Humans and Other Animals with Mark Devries

[00:01:12] Mark Devries: Right, I should make them more quickly then, so that I talk to you more.

[00:01:16] Jasmin Singer: Yeah, if you could get on that, we would appreciate that. But you have been actually doing so much. We were looking at your bio, and it's, uh, so I'm gonna read it. You can close your eyes if you want. I always close my eyes when people read my bio, for some reason it helps. Mark Devries...

[00:01:32] Mariann Sullivan: Is it Devries or is it Devries?

[00:01:34] Mark Devries: It's Devries, but I'm not picky.

[00:01:37] Jasmin Singer: Okay. Okay, Marek Devries, I'm just kidding, is a documentary filmmaker whose award winning work has been seen by millions internationally. He also pioneered the use of aerial drones to investigate environmental issues, and he's an attorney licensed to practice law in Washington, D.C.

That's all very impressive! If you were going to add three things to your bio, what would they be?

[00:02:04] Mariann Sullivan: God. That's a hard question.

[00:02:06] Mark Devries: Yeah, that is, isn't it? Uh, yeah, thank you, thank you, Mariann, for standing up for me on that one. Yeah, that is a tough question. The first question.

I would say one thing is that I really care about always updating my beliefs with new evidence and always thinking about what I'm doing and how it can be more effective.

What I could be doing wrong that's not as effective or that's counterproductive and really always trying to be intellectually humble and therefore sort of always growing and changing in that regard to the extent possible.

[00:02:44] Jasmin Singer: That's beautiful. I love that. Okay, that's one thing. You have two more to go.

[00:02:47] Mariann Sullivan: My god.

[00:02:48] Mark Devries: Number two, I think that animal advocates, and really advocates for any social causes, it seems important to me to make sure that we're working with rather than against human nature. I actually mention because someone asked me about my favorite books, at the world premiere last week as of this recording, and in addition to Animal Liberation Now, Peter Singer's new edition of Animal Liberation, I said The Blank Slate, The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker.

And it's a really profound piece of work that I would say had a... I don't think it would be an exaggeration to say a life changing impact on me where I realized understanding, in the same way that we understand non human animals are like us, we are animals, and we are like non human animals in terms of having a complex nature with different motives that sort of kick in under different contingencies. And that includes motives to do good things and motives to do bad things. And the better we understand that, scientifically, the way we would understand any other species, the better we can improve our own lives and improve the world.

So I think, uh, valuing that highly and always thinking about things in that regard and encouraging others to do so is, is another important thing.

[00:04:04] Mariann Sullivan: Actually, before you get to your third thing, I'd like to, like, talk about that a little bit, because I was kind of surprised to see Steven Pinker in the movie. Not to give anything away, but give a tiny bit away. I mean, of course I've heard of him, I'm not that familiar with him, and now I feel like I should read The Blank Slate, but where is he on animals?

[00:04:21] Mark Devries: He's very much in favor of being opposed to speciesism, which most listeners will probably be familiar is the attitude of prejudice or bias against non human animals. And he's very much in favor of expanding our moral circle to include non human animals. He was influenced by Peter Singer's work in that regard.

Of course, like all public intellectuals who talk about this, I wish he would do so more. Same goes for other public intellectuals who bring this up, like Richard Dawkins and, um who else, uh, Sam Harris. Thankfully Jane Goodall really talks about it much more in, in recent times.

And I think what's interesting about that is if we take non human animals seriously and we look at the scale of what's happening, this should be a very high priority if not our top priority for pretty much anyone who's concerned about trying to make the world a better place, but all of us, even people who recognize the strength of the arguments at an intellectual level, seem to really not follow through fully.

Because our norms, it's understandable, because the norms everyone around us takes only human issues, seriously. Uh, you know, it seems to be a sort of fringe or sort of second tier issue on the world stage. Second tier at best, right? So even people who recognize the strength of the philosophical arguments really still sort of act as if they're not fully true.

And so I think that's true for a lot of the public intellectuals who talk about this. But I've been very glad to see in Steven Pinker's work, that he brings up and advocates for taking non human animals seriously, including in his most recent book, Rationality, where he really talks in some depth about how the expanding circle of our ethical concern, should rationally include non human animals.

[00:06:19] Jasmin Singer: I just want to say something. I love that the second you said, expanding our circle to include non human animals, Mariann's cat came into the screen. Like on cue, like drama.

[00:06:34] Mariann Sullivan: He's very, very bright, I have to say.

[00:06:36] Mark Devries: Right, that should be like our, that's like a visual aid.

[00:06:39] Jasmin Singer: Yeah, exactly.

[00:06:40] Mariann Sullivan: Whenever he pops up, it means you've said something smart.

[00:06:43] Mark Devries: Right? It's too bad I don't have, like, a chicken who walks in behind me, or, you know, a fish who swims in, yeah.

[00:06:49] Mariann Sullivan: Yeah, but can we go back to, to what you just said for a minute? Like, I just think that's so interesting and not to be the annoying vegan in the room, who always brings up the vegan, but don't like the all those public intellectuals who you mentioned, Dawkins and Harris, I don't know about Steven Pinker, have talked about and even like, lean towards stopping eating them and then not done it.

I can't. And Jane Goodall, of course. She is, I think she's vegan. She's at least vegetarian and always has been, I think just like every other human on the planet, for them, it comes down to this conflict between, you know, what they think and what they do, even at people at that level. Of course, they're not going to, well, they're not going to make it a big part of their persona, for a lot of reasons. I mean, obviously it doesn't add to your prestige to like be promoting veganism or promoting animals to everybody, but I do think it makes a difference that, you know, they, they don't, none of them, like Richard Dawkins, like talking about how everybody should be vegan and he's not like, just do it, Richard.

[00:07:50] Mark Devries: Especially because those public intellectuals are the people who have an outsized influence. So, for individuals, you know, who are not in the public eye, going vegan obviously has a substantial benefit in terms of reducing your economic impact for factory farming and an expectation reducing the number of animals who live in factory farms, but if you're a public intellectual, and you do that, your impact can be multiplied dozens, hundreds, maybe thousands of times.

So it really shifts the balance in favor of making a change like that. And I, I think the reasons as we touched upon earlier include, of course, the strength of the norms where, because everyone around them doesn't take the issue seriously...

[00:08:34] Mariann Sullivan: That's the same problem that faces everybody.

[00:08:36] Mark Devries: Right, right, right, but I think it shows how easy it is for people to succumb to that.

[00:08:40] Mariann Sullivan: And and not only would their impact be great if they did just stop eating animals, I don't have to talk about it a lot, but their impact is also great in that they don't, because they are these public intellectuals, and their behavior is seen as a sign of what's appropriate. And if they feel like, well, I really care about animals, I really think we shouldn't be treating them this way, I really think this is terrible, I'll have a steak.

Well, obviously, that's, that's going to influence people who witness that kind of behavior or are aware of that kind of behavior. I mean, their influence, it goes both ways. It could be both. It could be good. And because they don't do it. It's saying to everybody else. Yes, it's fine. Even if you care about animals, it's fine if you eat them.

[00:09:24] Mark Devries: That's a very good point, yeah, it, it really sets a problematic example. I think one thing to be optimistic about is as the norms do shift and more people are going vegetarian and going vegan, and of course as, you know, you've discussed on this show, you know, as vegetarian and vegan products become more easily available and increasingly better, although I think they're

[00:09:50] Mariann Sullivan: I think they're pretty good now.

[00:09:50] Mark Devries: really good now, that certainly makes it easier not just for so called everyday people, but for people who have a big influence to make that change, which is good. I wonder if it's possible that the norms against making the changes are even stronger for public intellectuals because then people will criticize them for that. I don't know, I just thought of that offhand, but it seems like a possibility.

I am aiming this film, by the way, at people with intellectual influence. That's part of the purpose of the film. And, of course, it'll be shared by people like Steven Pinker and Coleman Hughes and others who have, uh, a big influence among intellectuals on social media platforms.

And I'm hoping that, you know, by having people who have a big influence talk about this issue, and hopefully for at least some of them, make changes themselves and talk about that. That that will be one part, you know, another small part of shifting norms in the right direction.

[00:10:46] Mariann Sullivan: Yeah. Absolutely. Absolutely. And let's all right, let's talk. Sorry, Jasmin.

[00:10:51] Jasmin Singer: We need to get that third thing in there.

[00:10:54] Mariann Sullivan: Oh, there's a third thing. I'm

[00:10:55] Jasmin Singer: We're still on the first question.

[00:10:57] Mark Devries: I was hoping you would forget.

[00:10:58] Jasmin Singer: I know, but I'm a completist, you know what I'm saying?

[00:11:02] Mark Devries: Okay, so things that I would say about myself.

[00:11:05] Jasmin Singer: In your, yeah, like maybe we're online together at the coffee shop and I see you've gotten an oat milk latte and I got a soy milk latte and we start having an argument about soy milk versus oat milk.

[00:11:17] Mark Devries: That actually is what I would do. I don't know if you would actually be a soy milk person, because

I would be a

[00:11:22] Jasmin Singer: percent. I'm a, I'm a, I'm a hundred percent a soy milk girl.

[00:11:25] Mark Devries: Oh, then we should actually get into an argument about that now. Oat milk is objectively better. It's just, and I don't, I don't, I think people who like soy milk, I just don't like them.

[00:11:36] Jasmin Singer: Okay. Well, thank you for joining us today on Our Hen House.

[00:11:42] Mark Devries: For the record, I am just kidding.

[00:11:44] Mariann Sullivan: I actually like them both, but I absolutely cannot stand almond milk.

[00:11:47] Jasmin Singer: I just want to say that as someone... you're right, Mariann, that almond milk can like quickly exit stage right. But I just want to say that I have tried to froth, which is a hard word to say, but I it is harder to froth any milk that is not soymilk.

In other words, soymilk froths.

[00:12:08] Mark Devries: Oh, froth?

[00:12:09] Jasmin Singer: Yeah, froth. But if you say froth, like froth, but then if you're doing something with it, it's froth.

[00:12:16] Mark Devries: Oh, I, that's interesting.

[00:12:17] Jasmin Singer: I mean, I don't know if I'm right, I just made that up.

[00:12:19] Mark Devries: It sounds fancy, so it sounds, I mean, it sounds like it should be true.

[00:12:22] Jasmin Singer: Listen, oat milk is a close second, but

[00:12:25] Mark Devries: No, the truth is, I am a soy milk fan as well. I, soy milk, oat milk, and, and almond milk. I think the only ones I'm not a fan of are rice milk, a little bit too watery. Although I did meet someone once who liked rice milk, which I was shocked by. And cashew milk, which I tried recently and which, uh, just was not a successful milk, I don't know if either of you have had that one.

[00:12:47] Mariann Sullivan: I totally agree. Rice milk is bad. And cashew milk should be delicious because cashews are delicious, but it's not.

[00:12:54] Jasmin Singer: I definitely led you to this conversation, so I'm going to give you one final opportunity to actually say what your third thing in your bio is, assuming it's not that you like oat milk.

[00:13:06] Mark Devries: Right, I mean that is a good thing.

[00:13:07] Jasmin Singer: It could be your third one, but I didn't want to lead you there, and

[00:13:11] Mark Devries: Right, right, I mean that's getting tough now, let's see.

[00:13:17] Jasmin Singer: Are you a Scorpio?

[00:13:19] Mark Devries: I am a Pisces. That, that's a, but I don't, you know. I don't really pay attention to that stuff. Gosh, I am really not sure, I'd have to think about it, I would have to think about it, I think, hopefully, by the end of this interview, if you remember to ask me again, maybe, maybe, I'll have something clever to say.

[00:13:39] Mariann Sullivan: It doesn't have to be clever.

[00:13:41] Mark Devries: Or something to say at all.

[00:13:43] Jasmin Singer: Sure, and now we can continue talking about your movie instead of your coffee habits. Although I find both interesting.

So I understand that your new movie, Humans and Other Animals, it just premiered in New York City the other night, right? How did it go?

[00:13:59] Mark Devries: It was outstanding. It sold out, and the reactions were really positive. People were very excited to use it in the way that was intended, which is to be a one package introduction to the animal movement. You know, there are a lot of different movies about different aspects of the issues, there are films and other projects about factory farming, about, you know, the case for changing our diet in various ways, about non human animal sentience, and so on.

With this film, Humans and Other Animals, my aim was to create a one package introduction that people can share with friends, with family members, promote widely, and so on. That includes the case for non human animal sentience and emotionality. That includes investigations into the industries that exploit non human animals most seriously.

That includes the philosophical case for taking non human animals seriously, the fundamental philosophical arguments. The practical steps that individuals and institutions can take, and answers to all of the common objections and questions all rolled into one package. That's the idea, that was my aim.

And of course there was a book that did that, that was Animal Liberation, which has been recently retitled Animal Liberation Now in its, in recent update. And what was so great about it, among many other things, is that it really has all of that in one place. So it's something that if someone sits and reads, they really get the case very strongly.

As strongly as it can be made, I think, for this fundamental shift in how we view and treat non human animals and what we can do. And so, I hope that by having, since most people, unfortunately, I don't read books about subjects that they're relatively new to. Usually it's once people are sufficiently interested in the subject that they'll read a whole book.

My hope is that this functions as a sort of single package introduction to the movement. And an important aspect of that is that it's palatable. That it's something that with the marketing for listeners who've seen the trailer, it emphasizes the fascinating inner worlds of non human animals.

It emphasizes the conflict and drama and danger of the investigative work. And then the film itself is engaging but not unnecessarily graphic. It's not something that people will just turn off and not want to watch. So by trying to strike all those balances and put things together, I hope that it's really something that people will be able to use widely.

[00:16:40] Mariann Sullivan: Yeah, I totally agree with the way you put it. And you had requested that we watch it all in one go, and after I watched it, I really understood why, because it did, it kind of leads you. And I keep, you know, in the beginning, I thought it was going to be about animals, you know, about animal nature and why that's so important in the title, also humans and other animals.

But it kept taking it to the next step of how we think about it and what we do about it. And, so it really does lead you down that path, but it doesn't, the other thing that it doesn't do, which I think is good, it doesn't talk about the other problems with animal agriculture.

It doesn't talk about climate change. Not that I don't think climate change is important. I think it's unbelievably important, but you really focus on the animals and the movement to do something about what we're doing to animals. Like, why did you decide to leave out the ancillary issues and just go there?

[00:17:35] Mark Devries: One reason is, of course, because I don't want it to be overwhelming but another reason is because of the strength for the case about taking non human animals seriously. If the philosophical arguments are really right, and you know, they've withstood decades of objections, then that means that non human animals matter comparably to humans, and the billions, and in the case of aquatic animals, trillions of individuals every year who are viciously exploited and tortured and painfully killed, it's something of proportions ethically that is basically inconceivable. And once we move out of this myopic, human centered focus, it seems very clear that that should be an extremely high priority for humankind to make changes about this.

And so, that seemed to be, combining that with how much that issue is neglected, that seemed to be what deserved the focus.

[00:18:49] Mariann Sullivan: Yeah, I agree. I think that the animal issue is often discounted as the least important of all of the many issues to get rid of animal agriculture. And I think it's the one that actually really hits people once they focus, once they actually allow themselves to think about it. I think it's the issue that can really change people's behavior.

So I don't want to ask you a lot about what happens in the movie. Actually, there's something I wanted to ask. I just wanted to go back to something about the premiere, because you did a Q& A, I believe. What impression did you get from the Q& A?

Did you get the feeling that people felt this was a useful tool? I assume people who came to the premiere were probably animal advocates, primarily. You're not yet reaching the people you really want to reach. So did you get the feeling that they saw it as a valuable tool from the questions that you got?

[00:19:36] Mark Devries: Yes, even more so than I expected, actually. You know, before anything comes out and reaches the public, of course, you're not really sure exactly what the response will be, even if I've had people preview it and so forth, I really wasn't sure how, how it was going to be received. And I was very glad to see how people actually emphasized many times in their questions and in their comments, like, how excited they were to use this as, like, the introduction that they provide to friends and family members and so on. So, I was very, very glad to see that it seemed to accomplish its goal that way, and my goal now, of course, is to do everything I can to reach, right now, animal advocates and people who are concerned about this issue with the film and with the message that it is this tool for them to use, and that the more people, you know, are able to view it that way and use it that way, the more, of course, value it will have. The other good thing, as you mentioned, reaching the broader public, is that it, after it's done with the current screening tour of various cities around the US.

It will be about a month or so later, it'll be on streaming platforms such as Amazon and Google Play and Apple TV. Animal advocacy organizations and public intellectuals and so forth will be sending their followers, you know, their social media and email followers to the places to stream that.

And by doing that, that will essentially teach the algorithms on those platforms that it's a movie that's popular and being viewed, which will cause it to be recommended more widely. So, among the things that animal advocates can do to help the film and to use the film, Number one, of course, is using it in your own life to inform and educate and inspire others.

And the other is to stream it when it's on these streaming platforms so that it is recommended more widely.

[00:21:49] Jasmin Singer: Oh, I'm sure that our listeners will be able to get on that. Like, there's no question, this is exactly the kind of thing our listeners are, like, super excited about.

[00:21:59] Mark Devries: And I really appreciate it.

[00:22:00] Jasmin Singer: Yeah, something we like to ask the people we interview, and we were discussing this, we're super curious about how you're going to answer this.

How would you describe your theory of change, Mark?

[00:22:12] Mark Devries: That's a big question, of course, and one reason it's a big question to me is something I mentioned earlier, which is, of course, that I'm always wanting to be intellectually humble and to try to conform my views to the evidence and to update my views with new evidence and so forth.

So, at least tentatively, the theory of change in the context of this film. Like, the value of this film, or this film's theory of change in a way, is that, in addition to individuals hearing and being persuaded by the case for reducing or eliminating their support of industries that exploit and abuse non human animals, And as you see in the film, it makes the case for there being a real impact economically for individuals doing that, and persuading others to do that, therefore essentially being a boycott of animal products that reduces the number of animal products in those industries and spreading that to others. Another aspect of the film and of other work like it, I think, is to shift the norms so that the public conversation takes non human animals more seriously.

It seems like, you know, there's only so far that work to make plant based products, for example, less expensive and tastier and more appealing and so forth, there's only so far that that can go if the social and cultural norms say that animals exist for us to eat and use in other ways. So, by having the issue of the treatment of non human animals be taken more seriously, including among influential people, intellectuals and others, that will, it seems, help move all of the practical work, both the individual diet change work, the efforts to change institutions, will help move that forward more and more quickly, it seems.

[00:24:27] Jasmin Singer: I love that.

[00:24:29] Mariann Sullivan: I totally agree. And I totally think that it's so important. And I think there's an increasing recognition that, you know, I love the Good Food Institute. I love the new foods. And I think it's absolutely necessary that they become just as tasty and just as available and just priced well, just like the Good Food Institute says.

But that's not enough. I mean, that's just not going to be enough. And we could miss that moment. Because it also, you know, like this recognition that humans are animals, that we are primates, that we follow each other, that we do what other people do, that we're extremely tribal. It's just so important.

And to recognize, and I think that you're making a really good point, which I hadn't really thought of, the idea of promoting public intellectuals. You know, we don't have to follow each other in the sense that we have to follow the guy who lives down the street.

We live in a very different world, even though we're still the same kind of primitive creatures that we've always been. Leadership can come in very big ways from people who are famous and people who are respected. And that's really, really true. Like getting those people to take animals more seriously and to, you know, be willing to not eat them once in a while. That is an absolutely necessary piece of this puzzle. I mean, of course we've already need to have the food, but, as we all know, you know, the food's pretty good. Like, oh, can you think of the crap that most people eat all the time? And people are not eating gourmet food all the time that we couldn't possibly, you know, our food's great. It's not just the food, it's this tribal behavior. And, and by appealing to tribal leaders of thought processes, I think that's a really important point.

Another thing that I think is so important about the film, it's not just a list of, in case people are getting the idea, that it's just a list of talking heads.

It's not at all. There's lots and lots of animals in this movie, and especially begins with really interesting, fascinating, and not painful to watch things about animals. I'm not going to ask you to talk too much about what exactly is in the movie, because people want to see it and have it be fresh, but I am so jealous of your experience.

Wow, what a, like, what a voyage. You went everywhere, but especially the bonobos. Oh my God, it was like, I've never seen pictures of bonobos that looked like that. That looks so human. Can you just tell us a little bit about just to give people a taste of the kind of voyages you made that are recounted in the beginning of the film, meeting all these different animals and like waking... I imagine even you learned stuff, even though you know a lot about this.

And people watching the movie would certainly learn a lot.

[00:27:07] Mark Devries: Yes, I thought that I really had a good sense of how similar humans and non human animals are in various respects, and I would say making this film really opened my eyes even more than I expected to. I really came out the other end of making this film feeling like wow, we are not the only species that is experiencing life and the things that we think matter the most to us, our friendships, relationships, and so on.

Like those things are things valued by members of other species, and as far as we can establish, experienced just as strongly, you know. The value of, you know, caring about your family members and so on. And so all of a sudden, it just throws our perception of ourselves in a new light. And that even happened to me, someone who considered myself already familiar with non human animals.

And really, even this is just the beginning. We are at the cusp of what is I think not an exaggeration to call something like a scientific revolution in our recognition of the realness of the experiences of all of the other animals who are also living here on this planet with us. In the case of bonobos in particular, they're a remarkable species.

I, as you saw in the film, traveled to the Democratic Republic of Congo and Central Africa, into the rainforest, the Congo rainforest there, because that's the only place where bonobos live.

[00:29:02] Mariann Sullivan: Yeah.

[00:29:03] Mark Devries: And, they are, along with chimpanzees, our closest living relatives.. A lot of people know that chimpanzees are our closest living relatives, but there's this other species that is as closely related to us as chimpanzees are.

And as you mentioned, Mariann, they actually look more like us than chimpanzees.

[00:29:24] Mariann Sullivan: They really do. Much more than chimpanzees.

[00:29:27] Mark Devries: It's quite, jarring to see.

[00:29:30] Mariann Sullivan: Yeah, I had never seen that before.

[00:29:32] Mark Devries: Yeah, exactly. I mean, it was quite an experience to see them, to interact with them, obviously from a little bit of a distance, as you see in the film, and to see just how sophisticated their lives are and how sophisticated their decision making and problem solving is.

Perhaps I won't give that away other than saying that. But, It was quite a journey to travel to all of these different parts of the world alongside the scientists who are studying these animals in the wild to see what we are at the cutting edge of learning about all of these different species.

And I don't think it's much of an exaggeration to say I really came away somewhat of a different person, in terms of sort of the expansion of my perception of other species.

[00:30:19] Jasmin Singer: Well, and speaking of that, something we like to talk about a lot, I mean, not on the show specifically, but just as vegans, is anthropomorphizing, right? Because, I mean, we kind of, in my opinion, we kind of have to, to some degree, you know, make assumptions and I guess put our own experiences into how we're interpreting the way animals are behaving and what they're doing and what gives them joy and what gives them fear. Given your frame of reference, you must have foreseen charges of anthropomorphism. How do you talk about it?

[00:30:55] Mark Devries: Well, because humans and non human animals have the same evolutionary roots for their emotions, in the case of mammals, for example, and certainly for their ability to experience physical sensations, we're actually making a mistake to assume that we're behaving the same ways under the same circumstances for different reasons.

So as the biologist Frans de Waal would say, you know, if you see a horse and a zebra behaving the same way under the same circumstances, you would call it the same thing, what they're doing the same thing. Whereas with humans and non human animals, we use different terms for the same thing to create an artificial distinction.

So it sort of goes the other way. So for example, you know, with humans, you'll say that two individuals are a couple and they're, they're in a relationship. And then with non human animals, we say they're pair bonded. You know, this sort of more sterile term, which is really describing the same thing.

And, of course, what we understand about the neurochemicals and the brain anatomy across species would, would indicate that they're, in fact, experiencing, in the case, let's say, of mammals, the same things that humans feel about someone whom they love, for example. And so I think this might, Jasmin, have been what you were getting at, which is that Frans de Waal, again, coined the term anthropo denial, which is essentially the counter word for anthropomorphism.

We create an artificial distinction that is unjustifiable scientifically because of these common evolutionary roots of the same things that we do under the same circumstances for the same reasons.

[00:32:48] Mariann Sullivan: Do you think that serious people, I mean, not the industry, because they'll say anything, but I feel like, you know, I've been thinking about animals, I don't know, since the 90s or whatever, and anthropomorphism used to come up all the time. And as you said, we're on the cusp, and I'm not sure we're even on the cusp, we're kind of already in it, finding out unbelievable stuff that we never knew about animals before.

Because of, I don't know, like, it started being something that we paid attention to and that intelligent people wrote about. And I just wonder whether it doesn't come up as much as, as it used to, like it used to just shut down the conversation and you can't shut down the conversation anymore when it comes to what animals are, because everybody knows it's true.

I mean, I think our problem now isn't so much that people don't know that animals are amazing. They just don't change their behavior for whatever reason. Do you think that's right? And can you tell me why? Because I really want to know the answer to that question.

[00:33:48] Mark Devries: Well, I've noticed in recent years, you know, I've been involved with the topic for about twenty years now, and I think, at least, you know, somewhat anecdotally, if my memory serves me right, that there seems to be substantially less discussion, even in that relatively shorter time, of these claims, or, you know, fewer claims of anthropomorphism. And I, it seems that that may be because both more and more of the science is becoming part of mainstream knowledge. You know, there are more nature documentaries that people watch, and so on. And I think perhaps also because in psychology, behaviorism has given way to a more sophisticated evolutionary understanding of behavior which talks about what's going on internally in humans and non human animals.

But of course, people still view animals whom they eat very differently from members of other species. So people will recognize that dogs and cats have emotions and it seems obvious to them and so forth. And we see the motivated reasoning going on when people are forced to think about chickens and fishes and other animals whom they are eating. Then people seem to start making assumptions that they're experiencing less. And it seems that, you know, going back to the idea of social norms, we've been taught that they're in this separate category. So the obvious empathy and ethical concern that we are taught to properly have about wild animals and about companion animals, we're essentially sort of taught to not have toward animals who are in specific categories where we think of them as existing for us, for example, food or, or other such purposes.

[00:35:58] Mariann Sullivan: Yeah, I thought, again, not to overly talk about the movie, but it would surprise me as I was watching it because that was exactly the trajectory that you brought us along on. That, yeah, we just didn't understand who animals were and okay. But, you know, now we probably do.

And then our thinking about animals was deranged, you know, the philosophy, like, but then finally, it gets down to human nature and psychology and like, all of these have been blocks along the way in changing the people's behavior. And the movie really told that story. Some of the interviews were just, they were just very, very brief little man on the street kind of interviews, but they really highlighted that, that I'm kind of thinking of the woman in the beginning who said emotions are stronger in humans than in animals.

And you asked her how she knew that and she walked away from you. Like, that's what we're talking about here.

[00:36:53] Mark Devries: Right. That's exactly... you're right. And that's almost like an allegory for the whole way humankind views non human animals. And yeah, I did try to show that connection, you know, I start with wild animals and animals whom people are already willing to accept have these sophisticated, deep, real inner lives. And then when we ask, well, you know, what animals do we interact with the most, of course, unavoidably, it's the animals who are used in factory farming and other types of mass exploitation.

And when we turn our attention to them, we see the same realness of their experience as we do with all of these charismatic or easier to identify with, at least at the outset, wild animals.

[00:37:39] Jasmin Singer: I'm wondering if we could just kind of continue to dissect that because it's at the core of so much of all of this, right? Like, this is the only way forward, I think, is to really get other people to anthropomorphize to some degree, at least, and stop saying that these other individuals are an it, you know what I mean?

So what is it that prevents people from knowing these things about animals, in your opinion? Like the woman in the beginning who said, Emotions are stronger in humans than animals. And you asked her how she knew that and she walked away. That part is so evocative of everything. And I want to know why.

Like, I want to know what your opinion is on why people make it up, but they're still believing it. Like, what is happening there?

[00:38:29] Mark Devries: Well, first of all, I want to know why, too. I mean, that's a, we all do, and we certainly don't have very clear, concrete answers, but we do have good hypotheses and good, sort of, pieces of circumstantial evidence that lead us to at least part of the answer to that. Part of it seems to be what we've already talked about, which is the extent to which we are inculcated with the idea that certain species of animals are not really animals the way that dogs and cats, whom we know are, and are, just essentially existing for our use, that they are somehow our tools or our property in some sort of vague metaphysical sense. So that they're something other than individuals in their own right. And of course also humans can empathize with other humans more easily than we can empathize with non human animals because the empathy that we have evolved for us to be able to detect the emotional states and experience, vicariously, the experiences of other humans.

So the more different non human animals are, the more different a particular species is, the harder it is for us to, at the outset, intuitively empathize. So this seems to be why, for example, when we look at animals like bonobos and chimpanzees, it's easier for people to say, yes, I can imagine them having these really sophisticated experiences like ours.

And the more there are, for example, differences in the facial structure and differences in what muscles we use to express our feelings, the easier it is for us to imagine that that means that they're feeling less. Which of course, ironically, perhaps not ironically, but as you would think, as you would expect, is exactly how they would perceive us if they could have a conversation about this because fish, who according to one of the experts I spoke with, seemed to display their emotions with subtle changes in the positioning of their fins, would look at us, who don't have any fins, and perhaps think that we're not feeling anything.

But I think one sort of underlying crux of this, in addition to sort of these historical ideas that tell us that certain animals exist for us that we then sort of develop as part of our norms, in addition to this greater difficulty empathizing with individuals who are more different from us, there's an underlying factor that's related to all of this.

It's just the extent of our capacity for motivated reasoning. The way humans think so much of the time really seems to be we start with our conclusions and with what we want to do, and if we've always been eating animals we just want to do that, not because it's actually better for us or will make us happier, but because of the habit that we're in and the fact that everyone around us does it.

And then we just weigh what we see, the evidence, the arguments, what we observe directly with our own eyes, we weigh it in completely different ways, depending upon what conclusions we want to reach. And we see this, you know, with politics today, with whatever side someone is on, that the behaviors and actions of the individuals that they like or dislike, they judge completely differently.

And I think all of us, including people who are animal advocates and who are vegetarian and vegan and so forth, we all benefit from being as aware as possible of the fact that our initial tendency is to start with our conclusions and to defend what we want to believe. And so there are certain things that we can do, which I was really influenced by in a book called The Scout Mindset by Julia Galef.

There are certain things we can do to make ourselves aware of our own biases and to, to Sort of test whether we would hold the conclusions that we do, or believe the various pieces of evidence that we do if they led us to other conclusions. Just as one very simple example, if you see a study that, let's say, conforms to the conclusion that you like, that says that something is, you know, good or bad, that you want to believe is in fact the case, you can ask yourself, would I be so quick to accept this if it resulted in the opposite conclusion or would I look more carefully at the research methods?

You know, and so on. And conversely, if you're being really critical of a study you would say, would I really be this critical if I liked the conclusion? All of us, the more we can be humble and the more we can say, you know, My level of certainty about my various beliefs can be looked at as sort of like a percentage, like, well, I'm 70 percent sure, or this is 70 percent likely to be true.

And then as new evidence comes in, I might adjust my level of certainty up or down with the new evidence. Then it seems like we can be more likely to be, more willing to be careful and change our views with evidence and so on. All of that being said, and as, you know, nice as that sounds in the abstract, it's so hard to do that we should expect that the big underlying thing is just the social norms.

That it's hard for us to update our views with evidence because it's so easy to do things the way we're, seem to be innately wired to do, which is starting with our conclusions, and the conclusions usually have to, doing what everyone around us does and what we've already been in the habit of doing.

So it seems like the biggest thing, even underneath all of that, is that the social norms are incredibly strong. And because of those social norms, we direct our reasoning toward the conclusions that we already have, that we've been brought up with, what the people around us have. That includes the conclusions that we reach about non human animals, and about the arguments and strength for the case against eating non human animals, and so forth.

And so, this film, for example, among many other things, a big part of its aim is to be another small part of nudging the social norms toward changing how we talk about and think about non human animals. That's my very long answer.

[00:45:09] Mariann Sullivan: Well, it's a very, it's a very complex question. And one, you know, it's kind of the question. When I talk about it to people, I always wonder, and I try to put this as modestly as possible. And I really do think there's reason to not be arrogant about it. But what about us? Like, I mean, I'm assuming you grew up eating meat, maybe that's not the case.

[00:45:31] Mark Devries: No, I did. Yeah.

[00:45:32] Mariann Sullivan: And,you know,, I know a lot of people who aren't vegan who are really, really exceptional human beings. They're not people who just, you know, casually go through life doing harm here and there. And yet, about this issue, it's like, phew, nothing. I mean, we all know so many people like that.

So I'm not saying that we're better than everybody else, even though I know we are. But, uh, I'm not saying that. Like What's your vegan story, and how do you account for the fact that it happened to you, and it happened to me, and it happened to Jasmin, and, and, like, it seems so obvious to us once we get there, but it doesn't seem obvious to other people?

[00:46:08] Mark Devries: Well, it is, first of all, a good reason to be optimistic. I mean, that's a very good reminder to see how many people really have changed. And, you know, a lot of people who are vegan now, who have become vegan relatively recently, I think would not have become vegan even a few years ago.

So, like, as the availability, of course, of the products and so on increases, but as it becomes more socially acceptable and more people do it, we're seeing people who weren't willing to go vegan become vegan now. So that seems to show that there's like a, a bit of a snowball effect.

The people who became vegan long ago, there are perhaps a, a number of different things that nudged them earlier. One is of course that there are people who are less inclined to care about or less influenced by at least certain social norms. And I could see that, I, I could imagine that being the case in terms of when I was thinking of like early vegans relatively early, you know, 20 years ago also seemed to have a set of, you know, traits and propensities that were like less interested in social norms or more like likely disregard social norms, which would seem to like comport with this hypothesis of how big of a factor that is, and now that it becomes more acceptable, people who are not as much of a, you know, a rebel on everything, are willing to overlook social norms, or not notice the social norms, are people who are willing to go vegan now.

I think also, like, the level of empathy that people have for non human animals does differ substantially, and although I, I recognize the strength of the arguments, my initial foray into caring about animals was how strongly I empathized with the animals whom I found out were suffering on, on factory farms and elsewhere. Again, in that regard, people today, who might not feel it so strongly that they're willing to overcome social norms now have fewer barriers.

So, you know, if we care at, like, a 10, someone else cares at a 9, but there are fewer barriers, now they'll make the switch. And I also, I think some people also are really particularly motivated to follow the strength of arguments where they lead, and that was a big factor for me even though I cared about non human animals, and as I just mentioned, I was motivated to take non human animals seriously and was impacted by what I, I learned.

It was actually only when I came across the philosophical arguments and paid attention to them and realized I couldn't refute them, that's actually what persuaded me to go vegan. When I came across the strength of the arguments, and I realized, well, okay, if I take ethical consistency seriously, and I take being principled seriously, I'm compelled to reach these conclusions.

And that's also something that some people seem to be more inclined to do than others.

[00:49:06] Jasmin Singer: Yeah, some people are, I mean, we think about this a lot too. And I agree, I think there is some degree of, I've been going up the down staircase my whole life. This is just sort of another way that I'm doing it.

[00:49:20] Mariann Sullivan: Yeah, it's not really being more virtuous, it's just being more willing to be different. But I really like your take on the idea that the less different it becomes to be vegan, the easier it will be for people who prefer a little bit more conformity and a little less rebellion to just go along with it.

I'm just curious because of as a follow up to that, how do you feel about the word vegan, the concept vegan? People hate vegans. Apparently they hate us worse than serial killers. I don't know. Something like that. Somebody did some survey. Like, I don't think you used it in the film at all, if I'm wrong correct me. But, I've also been hearing people, I don't know whether I heard you use it or somebody else using the word boycott as more appealing. People understand that as a concept and that it's not so much of a label. It's something you're doing, not something you are.

How do you feel about all of that language stuff?

[00:50:08] Mark Devries: I did mention boycott earlier in our conversation, and I do frame things in part that way in the film, as actually Peter Singer did in the original edition of Animal Liberation, and of course in the new one. Going all the way back, it seemed like, you know, the really fundamental reason to be vegan is to reduce the economic demand for factory farming.

Factory farming is not going to go away very easily if people are still buying the products of the factory farms. And then conversely, there's something actually very empowering about the fact that, you know, the economics indicates that individuals who over the course of their lives, stop buying these products, actually have a really substantial chance of really impacting the number of animals who are forced to live in these conditions.

So it's a real practical decision. And in that sense, it is a direct boycott. It seems like the concept of being vegan has taken on different components, in addition to that sort of initial purpose of like, if we're opposed to the suffering of the animals, here's something we can do that has an impact.

And of course, a big part of it is, a lot of sort of decisions related to food turn into taboos and turn into ideas about purity or get mixed up with notions about purity. Similar to sort of like, you know, religious things like being kosher or halal.

Humankind seems to have, as one of our sort of innate mechanisms, taboos that we develop about food, and I suspect that has deep evolutionary roots because there were certain foods that people had to make sure they avoided, right? So as a result of that, we might develop this notion that there's sort of semi sort of religious or something like that, thing where we have to like make sure, you know, we don't touch animal products or, you know, things like that.

And to some degree, I can understand it because it is kind of gross, right? Like if you think of like the corpse of an animal and the blood and the, the fat that's like, you know, dripping off of it. And then having that get into your food is kind of gross. And I understand that, of course. But at the same time we might make the mistake of starting to emphasize those aspects over the thing that actually makes a difference to animals, which is not buying or supporting the products.

And so there is a possibility, the last thing I'll just mention about that, is there is a possibility that certain terminology has become associated with that aspect rather than the economic boycott aspect, which is why now certain terminology, perhaps vegan, has connotations that don't reflect, what it seems at the deepest level what we're really trying to do.

[00:53:15] Mariann Sullivan: Yeah, I think the vegan purity thing does get in the way, and I mean, I totally agree with you. People should eat what they want to eat, and if they don't want to eat something that grosses them out, they should not eat it. But that's not like a rule you have to actually set for everybody.

It's not that you're not vegan.

[00:53:29] Mark Devries: Yeah, right, it's not that it's gonna help animals to avoid something that touched something gross, but it's perfectly reasonable to be grossed out by it and say I'd rather eat something that didn't touch that or whatever, yeah.

[00:53:39] Mariann Sullivan: I think it's also like the whole concept of an identity. Like you know, people will say, they'll look at a menu and things are marked vegan and they'll just go by saying, well, I'm not vegan so I wouldn't eat that. We're like, not even thinking about the fact that it's food and it's foods that they might eat all the time and...

[00:53:54] Mark Devries: Peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

[00:53:56] Mariann Sullivan: Yeah, yeah, exactly. And, and just that whole identity of going, you know, some people embrace that identity and I kind of embrace it myself. I like to think of myself as a vegan, but it's like, you have to adopt a whole new persona in order to stop eating animals. You know, you have to like, sort of identify yourself as part of a group that you're not sure you want to be part of.

[00:54:17] Mark Devries: And that is an important component, yeah, the tribalism.

[00:54:20] Mariann Sullivan: The word boycott doesn't do that at all. It just means something you're doing, not something you are.

[00:54:25] Mark Devries: Right, and that is another aspect. I was going to say, in addition to the purity aspect is the sort of the tribalism aspect and then needing to, ironically, the very issue we were talking about, about social norms, happens within the group of people who are vegan or vegetarian, seeking to avoid animal products and so forth, which is that then you have this identity with a group, and then you have other things that go along with it, like, having to avoid things that might have touched something else or whatever, whatever, or things like that.

So I think, yeah, the tribal identity aspect goes along with the purity aspect very closely. And sort of they seem to reinforce each other. And that is something to really be very careful as individuals about, to make sure that again, it's one thing if you, you know, want to avoid certain things and so forth, but to remember that the benefit to animals comes from boycotting the factory farming, and, you know, animal exploiting industries in general.

[00:55:22] Mariann Sullivan: Yeah, that's a really good point. We are tribal as well, sometimes very tribal. It's not just something that those other people are doing, following the norm. We have our own set of norms and we can get really embedded in them and they're not always that useful.

[00:55:35] Mark Devries: And we don't see it. It's very easy to see it in others, just like with the motivated reasoning and so forth. It's very easy to see that in other people. It's much harder to notice that we're succumbing to that. And it's much harder to avoid it when you're there, when everyone around you is saying, you know, this person or this thing is bad or whatever, it's very hard to be the one who stops and doesn't go along with it.

[00:55:58] Jasmin Singer: Do you have any kind of PTSD? I hope it's okay for me to ask you that. I'm just like concerned about you, given everything that you've been involved with of late. How are you doing?

[00:56:09] Mark Devries: Oh, thank you for asking that. You know, it's funny, i, you can't really tell sometimes how you've been affected because everything sort of like rolls into your life as a whole. So I can't say for sure to what degree I have or have not been affected by doing these investigations. I certainly, in general, I don't feel that it has caused me, you know, really serious personal, you know, difficulties.

Although it certainly, sometimes feels overwhelming when, you know, when I have seen these places myself and when, although there are reasons to be optimistic and there are changes happening, it's certainly not fast enough for the animals who are in these factory farms and who will be in these factory farms in future generations of animals.

So on the one hand sometimes, you know, stopping and thinking about that during the process of making this film, and as I've been, you know, preparing to send it out, sort of like it weighs heavily. And I think it's important for myself and for others to focus on the progress that is happening and the reasons to be optimistic, and I don't think that's just sort of like fake, sort of pretending to be optimistic or, you know, coming up with some reason to sort of like distract ourselves from the gravity of what's happening, which is really substantial, to say the least.

But there really are things to look towards and say. are grounds for optimism, cautious optimism, and of course tempered optimism because of the speed of things, but optimism nonetheless. And that is the extent to which more people really are making change at an individual level, and the changes that are happening at institutional levels, but most importantly, it seems to me, the shifts in norms, which is of course what this film is focused on, and it's why I focus on this, that the idea of taking non human animals seriously is really taking root.

Just a few decades ago, it was more or less widely seen as just like a joke. And if you look at public conversations, op eds, this is across the political spectrum, which is another important thing to, to take note of. People care about non human animals, regardless of their views on a wide range of other things, which is another reason to be optimistic, because there aren't that many things that people agree about, across various political lines.

But these things really are changing. And looking at the glass half full, to use an old classic term, is a real thing. I mean, we could be a species that doesn't care about other species at all. And that just exploits them viciously in perpetuity, because we don't have any empathy, or we don't have any capacity to use reason to expand our ethical concern.

And that's not the case. We're a species that has the capacity to respond to ethical arguments, that has the capacity to expand our sphere of moral concern, and we are seeing that happening, and by focusing on that, that does something very important. It gives us the strength that we need to continue being part of that change.

[00:59:36] Mariann Sullivan: You know, well, I'm not going to say I'm going to push back because I'm not going to push back because, like, you said one thing hopeful and now I'm like, no, that's not right. But, politics, I've always said, you know, it's the only issue that is not red, blue, is not left, right.

Like there are people all over the political spectrum who care about animals, but like looking at the situation right now, and you know, we're all wound up in politics right now. It was just the shooting at the Trump rally. Like it's all that's on TV. There's the Republican convention and we're obsessed with the presidential election and scared and hopeful and whatever.

And then you think about it, if you care about this issue, and you realize it's not on anybody's radar whatsoever, at that level anyway, I mean, it's not even an issue. And, like, do you think that's going to change? Because it's one thing to change social norms, But at some point, you know, we're not going to get everybody on board just through social norms.

At some point, it would be nice to have a few laws protecting these animals. And to have leaders recognize that this is an issue. Do you think politics has anything to offer to animals? Is that just the next step? Is that, like, if you made the movie, like, four years from now, would that be the last chapter instead of where you left it this year?

[01:00:54] Mark Devries: Well, I think what you just described about the fact that it's not on the agenda, like the idea of all of the other species, they're not on the agenda. We only, only talk about one species. That's actually something that I say regularly and that I, I actually say in the talks after the film, which is that learning about the case for expanding our sphere of ethical concern to other species really makes things look really bizarre. All of a sudden everything that's talked about, everything that's going on in the election, everything that's, you know, discussed in the news, it's all about just members of this one species.

And we're just one species that is outnumbered just a mind boggling amount by all the other species. Chickens outnumber us three to one, and that's just one other species, just chickens. And so of course, once we take non human animals seriously, that, that means that our priorities are completely out of whack.

And it's really bizarre to think of how far it seems that society is and social discussion is from where this reasoning clearly leads us. It shows that we have a long way to go, that's for sure. Even though we take the issue of non human animals more seriously than we did, we're nowhere close to taking it so seriously that it's a topic in mainstream discussions, in the election, and things like that.

Again, on the other hand, we're closer to that than we were a decade ago, much closer. And so, if the work to change social norms continues, which I think there's every reason to think that it is, and of course that's why I made this film, then I am cautiously optimistic that it will start to creep into that discussion more, even if it's in coming decades, if it's something that's in future generations.

[01:03:01] Mariann Sullivan: And now to push back and be more hopeful than you, I actually also sometimes think when I'm in a good mood, social change can happen so fast now. I mean it's much different than it used to be because of the speed of communication and, and, so it's the kind of thing that could happen really, if it started to catch on and people actually started to look what we're doing to these animals and think about it, that social change could happen very fast.

[01:03:27] Mark Devries: There's a possibility for a tipping point.

[01:03:30] Mariann Sullivan: Yeah, like the gay marriage experience.

[01:03:32] Mark Devries: Right, right, exactly. And so, yeah, there seem to be situations where all of a sudden people realize that a lot of other people feel similarly and they're willing to speak more publicly about how seriously they take the issue, all of a sudden things can catch on more rapidly.

So you can move from very slow to a very substantial sort of hockey stick type uptick. And yeah, that is something to be hopeful for. It's very hard to predict when that might be, but it seems like all of the norm shifting work that we're doing is moving things closer to that potential moment.

[01:04:07] Jasmin Singer: You both were being hopeful, and then not hopeful, and then hopeful, and then not hopeful, and it was like watching a game of Pong.

[01:04:13] Mariann Sullivan: Welcome to animal advocacy.

[01:04:15] Mark Devries: Right.

[01:04:16] Jasmin Singer: But I just, when you were talking about your cautious optimism, Mark, I was like, okay, yeah, I get that. It's definitely shifted, for sure, but the population has also increased, and so I just sort of feel like that shift hasn't really translated into fewer animals being eaten globally, and I get stuck, or I've been stuck for a while, I should say, at not being terribly optimistic.

Given the economies of scale, does one individual's choice to not eat animals, or even to eat fewer animals, really translate to fewer animals being on factory farms? Because I would love to say that to people, but I really don't know.

[01:05:03] Mark Devries: So first, in terms of the numbers of animals being used for food going up, that's a trend line that of course is happening at the same time as the trend line of taking non human animals more seriously and the growth of people reducing or eliminating their meat consumption. So, the trend lines haven't crossed yet.

The number of animals being eaten is going up, ahead of the number of people who are reducing or eliminating their animal product consumption. Of course, that has to do with the growth of factory farming in countries with a growing middle class, in various parts of Asia and Africa in particular.

But that being said, the number of animals raised for food is substantially less than what it would be if all of the people who are reducing or eliminating their animal product consumption were not doing so. And that's very significant because that's on the order of millions and millions of individuals who are not suffering in these factory farms as a consequence of all of these people who are doing this.

So although the trend lines have not crossed yet, and we haven't reached a point where the amount of animal product consumption is going down, that's number one because of the growth in these specific regions where there are these growing middle classes and so on.

But that also is, is not contradictory with the fact that there are a lot fewer animals in these conditions than there otherwise would be. In terms of the individual impact, the way to think about it, it seems to me, is expected value reasoning or expected utility, which economically, it's sort of a decision theory principle and a principle that's used in economics that multiplies the value of an event with the probability of an event.

So, for example, if you were going to get $1 every day, or if you were going to get a 1 out of 5 chance of $5 every 5 days, that's the same expected value. $1 every day is, you know, $30 a month or $31 a month, and then if every day you have a 1 in 5 chance of $5, it ends up coming out to the same over the course of a year approximately, right?

In the same way, every time you eat or don't eat, that is, buy or don't buy an animal product, that's not necessarily the specific decision that results in fewer animals being raised. But what happens is that every, let's say, I'm just using this number as an example, you know, let's say every hundred chickens that people buy at a particular supermarket will cause the supermarket to buy, actually a hundred is too big of a number, so let's say every, like, ten chickens, cause that would be more realistic, would cause the supermarket, once they hit seventy purchased in a week, they'll buy more, and if they get like less than 70 then they'll buy a certain amount less.

They have particular numbers that they use to decide how big their order should be. Will it go above or below 70 and so forth. So, every time you buy a chicken, let's say, that's not going to result in exactly one fewer chicken raised on a factory farm. But, every, let's say, ten chickens that you buy could be the one that causes the buyer to say, ah, this week we got less than 70, so we're going to order less for next week.

[01:08:46] Mariann Sullivan: I think you said every chicken that you buy, but you mean every chicken that you don't buy, can have that influence.

[01:08:52] Mark Devries: Well, right, chicken that you buy versus don't buy, right, has that impact.

[01:08:56] Mariann Sullivan: I see. All right, forget my interruption. I'm sorry. Now I understand.

[01:09:00] Mark Devries: Yeah, so that, that is a real principle that, economically, like, they are looking at the numbers that are purchased. So, you, at any particular time, let's say, have a one in ten chance of being that one individual who results in them buying ten fewer chickens.

Right? And because of that, that's, from an expected value perspective, the same as each time you don't buy it, there's actually one less chicken. It's just every ten times, you're the one that results in ten fewer.

The numbers themselves are, are just arbitrary examples. But that, that really is the way it works and in that way, there really is strong evidence that we actually have an impact, especially, most clearly over the course of our lifetimes, on the number of animals who are raised in factory farms, which is really very empowering, I think.

[01:09:49] Mariann Sullivan: Yeah, I love that. I think it's a great place to end because I've heard arguments on both sides. Oh, you don't really have an impact, but you have an impact with the way you communicate about it but that's a very convincing explanation of why, actually, every day of being vegan, you've accomplished something for animals.

Not that it's okay to just be vegan, you have to be an activist as well, but I love that. So, it was a little complicated, I might listen to it again. It really made a difference for me. Thank you so much for offering that. And, like I said, we do kind of have to wrap up.

[01:10:19] Jasmin Singer: But, but hang on a second. Do you have the third thing?

[01:10:22] Mariann Sullivan: Oh.

[01:10:22] Mark Devries: Oh, you remembered. I'm gonna sort of cheat with the answer and say the thing that I wanted to say to wrap up anyway, which is something that I would say, I suppose, in a bio, which is that, as I touched upon at the beginning, my goal for this film really is to be a one package introduction.

Trying to do a similar thing to what, you know, a book, what Animal Liberation did as a book. Not that I'm comparing this to Animal Liberation or comparing myself to Peter Singer by any means. But essentially in the same way that what was successful about Animal Liberation was that it really put everything: the case for non human animal sentience, The investigations into the factory farming, the philosophical arguments, what individuals can do, the answers to all of the objections and questions all in one place.

That's really what I've aimed to try to do in the form of a film here and to make it something that is palatable and that people will actually enjoy watching and won't find difficult to watch and will be able to persuade friends and family members and others to watch. And I really hope that it will do that job for many people, including many of your listeners. And, I look forward to seeing how people can use this as a tool in that way.

[01:11:48] Mariann Sullivan: I think you're right. I think it's an incredibly valuable tool. You told us that it will be streaming within a few months, but in between now and then there will be a number of show... oh, in a few weeks. Okay, that's great. And in between then and now, there's been one theater showing in New York City, but there's going to be, um, this interview will go up on Saturday, so there will still be a chance for people in some cities to still see it, right?

[01:12:13] Mark Devries: That's right. On July 24th, it will be in Philadelphia. On July 25th, it will be in Chicago. On July 31st, it will be in Dallas, Texas. And, on August 8th, it will be in Boston, Massachusetts. And you can get tickets for all of these. They're limited, so I can't say for sure if by the time you're listening to this, there will still be tickets for all of those, but you can check at humansandotheranimalsmovie.com and that's also where you can enter your email address to receive an alert when it's available on the streaming platforms, and of course having people watch it on the streaming platforms will make a big difference in terms of its reach through the streaming platforms algorithms.

[01:13:06] Jasmin Singer: Very cool. Amazing. Well, hang on the line so we can do a little bit of bonus chatting with you for our flock members. But Mark Devries, we can't thank you enough. Everything you said, except for the plant based milk thing, was perfect and brilliant. But we all have our flaws. And I just, we really appreciate all that you're doing.

And And this was such an incredible discussion. I so much to think about. So thank you for opening our eyes and for opening so many people's hearts. We appreciate you.

[01:13:39] Mark Devries: Thank you very much.