Welcome to The Vegan Report. My name is Ryan
and today we compare two different approaches
to advancing the environmental cause from two
vegan giants, Jane Goodall and David Attenborough.
Both have released documentaries focused on the
climate crisis, animal welfare, and their personal
journeys into activism. Jane Goodall's documentary,
The Hope, is available on YouTube. David Attenborough's
A Life on Our Planet is on Netflix. You'll find
the links in the episode notes. To discuss this
topic, I'm joined by the amazing Alex Ventimiglia
-Sanchez, professor in the Department of English
and Film Studies at the University of Alberta.
We talked about the stereotype of the ecological
Indian, the apocalyptic predictions environmentalists
love to make, the collapse of humanity's birth
rates, the role of plant -based diets and animal
welfare in the environmental cause, and much
more. It was a real pleasure talking with Alex.
Enjoy the episode, and don't forget to follow
the show for more like this. Also, share the
joy of this episode with the vegans you know.
By the way, if you missed it, go check out last
week's Wednesday episode. The Vegan Report is
now releasing episodes every Wednesday on the
science of activism. I don't usually watch documentaries.
I avoid them. I feel like they are not in depth
enough and they're more like pieces of propaganda,
to be honest, than anything else. But for, you
know, to record this episode, I went and watched
the two documentaries and I'm looking forward
to our conversation. Yeah. Well, first off, thank
you for having me back. I had a really good time
last time, and I look forward to this episode.
The one thing, I know where you're coming from.
For me, documentaries are essentially my job
now, in the sense that studying them is what
my dissertation is about. That's what my research
is about. And so I've developed a love -hate
relationship with these films. And that wasn't
there before. I started watching them. or I started
researching them because I grew up watching documentaries
or what a lot of people call documentaries. I
think we're going to talk about that today because
what makes a documentary and what makes it a
piece of propaganda, as you said, as opposed
to something else and what that something else
then becomes is relevant to any discussion of
people like David Attenborough and more recently
Jane Goodall as she began to appear in more of
these films. But yeah, thank you for having me
back and I look forward to our discussion. Of
course, amazing. I wanted to start with highlighting
how Jane Goodall and David Attenborough had a
friendship. I think a decade long friendship.
They also collaborated. on lots of conservation
projects. And I thought it was worth mentioning.
They're also both of them, you know, British
of a certain age, and activists in that, you
know, in the last stages of their life, which
is also fascinating. I'm sure you know, lots
of retired people, they don't It's not often
that you see someone in their 80s or 90s displaying
that level of energy and passion and conviction
and speaking up for a cause they hold dear. So
yeah, fascinating resemblance between the two.
Yeah, yeah, absolutely. I think one of the first
things that we need to establish, and I think
the way in which you're opening your that this
episode is a good way to establish that, is that
we need to divorce or separate our understanding
of Atomorrow and Goodell as people, right? And
what the films that they partake in, or they
partook in now, past tense, is and what they
actually accomplish, right? Because I think it's
undeniable that both Goodall and Adam Burrow
had always the best intentions in mind, right?
Their activism is truly admirable, right? You
look at the work that both of them undertook
over the course of their lives and when it started,
right? Particularly when it started because as
you mentioned, right? So both of them are British
and that's important already because Britain
has traditionally understood itself when it comes
to issues related to ecology or even animals.
Britain has understood itself as a nation of
animal lovers. This was even something that they
talked about openly during World War II, for
example. And so they come from this one particular
nation that has always had a passion for for
issues related to animals and in nature. And
it goes back way before that. I mean, Darwin
is British. Sir Richard Owen is also British,
another famous paleontologist. Excuse me. So
yeah, Britain has this long -standing fascination
with the natural world, which has its problematic
roots. Because it all goes back to to imperialism
and colonialism right they start like discovering
all these quote unquote exotic places and they're
fascinated by the wildlife in those places right
so i think that's that's part of the origin of
of of this fascination with the natural world
but so they both come from that history right
and and they come from a particular time like
you were saying which is there you know nowadays
we would say they're both boomers right they're
from the baby boomer generation but that's important
too because As David Attenborough talks about
in his what I would consider his first true documentary,
which is a biopic, David Attenborough, A Life
on Our Planet, he mentions that the reason why
he was able to have the career he had was because
his coming of age and his becoming a television
figure, a television personality coincided with
the invention of commercial air travel. So a
lot of things kind of converge and come together
that allowed them to have the careers that they
had. Jane Goodall had a similar experience, right?
It is only at that point in time that she joins
that PhD program that women were allowed and
encouraged to become researchers, right? And
it was only at that time that they were able
to travel Abroad and even then right with an
asterisk there because yes, you may know she
had to go with her mom, right? She had to be
chaperoned because otherwise it would have been
seen as inappropriate for a British woman to
go by herself to the African wilderness, right?
So so yeah, they're they're they're lives And
and the work that they have done I wouldn't say
it's coincidental, but it becomes possible because
of a number of historical developments that I
think also kind of inform the way they see things.
They inform the way in which they began their
careers and the transformations that they undertook
as their careers unfolded. About the comment
on how British people are animal lovers. It's
funny, I had the conversation recently with a
foundation called the Battersea Foundation, and
they're based in the UK. And they have been fighting
for animal welfare for 160 years, 160 years.
And I thought about that number and it down on
me that it their organization was older than
Canada itself. That's one interesting way to
think about it. Yeah. Yeah, that's true. Yeah.
No, like I said, it's a historical phenomenon.
I think, like I said, it has its roots in certain
more problematic and darker aspects of British
history. But the truth of the matter is that
some good has come of it. I think, for instance,
the the beginning of the conservation movement
can be thought of as an offshoot of the examples
to collect specimens, which is how it all began.
And yeah, and later on, Adam Borough's career
is because Adam Borough is the more, let's say,
Mediatic figure right he is the one who whose
career largely revolved around the media and
so um hit that that. His the beginning of his
career right is. permitted by the invention,
like I said, of air travel. But even before that,
he starts his career in broadcasting because
suddenly Britain has a television system, right?
Like a public television system, right? And they're
trying to come up with programming that people
will like, right? And so as a nation of animal
lovers, they think, well, why not shows about
animals, right? And Adam Borough's first shows
were actually him. bringing animals into television
studios, right? Kind of like what you see nowadays
with on late night shows like Conan O 'Brien's
or Stephen Colbert's, right? They bring experts
to the show with animals and they talk about
these animals, right? And I think, I don't know
if you've ever talked about this on your podcast,
but there is a serious issue there, right? In
fact, I know you don't like documentaries, but
there is a documentary. Boy, I'm going to look
it up in a second, but there's a documentary
that talks about this industry, the industry
of people or that revolves and supports people
who are promoted as animal experts and they go
on television and they bring these animals and
they talk about them and they talk about them
as you know, like ambassadors. They promote these
animals as ambassadors for their species and
how, you know, they do this to promote conservation
and such. But in reality, there's an entire industry
that supplies them with animals, right? And that's
still happening today. So that's actually how
Adam Laura's career begins, right? And I think
it's telling that that sort of stuff is something
that he walked away from early on, right? That
he decided not to bring the animal to the studio,
but rather to take the studio and the crew, the
camera crew and everyone else out into the wilderness,
right? Which is, I think, a less problematic
practice because it doesn't require you to bring
an animal that's been essentially kidnapped or
else bred in captivity to a studio where it feels...
absolutely out of place and terrorized. And you
see it a lot in these shows today. They bring
like a leopard cub, for example. And you can
see the fear in their eyes. They're not meant
to be in there. But that's actually how Adam
Burrow's career began. Goodell never did that
because she became a celebrity later on. And
so it was only after her actual scientific work
that she began to appear in nature documentaries.
So she never engaged in anything like that. But
but it's funny to think that that um, but yeah,
like it was that demand for for images of animals
that that catapulted Adam Borrow into like a
career in broadcasting. And that it actually
began in a way that today we would find appalling
as people who care for the welfare of animals.
Let's spend a moment to talk about the platforms
where we can find those documentaries. So right
now the David Adam Borrow documentaries on Netflix.
The Jane Goodall documentary was on Disney Plus,
but it is available for free on YouTube. I think
they did that. The National Geographic YouTube
channel did that to mark her passing. So is there
any pertinent information to grasp from that
choice of platforms? Well, there's lots and again,
I think we have to make a distinction here because
Excuse me because they have significantly different
careers when it comes to their appearances in
the media, right Jane Goodall Only really became
a media personality towards the tail end of her
scientific career, right? And most of those shows
in which she appeared were not necessarily about
her going to these places where she had worked
with chimpanzees, although there are a few, quite
a few shows that or programs or else feature
length documentaries that do show her in the,
in Gombe. for example, with the chimps that she
actually studied or else traveling around promoting
conservation, which is what you see in Jane Goodall,
The Hope. They talk about her work as an activist
rather than as a scientist. And so we see her
traveling from place to place promoting these
causes. That's essentially the role that she
has performed. whenever she's being on television
or on documentaries. And so her platforms have
been different. Historically, these programs
have been produced largely for television. You
don't really see them at the movies. Occasionally,
you do. For example, Jane Goodall, The Hope did
screen at a number of documentary festivals or
film festivals. But for the most part, she's
a television personality. And that's true also
for Adam Borough, but in a significantly different
way. So, and the reason why I'm talking, I'm
going to get to the point of Netflix and Disney
Plus, but I think it's important to start with
a history of their media appearance, especially
with Adam Borough, because even though there
are a number of issues with them being on Disney
and particularly on Netflix, I think there is
a significant silver lining and then being on
those platforms. So let me go back to Adam Borough's
career. So like I said, it starts with the establishment
of a public broadcasting system in Britain, which
later becomes the BBC. And so the BBC and David
Adam Borough have a long -standing relationship.
I believe over six decades, they worked together.
In many ways, David Attenborough had a sort of
exclusivity deal with the BBC for that period
of time in that he would occasionally appear
in other productions. He's been featured in American
productions, for instance, as voiceover. But
the bulk of his work was produced by the BBC,
particularly what later became the BBC's natural
history unit. So the BBC, because of this demand
for images of animals and exotic landscapes and
all that, they actually create their own secondary
studio entirely dedicated to what they call natural
history programming. And David Attenborough is
the flagship. He is front and center whenever
there is a significant production. Most of these,
again, are initially for television. But in the
90s and early 2000s, there was a shift. Because
suddenly, and I think part of my research, one
of the arguments that I'm making, is that this
shift is motivated by a sudden interest in the
environment. that comes about not just in Britain
anymore, but also in the United States and around
the world. And that this interest comes about
because there is this sudden discourse of climate
change, right? We're talking about climate change
and we're talking about how the world is changing,
right? And all of these places are going away.
Later we start talking about mass extinction,
which is what I'm most interested in. But so
suddenly there's this huge demand for natural
history programming. or wildlife films, as some
scholars, myself included, call them. These are
not, I would argue, these are not documentaries.
I would argue that they are constructs. These
are films in which David Attenborough, by his
own admittance, he would go out and try to film
as much behavior as possible, and then stitch
that behavior into a story. So they would, for
example, record a number of cheetahs or a number
of lions doing different things, hunting, sleeping,
whatever, usually not the same individual because
tracking these animals is hard. And so they would
record as much behavior as possible and then
stitch that together into a story about one particular
cheetah or one particular pride of lions. But
in reality, what you're watching is a number
of different individual animals. performing behaviors
that are proper to the species. And so you can't
really say that these are documentaries, first
off, because the narratives are entirely fictional.
The stories did not unfold as you see them on
TV or later on, on IMAX, for example, when Planet
Earth comes about, for instance. Planet Earth
definitely screened in theaters, especially IMAX
theaters. So it was not just television anymore.
This was proper cinema, so to speak. But at the
same time, we can't really call them documentaries.
And there is a reason for this. So even though
Attenborough has always promoted conservation,
the Natural History Unit at the BBC And there
are a number of records in which producers explicitly
say this, right? They essentially forbade him
from getting political. And what that meant was
that he could talk about how these are animals
that are endangered. He could mention that saving
them was important, but he could not go into
any sort of detail as to how this could happen.
Right. So nothing about legislation. Right. Nothing
about what practices people could engage in.
Right. And nothing that seemed to doom and gloom,
as they called it. Right. That phrase actually
comes from a producer in the natural history
unit who told him nothing doom and gloom, please.
Essentially. Right. So so David Attenborough
and his and all of his films have historically
been apolitical in the sense that they don't
tackle any of these serious political questions
that come about when you talk about conservation
or animal welfare. None of that is visible in
planet Earth, for example. They don't talk about
what's actually causing polar bears to go extinct.
They say it's climate change, but how do we fix
climate change? Well, we're not going to talk
about that because people don't want to talk
about that. People just want to look at pretty
pictures of polar bears. So the reason why I
don't call them documentaries. And most documentary
scholars also feel uncomfortable referring to
these films as documentaries because, well, they're
not political, they're not historical, and they're
mostly fictional. So that's a long preamble to
what happens with a life on our planet and David
Attenborough, a life on our planet. So those
are two different things. So a life on our planet.
is a wildlife film series, right? I think it's
a five -part series. And that was just like your
typical wildlife film, right? Like Planet Earth.
So it's just nice pictures of beautiful landscapes,
usually about a particular species. And again,
right? It's usually not one individual animal
that they're filming. It's a number of individuals.
And they just turn that into a story about one
individual. So again, not a documentary. But
that is accompanied or that is released hand
in hand with David Attenborough, A Life on Our
Planet, which is a standalone documentary. Now,
this is significant because one of the reasons
why David Attenborough steps away from the BBC
and the natural history unit at the BBC and goes
to work with Netflix for the very first time,
right? is that Netflix gave him essentially the
green light to talk about these more political
issues, right? So whereas the BBC was like, still
Adam and today, I think they're changing, slowly
changing, slowly becoming more political, right?
But the reason why Adam steps away from that
and he goes on to make a life on our planet and
then his biopic is because Netflix allowed him
to talk about the more serious issues. And Adam
Borrow felt like it was high time that we did,
right? Because he had begun to talk about these
matters in conferences or public appearances
and such, but he could still not talk about anything
related to, for example, their relationship between
climate change and factory farming, right? he
was essentially just heavily discouraged from
talking about that in his natural history films
or the wildlife films that he narrated, right?
And so because he felt like it was imperative
that we started talking about these and that
he used his media persona to talk about these
issues, he steps away from the BBC momentarily
because he's still working with them, right?
But he goes and works with Netflix. which again,
produces a life on our planet and allows him
to talk about these issues for the first time.
And it is in David Attenborough, a life on our
planet, that we first hear him actually endorse
a plant -based diet for the very first time.
Because again, this is a contentious issue that
nobody wanted him to talk about, but he is like,
well, enough is enough. We have to talk about
what are some serious possible solutions to the
ecological crisis, right? Because as he details
in that film, he has seen it firsthand, right?
The fact that he has been able to travel to all
these places and literally watch them disappear
over the course of his lifetime, right? Well,
of course it motivated his activism, but what
good is your activism if you cannot use the biggest
platforms that you're given? to actually promote
causes that would address these issues. So that
is why his departure from the BBC to produce
these Netflix documentaries, I think there's
that silver lining that for the very first time
we see somebody of his caliber, right? When it
comes to conservation and you know, like. popular
science and all that stuff talk about these issues
more seriously. And also, again, I propose of
the things that we share, which is veganism.
First time he promotes a plant -based diet. I
think that's hugely significant. But of course,
there's the other side of this. Netflix is not
an ecologically friendly company in any ways.
So they use huge data servers which consume lots
of resources. the fact that all of this is still
behind a paywall means that his activism is limited
by, you know, the number of people who actually
afford to get Netflix. Or in the case of Jane
Goodall, Disney Plus or any other platform that
she is given, right? Because there are a number
now of documentaries that talk about her life,
that talk about her activism and in which she
promotes certain practices that are political,
like veganism, right? Or perhaps donating to
particular organizations or not. engaging in
consumerism, great ideas, good ideas, ideas that
could potentially allow people to make a significant
impact when it comes to conservation and animal
welfare, but that, again, are behind a huge paywall.
And so their reach is limited by the fact that
these are still financed by companies. So if
we're going to take anything from this, is that
In many ways, there are limitations to the power
that they had even or they have still, right?
As media figures that promote conservation, animal
welfare, plant -based diets more recently, right?
There are serious limitations and these limitations
are placed there by the industries that platform
them as public figures. So there's a bit of a
contradiction there and it's difficult to...
to make sense of it, to reconcile that, right?
Because I think we would hope that somebody like
Jane Goodall or David Attenborough would find
ways to not depend on these companies. But unfortunately,
that is not the case, right? And that perhaps,
personally, that's what I find the most doom
and gloom aspect of this whole industry. The
fact that you have people that are admirable.
Right. But who nevertheless depend on companies
that are far less than admirable. Let me push
back on that point, because if they want to record
high quality documentaries, they need funding.
So they need to sell that. that product at some
point, you know, to justify the production costs.
And then there's also the fact, you know, from
the perspective of distribution. Well, if they
made that documentary free, would that really
have attracted more eyeballs? I feel like people
for some weird marketing reason, will often overlook
free stuff and pay more attention to things that
have a price tag on. And so if you want lots
of people to watch your documentary or get your
book, better sell that book than just put it
out there for free. Yeah, I think Like I said,
I think there are a number of contradictions
that need to be addressed. And perhaps we can't
really resolve. Because you're 100 % right. What
I'm saying is that, again, that's why I wanted
to start by saying that none of what I'm going
to say today is Me reproaching them directly
right i have i have nothing but admiration for
people like good old and Adam borough it's more.
What i was trying to suggest is that the landscape
the media landscape that that platforms figures
like them and other activists. Is is problematic
right i mean i understand your point and i think
i would agree there's a reason why there's a
huge. pushback against publicly funded television,
for example, right? Here in Canada, we have the
National Film Board, which is also facing cuts
and usually finances Canadian directors so they
can make their films. A lot of them are documentaries,
right? So yeah, like these public institutions
are being... dismantled right and without these
public institutions and there's also no real
alternative and you're absolutely right I think
unfortunately there's a premium on commodity
right so so that if you have to pay to watch
this film the assumption is of that film is better
right than anything that I'll get for free and
I think again because the media environment is
such that yeah in fact these companies private
companies actually need to make revenue and actually
need to make money, they do have more resources.
And so the end product is usually better. But
again, the contradiction that I'm addressing
here or the number of contradictions that I'm
addressing here are just ethical conundrums that
we need to make sense of as individual consumers.
Do we sign up and create a Netflix account or
a Disney Plus account in order to watch these
films that may? change my mind, right? And especially
people like you and I who are already in one
way or another engaged in activism to some extent,
or at the very least who've already made certain
choices in order to, you know, to make things
better for the environment and animals, right?
Do we really still need to consume these products,
right? I think they're great products for people
who may not be particularly conscious about their
environmental and ethical choices, but it's also
hard to justify, right? Like for me personally,
I love these films, like I've said, right? I
really love these. And I have a Disney, I'm sorry,
I have a Netflix account, right? I also have
Amazon Prime. So it's not like I'm innocent here.
What I'm trying to say is that Unfortunately,
even figures as, again, as admirable and as environmentally
conscious as Attenborough and Goodell could not
escape the media industry, right? They needed
them. And again, the media industry is not, I
think a lot of us could agree, is not an ethical
industry. At least environmentally speaking,
it's not, right? And so I think in that sense,
you encounter a bleaker landscape because it's
like, well, there's no other way other than through
these companies, right? And what would happen
if, say, in Jane Goodall, The Hope or Alive on
Our Planet, Adam Borough or Goodall said, Oh,
and also another thing you could use to reduce
your environmental footprint is don't sign up
to Netflix or Disney Plus, right? Do you think
they would still be platformed? So they're still
kind of like on a leash, right? And so that's
kind of the problem that I'm trying to point
out. But again, right, as somebody who studies
documentaries and who started studying them,
because I think these films are Potentially,
they have lots of potential for political activism,
for catalyzing ethical considerations in the
public. I think there's a lot of good in them.
But again, it's a mangle of contradictions. And
I think it's good to be aware of these things.
Definitely. We need to put them on the map and
discuss them at the very least. Also, I think
it's a generational thing for both of them to
bet on the big mainstream media platforms. I
would have loved to see David Attenborough or
Jane Goodall launching their own YouTube channel
or podcast or something of the sort, taking their
independence from that. big media machine, but
I think it's a hard sell for someone from their
generation. Yeah, I think you're right. That's
sort of what I had in mind, right? Because I
know of other public figures who, again, nobody's
perfect. We're all part of this big machine one
way or another, right? We haven't figured out
a way to live outside of it unless you're one
of them. of the grid type of people, right? So
we're all part of the grid and so we're all guilty
of one thing or another. But so other figures
like Richard Dawkins, for instance, right? He
now has a kind of podcast on YouTube, right?
So he's not dependent on these big media platforms
anymore because now he's reaching his audience
through a more modern type of medium that bypasses
that media industry. Yeah, it would be cool if
David Attenborough had a podcast, right? Like,
who wouldn't listen to it? We all love his voice,
right? We all love listening to him narrate how
lions kill a gazelle. So wouldn't it be good?
I think lots of people would love to listen to
him talk about things that we could all do to
solve the ecological crisis and to live a more
environmentally ethical life. But yeah, no, you're
right. I think it's a generational thing to a
large extent. It's also just, well, this is tied
into that generational aspect, right? I mean,
Jay Goodall just passed away. David Attenborough,
who knows how much longer he's got, right? He's
old. I believe he's turning 100 now. So imagine
a 100 -year -old man who's still traveling, who's
still making all these films, and still speaking
at all these conferences, on top of that asking
him to turn on his laptop and be on a podcast
for 30 minutes a day or 30 minutes a week or
whatever. I think, yeah, it's a non -realistic
expectation, but I agree that perhaps other media
platforms that are not part of the larger media
industry may offer an alternative, right? But
again, when it comes to animals, right? Let's
go back to the example of Britain. When it comes
to animals, even the people that understands
itself as animal lovers, an extension of that
love, and I'm not even sure that love is the
right word, but an extension of that desire to
be close to animals is always going to be consuming
images of animals, right? And so somebody who's
got a podcast or a YouTube channel may not be
able to deliver. the sort of images that people
want to consume. So, you know, again, I think
there are lots of things to consider here, but
the possibilities are there. And, you know, there's
lots of really cool content on YouTube right
now on TikTok as well that promotes this sort
of ecological consciousness that people like.
Goodell and Attenborough have been promoting
for decades. So there's hope. I mean, that's
the whole point of Jane Goodell's documentary,
right? That she doesn't think it ends with her,
that she thinks that there's lots of things to
look forward to and that there are many possibilities
that people have not yet considered or that are
still being developed that hopefully will take
us to a place where where more people live a
more environmentally conscious life. I want to
discuss a difference, a substantial difference,
I think, between the two documentaries. You asked
the question, is it intended for us, you know,
as an audience, people who know about the ecological
crisis, who are vegans and all of that? Well,
it is for the public, those two documentaries.
I don't think they had like our profile in mind,
you know, specifically making those. But the
David Attenborough one was like ecology 101.
It for me, it was a bit boring, I have to say.
Um, he was covering like the basis of, you know,
what you should do for the environment. The plant
-based portion of the documentary, that was the
surprising, uh, stuff, you know, that you don't
expect to see, um, in, in that kind of, uh, documentary.
But the Jane Goodall one was just on another
level, you know? Um, and I want to give. an example
of that. They discussed, they decided to cover
how she struck a deal with an oil company to
create a chimp sanctuary and started talking
about the importance of reaching out to the perceived
enemy and the ethical aspect of that conversation.
And I thought, wow, now we're taking, you know,
we're looking at people as intelligent beings
and taking them seriously and truly going into
an in -depth understanding of what it means to
make a difference and care for the environment.
Yeah, absolutely. No, thank you for bringing
that up. I think, yeah, like so far we've been
talking about these two films as being fairly
similar. And I think if you think about them
as being films about certain people, right, as
being to some extent biopics or perhaps just
relying on public figures to promote an ecological
cause, then they're similar, right? But you're
right. I think Alive on Our Planet is a decidedly
biographic type of film, right? It goes along
a history of, or the history of Attenborough's
life and career, right? And yeah, you're right.
The stuff that they promote towards the end.
It is, as you mentioned, Ed, I think that's a
really good way to put it. It's ecology 101,
right? It's ecology for people who are not And
I think you're right in pointing out that Jane
Goodall's documentary engages more intricate
questions that come about when we're talking
about ecological issues, right? And the example
you're using, I think, is great because we...
deep thinking of each other, especially here
in North America, I think North America has become
excessively polarized, right? To the point where
people think of each other as enemies, right?
And so watching someone who is decidedly an ecologist,
right? A conservationist, an animal rights activist,
someone like Jane Goodall, watching her go and
talk to an oil company, oil executives, people
who we tend to think of as the devil on our side
of the aisle. I think that's truly something
that we need to praise, that we need to admire
and that we need to replicate at the level of
our lives because it's gotten to the point where
people can't even be friends with somebody who
holds a political viewpoint that is opposite
to your own right and watching her go and talk
to the people who have been you know desecrating
the places that she wants to protect for decades
right and she goes and strikes a deal with them
and always so amicably right i think something
that we can all agree on is that Jane Goodall
is such a nice was such a nice lady right she
was a kind person. And so to be able to engage
them, as you were saying, right, as intelligent
people, as people who are still people, and thus,
you can appeal to their senses to their intellect
to their emotions, right? I think that's something
that's highly commendable. Something else that
I have admired about Jane Goodall, the hope,
for example, was was the extent to which she
deal or there's there's this You know, and I
know people are kind of pushing back against
it, but the inclusivity of the documentary, right?
You might recall that that segment when they're
talking with an ecological and environmentalist
activist group of comprised primarily by of of
Muslim girls, right? I mean. You don't see that
sort of environmentalism in most other documentaries,
right? It's usually something that I talk about
in my research is that there's usually this figure
who I call the eco -hero, right? And the eco
-hero has a type, right? You see it in Attenborough.
You see it in Al Gore, for example. There's other
figures like Jeff Corwin or the Cradd Brothers.
It's usually a straight white male, right? So
here you have, you know, a straight white woman
from Britain, yeah, but talking about environmental
activism as it occurs in other places, right?
Coming from a different perspective, perspectives
that we do not associate with ecological activism.
So I think that's another, that just goes to
show how much more effort was put in that documentary
to emphasize that this is an issue that concerns
us all, not just the privileged liberals of the
global north. Yes. And that's, you know, why
I the Jane Goodall documentary truly inspired
me. And I was surprised by that reaction. I gained
a new appreciation for her. I recorded the whole
episode, you know, Talking about her life celebrating
her legacy But yeah, the truth is, you know,
I gave the mic to people who knew her For whom
she was important, but I don't really know Jane
Goodall. She never really impacted my life that
much but Watching that documentary but also listening
to Having a conversation with people for whom
she meant a lot, truly gave me an appreciation
for her and her amazing life. In the documentary,
she never really gives a direction of what you
should be doing to end this climate crisis or
to help the environment. She's there just to
inspire and to be an ambassador, a model to follow.
And that's it. You know, she, she leave you with
that inspiration and it's up to you to decide,
you know, what kind of stuff, um, what kind of
activism you want to pursue. But the David Attenborough
one, you know, he had some bullet point after
bullet point of what we need to do, he has the
answer. And I felt like this was a weaker position
for a documentary about the environment because
it doesn't speak to the reality of everyone.
And also then you can attack those ways of making
a difference. And the debate is no longer about
the climate crisis, the problem, or having to
do something, but what is the best thing to do
for the planet? So they open themselves to that
discussion. Yeah, well, you're touching upon
something that I think people are inevitably
going to disagree on, or at least they may be
surprised by some of the research that goes into
the different approaches that you're mentioning,
right? So, as you put it, the Hope Jane Goodall's
documentary is what you would say in my field
less prescriptive right so it doesn't tell you
do this and this and that it's not a problem
solution documentary it's a bit more observational
right and and the you know one theoretical understanding
of of simply observing as opposed to prescribing
a solution is that because it's more open right
because there is no definitive answer being offered
to the viewer the viewer can essentially build
their own impression of what they could do, right?
Perhaps even come up with ideas or solutions
that even that the filmmaker or that the people
that's being filmed would not have thought of.
So that sort of open. not just open -endedness,
but that openness to possibilities as opposed
to foreclosing all that and prescribing a number
of bullet points, as you put it. It's funny,
because a documentary like David Attenborough's
A Life on Our Planet, it actually has become
a bit of what I consider a mode, a documentary
mode, like a sub -genre. It's a number of films
that do the same thing. And it all started with
an inconvenient truth, which literally ends with
a PowerPoint presentation. Well, it's actually
a whole PowerPoint presentation, but like the
last PowerPoint is like a bullet point of solutions,
right? So it's funny that you put it that way
because that's literally the origin of that sort
of strategy, right? You lay out the problem and
then you bullet point the solutions, right? Or
at least that was the first time that this was
implemented in an environmental or regarding
environmental issues. With a documentary like
Jane Goodall, The Hope, there isn't that, right?
It's like you were saying, you watch her do her
work, you observe her activism, her engagement
with other people, and then the film just kind
of encourages you to think about what you could
do. In fact, that's the one thing that perhaps
she does say you should do, right? Think of what
you can do to make this world a better place,
to work towards solving the environmental crisis,
right? But it doesn't tell you how to do it.
And then there's, you know, an inconvenient truth
or a number of other documentaries that are like
this. And of course, David Atomoros, right? Which
literally ends with a list of things you could
do or you should do perhaps, right? Now, like
I was saying, I think for the longest time, documentary
scholars and I think like you were saying, perhaps
the common perception of people is that the the
more open format is perhaps the better one in
the sense that it's not, like we said, it's not
prescriptive, that it's open to possibilities
that are unforeseen by the filmmaker or the activist,
right? That you are essentially asking people
to think for themselves and come up with whatever
they can, right? And so there's a number of possibilities
that might come about. However, In the few empirical
studies, studies in which they've actually asked
people to watch different films and then followed
up to see which ones actually had a bigger impact
on people's behavior, again, the number of studies
is limited. But at least two have decidedly found
that the prescriptive documentary had a bigger
impact on people's behavior. So that when you
have a film that tells you do this and this and
that, there's a higher chance that you will actually
change your behavior in accordance to what you're
being told. So for these studies, the one thing
that I remember that I think is important to
keep in mind is that these were studies that
were trying to randomize the population as much
as possible. So they were not looking for people
who watch documentaries or people who are environmentally
conscious, but people from all walks of life,
right? And so perhaps to people like you and
me who are already environmentally inclined,
right? Who are constantly thinking about the
wellbeing, not just of people, but also of animals
and ecology at large. To us, it may seem like
being told what to do, especially when those
things that we're being told to do are things
that we probably already do, right? That seems
less productive than an open documentary that
is not prescriptive, but perhaps still evokes
hope and the desire for ecological change. But
for the general population, the opposite may
be true. Being told straightforward solutions
may actually be more conducive to behavioral
changes, proecological change. So again, that's
another contradiction that's hard to navigate,
because I think you're right. I do think that
something like what you see in the tail end of
alive on our planet is reductive, right? And
it kind of, it's a bit patronizing, and perhaps
it doesn't seem particularly effective, but it
may actually work better on the general population.
Yeah, patronizing is a great word to describe
it. And I do think you're right. And this is
my bias speaking. Yeah, and The thing is with
the solutions that David Attenborough proposes
is that there is a discourse right now about
if you go and look up solar panels or wind energy.
You'll get into a whole, you know, debate about
those things. And it is not clear, you know,
how much they're, you know, effective in fighting,
you know, the climate crisis. A good example
is, you know, wind power. Wind power is horrible
for wildlife. Like that's a fact. It can be.
Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Now, you're not telling
that to people who are watching your documentary,
but they will find out. And then once they find
out, they'll start thinking, well, if they're
wrong on that, then are they also wrong on the
climate crisis stuff? Right. Like you're not
serving your cause here. Yeah, I agree. So I
do agree that that is perhaps I would actually
say that is almost certainly the most questionable
aspect of this particular strategy. The lack
of additional information, the lack of context
that comes with these solutions. So often, it's
good that you mention things like solar panels
and wind power. Something that you see in a film
like this one and others, Raise an Extinction
is a great example. I don't know if you've ever
seen that film. It's essentially, again, another
documentary very much like An Inconvenient Truth
or David Attenborough's Life on our Planet, but
it's specifically about mass extinction. So you
see it in a lot of these films, that they offer
a number of solutions and a lot of these solutions
have to do with some sort of... technology that
will change things, right? So I call this techno
-solutionism, right? And it's not my term, but
it's what we, like some people call it that,
right? And so there's this idea that like, if
you just embrace the newer technologies, then
that'll solve the problem, right? And you're
right. I mean, there are still ongoing discussions
about whether things like solar panels are a
good long -term solution because they're also...
ecologically corrosive, right? The materials
you need to mine, you know, all of that stuff
with wind power, right? People like you and I
care about wildlife and the wellbeing of animals.
And so to what extent can we say that this is
an ecological solution when you have like scores
of birds and bats literally, you know, with their
lungs literally exploding or collapsing because
of the changes in air pressure that occur around
these turbines. And again, right? And the elephant
in the room that's still not being addressed
is just using less, consuming less, right? And
again, I think it's because consumption is essential
to even the production of these films, right?
You need to produce them and you need to sell
them and you need people who consume them, right?
And that's why I do fixate on, again, the silver
lining of this particular film and... and perhaps
other documentaries that do this, is that the
one solution that we know that almost certainly
would have a huge impact on solving the climate
crisis, which is plant -based diets, right, is
for the very first time included in a film featuring
somebody like David Atomorrow. And so now we
have other documentaries that sort of tackle
this more. more directly. But they don't have
that persona that will draw the masses to watch
them. You might have seen or heard of Eating
Our Way to Extinction. And it's a fantastic film
that shows us just how detrimental to the environment
is the consumption of meat and animal products.
But it lacks that central figure that draws the
masses. And this is why figures like good old
in Attenborough, speaking out about their veganism
or their plant -based diets or lifestyles is
so important because they do have that pull that
you otherwise don't have. So again, I agree with
what you're saying. I think that perhaps emphasizing
some solutions other than others and focusing
a little more on what makes them actual real
solutions instead of just listing a number of
things that if not properly contextualized, may
actually lead to more damage. Focusing on one
or two things that we know for a fact are actually
going to make an impact. I think that might be
a good compromise between the two forms that
we're discussing here. Between the bullet points
at the end and perhaps something a little more...
properly contextualized and dedicated to better
informing the public about things that actually
do make a difference. One thing that I wanna
mention is related to this, right? And I don't
know how you feel about this. I know that my
position is perhaps not the most standard position
amongst people who are... animal activists or
vegans or ecological activists. But I think that
one potential solution to some extent that never
gets mentioned in these films is still the possibility
of nuclear power, which even when you take the
meltdowns that have occurred, it doesn't appear
to be as corrosive as fossil fuels, or even some
of the alternatives like solar power. And again,
the reason why you can't have that as a potential
solution in a documentary that features someone
like David Attenborough is because that's going
to put a lot of people off. So again, the demands
of the market kind of get in the way of people
exploring solutions that are unpopular. And that
was what was happening to veganism. And it seems
to be changing somewhat, but only time will tell
whether it'll change significantly and whether
other figures of the caliber of Goodell and Atomboro
will come about and promote the cause, promote
plant -based diets, promote forms of energy that
perhaps are scary or less popular, but could
actually offer solutions to the problems that
we have. Thank you so much for mentioning nuclear
energy. I think it's amazing. And not only is
he not talking about it as a viable alternative,
but the very first scene of the documentary is
him in a Ukrainian city that has been abandoned
because of a nuclear catastrophe. That's right.
I mean, that's right. Sorry. Sorry. You know
what? I forgot about that. Just now. I don't
know why I didn't mention that. But it's crazy
because it plays to the fear mongering that has
occurred around nuclear power. But also what
I find ironic is that, and you probably know
about this, he bravely mentions it in the documentary,
right? That ended up actually being better for
the animals. So I mean, I don't know. Like Chernobyl
is now essentially a wildlife preserve and you
see animals there that had not occurred in Eastern
Europe. for centuries, right? I don't know, just
just the thought again, just an afterthought,
but a thought worth worth entertaining, I think.
Yes, nuclear energy is very safe. It's like that
same rational fear of taking a plane. Similar.
Yeah, it's very similar. You're right. There
are more risk involved in taking your car out.
And I'm I'm a greedy vegan. I I'm happy that
he mentioned veganism as a solution, but I wish
it was his first point, also his second point,
his third point, like every... Exactly. Yes.
And not just because I think it's the most impactful
thing you can ask for someone to do, but also
because I feel it's more effective to focus on
one thing, one solution. Sorry, continue. I was
just agreeing with you emphatically because I
agree. That's what I was trying to say, right?
That perhaps just focusing on one issue that
actually does make a difference as opposed to
listing a number of issues without proper context
is perhaps a better way to go. Just focus on
the one thing we know actually works. And again,
if we're talking about how these films and this
industry came about because initially a country,
but increasingly, people around the world understand
themselves as animal lovers. Shouldn't we start
by perhaps, you know, not eating them? The thing
also about animals, you know, since we're on
the topic of veganism and caring for animals.
In the Jane Goodall documentary, it is the welfare
of animal is front and center. of the piece.
But the David Adamboro approach is, I think,
the widely adopted approach in the environmental
community, which is, you know, a certain desire
to protect Earth, like the concept of Earth,
or the beauty of Earth, or you know, that idea
of a beautiful world. And it's all very abstract.
Yeah. What do you make of that difference? Well,
I think, I think, again, it'll depend a lot on
who you're talking about. One, one. One author
that I have read over and over again over the
course of my research, I can't remember if it's
Dinesh or Devesh, his first name, Chakravarti.
Originally a historian from India, but increasingly
engaged in conversations about climate change.
And one of the things that he has sort of spent
some time thinking and writing about is the inability
of people to understand themselves as a species
on a planet, right? How abstract those ideas
are. But again, right? I think that depending
on who you're appealing to, that changes. I think
other theorists and authors have talked about
how in places like the United States and the
global North in general, but particularly in
And in places that have had a history of space
exploration, right? So the Soviet Union too,
right? There is a sense of being a citizen of
Earth, right? Global citizenship kind of. And
that that informs their environmentalist thinking.
In other places, that doesn't exist, right? Because
your... perception of yourself and of your friends
and family and society is limited by your senses.
Like you don't see yourself, you don't hear yourself,
you don't feel yourself as part of a species
on a planet, right? So in those circumstances,
I think that appealing to perhaps a more direct
relationship with something that we all have
a connection to, which is animals, right? And
it's on the surface is more, perhaps more conducive
to behavioral changes, to attitudinal changes,
you know, changes in behavior, like perhaps more
ecological consciousness. But it is also true
that most people, and you and I know this very
well, right? Most people don't truly comprehend
that their stake is or was a living being, right?
Because there is that same kind of distance between
the living being and that food on your plate,
right? So it's a similar situation. Obviously
there are some differences, right? But because
there is that distance, that dissociation still
there to some extent, right? I do agree that
Goodall has always... put the welfare of animals
first and foremost, right? And I think something
that you might have, I think you mentioned this
in your podcast, right? That she actually talked
about how, you know, chimps were not even her
favorite animal, right? Because chimps were too
much like people. Chimps were violent, you know,
they were aggressive, unpleasant creatures. Actually,
her favorite animals is the dog or was the dog,
right? So, I think that the fact that her entire
career revolved around protecting that creature
that she didn't even particularly like is perhaps
more inspirational, right? And it's a better
way of getting people to think about their own
relationship with animals that perhaps they don't
like, but that they can recognize as sentient
beings, right? As creatures that... think and
feel and have relationships, right? Unfortunately,
I think that that may in itself, that may not
lead to change, right? Because again, you can
have that sort of understanding about the squirrel
in the park, right? Or perhaps the cat on your
couch. But because there's that distance between
the food that you buy in the supermarket and
the animal that it used to be, that may still
be kind of disconnect, right? You may still not
see that as an animal that is worthy of, you
know, your kindness, of your respect. I don't
know. I think there's, you know, pros and cons
to both approaches. I do think that the prospect
of global citizenship appeals to a lot of people.
I think especially here in Alberta, for example,
I see I see lots of my students are more receptive
to that idea than to the idea of not eating meat.
So, you know, I think it'll depend on the cultural
context, but I think there's definitely pros
and cons to both. Interesting. Let me ask you
kind of a weird question. I love those. What
do you think? Well, wait until you hear it. What
do you think is the perception or was the perception
of Jane Goodles and David Attenborough of their
fellow human beings. Because, you know, in both
documentaries, humanity is not portrayed in the
best of light, although more so, I think, with
the Hope documentary. But, you know, it's something
I wonder, you know, do they love their fellow
human beings? Are they getting a bit misanthropic,
maybe? Yeah, you know, I think that, you know,
we're speculating here, right? I think both of
them understand people. I don't know about love.
I don't know about respect, with Goodel specifically,
right? You can infer that she has a certain distaste
for some human characteristics, right? And you
can infer this because, again, she'll say something
like, oh, yeah, chimps can be very unpleasant
creatures because they do this and this and that.
And so they're actually very similar to us, right?
The implication there. the implication there
being that she thinks that those are unpleasant
characteristics that people possess, right? And
so we can sort of infer that at the very least
she understands that people like chimps, our
closest cousins, right? We have some evolutionary
baggage, right? That we have some tendencies
that make us unpleasant. We're not the kindest
creatures out there, because we are apes that
form hierarchical societies, and that hierarchy
is determined violently. Adam Moro, likewise,
he doesn't really talk. You've already put it.
beautifully right he talks in the abstract a
little more right he talks in terms of ecology
and the planet and humanity right so he doesn't
deal with the individual as much as good old
does right good old talks a lot about her personalities
right the personalities of certain apes the personalities
of certain animals and thus she understands that
people too have different personalities likes
and feelings right Adamor doesn't really talk
about that much, so I think we're speculating
even further, but I think one thing that I take
away from the few times that he's spoken politically,
such as this documentary that we've been discussing,
but also other interviews, right? I think he
understands that people have, for lack of a better
understanding, that people have other concerns.
that people are interested in the natural world,
but only in a passing way. And so he's trying
to get us to think more about it. I remember
this one quote. He once said that people have
the uncanny ability to change the environment
for the benefit of their population, but that
perhaps it's time for us to change the population
to the benefit of the environment, suggesting
that fewer people would be better for Earth,
right? And so some people think that that sort
of position is misanthropic, right? That you
want fewer people on Earth, that means you don't
like people. But I think because he thinks in
the abstract, he thinks in terms, or at least
he usually talks in terms of these broader ecological
concepts. he also kind of sees people that way.
As a whole, we have these tendencies that we
need to change. And so that would mean a smaller
population, a plant -based diet. But perhaps
he doesn't really think too much, or at least
he doesn't talk too much about how individuals
perceive these ideas. So again, perhaps not misanthropic,
but definitely I do think there is some At least
again, based on what I see, I think there is
a disconnect between how he thinks about the
world and what people's experience is. Yeah,
and again, I think with Jane Goodall, again,
misanthropy, perhaps not the best term, but I
do think she's well aware of the fact that as
a species, we have some issues. You're right
to raise the... the topic of reducing the number
of humans on the planet. I think if they are
misentropic, or let me put it this way, I think
their most misentropic episodes are when they
talk about that, about reducing human populations.
Now, Jane Goodall doesn't talk about it in her
documentary, or at least maybe I missed it, but
I did hear her in an interview say something
of the sort of, if we could reduce the human
population, like drastically, but in the most
humane way, like make people disappear with the
magic wand. I would be for that. And I think
that for, you know, someone from the public hearing
that feels a bit, you know, crazy and also scary.
Yeah. Yeah, that's, that's one idea that That
is, you know, again, another one of these controversial
measures, right? And again, it's telling that
Adam Borough does not shy away from this one,
but he does shy away from things like nuclear
power. And again, for the longest time, he shied
away from veganism, right? So imagine that veganism
and nuclear power are somehow worse than, you
know, the desire for fewer people. But anyway.
But yeah, like, you know the population the question
of the population the global population is is
is is controversial it always has been If you
don't know the history of the club of Rome, you
may want to look it up They were the first sort
of like a group of intellectuals to propose our
reduction in the human population like an intentional
reduction of the human population and then they
were hugely controversial at the time and they
remain so their ideas remain so and and I you
know Ironically, even as we debate the merits
of lowering the number of people on Earth, and
even as people, even here in academia, I always
think about what I read, the stuff that other
authors who are far more prominent than I'll
probably ever be have said about things like
population. And one of the questions that they
ask is, well, who exactly which is sacrifice,
right? Because one of the theories about the
discourse of our population is that it's covert
racism, right? That it's basically saying we
need to stop all these people from the third
world from reproducing, right? And I think in
some cases, it certainly sounds that way, right?
And so perhaps there are some ideological issues
that we need to be aware of when talking about,
well, OK, let's reduce the population. Whose
population exactly would you start with and why,
right? But even as we're talking about this and
even as most people still kind of feel some sort
of resistance against or push back against the
idea, it's happening already. I don't know if
you are aware of this. This is a conversation
that this is something that I follow almost as
a hobby. It started about a decade ago, because
I was curious about this one report that I read
coming out of the UN, and I've been following
it ever since. And so that original report basically
said that growth projections for the global South,
so Latin America, Africa, South Asia, certain
parts of Southeast Asia, that they had been way
overestimated, and that the growth was actually
going to be far slower than they had anticipated.
Okay, this was 10 years ago. From then until
now, that same projection, that same revision
has accelerated. So about four years ago or five
years ago, the UN put out another report that
basically said, actually, it looks like we're
heading towards a peak in population because
population growth in Africa and all these places
is... decelerating to the extent that it's actually
going to flatten, it's going to plateau. And
so they projected a peak population of about
14 billion people by the year 2100. And then
two years ago, another one, and they said, actually,
again, we way overestimated the growth of the
Global South, and now it looks like we're gonna
peak at around 10 billion by 2080. And the latest
report, which was released earlier this year,
again, revised it, continued the trend, and now
there is a strong possibility that the population
will peak at around 9, between 9 and 10 billion,
but in 2050. Again, it's just a strong possibility,
nothing's certain. But after that, we see a population
decline. When we're talking about peaks, we talk
about the highest point, and then it declines.
So now we're heading towards an almost certain
reduction in the population. for the first time
at some point in this century. So the population
is now almost certainly going to start going
down at some point this century. And people are
talking about it everywhere. People are talking
about how nobody's having kids anymore. Nobody
can afford to have kids anymore because everything
is so expensive now. And my theory, my hypothesis
is that this is all a reflection of the fact
that the system in which we now live cannot,
can no longer sustain growth, right? And of course
it makes sense because as both Goodall and Atomboro
have talked about, a finite planet cannot support
indefinite growth, right? We live on this kind
of rock that is a spaceship and it's limited,
right? And so we cannot keep on growing indefinitely
and it looks like we may be reaching the limits
of growth. under the system that we live in.
So, you know, population reduction is not something
people want to hear. A lot of people are terrified
of it. But now it looks like an almost certain
thing. So, you know, it's worth thinking about.
Talking about racism, there is a point I wanted
to raise concerning native populations. And so
in the David Attenborough documentary, they present
a native tribe and they describe them as the
ideal, sustainably living lifestyle. And that
made me a bit uncomfortable because it reminded
me of the, the noble Indian trope. You know,
you had so many Europeans. thinking, writing,
talking about the American Indian as this ideal
of freedom and of such a wonderful, you know,
lifestyle. And I also don't know if this is truly
rooted in reality. There have been theories that
native populations have caused the extinction
of megafauna in Australia, but also in North
America. What do you make of that trope that,
you know, the native people were so in such harmony
with nature and were like the ideal, the model
of living an environmentally friendly lifestyle?
Yeah, you know, that's, that's a good point,
right? Um, it, it ties in quite a bit with, with
the question about questions about population
and like whose population would have to uh you
know decelerate and grow and and and you know
some some some presumed racial implications of
those questions but in regards to what happens
in a life uh on our planet and the David Attenborough
documentary and again we should contrast how
similar ideas are represented in both films,
The Hope and A Life on Our Planet, because it's
done differently, but let's stick to Atomboro
first. So again, right, I would take us back
to the beginning of Atomboro's career. So part
of his body of work includes a number of very
early films that were what you call ethnographies,
right? So these are films in which Atomboro or
otherwise a group of ethnographers alongside
a film crew, usually again, right, financed by
the BBC or another public broadcasting corporation,
they would go to these exotic places to document
dying cultures, right, like what we're understood
to be dying cultures. And so they would record,
you know, their practices and their habits and
all that. And even then, right? Or perhaps more
so than today you could see what you're talking
about, right? You could see this back then a
lot more explicit but today implicit supposition
of Indigenous peoples as somehow more in tune
with nature. Now I think, you know, the first
part of your question was to what extent is this
true or accurate, like historically accurate,
right? And I would say that, you know, if you
compare the environmental impact of any other
society to contemporary Western societies, well,
of course, like most other societies were vastly
more sustainable than, you know, Western late
capitalist industrial societies, societies, right?
So I think, you know, but in that sense, it is
undeniable that those tribes or those societies
and other places, both contemporary and historically,
were far more sustainable than ours. Now, the
question is, does that make them an ideal model,
right? And I would say no. So first off, you
mentioned, for instance, in the case of North
America, and you know, this is something that
I could potentially get in trouble for, but I'm
happy to speak openly about it because I actually
do raise the point whenever the opportunity arises,
which is that nowadays, and because of, I think,
as a result of the renewed oppression against
Indigenous peoples here in North America and
elsewhere around the world, right, there has
been this sort of impetus to foreground this
their traditions, their cultures, as you said,
right? More environmentally sustainable, more
ethical, matrilineal as opposed to patriarchal,
right? About community, I suppose about the individual.
And in some cases, that is true in one way or
another, but speaking specifically about sustainability,
right? I think I was just actually reading our
report about this recently, about the extinction
of megafauna in North America, because that was
a contentious issue for the longest time. What
drove the mammoth, and the North American camels,
and the giant sloths, and all of these other
creatures that used to thrive here in North America,
and actually also in South America, what drove
them extinct? The two prevailing theories were
uh, the overkill theory, which is that, well,
you know, humans arrived in North America roughly
the same time as, um, these creatures, uh, disappearance,
right? And so they disappear around the time
when people show up. And so that's, that's like
a bit of a coincidence. The other one being,
you know, just some sort of climate change either
because of, um, the, the most recent proposition
was that abrupt climate change is a result of
some kind of extraterrestrial impact, right?
To some asteroid or comet or whatever. And there
seems to be some evidence to support that there
was an impact at around that time as well. But
it doesn't seem to be enough to take out the
latest report that I read in regards to this
idea that perhaps it was some sort of abrupt
climate change as a result of some sort of impact,
right? The evidence is not there. If there was
an impact, it was relatively small and it wouldn't
make sense that it only affected certain parts
of the world and not the entire world. So it
does seem as if at least to some extent to the
arrival of humans into what is now North America
was the cause of their extinction, which tells
us that even if later descendants of these people
became perhaps more environmentally sustainable,
that wasn't always the case. At some point, they
most definitely had a severe impact on their
ecology. And actually, one of the most compelling
arguments I've heard about this is that, as you
mentioned, this is not a North American phenomenon,
right? It also happened in Australia. But as
I was saying, it also seems to have happened
in South America. It seems to have happened in
Europe, right? Where the mammoth also went extinct
and the animals that fed upon animals like that,
like the saber tooth tigers and cave lions also
went extinct. And it seems to have happened in
Asia. with similar species, right? Again, mammoths,
woolly rhinos, saber -toothed tigers, all of
these animals go extinct. And their extinction
seems to more or less coincide with the arrival
of people. But I think the most compelling piece
of evidence or the most compelling argument that
I've heard that supports the idea that wherever
people went, extinctions followed, right? Is
that the one continent where this didn't happen,
was Africa, where we evolved. So it seems to
me that those animals were able to continue their
existence because they evolved with us alongside
people. And so they knew what people wear. They
knew to beware of the upright monkey with a spear,
whereas other animals didn't. And so they went
extinct. So anyway, so that is one thing. But
as I was saying, even if that is true, the possibility
does exist. And in fact, it is demonstrable that
their descendants lived in greater ecological
balance than us. So that a tribe in North America
or in Australia or in Southeast Asia typically
didn't overrun its environment the way that contemporary
Western societies do. The example that you cite
from the movie, from David Attenborough's documentary,
right? He specifically refers to a tribe from
Papua New Guinea. Now, what, again, right? You
have to think about what is included and what
is being left out. And you've already talked
about this in relation to like how by talking
about a number of, as you put it, Ecology 101,
right? By introducing all of these talking points.
you leave a lot of the context out, right? And
so one of the things that is being left out when
they talk about a tribe in Papua New Guinea,
not overrunning its environment and not consuming
more than the environment can provide. Well,
it is also true that other factors that perhaps
we don't think are desirable, right, play into
this dynamic. So for instance, the average lifespan
of a tribe span in Papua New Guinea is significantly
shorter than ours, right? And that's not just
because they live out in the elements, but also
because they don't have access to medicines.
Their diets are considerably poor, right? In
the sense that there's less variety, there's
a certainty. And so occasionally they do suffer
from emancipation and starvation, right? Children
die of illnesses all the time still in those
places. not to mention inter -tribal conflicts,
which again, it's not to say that they have it
and we don't. Obviously, we fight amongst ourselves
all the time. There's countless Western or modern
wars happening around the world right now. But
when your populations are considerably smaller,
or rather when your society is not based around
perpetual growth, there are other factors that
that play in and allow for that sort of set of
relations to continue. And in this case, we have
to consider whether, okay, well, the reason why,
if the reason why, or one of the reasons why
people in what we consider, quote unquote, primitive
societies, manage to strike a balance with the
natural world. One of those reasons is that they
don't have access to medicine. And so their population
is limited by illnesses, for example, right?
then perhaps we want to consider whether they
are a good model in all regards, right? Not that
they aren't in at least some of those, but that
context or that sort of model is not going to
be applicable to contemporary societies because
we expect other things from life, right? And
I think that raises a number of other questions.
So yeah, I do think that there is this tendency
once again to uphold these societies that are
still not Western, that are still not quote unquote
modern as we call ourselves, right? And kind
of like put them on a pedestal and think or talk
about them as if they were models for us to follow.
And I think in some regards perhaps that is true,
but in other regards it's not, right? And so
again, having access to the full context and
not just bits and parts is important, right?
So, and you know, just to briefly return to the
difference between the two documentaries and
the hope, again, right? Goodell also travels
to exotic locations, right? What we would refer
to as exotic locations. But I think, again, there
is this sort of emphasis on the fact that even
people in those societies recognize the need
for change, right? And I think that's something
that is perhaps a little more productive in the
sense that rather than thinking about how we're
different, it encourages to think about how,
okay, yeah, perhaps there are some differences,
but we're all in the same boat. And they are
recognized despite their remoteness and despite
the fact that perhaps their beliefs are different
from ours, right? They recognize the need for
change on a grander scale. And so I think perhaps
that's sort of like more relational understanding
of people from societies that are different from
ours is Yes, there's something strange about
how we fantasize of a world beyond modernity.
So, you know, freed from modernity, where we
could be one of those, you know, so -called primitive
tribe part of that. But at the same time, we
are scared of that prospect. Um, you know, we
look at them and we think, you know, this is
the result of us going through horrible world
war and, you know, we'll end up with sticks and,
and yeah, that's, that's how we model, you know,
um, society's failure. Um, and I want to tie
this to, um, the apocalyptic message we often
get from environmentalists. And in the David
Attenborough documentary, they had this scene,
they filmed that horrific landscape of burnt,
just this burnt, you know, trees, burnt forest.
And then they were in the middle of the burnt
forest. There were tornadoes. I don't know if
you remember that. Yeah, I do. I thought it was
so hilarious. Like, where did you find that footage?
How did you, you know, film that footage? Where
is that horrific place? And they showed that
while talking about our future, you know, if,
if we continue on this path, this is what awaits
us, you know, a burnt forest inhabited by tornadoes.
And, and, you know, this is not efficient. I
don't know who is in their team, you know, production
team, but they should know that the first thing
that The first argument that people bring against
climate change and believing in the climate crisis
or doing something is look at the long record
of failed predictions from environmentalists
and scientists. They thought we would end up
in a cold age. They were wrong. They thought
we were going to... be the victim of a worldwide
famine. They were wrong. They thought that New
York would be, you know, underwater. They were
wrong. And so stop, you know, with the prediction
business. Just focus on the present, you know,
and the effect of climate change on our current
reality. Yeah, I think it's a dangerous business
to predict the future. Yeah, no, I think you're
right and I know that You know, I've probably
committed that mistake today right when talking
about about the population issue because to a
lot of people the possibility of the human population
decreasing as opposed to increasing is an apocalyptic
premise right they think of films like Children
of man, for example, right? I don't know if you're
familiar with it. It was a great film where like,
you know, it takes place in this dystopian society
where it's been 20 years since the birth of the
last person, right? Some sort of pandemic has
made us all infertile. And so it's been 20, 20
something years since the last person, or since
the birth of the last person, or since a birth,
a human birth, and everybody, like, you know,
the population's aging, there are no babies.
And so the prospect of extinction is there, right?
So a lot of people, when... when people like
myself talk about population projections and
the fact that the population seems to not just
be stabilizing but heading for a peak and then
decline, that sounds like an apocalyptic premise.
And it is true that these are just projections.
Any projection that people make about population
or climate change or biodiversity loss, which
is something I'm interested in, they're always
going to be just highly educated guesses, but
still guesses in the sense that you never have
access to all the data, right? And that's not
just because data collection is limited, which
it is, right? You cannot possibly collect all
the data in the world, right? It's that analogy
of like drawing a map so detailed that you capture
everything. Could you fit that in the world?
Well, of course not, right? This could have to
be the size of the world. Same with data, right?
You can try to collect as much data as possible,
but there isn't enough human computational or
even storage power to actually analyze it all
and simulate it in a way that will predict things
that are 100 % certainty, right? So it's impossible,
like predicting the future is already impossible,
but it gets even worse when one fails to consider
the unexpected, right? So for instance, you talked
about how there were predictions about almost
certain famine, right? I think I believe these
that the latest sort of iteration of this particular
prophecy, so to speak, came about in the 50s.
And about a decade or two decades later, we have
the Green Revolution. There's this new sort of
understanding of how to grow crops in a more
or less indefinite way. And so suddenly, there's
more than enough food for everyone. So a technological
development essentially throws that theory out
the window, right? It's like, well, now actually
turns out we're now going to get harm, you know,
we're not going to starve. In fact, we're going
to produce more than ever. Okay. Right. There's
also the story about, um, or the, the, this,
this prediction that like towards the end of
last century, when the last, actually now two
centuries ago, right? Towards the end of the
19th century, there were so many horses in London
that people predicted that, you know, within
20, 30 years, the city was going to be buried.
And what they didn't predict was the rise of
the car, the automobile, and how that did away
with horses. So when I talked about how I am
skeptical of what I call technosolutionism, this
idea that technology will offer solutions, I
have to say that in awareness of the fact that
in the past, that has been true. A lot of problems
that we have had in the past have been done away
with because some sort of technological development
came about that nobody expected and solved that
problem. But what is also true is that solving
one problem with technology has almost always
resulted in new technological problems or new
problems as a result of that technology. So to
go back to the example of the horse and the car,
well, of course, the use of cars became one of
the main drivers of what we now call climate
change, right? So we solved one problem, but
we created another, which is potentially worse,
right? Who knows? The same with the Green Revolution,
right? Suddenly we can produce pretty much as
much food as possible, right? But what does that
do? Well, that enables some companies to grow
food for a particular purpose, which is more
profitable. And in this case, that facilitated
the rise as of factory farming, right? Because,
all right, if we can grow as much food as possible,
but the most profitable food to sell is meat,
then let's just grow infinite amounts of, you
know, cattle feed to feed the cattle, right?
So that didn't end up like solving all problems
related to famine and starvation, right? It actually
just created excess in one part of the world
and other parts of the world are still suffering
from the issues that they had. 20, 30, 40 years
ago, or even centuries ago, right? So technology
solves problems, yeah, sure, but it also creates
new problems. So when we're talking about these
apocalyptic predictions, right, some of them
are going to be just flat out wrong, whether
because the data was not in at the time of that
prediction, or because of some sort of technological
development. But being wrong doesn't necessarily
mean that it's going to be better either, right?
So just because we I think we cannot and mustn't
assume that what fear -mongering activists tell
us right like oh you know New York's gonna be
under 20 feet of water by the end of the century
we don't have to believe that we probably shouldn't
just believe them right because they don't know
any more than perhaps a little more than we do
but they don't know you know they're not certain
about those things but it is also true that like
What we do know is that the lifestyle that we
currently live in western society, that we currently
experience in western societies in the global
north, right, this lifestyle of like exes, of
living beyond our means, right, that will inevitably
create problems. We don't know what those problems
are, we don't know what the end result of those
problems is going to be, right, but we know that
it cannot go on forever. So yeah, I agree that
that that we probably shouldn't put too much
faith in those apocalyptic predictions, right?
But we should be aware of the fact that these
predictions are based on data that we do have,
right? And that does point to a number of problems
that we're already experiencing, right? So for
instance, you mentioned that scene in a life
on our planet. It's actually one of the scenes
that I enjoy the most, partly because I think
they did a fairly good job at sort of relating
how one issue will cascade into a number of other
issues, right? Specifically speaking, how climate
change will result in the shutting down of certain
ecological systems and a mass extinction of species,
right? I think that that is well connected. But
you're right in pointing out that like the number
of, you know, that, well, actually there's two
things that I want to mention here. So the one
thing is that, I think you're pointing out that
this sort of imagery, right, apocalyptic imagery,
like this prophetic sort of dream, nightmare,
right, I think it's political productivity is
questionable. Like just how much does it motivate
people or does it perhaps demotivate people?
So there have been some empirical studies about
that. it seems to be pretty evenly split, interestingly
enough. Some people look at that and say, OK,
we got to do something, right? And some people
look at that and say, we're toast. So people
either fall into despair or will become highly
motivated to do something about these things.
So you can question the political productivity
of that sort of fear mongering. I'm sorry, interesting
side note. Remember I told you that people have
sort of compared which or they've done empirical
analyses of like what kind of film seems to motivate
people most, right? If it's just a film that
observes but doesn't actually promote causes
or a film that promotes causes. Well, there was
a bit of a control group in one of those studies
and they had them watch The Day After Tomorrow,
which is like the most exaggerated implausible
version of climate change, right? Turns out that
one actually motivated people the most. Which
is ridiculous, right? Because people would confess
knowing that this was all fictional, but apparently
those fictionalized, exaggerated representations
of what could happen, or probably what could
never happen, seem to have actually motivated
people most because they stayed with people.
Right. People remember those dramatic scenes.
And so the next time they, you know, they were
leaving their office, they thought about those,
you know, like, blizzards in the middle of Los
Angeles. And they were like, Oh, no, I better
turn the lights off. Right. So it's it's ironic.
It's it's it's unpredictable. Right. Again, right.
It's impossible to tell exactly what's going
to click with people. Right. What's going to
motivate them. So, yeah, the the the apocalyptic
imagery and and now in documentaries as well
right like in my life on our planet we we don't
really know how it affects or we can't really
make generalized assumptions about how it will
affect people right some people will see that
and become motivated some people will see that
and fall into grief or despair right um what
what does seem to be true is that the more the
more images like that people become exposed to,
the higher the chance of them falling into what
is increasingly called ecograve, right? Ecological
grief. That perhaps is not just watching at one
time, but the fact that now we're constantly
bombarded by these images of, you know, these
apocalyptic images that are related to ecological
problems that we have. But unfortunately, you
know, I think that is something that perhaps
is worth thinking about because So this particular
scene that you mentioned, the one where there's
fires and dust devils, these little tornadoes.
So that's not AI. That was something that actually
seems to happen sometimes in Australia. And that
apparently is happening more and more because
of climate change. You might recall that a couple
of years ago, all of Australia was on fire. There
were those images of koalas literally burning
to death. And that sort of imagery is becoming
more common precisely because these problems
are already affecting us. Like some of these
predictions, quote unquote, have actually come
true, right? You may recall that last year, Jasper
National Park here in Canada burnt up, right?
A place that people would perhaps think would
be better prepared or that would be protected
in some ways, right? the conditions were such
that it was impossible to do anything about it.
It was really hot that year. There was what people
called a heat dome. There was initially hardly
any snow in the winter. The forest was extremely,
exceedingly unusually dry. And so it burnt up.
And so it is getting to the point where some
of those dire predictions, again, not all, and
not to make any definitive claims here, but some
of them seem to be coming true. I read a report
earlier today that something that was predicted
about 10 years ago in another documentary that
I watched in Chasing Coral actually did happen
this year, which is that essentially all coral
reefs around the world experienced leaching.
It used to be that it was localized, and this
year every single reef experienced leaching.
And so that is a definite step towards the extinction
of that entire coral reef ecosystem, because
if it happens two, three years in a row, they're
gone. There aren't that many of them. They're
highly localized. two or three years, we may
not have coral reefs anymore. So again, predictions
are one thing, but it is important to be aware
of the fact that some of the things that people
have been talking about on predictability and
weather and not knowing how it will affect ecosystems
and ourselves, that seems to already be something
that we need to deal with in the present. So
yeah, again, not to say Not to scare people.
Again, I think you're right in pointing out we
shouldn't be constantly thinking about or speculating
about the future because we can't. We can't know
for sure, right? But it's good to be aware of
the fact that some of the things that people
have been talking about and that we now witness
on a regular basis, like fires and stuff like
that. Well, you know, as people have been saying,
part of a new normal. And it's a new normal that
is going to be really difficult to deal with.
And just to add a detail about that, not all
regions will be affected equally according to
estimates. the global south will be affected
more than the north. In fact, I remember a chemistry
class in college where the teacher talked about
the benefits of climate change for Canada. Yeah,
how we would, you know, get rid of our winter.
And so we would be able to cultivate land all
year long. And, you know, since we have so many
lakes and and rivers and all of that, we won't
have to worry about droughts. Yeah, no, you're
right. Unfortunately, some people think about
it that way. During my first year here in Canada,
so 2019, there was a bit of a scandal because
somebody, which I don't think was ever identified,
Somebody gave the okay for the creation of this
one billboard featuring a cow and the University
of Alberta logo, and it read, climate change
will lengthen the growing season, boosting beef
production. That was all it said. And it was
a big deal because, well, first off, the official
position of the university, regardless of whether
they actually follow through or not, the official
position is that the climate crisis is something
that needs to be addressed, right? So saying
something like that is, it doesn't square with
the university's philosophy to begin with, right?
But it was, I mean, again, I didn't follow up
on the story. I was new, so I just thought it
was ridiculous and didn't really follow through.
But now in hindsight, I realize of like, what
they were doing, right? Essentially doing what
your professor seems to be, well, seems to have
done or said, right? Which is, don't worry about
climate change. It's actually gonna make things
better for us, right? And here in Alberta, for
people who don't know, beef is a big freaking
deal, right? They love their beef here. Alberta
is essentially like the Texas of Canada, right?
So they love their barbecues, they love their
beef, they love their burgers. And so, hearing
or reading that climate change will actually
allow us to eat more and cheaper beef was like
music to the ears of most Albertans, right? So
it was a PR disaster for a hot second there.
And I think you have to question what sort of
what might have motivated somebody to give the
okay to this billboard. And of course, eventually
it was taken down after a couple of weeks, but
it was there. And again, I think some people
unfortunately do think about what they stand
to gain, even as millions of people are forced
from their homes because they become essentially
places where nobody can live anymore. That's
already happening in some places. around the
world I remember I remember going to this one
event in Amsterdam and I'm gonna shoot myself
right now because I can't remember who it was
but if I'm not mistaken he was some sort of he
was a journalist and he was a big -name journalist
I can't remember who it was though and and what
he was there to talk about was how through his
many years as a correspondent in the Middle East,
he had learned that the reason why, or one of
the main reasons why so many people were fleeing
that area and why that particular part of the
world has become so hotly contested, no pun intended,
is because it's becoming increasingly difficult
to live in that area because of climate change.
Resources are scarcer than they used to be. water
is scarce as well. I remember he specifically
talked about the civil war in Syria and how many
of the villages that were most militant, who
felt like they could no longer stand the regime
anymore, were the villages that had suffered
from several years of drought without any sort
of help from the government. And that while he
acknowledged the fact that Assad's government
Could have done something he also realized that
like what they could have done was, you know
Comparatively very little because there was very
there's very little you can do when it just won't
rain, right? So, um, so the fact that that's
already something that's exacerbating that political
political stability of a place like the Middle
East right and that's only going to get worse
in another because it's going to Start happening
in other parts of the world. Well, you know,
that's something we should all be worried about
is even if you're somebody who believes in borders
and you know is a patriot and only really cares
about Canada because guess what those people
are going to look for another place to go to
right and so um thinking that way thinking that
that that you may actually benefit from climate
change is myopic you're not looking at the whole
picture you're not thinking about how other things
that you may not think are related to climate
change or if are going to get worse, right? Precisely
because they were affected by something that
you thought was good for you. Yeah, Assad should
have done something performative, like a ceremony,
like the old pharaohs would do or the old Chinese
emperors, you know, to attract. Yeah, I mean,
again, right? I think, I think not to say that
he could have actually done anything like no
regime on earth can make rain happen right but
i mean when you are when when when you're at
the mercy of of your overlords right and then
you you're not happy with your situation you
blame them right and as sad was guilty of very
many crimes right so this is you know perhaps
only it is only fair that eventually he was ousted
but but it is true that like it's going to be
difficult for governments to justify their power
if they cannot provide the basic necessities
that their people need and that in a play in
a world where resources are strained and where
you can no longer rely on weather patterns to
you know grow your crops for example it's going
to be really hard to provide for people in some
parts of earth right and so that is only going
to breed more instability that's always the comment
I gave to preppers, I think they're called. Yeah,
right. It's, it's like you're gathering all of
that food and you're preparing yourself for the
big day. But what about your neighbors? You know,
they're aware that you're stocking up. Yeah,
that's right. That's a great analogy, actually.
But what about your neighbor? If your neighbors
know that you're stuck piling food, right? Yeah,
great analogy, actually. I'm going to steal that.
I'm going to steal that. Yeah, steal it away.
And, you know, it's not only them as a threat,
you know, they're going to steal your food, but
it's also the moral, you know, are you really
going to let them starve? Yeah. Yeah. That's,
that's the part that always baffles me, right?
Because, you know, not to, not to get lost in
the weeds here, but people who think that way,
tend, in my experience, they tend to fall within
one, they lean towards one side of the political
spectrum, right? And it's usually the same political
spectrum that tends to ally themselves with like,
you know, Christianity or religion, right? And
this high morality. And then they say these things
about letting their, essentially letting their
neighbors starve, right? I can't square that
in my head. I don't I don't know how that works.
But anyway, that's neither here nor there. Yeah,
they should study history because the mob will
write will will appear and at the gates and won't
be pretty. That's right. Alex, this has been
a very pleasant conversation. I've learned so
much. And thank you. I'm so grateful you exist.
When are you going to write a book? I've been
doing that for the past six years. So the first
thing that I have to finish is the project that
I've been working on as my doctoral thesis, which
is specifically about ecological documentaries,
my interest or what I decided to dedicate my
PhD work to. is essentially trying to understand
these different modalities of environmental documentary.
We've been talking about what I think is one
of the main modalities, which is something like
David Attenborough's A Life on Our Planet, which
is just this one central figure who tries to
walk you through whatever ecological problem
they're talking about and then they offer you
a number of solutions. And like I told you, I
think that goes back or perhaps the first film
to do that in relation to an environmental problem
in a meaningful way, in a way that actually made
an impact in the popular culture was An Inconvenient
Truth. So that's one mode. Then there's another
mode that's more related to just endangered species,
for example. A good example of a film like that
is the one that I talked about before, like chasing
coral, chasing coral specifically about coral
and the problems that coral is facing and how,
perhaps how, what kind of efforts may lead to
rescue or to saving that species, right? And
then there's the kind of film that I'm currently,
well, the one that I'm currently writing about
because I'm trying to finish my dissertation
and this is like the last chapter in there. It's,
you know, these are films that again, just kind
of observe a certain environment or ecology,
right? A good example, a recent example is honey
land, for example, which is about this one woman
who is supposed to be the last wild beekeeper
in all of Europe. So instead of like keeping
domesticated bees, she keeps wild bees, and so
it's supposed to be more ecologically explainable.
So there's a number of different ways in which
directors, right, documentarians will try to
promote environmental causes, and I'm looking
specifically at the ones that have to do with
biodiversity loss in some way. We share the fact
that we're vegan, right? But for me, veganism
goes beyond food choices, right? I think that
that if we truly extend these feelings of compassion
and empathy and try to create an ethical framework
that extends beyond the human, then we have to
consider not just what we eat, but also how we
conduct ourselves as a species or as a society
and how it affects creatures that are living
increasingly precarious lives. So that's sort
of what I'm studying. And that's what my first
book, if you want to put it like that, will be
about. It will just be about documentaries that
have to do with extinction and biodiversity laws.
And then later on, I think I'll try to tackle
other issues. But let's just say that doing a
PhD is kicking my butt. So it might be a little
wild. But I think, yeah, you know. As I work
on this, I try to put things out here and there.
I think you found out about me because of this
one thing I wrote about axolotls. I can't remember
if it was that or if it was something else. I
try to write stories. I try to write about things
that have to do with animals and particularly
animals that are endangered but also in some
ways closely related to people. people tend to
make this mistake, or there's mistaken assumption
that like wild animals and domestic animals are
two different things. And that one is closer
to people than the other. But you'd be surprised.
Like, again, I you know, it's even hard to determine
whether an axolotl is a domesticated or a wild
species, right? So those are the kind of questions
that I'm interested in the most. That's all great
stuff. Be brave. I mean, I wish you good luck
for the PhD and of course, you're always welcome
on the show. I'm so happy to introduce your voice
to my audience and at the same time, I'm preparing
you for your future book tour. Yeah, you're right.
Actually, I should be thanking you for that.
You're welcome. So thank you again, Alex. Thank
you everyone for listening. I kindly invite you
to share this podcast with the vegans you know.
Let's encourage more people to take action. Again,
thank you so much for caring and I will see you
next Tuesday for a new episode.