“Meet the Neighbors”: Exploring Animal Intelligence with Brandon Keim

in part because it's so cool to actually be seeing you and hearing you because many is the time I have listened to you, while I cleaned the stables, the goat stables at the Peace Ridge Sanctuary in Brooks, Maine, where I volunteer every Sunday.

So I'm often listening to you guys as I'm doing that, um, yeah, so it's fun to be on.

Mariann Sullivan: I assume it's just going into your ears, but I would have liked to have thought that the goats were listening as well.

Brandon Keim: I mean, they could, I'll put it on my speaker phone, but you know, they're very much, they're very much in their world.

Mariann Sullivan: Yeah, that's true. That's true. I'm expecting a lot. All right. I just have to say that I love this book. I love this book a lot.

Oy and do you cover a lot, so much more than I imagined when I first saw the book and I assume that you meant it that way, that the cover and the neighbor and the title just indicate that it's going to be, you know, an exploration of, one of the many things it is, like focusing on the animals and speaking of wild animals as individuals, which is kind of, you know, an important, but left out perspective. But while that would be a great book in and of itself, it just becomes a lot more. I mean, it's a history of our relationship with animals. You explore the philosophy, you explore the law. It's almost a sort of gentle manifesto for change, I think, if that's fair to say. Is that a fair description? And is this the book you started out to write, or did one thing just lead to another?

Brandon Keim: I think that's a beautiful description. The next time I have a book and I need a description for it, I think I'll ask you, actually. Yeah, and you know, I'm glad you said a gentle manifesto because I wanted to bring to a wider audience a lot of ideas that maybe circulate in our world, but don't much make it into the mainstream. And I think the way to do that isn't to hit people over the head with them, but just attach them to the wonder and joy and beauty I find in all creatures, and especially in wild animals. It's not, actually, the book I started out to write. The book I started out to write, so I'm a science journalist by profession, and in the late 2000s and early 2010s, I was writing a lot about the science of animal intelligence.

And, originally I thought I was going to write another book about the science of animal intelligence, of which there have been many, and many marvelous books. I kind of just became more interested in the idea of what we do with all of these insights into the minds of other creatures.

You know, and I think sometimes the books that are out there about animal intelligence, I feel like they kind of pull up short of investigating those questions. And they also often for me at least, really make it feel like animal intelligence is almost an abstracted thing, right?

Like it exists in studies and experiments and, you know, within those sort of clickable stories on a screen, but there isn't always a sense of every creature being intelligent, right? Like, not just a few cognitive all stars, not only our domestic animals, but really the idea of, you know, just the animal intelligence all around us every time we open up our door. You know, really the last decade or so has also been a time when people are really thinking a lot about new relationships to nature and, you know, it's not uncommon now to hear people talking about the social construction of nature and how we need to overcome the human nature divide and stop thinking about human beings as separate from nature. But within that nature book tradition, there really isn't still a sense of animals as intelligent and as persons. So I kind of wove all of those threads together into Meet the Neighbors.

Jasmin Singer: And I know that the bottom line, as you sort of just touched on, is that there is this idea that we should look at animals as individuals and go from there. So do you think that the reason that we don't pay attention to wild animals as individuals, or other animals as well for that matter, is because it is just so heartbreaking?

Brandon Keim: I think it's complicated. I think that's part of it. I'll come back to that in a second. But really, I think the sort of the big reason I would say is just that, you know, all of these cultural lenses we have for relating to nature, for looking at the natural world, you know, we're talking about biodiversity, transcendence, wilderness, conservation, conservation biology, environmentalism, sustainability, wildlife management, of course, ecology, natural resources, none of these bodies of knowledge and practice really include a sense of animals as someone's. Which isn't to say that environmentalists or conservationists, you know, a great many do think of animals this way, but that's not sort of part of the official body of knowledge. That's something you do on your own time, right? And I also think, even also within the animal advocacy world, for very understandable reasons, the focus across the years has really been on domestic animals and on those animals we use for food and for research, those animals who are companions, animals we use for labor. and I think wild animals have largely fallen through the cracks, except sometimes when there will be controversies around certain forms of hunting or trapping, the killing of so called invasive animals.

And then I think that's when you see people from the animal advocacy community sort of engage with wild animals this way, but there's just so many other ways in which we can engage with wild animals this way and I'm trying to explore that in Meet the Neighbors. To your question about suffering and the heartbreak that comes with thinking about the lives of wild animals this way, you know, you see there's sort of a niche, but vibrant body of philosophy that's trying to, you know, think.

I think it used to kind of be called welfare biology, now it sort of goes more under the umbrella of wild animal suffering. But anyways, you know, it's just people who are trying to reckon with, okay, you know, so what what do we do with the fact that every animal is a someone, and every wild animal, you know, often they die young, they get eaten, they get diseased, they endure suffering. But I think the way that the suffering of wild animals gets portrayed, people frequently often do focus too much on it and really think about the bad parts of life as defining wild animal life.

And I think that's just as problematic as if we thought about human life purely in terms of the suffering we endure and, you know, obviously humans, we're fortunate we have medicines and social safety nets and all these advantages the wild animals don't.

So right now I'm working on a story about how animals appreciate beauty and there's just a, a source of joy that we don't tend to think about wild animals experiencing in a day to day way, right? Like taking pleasure in sounds, taking pleasure in sights, of course, like all of the social relationships that give our lives so much meaning that wild animals share as well.

So yeah, there is a lot of suffering in the world, but there's so many sources of pleasure and comfort and companionship, and it helps to think about those too.

Mariann Sullivan: Yeah, it really does, and I do think that the animal rights movement has always tended to focus, completely understandably, on the amount of suffering we cause. I mean, because we cause so much suffering. But, to deprive an animal of pleasure, which they are perfectly capable of feeling, is also a really, really important consideration of how we should be dealing with animals.

Brandon Keim: Totally.

Mariann Sullivan: Because they're quite capable of experiencing a lot of pleasure. I do have to mention, I don't want to put anybody off this book because I think everybody needs to read it. But there were moments that I cried and I am NOT a crier. I seldom cry. I, I'm thinking particularly of the story about the cormorant. That was so moving, really so moving. You tell a good story, Brandon.

Brandon Keim: Thank you I really have to, shout out there to James Ludwig, the biologist who's Cormorant, Cosmo, I write about. He tells a very good story, and I think I'm just fortunate enough to be the vessel of carrying it to other people, but you know, it's interesting to hear you say that, too, because there have been quite a few reviews and quite a few people I've heard say that parts of Meet the Neighbors really were very heartbreaking or difficult for them.

And, when I was writing, I was really trying very hard not to fixate on just the bad stuff, right? And, um, yeah, but I think sometimes it's just unavoidable as it is in life.

Mariann Sullivan: It's part of life. And there were laughs as well. I won't reveal the story, but particularly the raccoon in the garage story really made me laugh. Made me laugh out loud.

Brandon Keim: Oh my goodness, raccoons, and raccoons do figure prominently in Meet the Neighbors. For any raccoon enthusiasts in your audience, will

Mariann Sullivan: They figure prominently in most people's lives in North America too.

Brandon Keim: Yeah

Mariann Sullivan: Like, if you have a backyard, you probably are familiar with raccoons.

Brandon Keim: Right? Like our relations to raccoons are so interesting. I would love just to write a raccoon book.

Mariann Sullivan: I'm in!

Brandon Keim: And, uh, I think I can say, so this isn't giving away, the moment you were referring to. I will let readers come across that themselves, but one of the anecdotes that I loved that I picked up in reporting Meet the Neighbors, was from a man named Brad Gates who's really a pioneer of humane wildlife conflict mediation in North America.

And so he talks about how, so he lives sort of in the greater Toronto area and he talks about how raccoons there They will specialize in different architectural styles. So you'll have like some raccoons who just know like everything there is to know about getting into, like very old turn of the century houses and like the construction methods they used and where the access points are. Then you'll have other raccoons who live in neighborhoods that are like more modern and the houses are built a different way and they have like different weaknesses, and those raccoons will specialize in those. Um, it's just such a cool example of animal culture.

Um, I love that.

Mariann Sullivan: Yeah, animal culture and animal smarts.

They're just so smart. Speaking of smarts, and culture, a lot of times when people talk about animals, especially wild animals, and I just find this still comes up all the time, the word that gets used is instinct. They're following their instinct. So can you just explain why people get wrong when they talk about it?

And, the overlaps between instinct and intelligence.

Brandon Keim: The way that animal intelligence has been scientifically Actually, let me press rewind for a moment. The way that animal intelligence has been understood in Western society for the last several thousand years is just a grand saga that is mostly unknown, but has really shaped sort of how we think about animals today, or shaped the conditions in which the science that determines how we think about animals flourished.

And you can trace these arguments between, you know, are animals intelligent or are they really unintelligent and do we have ethical obligations to them because of their intelligence, or do we not have those obligations because they're not so smart after all?

Like these are things that people have been arguing back and forth, you know, for the last couple thousand years. Sort of one side of that, and this goes from Aristotle on to medieval theologians on to Rene Descartes and on to the present day, is to focus on how humans are different than animals. And locate that difference in how we are rational, we use language, we think in very unique ways, we are contemplative, whereas animals are just really thoughtless and driven by what we call instinct.

Um, I was trying to recall a line that I think actually can be traced to St. Thomas Aquinas about how the things that animals do is inevitable you know, like the upwards motion of hot air or something like that. But I'm probably actually getting that wrong. But so anyways, that idea of animals as instinctive, and as instinctive as being thoughtless, is just something we've had for a couple thousand years, and it continues on into the present day. And, I'm going to say two of the big things that the modern scientific study of animal intelligence has done is to show that a lot of what was considered purely instinctive in animals is actually the product of more reflective and thoughtful cognitive processes. And the example that I love of this is bird's nests, right? Like it's winter up here in the north and it's, it's such a good time of year to see bird nests, you know, on small trees and shrubs that have lost their leaves. And, I just love looking at them, right?

Because they are just the most exquisite creations. Like there's no way that me with my 10 fingers could weave anything as perfect as a warbler's nest, and they're doing it with their beaks. But historically, like, nest building was considered instinctive, right?

Like, you give a bird who has never, never seen a nest some twigs, and they'll try to build something nest like. Therefore, it's instinctive, it's thoughtless. But then you see, oh, actually, no, you know, birds will get better at building nests with time.

They'll learn from experience you know, there is that instinctive push, but there's also the process of thinking about it. And really, so much of life is like that and in us too. And I think that also points to how many of the things we feel and do and that are very important to us are actually not always, you know, these deeply reasoned, abstracted, cognitive things, but you know, are quote unquote instinct, right? Like you see someone in distress, you want to protect them. You see someone you care about, you want to hold them. You're really great at playing a piano, right? You play it instinctively, but you're also thinking about it while you do it.

So, you know, so that kind of like instinct versus thought dichotomy has really been eroded. And, you know, animals do so much more thinking than we've long believed and people are so much more instinctive than we often like to think of ourselves being.

Jasmin Singer: Let's talk about rats. I have ratoo, which is what I call a rat tattoo on my arm. And obviously I think rats are just frigging magnificent. I think they're fascinating. Now you point out this extraordinary situation with our most hated animal, unless you're currently on this interview. You point out that our most hated animal is also the one that we arguably know the most about. So, first of all, tell us how lovely they are, and then what you think we should do about them.

Brandon Keim: Can I ask to see your rattoo?

Jasmin Singer: Absolutely.

Mariann Sullivan: It's a New York rat, right?

Jasmin Singer: Yeah, I don't know if you could see, but he's actually, spray painting Animal Liberation.

Brandon Keim: I love him.

Jasmin Singer: I love him too. I got him when I was living in LA as like my New York cause you know I always loved watching the rats on the subway tracks. I always felt like it was an ethical zoo and obviously, I mean I don't want to get into politics, but obviously the current Mayor of New York City, who's actually been on Our Hen House before, has been an atrocity for rats.

Mariann Sullivan: But I mean, wait a second. I think in answering this question, it is necessary to take into account that rats can be a problem. I mean, it's not just a mindless prejudice that we have about these animals. I think we need to cover that whole picture.

Brandon Keim: I agree with both of you. And I gotta say, I used to love, when I lived in New York City, I used to love, watching the rats on the subway tracks too. Especially when I had to commute in into work.

Jasmin Singer: You look really familiar to me. Did we like overlap in New York and like watch rats together or something?

Brandon Keim: It's possible. It's very possible.

New York rats. It's interesting. So I wrote a feature in Wired, more than a decade ago about rats. And at the time I was only interviewing scientists who studied rats, and it never occurred to me to talk to all the people who know rats, like, as companions in this really intimate way.

And, so something I tried to do in Meet the Neighbors is really bring together, like, knowledge, not only from scientists, but from people who have expertise, you know, outside that field. But anyways, so of course rats, as e verybody in your audience knows, are a quote unquote model organism used in all sorts of research on medicines and on cognition and on how brains work, all of it.

And that means a great many rats have lived and died in, in some pretty awful ways, but it also means that we understand rat. We understand the brains of rats. We understand the minds of rats in a way that is really unparalleled, I think, except for our own self understanding, in the scientific world. And maybe some primates as well, but I'd argue we might even know rats better. And so something that's come out of the science, which, of course, people who have rats as companions can tell you, is just a sense of how empathic they can be, how intelligent they can be, how rich their communications are. Folks might have seen a few years ago, there was a study of rat laughter that went viral because, you know, when, when you're tickling them and they're laughing away and and we could hear it if our ears could register sounds in a higher pitch, but actually, like, if you record them with the right type of equipment, then all of a sudden you can hear their sounds of joy, which are extraordinary. So, you know, we really, we really understand who rats are, and a lot of the, you know, I think it was the late ethologist Frans de Waal told me, you know, the sort of the pattern that science often takes is there will be some property of mind that we think just humans have and then you know, okay you know scientists will show it in in chimpanzees and other primates And then they'll show it in rats and kind of realize wait a second actually like this is pretty widespread. So, empathy, capacities like mental time travel, you know, thinking of yourself in the future and in the past, you know, all of these things that are quote unquote very high level can also be found in rats, which is what makes the conflicts that we have and the ways that we treat them, really so fraught and so ethically loaded and so tragic, if you're somebody who cares about rats. And I think it's absolutely true, like you said, Mariann, that, you know, rats can cause real problems, like, I'm okay with rats as neighbors, I don't want rats as roommates, right?

Mariann Sullivan: Right.

Brandon Keim: And, I just think the big lesson, and it feels like it is starting to sink in to more places, is that you can't kill your way out of a rat problem.

Right? Like, all of those black rodenticide boxes, like, they're just symbolic, right? Like, it's just like the ritual sacrifice of rats in order to make everyone feel like we're doing something about the problem, but really the only way to deal with the problem of rats is to restrict access to food waste, right?

Like, better dumpsters, don't leave your food all over the street, rats will live in kind of like natural places where they're not bothering everybody, and we can all get along. But humanity is really bad at cleaning up after itself, so there we are.

Mariann Sullivan: I mean, it's really helpful that that is the best way to deal with them since it also coordinates with being the kindest way to deal with them, which doesn't always happen, but frequently, it does that if we, it's kind of, if you start out with a compassionate point of view, it might actually lead you to a good way of dealing with an animal problem.

And you write a lot about pests and, well, we were talking about the raccoon guy, which I hope he's okay with my calling him that, before. But you were also talking

Brandon Keim: He'll, he'll be honored.

Mariann Sullivan: About about science.

It's not just like rat scientists that you talk about, you spend a lot of time talking about the history, the connections between philosophy and science, and the fact that science has not, and I would say still continues to be, to not be much of a friend to animals. Though, it's kind of bizarre the way this whole explosion in cognitive ethology has led us to understand animals so much more. And yet the behavior of so many scientists just does not seem to shift. One of the things that drives me crazy about the way scientists have always talked about animals, I think kind of continue to do, is that there seems to have been this consensus that if we can't prove something is or is not there in animals, we should assume it's not, like emotion. Like if we can't prove that it's there, like this does not seem like science to me. That's just, if we can't prove something, we should assume that we can't draw any conclusions at all. Is this like some kind of, ridiculous mindset that has just, you know, been adopted by scientists because it's so convenient? And do you think that we're getting past it? Because there's still an awful lot of scientists out there abusing animals.

Brandon Keim: That's a great question.

So the habit of mind that you describe is formalized in something that's called Morgan's Canon, and that's canon, as in canonical, not a cannon on a pirate ship, um. It was articulated in the early 20th century by C. Lloyd Morgan, and so it helps to understand that the latter half of the 19th century and the early part of the 20th century were really this time of extraordinary foment in so many intellectual spheres, including the understanding of animals. And, very famously Charles Darwin, but also many other people of science at that time really embraced the idea that animals are thinking, feeling beings who share many properties of mind with humans, which of course makes total sense.

That's what evolution is, right? Like we share traits with other creatures. We're all branches on this great big phylogenetic tree and, so arguably those scientists became too credulous and were passing off just so stories and not really being rigorous in attributing intelligence to other animals. And I say arguably because I think there's a lot of valid perspectives on this. One that is really interesting to me comes from a historian of science, named David Pence. And, he argued that actually like there was this in the latter part of the 20th century, 19th century, early part of the 20th century, and you saw this big rise in kind of supernatural thinking, right?

The occult, the paranormal, you know, psychic mediums, all that. And science very understandably pushed back against that, but kind of animal intelligence got caught up in that pushback, which I think is an interesting way of thinking about it. And it's not just like all these scientists were threatened by animal intelligence, like no, like they were really trying to preserve the integrity of science, and they were worried that the scientists study animals were playing fast and loose.

But anyways, as a result of this kind of, you know, pendulum swinging, the pendulum swung too far in the opposite direction, and you get what became known as Morgan's Canon, which basically said that, you know, any behavior that looks like it's emerging from some higher psychological faculty, you should assume it's actually emerging from a lower psychological factory until you can disprove every other explanation, right?

Like, you basically assume it's instinctive, you assume it's a lesser form of intelligence, and that's where you start out from. That's intended to kind of raise the bar, right? Like you want more rigorous observations and better experiments and better science. So I think that's kind of like the generous and charitable way of looking at that.

Mariann Sullivan: I think it's extremely generous and charitable.

Brandon Keim: But, but the way that it ended up,

Mariann Sullivan: Because it affected behavior. It wasn't just theory that we shouldn't think this until we know better. Like, actions were based on those

Brandon Keim: Actions were based on that, and the way that Morgan's Canon became understood wasn't just as a way of raising the bar. That is kind of a habit of just assuming that animals are unintelligent, and that that is the baseline. So I think that's kind of where that habit of mind came from.

And I agree with you completely. Like it so stunted our understanding of other animals and colored the lens through which they've been viewed. Except of course for you know, dogs and cats and those animals we have in our homes whose intelligence and, you know, their personhood is very easily recognized. And part of what's so weird about this historical moment we find ourselves in isn't that, you know, there isn't some sort of neat, like, oh, you know, people think all the animals are intelligent or people think all the animals are unintelligent, but they just get sorted into these different categories. And so many times, I'll meet people who are like, of course, cat intelligence, dog intelligence, of course, but they don't think about mice being intelligent or certainly not pigs or cows or chickens.

So yeah, it's a mess.

Mariann Sullivan: I remember a story of, some helpful American, I don't know whether it's Peace Corps or a governmental worker in Mexico who was trying to improve agricultural practices and introduced the idea of caging laying hens to, you know, a local farmer who, I don't remember the story perfectly, but said something along the lines of, but my chickens would be so unhappy. Like, uh, it doesn't seem like it was just scientists,or it t was just Darwin who knew this. I think so many people knew it and yet it was so convenient not to know it at some point and so it got rejected. People, it may be dogs and cats for us because those are the animals we live with, but if you live with chickens and you weren't incentivized to cram them into tiny cages, you, you, you notice that they wouldn't like it either.

Brandon Keim: Yeah, completely. And I'm glad you brought that up, actually, because I think animals are really, one of the ways in which kind of animal issues are really interesting is that, you know, unlike so many other areas of scientific study, we know animals in our day to day lives, and you have this, there's this body of sort of experiential knowledge, and then there's the scientific knowledge.

But we just happen to live in a society where we've really, privileged the scientific knowledge and put that in the center. And then the experiential knowledge just kind of is lesser, it's not taken as seriously. And that's really interesting, but it's not always helpful.

Jasmin Singer: Well, something else that I find interesting but not always helpful is the word sentience. And I'd love your take on this. Like how does it differ from consciousness or does it, or does it, does it even matter?

Mariann Sullivan: And has anybody ever heard the word other than an animal rights activist?

Brandon Keim: I think sentient actually is out there, not like common everyday speak, but it's there. So the way I think about sentience and consciousness, and I think you'd probably get a range of different answers depending on who you asked. Sentience is feeling, in the sense of some sort of positive or negative affect. You're capable of, things can feel good, things can feel bad, warm, cold, whatever it is. And consciousness is the capacity to experience. So there's things one can experience that don't have some sort of positive or negative valence.

We can be conscious of them, but sentience is more emotional.

Mariann Sullivan: How do you make sense of, I mean, this is the question I ask everybody and there's no answer to it. So, so don't feel bad if you don't have the answer. Or explain how, I mean, we do know some, we haven't been emphasizing it in this interview, but in the book, you really go through how much more we know about animals as individuals and their personalities and, their intelligence, and it's not all instinct by any means. And we know really a lot, much more than we did even 20 years ago when I started being interested in this topic. Why don't things change?

Why, like, why is that knowledge, which is deeply meaningful to a lot of people, having no impact on, well, I shouldn't say no impact, but so little impact on policy?

Brandon Keim: I think about this question a lot. and I think about it a lot while I hang out with the goats at Peace Ridge listening to you guys. I will say just, first of all, and kind of also calling back to the conversation we were having just a few minutes ago, I think a lot of the scientists who are kind of at the top of their field right now are people who grew up in a moment when, you know, anthropomorphism was a dangerous word, and you would really not be taken seriously as a scientist if you talked about animals having very quote unquote human like capacities.

And I think many of them do in private, but they're kind of uncomfortable talking about it, and then others are just sort of more reluctant to acknowledge it in the first place. But I think, sort of the set point of science will change a lot in the next few decades as people who have, you know, as young scientists who kind of come up at a moment when anthropomorphism isn't a bad word anymore, when you can talk about animal intelligence, when they sort of take positions of authority and are the new mainstream.

But as for whether things will really change, even when that happens, it's hard to feel optimistic in some ways, and the question you asked really gets at the question of how does change occur and why don't we consistently put into practice the things we know in light of the morals we hold and the ethical principles we follow. And I think human beings are, all of us, myself very much included, are just all over the map with this stuff. Like, I'm not approaching animal issues with any sort of self righteousness because like, look at me, right? Like I know that more or less the metals in my new phone were dug up by child slaves, and I still upgraded, even though my old phone was still working. So I could ask this of myself too, right? Like, why don't we change the things we do in light of what we know? But I think what makes animal issues so, or what makes caring for animals so difficult to accomplish at a large scale, it's the fact that there are systems of profit, enormous systems of profit that are founded upon treating animals poorly that are very, very difficult to change. I think also it's very difficult to, because I'm sure you've experienced, you know, when talking to people about the challenge of going vegan, the challenge of consuming fewer animals.

And, you know, if you're going to do it for ethical reasons, then there's kind of that awkward time where you're like, Oh, man, like, I really care about what's happening to those animals in a factory farm. I really, really think this is awful and I don't want to be part of it anymore, but you don't stop overnight, right?

So there's that awkward time where there's that discomfort where you're doing something you kind of know is wrong, and you just want to do less wrong over time. And that's not how we want to see ourselves, right? Like, that's kind of uncomfortable, and it's cognitively challenging, and I think it's easier just to look away.

And there's so, so many ways in which, you know, it's easier to look away from animals, from the plight of other human beings, from everything that's wrong with the world.

So I don't think... that didn't answer your question...

Mariann Sullivan: There is, I started out by saying there's no answer to this question, but it's just interesting for us all to share our thoughts, I think, and maybe put them all together and have some new thoughts on it.

Brandon Keim: What do you think?

Mariann Sullivan: Why people don't change? Well, I think people come up with a lot of excuses not to change that, that make a lot of sense.

I'm not sure that's the reason that they don't, but I think you can very definitely say, well, it's not going to make any difference what I do.

Like, you know, as you said, we live in systems, and the systems control reality, and nothing I do is going to change factory farming. So why should I sacrifice my happiness and pleasure and make myself odd and rejected by people in order to do that?

And I think something else you said made sense too, is that, well, there are all these things that we do. You pointed to the phones and there are all these things, like you can't be perfect in this world. There's just no way. It's not possible. So, why wreck your life doing ridiculous things, using an old phone when it's not... you know, again, I'm coming back to the same reason really.

You can't change the system. So if you can't change the system, but I think to some extent that's an excuse too. I really think there's just something psychological about us as primates that we don't like to be different. And especially we don't like to be different in a way that implies that we are judging other people because that alienates them.

And we want people to like us. Like if you go gluten free, you're not saying, well, you should be gluten free too.

Brandon Keim: Mm hmm.

Mariann Sullivan: You're just saying it's for me. But if you're not eating animals, even if you say nothing, as Jasmin always tells the story at the Thanksgiving dinner, even if you just pass the turkey without taking any, somebody will say, Oh, really?

Brandon Keim: Mm hmm. Mm

Mariann Sullivan: Or you imagine they will, anyway. I think that that is easing. I think people don't mind as much that you're vegan these days as they used to.

Brandon Keim: I think you're right. And I think, you know, on a positive note, I think it's easier to care for wild animals, and to sort of be for wild animals, cause you know, it's not so fraught with interpersonal relations as diet is. And I've really been hardened by like how, I think like Meet the Neighbors has resonated with so many people who think about the animals around them, all the animals on this earth, this way, and they've just kind of needed permission to be open about it.

Um,

Mariann Sullivan: Totally. People need permission to be different.

Brandon Keim: And there's so much every one of us can do. So I did really think a lot when I was writing Meet the Neighbors about how does change occur? I think people in the animal rights world, certainly journalists, tend to focus on laws, on change taking place at very high levels, which is absolutely important. But there's also so many ways in which change occurs, really just, at the personal level, and at the level of your neighborhood, of just a few people.

And I think there's so much that can be done for wild animals at that level that is attainable and where you can feel that you're making a difference, that what you're doing matters in just a very tangible and intimate way. But yeah, there's so many routes to change in so many ways, people can feel a deeper and more joyful connection to the world.

Jasmin Singer: I want to go back to law, which you just brought up a moment ago, because philosophy and law you spend quite a lot of time discussing them. Do you think that they do offer solutions when they have in the past been such a disaster for animals?

Brandon Keim: Oh, totally. I mean, I think you could say the same about human philosophy and law too, right? Like the abolition movement and Bill Wasik and Monica Murphy, your guests earlier with their wonderful Our Kindred Creatures, write about how many of the people who were involved in the early animal rights movement came from a background of the movement to end slavery and for women's rights.

Those are struggles that took centuries and at any point in them, you know, you could absolutely say, well, what, what has the law given us? What has philosophy given us? Like, there's still slavery. Women are still a lower caste of human. But change occurred slowly, and when it did happen, you know, the law and the philosophy was very important to that. So yeah, I think absolutely.

Mariann Sullivan: This kind of relates to that, but I'm not sure... they were in different sections of the book, but I just wanted to talk a little bit about wildlife management.

And you speak really highly of Indigenous cultural practices regarding wild animals I'm just wondering whether there is, like, a really deep source of inspiration there for perhaps how we could shift how we think you know, not just Western philosophy, but the philosophy of other cultures as well could enter into it.

And can you talk a little bit about, I haven't really seen a lot of intersection in the attitudes regarding Indigenous attitudes towards animals and modern animal rights attitudes, probably because of the whole veganism issue, to some extent. And you know, the same thing happens with the environmental movement in general.

But I think it's particularly compelling to think about, you wrote so compellingly about Indigenous attitudes towards animals, which do involve killing. So can we bring these two philosophies together in ways that they're not at odds with each other, or at least they're a little bit more compatible?

Did that question make any sense? I feel like I was rattling on, but

Brandon Keim: Absolutely. I'd say that I want to be careful. I don't want to essentialize Indigenous relations to animals. And I should say that the ones I write about in my book, I'm very inspired by and connected to, but I wouldn't say that those are representative of all of them.

Mariann Sullivan: No, it's always a risk in talking about these things, but I hate to leave it out of the conversation because I think it's so important.

Brandon Keim: Totally. Andd, you know, I think I wouldn't look to, you know, even to the practices and knowledge systems that I do write about in my book, and just say, Oh, there's the answer. Right?

Like, we're good to go. But I think those systems represent people, and represent cultures and traditions that have really just reckoned with how do you live in the world when you realize that human beings are not the only persons, that other animals are persons too.

And there's different places one can go with that. People can have different answers to that questions in good faith. I know people who hunt, who I have a great deal of respect for, and that doesn't mean I then just sort of wipe away the sadness I feel for the animals they kill.

And in an ideal world, they would just be eating mushrooms, but they eat meat, and so they go about getting it in a way that I think is carefully thought out. But anyways, yeah, I think we can all just ask ourselves, what does it mean to think about every animal, not just some animals, as a person?

And how do we live our lives in light of that? And when it comes to wildlife management, I just think it is just a fundamentally democratic idea and a good idea to have a variety of perspectives, you know, in the committees, in the bodies where hunting and fishing and trapping and conservation is discussed.

And I think the more voices you have, the more different voices you have, the better things come out of it.

Mariann Sullivan: Yeah because the forces of death are aligned against us all, so, uh, the forces of just meaningless destruction are so powerful that it's important to find some common ground, even if you can't find total common ground.

Jasmin Singer: It is important to find that common ground, but there is always that fear, I think, well, at least for those who advocate for farmed animals, that they will always be left out, even by those who advocate for companion animals or wild animals, so on one hand, sure, we're finding the common ground, but on the other hand, it's like, dude, open your eyes.

Do you feel like writing about wild animals is more of a a gateway drug, the way to, I don't know, get people to think about all animals and what we're doing to them without turning people off by suggesting out loud that we shouldn't eat them? Which, I've been vegan for more than 20 years and still saying that sentence, it like, creeps me out so much, like I can't even believe we're discussing that, but what do you think?

Brandon Keim: So, I should say, I do come out and say in my book that I don't eat animals. You know, and it's something that for me, because of all of those stereotypes about pushy vegans and kind of the defensiveness that many people feel when conversations about veganism come up, you know, it is something I tread very lightly around just because I don't want to alienate people who might eventually come around to that way of thinking, but are not going to if you make them feel bad right at the start. And I should also say, one of the people I interviewed in my book, Francisco Santiago Avila, he's an environmental ethicist and a vegan, and so he says, listen, you know, I do not like it when veganism is presented as this binary, either you consume and use animals, or you don't, because of course, and I know you guys have heard this a thousand times, you know, because of course, even if you're vegan, you still have a footprint in the world.

There are still animals dying for you, just fewer, in hopefully better conditions. So stop making it like a black and white thing, and make it just about a process of reflection, continual reflection and improvement. And I think that resonates for me. I think that's something many people can agree with wherever they're starting out from. And I do think that, you know, relating to animals, to wild animals as fellow persons can point the way to seeing other animals that way. And I think it can go the other way too. And I think, like, it's such a tragedy that in our society, we really have these two great movements that are devoted to non humans, right?

Like the conservation movement and the animal rights movement. They would be so much more powerful together, but there are not many relationships between them. Those bonds are not strong. And I think it's incumbent on everyone, on both sides of that fence, to try to find the common ground and build relationships that things can grow out of.

I feel a little awkward discussing this because also as a journalist, I'm in this sort of weird space where if I'm a journalist writing about research on cancer, or I'm a journalist writing about climate change, nobody expects me to be agnostic on the question of whether cancer should be cured or, you know, to be like on the fence about climate change.

But then when it comes to animal advocacy, it's like, oh, am I crossing too far over into advocacy? So, so it's awkward. Yeah. So it's

Jasmin Singer: I would love to ask a follow up question about that. So you're a real journalist, I just play one on TV, but I am a host for our NPR station here in Rochester, and I host news shows, but I also host a show called Environmental Connections, and I'm the guest host of the talk show here, which is just more of a broad topic talk show, and what you've just said is something I'm dealing with all the time.

When I walk in the room, they're like, there's the vegan lesbian, you know. And so, historically when I have pitched anything related to animals or LGBTQ issues, for that matter, which I wouldn't even necessarily call myself an LGBTQ activist, but just by nature of being, I get a lot of, well, you pitch that a lot, even when I haven't at all.

And it's kind of like there's a lot more scrutiny and a lot more layers that they have to sort of peel away in order to figure out if it's a story that should be covered. Whereas, you know, that sort of quote unquote unbiased perspective is the perspective of the white man. And, I really don't agree with the sort of old school, newsy belief that we have to be unbiased because I just don't think it's true.

I just don't think it's possible. And I think that journalism has shifted a little bit and we all bring our biases. So I'm just curious your perspective of that because it is an ongoing battle for me.

Brandon Keim: One, I would say you're very much a real journalist.

Jasmin Singer: Maybe I don't feel like I am because of what I just said. Like maybe I was an activist quote unquote professionally for like 20 years and then found myself in the newsroom and I'm sort of like, I almost started singing a show tune. I almost started singing like who am I anyway from a chorus line, but I will only think that I won't sing it.

Mariann Sullivan: Please move on.

Jasmin Singer: Yeah. Got it. Moving on.

Brandon Keim: It would be great. Like, I wish we could have a fork here and have a whole show just talking about this question. I think what you describe is real. It is what it is. And, for myself, you know, I should say I think clearly, I'm biased, but I don't think of myself as an activist, I guess. Or at least the activism I'm engaged in, I feel like, is fundamentally about bringing stories and information to people, so that they can do with them what they will. And in the process of doing that, I try to be humble about the limits of my own understanding, and rigorous in my reporting, and my willingness to talk to people of every perspective and try to relate what they say in good faith. And that isn't to take myself out of the equation.

My biases will still be present. I will still be making decisions within that. but I do think there's a rigor that as journalists, it's our duty to bring to the exploration of these issues. And then, beyond that, the chips will fall where they do. And as for, you know, the quandary that you described, like that's really difficult, right?

And I think you just have to hope that, in 50 years, uh, if there is still a society with journalism, things will be different.

Jasmin Singer: Yeah, I would love to have this discussion as like a whole episode at some point, actually.

Mariann Sullivan: It is so striking that everybody feels that as a vegan, you will have a particular point of view about eating animals, as if meat eaters don't have a particular point of view. I mean, we all behave in some way vis a vis this issue.

You either do eat them or you don't eat them.

And so nobody can get out from the accusation that you're bringing your own behavior to this issue.

Brandon Keim: A hundred percent. I think, wasn't it Mary Midgley who said that nobody is neutral on the subject of eating animals? It is an enduring frustration of mine that so many editors and sort of journalistic definition setters do not look at, let's say, the cooking section's recipe for your Thanksgiving turkey and see that as being every bit as an expression of values and subjectivity, as is refraining from eating that chicken and saying that you shouldn't.

Mariann Sullivan: It's very frustrating. All right, we don't have a lot more time, but you alluded to climate change, and I don't know how we have this conversation without getting there. And you speak so movingly in the conclusion of your book about this incredibly arduous project that you and others have undertaken to save salamanders and frogs from traffic when they're migrating across a road.

But you also hint or state perhaps that this is also a metaphor for all of our obligations in the face of climate change and what is happening to animals and what is coming. Can you just talk about that a bit to just leave people on a really, hopefully inspiring, even though fraught note?

Brandon Keim: Yeah. So the episode you refer to in the book is these begrades of people who will go out on warm rainy nights in April and help salamanders and frogs cross the road, as they embark on their migrations. And, it's really, it's a beautiful, wonderful effort. And it's something that is you know, more, so many more people are doing that now.

And it's something that, you know, when I was a kid, that didn't even exist. And now, like, it's a fact of life in much of the Northeast. And it's such a beautiful thing. And, who knows what the future holds, right? Like maybe we figure out climate change and all the other ecological destructions that we're wreaking upon Earth, maybe we don't.

Like whatever happens, you just care for who you can, right? Even in a worst case scenario, even if we don't get climate change under control, all these other things go wrong, like, there's still so much life in the world. Nature still exists. Ecosystems still exist.

There are, you know, duties of care to the creatures around us, the human beings as well. And I think, you know, really in in unsettled times... and this isn't to say like, oh, you know, give up on the idea of change, because all you can do is pay attention to your backyard. But what's in your backyard is what's within your control.

And it's the change you can make happen in the world.

Mariann Sullivan: That is a good note to end on. And I really hope we do get it under control, but it is the extraordinary thing about this particular movement, that it is so easy to save one life and every, every one of them matter. And you know, we absolutely need systemic change, but I think we get there with individual action, saving individual animals, and that's what you've highlighted so beautifully in this book. Thank you so much for writing it, Brandon.

Brandon Keim: Oh, it was my pleasure,, and it's such a delight to talk to you both after all these years of listening to you.

Jasmin Singer: That's so sweet. How can our listeners follow you online and support your efforts?

Brandon Keim: So I have a newsletter, which I do need to write more frequently, but it exists, and it's called The Catbird Seat. And of course I'm also on Instagram and Blue Sky, and Twitter, still for the time being, and of course, check out Meet the Neighbors.

Jasmin Singer: Wonderful. Well, thank you so much for hanging out with us today. I hope you stick around a few more minutes so that we can chat with you for our bonus content, but I appreciate you so much. Thank you for joining us today on Our Hen House.

Brandon Keim: You are very welcome, and thank you.