Cultured meat is a future feast

Say hello to the future. The development of cultured meat
opens the door to solving many of the world's food problems
as well as environmental issues.

It might have sounded like science fiction just a few years ago, but today it seems we are just few years away from having meat and leather that don't require an animal to be killed. These cultured meat and leather products are grown in just a few labs right now, but one day will be mass produced in large facilities.

This may sound unlikely to many people, especially the detractors who point at the very first lab-grown burger that presented to the public just three years ago. That burger was cooked and eaten at a news conference on Aug. 5, 2013, to a mixed reception. But the biggest news wasn't that the burger was grown or that it tasted like a real burger, but that it cost $325,000 to produce.
Even today, when it was reported that the same burger would cost $11.36 to produce in 2015, a drop of $324,988.64 in just two years, detractors still point at the obsolete $325,000 price tag.

But despite the semi-skeptical reception and purveying anti-biotech attitude of many in the public, lab-grown animal products are still moving forward. The latest development being the announcement that Brooklyn-based startup Modern Meadow, who on June 28 secured $40million in Series B Round funding, bringing their total funds raised to $53.5 million.

“Modern Meadow harnesses the combined power of design, biology and engineering to change the way we think about materials, unlocking the capabilities of nature. Leather, which represents a $100 billion raw material market, has always been prized for its beauty, functionality and enduring status, according to Modern Meadow CEO and co-founder Andras Forgacs. “Today, as a co-product of the meat industry, it is subject to fluctuations in availability, quality, price and growing demand. At Modern Meadow, we’re re-imagining this millennia-old material to create revolutionary new features without harming animals or the environment.”

Millions have also been invested in research and development for other companies, like Memphis Meats, a meat-growing startup.

According to Memphis Meats CEO and Co-founder, Uma Valeti, their goal is to have the meat available for retail by 2021.

Cultured meat is expected to have a widespread impact. It's being touted for producing as little as 4 percent of the greenhouse gases produced by livestock, which is a positive for many of those concerned by environmental issues. This impact would also reach water bodies, which would be less susceptible from runoff that includes animal feces. Another big plus is that it would only require a fraction of the land required for cattle.

One example of the impact that raising livestock can be seen in our neighbors to the south in Central and South America. Since 1960 more than a quarter of rain-forest has been cleared for raising cattle and 70 percent in Costa Rica and Panama has been destroyed in conversion to rearing livestock, while in Brazil 40 percent of the land has been cleared for beef production, according to research biologist Brian J. Ford.

The livestock sector consumes 8 percent of all the fresh water in the world and occupies almost one-third of the world’s surface that isn't not covered by ice and permafrost. It also contributes 18 per cent of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

Then, there's also the idea that it could have a significant impact on the scarcity of food in the world. We are looking at a world population that is expected to keep increasing at least through 2100. Even though worldwide birthrates are declining — the average was 5.0 births per woman in 1960 and 2.5 births per woman in 2014, according to the World Bank — the population is living longer. Women in the U.S. alone are expected to have an average lifespan of 89-94 by 2050, according to the MacArthur Research Network, men lag behind at 83-86 years, according to ABC News. So, even though the number of people entering the world is decreasing, the rate at which people leaving it is decreasing as well.

Essentially, that means there's going to be a lot of poor people in the world to feed and lots of people see cultured meat as the way to do that.

But is it safe? Some people are concerned about it being unnatural and whether it's genetically modified.

According to New Harvest, cultured foods are unnatural in the same way that bread, cheese, yogurt, and wine are. Like those foods, cultured meat involves processing ingredients derived from natural sources. They also claim that production of cultured meat is less unnatural than raising farm animals in intensive confinement systems, That's because in intensive farming systems use synthetic hormones, and artificial diets made up of antibiotics and animal wastes. Furthermore, the conventional production of meat has led to a number of health and environmental problems, including high rates of heart disease and food-borne illness, as well as soil and water pollution from farm animal wastes.

What kind of impact will it make? Likely a gradual one. After all, considering the power of industry lobbyists in the U.S., you can expect it to be tied up for years even after it's on the shelves elsewhere.

And why wouldn't the industry fight? You are looking at an industry that directly employs 482,100 workers in the U.S. who have combined salaries of more than $19 billion, according to the North American Meat Institute. While that's by far not the largest industry in the U.S., the people it employs would still have to find something else to do.

As the many people who have lost manufacturing jobs over the 20th century can say, technology changes things. A lot of those changes lead to at least temporary job loss. It's one of those things that comes with modernization. People, especially those who have their livelihoods tied to a given field, will resist.

But supply and demand will inevitably reign supreme and the majority of people will go for what's cheaper as long as it doesn't taste bad. That's just how the world goes.

This isn't to say you shouldn't expect animals to not be still raised for food. Except with jacked-up prices for “real meat.” Same product, different marketing strategy.

Whatever happens, it looks like cultured meat is coming and it's going to change the world as we know it.

Follow Joseph on Facebook or Twitter.

Golden rice may be Vitamin A jackpot

 July 27, 2016

Ordinary rice to the left, golden rice to the right.

Originally printed in the Batesville Daily Guard

Ever hear of Vitamin A?

Sure you have, it’s up there with Vitamins B, C, D, E and K as being essential to a healthful life.

Vitamin A plays a critical role in the maintenance of the body in regards to vision, neurological function, healthy skin, building strong bones, gene regulation, cell differentiation and immune function. It is an antioxidant, thus is involved in reducing inflammation through fighting free radical damage. A high antioxidant diet is a way to naturally slow aging.

The best sources for Vitamin A are eggs, milk, liver, carrots, yellow or orange vegetables such as squash, spinach, and other leafy green vegetables.

But in many parts of the world, many of these things are unavailable in the necessary quantities. This is especially true in areas where the overpopulation and poverty are the norm. The most vulnerable people are the children of Africa and Southeast Asia.

There is one food that is widely available in these parts of the world, though: rice.

The problem though is that rice doesn’t have enough vitamin A to be effective. Naturally, anyway.

That’s where Golden Rice comes in.

Golden Rice is a genetically modified organism. Unlike regular rice, it carries beta-carotene, a major source of Vitamin A, which gives it the color for which it’s named. Like many GMOs, it contains genes that don’t originate in rice. The genes come from daffodils and a bacteria known as Erwinia. I know the word “bacteria” sounds scary to people, but remember, bacteria are on the most part tiny, tiny plants. Like plants, some bacteria are beneficial to us and some are bad for us. Luckily, golden rice has passed the safety standards and is safe for human consumption, like most GMOs on the market.

Clinical trials with adult volunteers from the U.S. concluded that “beta carotene derived from golden rice is effectively converted to vitamin A in humans,” according to the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. The American Society for Nutrition said that “Golden Rice could probably supply 50 percent of the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) of vitamin A from a very modest amount — perhaps a cup — of rice, if consumed daily.

It sounds good, right? It’s even got the support of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Well, instead of sounding like a way to help millions, for many, it was akin to opening Pandora’s Box.

Many anti-GMO activists, particularly Greenpeace, have made it their mission to prevent Golden Rice from being planted by farmers in Vitamin A-poor parts of the world. Aside from spreading conspiracy theories about biotechnology companies, particularly Monsanto, they also attack the plots where the rice itself is grown. In 2013 an trial plot of Golden rice was uprooted by a gang of protesters in the Philippines, claiming that U.S. corporations were only seeking profit.

But why the resistance?

Greenpeace claims “... GE ‘Golden’ rice is a proposed but not practically viable crop solution that has never been brought to market. It is also environmentally irresponsible and could compromise food, nutrition and financial security.” Of course, they never offer any evidence to support their beliefs. Instead, we get inaccurate claims that farmers can’t “save their seeds” or “the rice will contaminate existing species.” 

Greenpeace has already been taken to task over this by 110 Nobel Prize Laureates in a letter, pleading with them to stop with the fear mongering.

Greenpeace’s response: The Nobel Prize Laureates didn’t offer “relevant expertise.”

Unfortunately for Greenpeace, nobody aside from anti-GMO activists are getting on board with them. Farmers associations in Nigeria support moving ahead with the cultivation of the rice, as does the Philippine Rice Research Institute. Anti-GMO activists accuse the groups and governments supporting Golden Rice consumption as being “bought by corporations” and have voiced support for radical groups that attack the farms where the rice is grown, destroying the crop.

So does the radical anti-GMO crowd offer an alternative solution?

“Plant sweet potatoes.”

Follow Joseph on Facebook or Twitter.

Whose law?

This statue of Baphomet is looking for a home and
Arkansas is on the list.

Just slightly more than a week ago, Arkansas State Senator Jason Rapert announced on his Facebook page that “After several months of waiting for the American History & Heritage Foundation attorneys to finish application paperwork for the Arkansas Secretary of State, I am advised they are now submitting the paperwork to begin the process of site selection approval for the Arkansas Ten Commandments Monument!”

Thus marking a milestone in a process that has caused a great deal of debate in Arkansas where the separation of church and state should be. Historically speaking, a Ten Commandments Monument would be a violation of it. 

Not that lawmakers don't try.

Oklahoma famously passed a law allowing for privately-funded religious monuments on the state capitol grounds. The kicker was, that it was open to all religions as long as they could afford to pay for their own monuments. 

This backfired on them when the Temple of Satan did just that. 

Of course, the Ten Commandments in Oklahoma came down pretty fast after lawmakers learned there was no way to stop the Temple of Satan to put up a monument of its own on state capitol grounds. After all, it was open to all relgions.

In Arkansas, state lawmakers are trying to avoid what happened in Oklahoma by proclaiming that the Ten Commandments monument is not a religious monument. The argument that is being used is “the Ten Commandments aren't a religious document, but the historical foundation of our laws.” 

The Arkansas Ten Commandment Display Act states:

“The Ten Commandments represent a philosophy of government held by many of the founders of this nation and by many Arkansans and other Americans today, that God has ordained civil government and has delegated limited authority to civil government, that God has limited the authority of civil government, and that God has endowed people with certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;

“In order that they may understand and appreciate the basic principles of the American system of government, the people of the United States of America and of the State of Arkansas need to identify the Ten Commandments, one of many sources, as influencing the development of what has 5 become modern law;

“The placing of a monument to the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Arkansas State Capitol would help the people of the United States and of the State of Arkansas to know the Ten Commandments as the moral foundation of the law.”

The problem is that the Ten Commandments are mostly religious and moral rules, not the foundation of Western law. Even the Act itself sounds religious in nature as it makes mention of God, divine endowments and morality — none of those things that most people believe that the state should be involved in. 

“What?” you might say. “But every elected official says they are historical!”

Well, that may be so but the thing about elected officials is that they often tell people what they want to hear, especially if it's their base. In Arkansas, as well as most of the South, religious voters are a very big base, if not the biggest. Their support is what keeps many lawmakers in office. Things like the Ten Commandments Monument makes the more fundamentalist-leaning voters happy.

The problem is, most of the things on there aren't crimes, nor were they crimes in the times of the Founding Fathers of the U.S.

Of the Ten Commandments, there are only three that are actually crimes: Thou shall not murder, steal or bear false witness. The rest are basically good advice (don't cheat on your spouse, don't be a jealous jerk) or rules pertaining to practicing the faith (no graven images, no taking God's name in vein) which almost all self-proclaimed religious folks break on a daily basis anyway.

On top of all that, of the things that are actually illegal in the Ten Commandments, all of them were illegal before Judaism and Christianity had their respective boom periods in the Mediterranean region, which is pretty much the cradle of Western civilization.

Chances are, those things were probably fit for some sort of punishment even before the time of writing. But it's one figure, Hammurabi, that made the law famous. 

Hammurabi, who lived from 1810 BC to 1750 BC. He was the sixth king of the First Babylonian Dynasty, reigning from 1792 BC to 1750 BC. Written in stone, his famous code had 252 laws. Among them were rules against stealing, murder and bearing false witness. Also among them is the famous “eye for an eye” rule. 

The punishment called for by Hammurabi's Code was very uneven and depended on the perpetrator's social status. A poor perpetrator would always face harsher punishment, often death, while the rich criminal often paid only a fine. 

Fortunately, no such uneven dispensation of justice exists in our society today. (For those of you that are a little dense, that's supposed to be sarcasm.)

But, even Hammurabi can't be given credit for first transcribing those three laws. He was late by a couple of hundred years. The first person, as far as we know, to actually have laws against murder, stealing and false witness transcribed is another Mesopotamian — Ur-Nammu, founder of the third Sumerian Dynasty. Ur-Nammu was believed to have lived around 2030 BC. 

Moses' birthdate, on the other hand, is believed to have been around 1400 BC, hundreds of years after Hammurabi's and Ur-Nammu's deaths. By the time Moses came along, laws against murdering, lying and bearing false witness were not only standard across the region, but across the known world as well. 

Thus there's just not a valid case that the Ten Commandments are the basis of Western law. By the time that the Romans started converting to Christianity, such laws were already put in place centuries before by polytheists. 

Now one can try to make an argument that the Ten Commandments are the “moral” basis for Western law, but even after the the Christianization of the West, morality was a very flexible thing. After all, it's doubtful that Moses would approve of the Trinity, Saints, crosses or various iconography that we see in regards to Christianity today.

Other things, like coveting and honoring one's parents, have never really been addressed by Western law to any meaningful extent. Looking at the leaders of old, how many of them launched wars out of greed or dishonored their parents? A lot.

So where does that leave us?

It leaves us a system based on man's law. Our secular law is not only supposed to protect Christians, but hold them at equal footing with the likes of Muslims, Atheists and modern Pagans. If we let one or the other take control of the law, there'd be nothing for anyone else.  

Sen. Rapert might want to take this into consideration. After all, he's one of the beneficiaries of secular law, which allowed for his ancestors to pass their faith onto him. If the U.S. was founded on religion, it's possible he wouldn't be following the “right” form of it. 

Like Joseph on Facebook or Twitter. 

Something for everyone

August 10, 2016

Originally published in the Batesville Daily Guard

It’s time for the Olympics again and thank goodness they’re in the western hemisphere this time. Unlike Beijing, London and Athens, those of us in the States can actually see these games live instead of at 3 a.m. in the morning or on a taped replay.

Sure, most of the sports aren’t necessarily the sort that appeal to “fans.” After all, I don’t know of any country where archery or fencing are sports that millions, or even thousands, of people tune into or fill up stadiums to watch, aside from the parents of the participants.

Now, there are several sports that have rather large fan bases like basketball, soccer and boxing. But two out of three of those sports lack the pros that draw the eyeballs to the screen.

And while baseball makes a return in 2020 during the Tokyo games, it will be rather limited and probably not have the presence of the professional players either.

Soccer, which is the most popular sport in the world, is restricted to having all but three players on a team be 23 or younger. This only allows spots for a few pros, the rest being filled by amateurs.

The lack of professional players isn’t necessarily a bad thing. We’ve seen stars rise from the Olympic ranks before. Arkansas’ rather troubled son, Jermaine Taylor, is an example of someone who made their name at the Olympics and would go on to success as a pro boxer.

Of course, baseball and soccer already have their own global events, the World Classic and FIFA World Cup. 

As far as basketball goes, this is its world event and Team USA shines every time. From the “Dream Team” first forming when the door was open for professional players in 1992 to accumulating five gold medals out of the last six Olympics. This year it looks like they’re well on their way to getting six out of seven.

But I digress, this is about the Olympics. This is sports for everybody.

It’s full of sports that we would probably never watch. Examples of this include handball, water polo and field hockey. Others are just kind of odd, like walking, trampolining and the equestrian events, which I’m still not sure how they actually fit in as an olympic sport (but they do make for some interesting pageantry). A few of them are games that many of us play in our basements, if we have them, and during family get-togethers, like table tennis and badminton.

Of course, there’s also some big names people are tuning in to see. You got the NBA players not only representing the US, but also the teams of their home countries. You got probably the most famous figure in American women’s team sports, Hope Solo, playing for the U.S. women’s soccer team. You also have Gabby Douglas, the teen gymnast who stole America’s hearts in 2012, returning to capture more gold now finding herself out of contention for a medal because of the “two per country” rule.

But, probably most of all, people are tuning in to see swimmer Michael Phelps, the winningest Olympian ever. Millions probably tuned into the opening ceremonies just to see him carrying the American flag. It was the first time he’s taken part in the opening ceremonies and it is also his last Olympics. As of the time of this writing, he’s collected his 18th gold medal and is probably on his way to winning more. It’s hard to imagine that 31 is retiring age, but for an athlete at that level he’s already a senior citizen.

But the special thing about the Olympics is that from air gun shooting to the triathlon, we care about them all.

With this week and next, we can expect new faces to capture our hearts. That’s part of the appeal of the Olympics. While professional sports fans may dismiss it, the rest of us tune in, cheering on our countrymen on a larger stage. A stage where unlike politics, economics and sociologically, we can actually prove we’re the best at something — on a level playing field to boot.

Follow Joseph on Facebook or Twitter.

Predators' plight

The puma is an example of nature
coming into conflict with civilization.

Civilization and nature are two words that people often think of as in opposition of each other.

The recent animal attacks on children in the last couple of months in the U.S. — a 2-year-old boy killed by an alligator at Disney World in Florida and a 5-year-old boy attacked by a cougar near Aspen, Colorado — exemplify that.

In both cases, not only were the attacking animals killed, but several others as well.

But if you look deeper into it, there's several reasons why these conflicts happen.

As far as the alligator, it's an example of human beings infringing on the alligators' territory. The alligators were here first, thousands of year before the first human even crossed the land bridge at the Bering Strait. We can't blame the alligators for being alligators. They prey on things that get to close to the water, that's how they've survived through countless millennium.

The mountain lion is another example of the conflict.

It's not for a reason that has to do with human endangerment or overpopulation.

Humans are infringing on the mountain lion's territory. They're also hunting the same prey that the mountain lion, as well as other predators, depend on for food. Now they're being killed for it in a conflict motivated largely by economic factors which Colorado exemplifies well.

Instead of humans and cattle, predators such as wolves, mountain lions and bears usually eat antelope, rabbits and deer. There doesn't seem to be a problem in that, those animals are reproducing enough to feed the others. Nature is not out of balance.

You'd think all would be well, considering that seems to be the point of government agencies, especially the states' respective game and fish commissions.

But according to the Gazette in Colorado Springs,  changes were proposed as part of a five-year, $820,000 study that would increase the kill limit on mountain lions in some places by 46 percent, raising the limit from 24 cats to 35. This is in four game management units north of the Arkansas River, between Salida and Cañon City in Colorado.

The purpose isn't to save the deer population, which is not endangered. Instead it's to increase the chances that human hunters have of bagging a deer. With more deer, the state believes that more hunters will buy game licenses and spend money.

This follows years of predators being protected, largely because they were threatened with extinction.

Now, there's been a small, but influential movement to hunt them again, after being nearly wiped out over the last three centuries.

Much of this pull has been in western states that have seen a decline in mule deer. While hunters love to blame predation, they don't seem to look at the other factors. In Colorado alone, the home of the largest mule deer herd, there are more than 2,000 wrecks that left mule deer dead each year. This is on top of some particularly harsh winters that sent temperatures dropping below zero for extended periods, chronic wasting disease and human development. These are factors that affect the predators too.

On top of that, hunters kill 35,000-40,000 deer in Colorado. Across the country, it's in the hundreds of thousands. For hunters, that's a lot of trophies and meat. For states and local economies, it's a lot of cash.

The problem is that when predators and prey are in balance, human hunters are largely unnecessary for population control. In order to increase deer and antelope populations, game and fish agencies allow for predators to be hunted too.

It sounds like a conflict of interest since these agencies jobs are to protect wildlife and nature, but you're talking about entities that are funded by selling fishing and hunting licenses and under the control of politicians. The numbers tell why. As of 2011, 15.7 million Americans hunt. Eighty percent that hunt go after big game like elk or deer, the same animals predators feed upon. In 2011, hunters spent $34 billion, a sizable chunk of change. Lots of entities want a share of that money.

Hunting publications get in on the game by printing articles about how predators are denying hunters big bucks (as in deer, not money). They often lament how these predators hunt fawns and adult deer, making it more difficult for them to get that trophy for their wall.

But in most places, at least in the U.S., the deer population is not being threatened. If anything, there's an overpopulation of deer in many states. This deer overpopulation results in hundreds, if not thousands of car accidents every year, some of them fatal. It also results in many diseases, lyme disease in particular, being spread. This is particularly true in states without a healthy predator population like those in the American South and Northeast.

This isn't to say it doesn't have its place. As said previously, there are many states without natural predators and exploding deer populations. Hunting animals like deer still plays a role in those states. There are also many local hunters in the U.S. who rely on animals like deer and other wildlife as their primary source of meat during the year.

Hunting has been in decline over the last several years. In my own state of Arkansas, biking has surpassed hunting and fishing as the outdoor sports of choice. I expect it will soon fall behind frisbee golf and zip lining.

When that time comes, what will the role of wildlife management and hunting be in our states? Do we want to let nature run its course when it can or do we want to mess with it for the sake of hunting dollars? 

Follow Joseph on Facebook or Twitter.

#Confusion

August 4, 2016

Originally published in the Batesville Daily Guard

I think we are now all aware of hashtag activism, or hashtivism, now. Whether it be #Occupy, #blacklivesmatter, #bluelivesmatter, #Kony2012, etc. They’ve worked their way into the public consciousnesses and only those who manage to avoid any sort of media — from smartphones to televisions — are probably not aware of their existence in the U.S.

The hashtag movements can be great. Resolute individuals looking to draw attention to their cause can essentially make a huge impact via social media, and in turn popular culture, by finding the right hashtag/slogan combo. You can motivate people to hit the street. Advertising has shown us that a simple slogan sticks in people’s heads.

Hashtag activism has been successful in serving as virtual rallying points, which often result in real life action. Look at the Arab Spring or the awareness that was brought to the situation in Uganda and the atrocities perpetuated by the Lord’s Resistance Army under the command of Joseph Kony.

But does this sort of hashtag activism produce the intended results, if any at all? The Arab Spring saw democratic uprisings that wound up taking people down the path of sectarian violence. Joseph Kony has never been caught. Instead of winning hearts and minds, Occupy wound up being seen as a public nuisance as occupations of public spaces turned from days into weeks.

A lot of this points to one glaring problem with hashtag activism: Who’s the boss?

I say that because much of the time, the expressed goals of any one hashtag movement can very wildly member to member. Unlike successful movements of the past, there doesn’t seem to be anyone person, or even small group, that act as a leader or voice. Instead, it often seems that the person nearest to the camera, voice recorder or notepad gets to be the voice at any given time.

No leadership makes it unclear who is defining the purpose as well as defining the dialogue.

This has opened a door for pretty much anyone to sneak in and assert their views on the given hashtag movement. That’s why you often hear different members of hashtag movements expressing a desire for dialogue for changes on one hand and others wanting revolution “now” on the other in the same interview. When you go on social media you’ll often find people who simply want to show support and others with a racial/political axe to grind using the same hashtag.

It’s just a mess. It also shows the problem of having democratic movements without a leader to point things in the right direction. It’s like having a kitchen where there’s no head chef and the other cooks scramble to take orders while cooking those orders the way they want to cook them.

That sort of situation inspires curse-word-filled rants from Gordon Ramsay, and for good reason. When you have no direction, you have no identity except what others give you.

And these hashtag movements suffer because of it, often because what started out as the central message wound up getting drowned out by a sea of equally loud voices who have their own interpretation.

Now, hashtags do have their advantages. After all, the movements for change in the past often took decades to hit a critical mass. But the changes they were able to bring have lasted. With the hashtag activism, it seems that movements may burn brighter and more intense, but they also burn out faster than what came before.

Follow Joseph on Facebook or Twitter.

Monthly Mixtape: Cathedral

Gary "Gaz" Jennings, Lee Dorrian, Leo Smed and Brian Dixon.

It's that time of month again, and I don't mean that “time of month.” It's time for the Monthly Mixtape. This month we look at British doom metal band Cathedral.

Cathedral was the brain child of former Napalm Death lead growler, Lee Dorrian, who had left that band in 1989. He and former Carcass roadie, bassist Mark Griffiths and Acid Reign guitarist Gary “Gaz” Jennings, who were united in a love of for Black Sabbath, Pentagram and other 70s metal bands, formed Cathedral that same year. During these formative years, they were joined by a second guitarist, Adam Lehan and a drummer, Mike Smail. The work by this line up culminated in  their first album, Forest of Equilibrium,  released in 1991. 

Griffiths would leave after the band recorded its major label debut EP, Soul Sacrifice, leaving Jennings to do double duty as guitarist and bassist for their second full length album, The Ethereal Mirror, which was released in 1993 and declared “heaviest album of the year” by a reviewer in Metal Maniacs.

The band would see another line up change in its third full-length album, The Carnival Bizarre, which saw both Smail and Lehan depart from the band. Stepping in to fill the void were bassist Leo Smee and drummer Brian Dixon, cementing the lineup of the band until their second-to-last album, which saw Smee depart and bassist Scott Carlson step in.

What we'll be focusing on today is a selection of Cathedral's material recorded prior to 1999, which encompasses the band's first five full-length albums and three EPs. I'm focusing on this period because A) Many critics consider it the period of strongest output and B) it just makes things easier. It's easier to pick 10 tracks from around 60 songs instead of 110 after all.

The band would go on to record five more albums, as well as a best of, after 2000. Sometime in the future I will probably revisit Cathedral and look at that time period.

So without further ado, here's a look back at Cathedral. Take note these are the songs I would choose as an introduction. If you like what you hear then I'd definitely recommend picking up the albums.

1. “Cosmic Funeral” — This song, from the Cosmic Requiem EP, is the perfect opening track. Nothing says “DOOM” like having kicking off things with a super slow beat. Of course, it gains momentum through the song, eventually plateauing when it reaches “Satan's Highway” (you'll get it when you hear it). This is a great jumping in point, since it gives a hint of the wild journey which is to come with Cathedral's combination of what was straight-forward doom metal and seventies-era sensibilities.

2. “Hopkins (The Witchfinder General)” — Well as they said in the movie High Fidelity, when it comes to the second song, you want to kick things up a notch and this song from Cathedral's third album, The Carnival Bizarre, definitely accomplishes that. The band apparently liked this song so much that they released it twice, not only on The Carnival Bizarre but also on an EP named after said song, which was pretty much the same aside from a prolonged intro from the trailer of the rather infamous Vincent Price movie Witchfinder General which is worth watching for its brutal ending scene alone.
   
   
3. “Equilibrium” — This song from Forest of Equilibrium is almost as pure a doom metal song as you'll get from this band. There's a couple of “yeahs” sprinkled in, but there are not many signs of the 70s' grooves and nostalgia that would make their way in greater amounts with every consecutive album after this initial effort. It's a very moody song, sort of like a lonely winter's night walking home through the woods.
   
   
4. “Unnatural World” — Cathedral's fifth outing, Caravan Beyond Redemption, was their last album of the 1990s. It was also their first to feel less like less of a challenge and more of a by-the-numbers effort. It's not to say that it's a bad album, but compared to the four prior albums, it just felt like less of an adventure. “The Unnatural World” was the one song I really felt rose to the occasion. It's about as high energy you can get and still be called “doom.” It's also one of the few times that the band has been straight forward and political, with a song that pretty much say “humans suck.”
   
   
5. “Jaded Entity” — The Ethereal Mirror is a difficult album to pick “standout” songs from. It's one of those few albums that works as a whole. Everything feels like a piece of a greater experience and to remove any piece of that takes away from the whole thing. Everything on it is just so damn good. But if I had to narrow it down to two songs, this would be one of them. It's probably the darkest song the band has recorded and Dorrian puts on one of his strongest performances with the band over all their albums. He sounds like a tormented creature, wallowing in between rage and despair, which is what this song is all about. The guitar work by Jennings and Lehan amplifies that hopelessness, with its menacing quality.
   
   
6. “Suicide Asteroid” — Supernatural Birth Machine is looked back as quite a divisive album with some reviewers. Some hated it, considering it a step back for the band, others appreciated the stripped down and raw sound it had compared to prior outings. But if there's one thing that is evident with this entire album, it's that the Black Sabbath influence reigns supreme. “Suicide Asteroid” is probably the most energetic and catchy song on the album. There is that obvious Sabbath groove, but it's tempered by Dorrian's vocals, with a delivery that just kind of begs you to sing along.
   
   
7. “A Funeral Request” — Hearkening back to their first album, this song got the the “Soul Sacrifice” treatment, with a revamped version on the Cosmic Requiem CD. While it's standard doom fair like much of the album, it's catchy chorus makes it stand out. It's long, but it's an all around good song, so good that it's another the band decided to release it twice.
   
   
8. “Midnight Mountain” — This track from The Ethereal Mirror is possibly the song where the band most pushed its boundaries. Not only is this song upbeat and groovy, but it incorporates hand claps and a yelping Dorrian demanding “Let's Groove” and “Let's take it to the top.” The video for the song is something to behold with its definite disco influence. All in all, just totally awesome.
   
   
9. “Autumn Twilight” —Before they had their one, and only, major label album with The Ethereal Mirror, Columbia issued the Soul Sacrifice EP. It was only four songs, but it acted as a useful transition from the slow doom of The Forest of Equilibrium and the stoner metal scene that they would eventually have a big hand in launching, and influencing. Of the songs on this EP, "Autumn Twilight" truly sticks out. Largely for it's dueling guitar solos, but also for it's incorporation the groovy guitar style that would become a staple of the band thereafter. Sure, it's midpaced and groovy, but the song also makes one think of those chilly November nights.
   
   
10. “Fangalatic Supergoria” — Insanity was not something Cathedral was afraid to play with. Whether it be the 20 minute-plus “Journey of the Homeless Sapien” on the Cosmic Requiem EP or the off-the-wall craziness of "Midnight Mountain." But “Fangalatic Supergoria” takes the monster of The Ethreal Mirror, "Phantasmagoria," loads it up with steroids, adds  trumpets for good measure and churns out this beast of a song from The Carnival Bizarre. It's about as close to death metal as Cathedral gets, with its aggressive deliveries by both Dorrian and the rest of the band, bringing up images of a poor soul being ripped apart by beasts within some terrible nightmarescape within their own minds.