, lifestyle choice instead of the healthy option and Go Large instead of Grow Your Own.

Those of us who were brought up being taught that to throw away food was a sin because there were people starving in the world pass that message on to our children, children who’ve grown up with third world poverty as a televisual event that can be switched of or guilt assuaged by getting sponsored not to eat for a day. We teach our young to finish what’s on their plate but the meal may very well have been measured by the bucket with fries and a diet cola.

So the thin must be paragons of restraint whose very existence is a slap in the face to those who don’t seem able to find the time to cook a ‘proper’ meal, right? Wrong. As much as it is unacceptable to mention weight to some-one with curves, it seems that anyone who is of average size or more is fully entitled to criticise the weight of those who may not be able to put weight on, calling them ‘stick thin’, asking bluntly if they have an eating disorder, if it’s a female in question, pointing out their lack of boobs and bum and telling them they look like a boy. If a male, mocking his scrawny physique and questioning his masculinity since he clearly doesn’t work out. So, when we are looking for scapegoats for the apparent polarization between those who seem unable to loose weight and those who are unable to put the pounds on as much as we need to stop blaming the overweight for their own failings when it comes to moderate portion sizes we should also stop blaming the thin for promoting the idea of thinness as an ideal.

By the very nature of their title models have bodies that others are supposed to strive toward. Models shouldn’t be the spokespeople for any agenda; they’re employed to look pretty in pret a porter and haute couture. They’re not supposed to be a great ambassador for any cause and certainly not for something as important as the younger generation’s long term health.

Not many people would consider Paris Hilton to be an Eco-Warrior but it seems that’s exactly what she is! Of course she has a public image to maintain so she couches her advice in some typically obscure metaphors but it’s all there, you just have to listen to her.

Paris Tells Her Friends About Coastal Erosion

Paris Tells Her Friends About Coastal Erosion

Paris has more then 3 million twitter followers so if just a few percent of them could pick up what she’s putting down and tell their friends that “it’s what Paris would do” then that message would really start to get about.

Paris says: “The only rule is don’t be boring and dress cute wherever you go. Life is too short to blend in.”

What Paris means is: It’s important not to become monotonous on a particular issue. If you make your arguments succinct and entertaining and high in easy, practical advice then people will listen to you. Don’t become just another eco-bore.

Paris Says: “No matter what a woman looks like, if she’s confident, she’s sexy.”

What Paris means is: Know your subject matter and know your enemy.

Paris says: “Wal-mart… do they like make walls there?”

What Paris means is: Huge multinational conglomerations are destroying the environment with their need for cheap materials, they walk all over their employee human and workers rights, from sweatshops making their pricey running shoes in developing countries to the minimum wage, no sick pay or medical coverage that they force upon their domestic workers companies like Wal-mart build barriers to social cohesion and economic development for thousands while making their stock holders rich.

Paris says: “I don’t really think, I just walk.”

What Paris with her pimped humvee means is: Once you’ve become dedicated to environmental change it’s not something you have to think about, it’s just something you can get on with. And don’t drive a car, walk.

Paris says: “Who are you wearing?”

What Paris means is: Wearing clothing that isn’t ecologically sound or made of fur etc. makes you a nobody. Think about what you put on your body as well as what you put in it.

Paris says: “I’d imagine my wedding as a fairy tale… huge, beautiful and white.”

What Paris means is: A wedding is the happiest day in a girls’ life. The happiest day in Paris’ life will be when there is no longer any danger to the polar icecaps. They will indeed be ‘huge, beautiful and white’ we need to cut greenhouse emissions and do more to protect the environment.

Paris says: “This is Earth. Isn’t it hot?”

What Paris means is: We have to do something about global warming immediately. From remembering to turn off electrical items properly to trading in our cars for bikes and committing to only buying locally produced goods.

Paris says: “Trust me, people act differently toward you when you’ve got jewellery on your head.”

What Paris means is: It’s not just the tree hugging, hippy dippy crystal gripping beardy weirdies who have influence over issues like coastal erosion and global warming. Even people who dress in suits and ties that go to work in everyday jobs have a personal responsibility to do what they can to protect the environment. In fact the more professional you look the more import people will give you.

Paris says: “I don’t want to be known as the granddaughter of the Hiltons. I want to be known as Paris.”

What Paris means is: Just because things have been done the same way for generations that doesn’t mean that it’s the right way to do things, we need to innovate to create. Innovation is the greatest gift the human race has been blessed with and if we change the way we do things we really can save the planet.

Not many people knew that Paris was so environmentally conscious but it appears that she really is committed to improving the environment. So, like, eugh, whatever!

Facebook, in what could be another potential degradation of its users privacy launched a new enhancement last week whereby those users who Facebook on their iPhone will be able to use their phone to broadcast their location to their friends.

Facebook Places works using GPS equipped iPhones, it works out your location and presents you with a list of local landmarks and attractions where you can ‘check in’ and this information is then used as an update letting your friends know where they can find you. If you ‘breadcrumb’ particular restaurants, bars or clubs your friends will know where you have been and what you thought of the place while you were there.

Of course location based mobile apps like Foursquare already exist and are growing in popularity they are virtually insignificant when you consider that Facebook’s subscribers number more than the entire population of the United States. According to Facebook’s own figures, 150,000,000 use their phone to access it. However, Places is only currently available as an iPhone app through an enhanced mobile website. Facebook will be hoping that businesses and industry will see the advantages of being able to market to people knowing their specific location and pay to advertise thus creating a new revenue stream with deals for local business, sponsorship and special offers.

The security issues are obvious and Facebook says that Places has built in controls to protect sensitive location information such as limiting the default visibility of check ins to friends only however, as iPhones proliferate and become cheaper users will become younger, anxious parents might give their child a phone enabled with Places so they can check their whereabouts at all times, but children are notoriously careless with their online security leaving them open to hacking and thus broadcasting their entire Facebook profile and location to the world.

Facebook has made various  changes in privacy controls in numerous regions following privacy issues and some critics are claiming that Facebook runs a “Here Now, Security Later” policy to new features.  Augie Ray, social networking analyst with Forrester Research said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal that: “It’s nearly impossible to launch any new social feature without some level of privacy concern, and it remains to be seen whether users will like or dislike the fact that they can be checked in by their friends,”

Facebook countered that since not all of its users had the phones required to access the service it’s merely an advantage to the iPhone and users can turn the friends check-in off entirely, although it is permitted by default and, as lifehacker point out, it is often found that facebook applications far harder to turn off than seems altogether reasonable.

So Kate Moss says “Nothing tastes as good as skinny feels” and once again we’re treated to tabloid OUTRAGE as super skinny models make young girls anorexic. Except Kate isn’t that thin any more & the problem of obesity is far more common and threatening more lives in the west than a few  girls taking skipping lunch to its illogical conclusion.

It’s easy to blame slender models for the apparent increase in childhood anorexia and eating disorders as well as body dysmorphia but that’s simply shooting at the most obvious target until you actually look a little deeper.

Designers use extremely thin models for their haute couture ranges and runway shows it’s true but what girls are interested in high end fashion when their pocket money will barely stretch to buying more than a few bits from Primark, let alone titles such as Vogue or Harpers?

It’s still more or less acceptable in many areas to point and laugh at fatties trundling down the street and the very fat are something of a curiosity, they draw our attention whether we like to admit it or not. Our governments try to tell us to eat healthily and everyone knows that to have a slender body is to have a healthy body but the message is not getting across. In a recent survey in Scotland it was revealed that some parents thought that a can of Coke or a bag of chips counted toward their ‘five a day’- a programme set up by central government to get people eating at least 5 pieces of fruit or vegetables every day.

While the powers that be are trying to convince us that obesity is becoming an epidemic and yet information is so thin on the ground is it any surprise that children are confusing the message and becoming dangerously thin while there’s a constant soundtrack murmuring ‘Britain’s getting fatter, loose more weight’?

Much as we need to stop blaming the overweight for their own failings when it comes to moderate portion sizes we should also stop blaming the thin for promoting the idea of thinness as ideal. By the very nature of their title models have bodies that others strive toward. Models shouldn’t be the spokespeople for any agenda, they’re there to look pretty. If you’ve ever been caught in conversation with a model you’ll know it’s almost, but not quite as soul destroying as time spent with an actor or musician, the more successful they are the more vapid, insular, self delusional and short sighted -in terms of world view- they become, hardly a great ambassador for any cause and certainly not for something as important as the younger generation’s long term health.

As we enter the second decade of the twenty first millennia the first of the international fashion weeks is scheduled to start in mid February. London will be the venue for the first new designs of The Tens, showing us the direction fashion, couture and style will be headed in the future. 120 miles away at the University of Bristol information is being discovered about the interesting history of style and culture.

Archaeology professor João Zilhão at Bristol University has discovered evidence that the use of cosmetics goes back not only to our early human ancestors  but even to our pre-human antecedents, the   Neanderthals. Not only did they have make-up but they produced containers in which to store it, compacts if you will. These toiletries were manufactured from drilled sea shells which were found up to 60km inland, indicating both trade and organised migration where objects considered valuable would be retained and used or exchanged. It was known that shell had been used for adornment since prehistory but Zilhao’s  more recently discovered artefacts show that they were also used to keep pigments and coloured clays which were perfect for personal decoration.

So it seems that adorning the body in order to present a more attractive profile or impress our social status upon our peers through our outward appearance isn’t just a very old idea, it’s an idea that goes back to before we even existed as humans. The first humans existed in Europe from 40,000 years ago while neanderthals existed in Europe from 50,000 years ago and although they co-existed it had previously been believed they kept to their own regions and the only contact they had with one another was confrontational. However there is evidence now that the two societies not only shared culture and goods but may have even occasionally interbred. A child’s remains, found in Lagar Velho, Portugal which have been dated to 24,500 years ago show evidence of mixed Neanderthal-human parentage which, while certainly proving genetic exchange, would also lend strength to the theory that cultural  exchange took place between the earliest European inhabitants.

Because Neanderthal fossilized remains were the first European to be found,  they were presumed to be closer to our primate ancestors , that is they were thought to be nearer primates and the missing link. However, since evidence now shows that neanderthals and Cro Magnons, that is modern humans, exchanged culture, goods and it seems,  affection then the differences between them and us were in fact very slight. Things like made objects and cosmetics had been thought to be only within the realm of the human, neanderthals were assumed to be ‘cavemen’; troglodytes who merely grunted at one-another and threw sticks and rocks at passing animals yet what little evidence there is for this attitude is rapidly diminishing as we learn more about them. We see they had cosmetics which denote culture and they made cases to put them in which indicates they were capable of forward planning and sensed that a product had value and should be kept, developing a method and products by which to do so.

Neolithic ‘cave’ man not only seems never to have actually lived in any caves but he now proves to have had culture, religion and medicine, as evidence in herbal preparations found with bodily remains and successful  surgery including trepanning, surgery  to release pressure on the brain to relieve epilepsy, and release evil spirits by boring a hole in the skull. Considering these advances in science and religion it seems strange that we should believe these proto-humans as amoral savages who could only say ‘Ug’. Developing religion, decorating themselves and their surroundings with magical symbols, often with outstanding accuracy as found in preserved cave paintings and caring for the sick while only communicating with one another through rudimentary grunts and gestures seems barely possible. Indeed, the trachea and larynx couldn’t have evolved to an advanced state only for its practical application to be  later realised by man who then used their control of the  voice-box  to develop complex language. It seems fare more likely that the larynx would have needed to develop as greater requirements were made of it, as language and the needs of the speaker developed the structure of the throat would have needed to keep pace with it.

So it seems that while couture models are sometimes and unkindly regarded as being little more than clothes horses, parading up and down wearing too much make-up and clad in clothes that only exist to display the social status of the wearer they are, in reality, engaging in activity which is older than man himself, activity which can be seen to have been concomitant with advances in science, language, art and culture, advances by which we define ourselves as human.