#633 - Peter Singer - Are You An Evil Person For Eating Meat?

30:58That's really going to add on to the flavor profile. Yeah, and I think people will appreciate it more. That's true. You know, I'm old enough to remember when I was a child when chicken was a treat because it was expensive. And you know, So in my family, you got it on your birthday. And it did seem something special then. I don't think many people think that chicken is a special treat now. But maybe if you only eat animal products from really animals who have really good lives, and they killed with that pain and suffering, you would eat these animal products quite rarely. And you would think of them as a special treat, and you would enjoy them more, perhaps.

31:41One of the progressions that I've seen from some of the more militant corners of the veganism movement is saying that owning any type of pet would be something which is unethical as well. I think a lot of people struggle to understand how owning a dog that most people see not only is just something that they care about, but literally a part of the family. These people treat them as if they're essentially a surrogate child. in fact some people decide not to have children in place of a ton of dogs or cats. What is your position on the owning of pets? I don't discourage people having a preferred to think of them as companion animals, but I don't discourage people from living with companion animals.

32:28I don't like, you said owning them. Well, that is the legal situation, of course, now. I'd rather think of them as, as members of the family and companions, I don't think you would be able to own them. In the same way that you don't own your son or daughter. Exactly, yes, that's right. But I do think that many people with companion animals do give them good and rewarding lives, obviously not everybody, but many do. And it's also, I think, important for our understanding of non -human animals. I already mentioned earlier that people who live with dogs or cats have a sense that, you know, what they like, that they're complex beings, that they not only feel pain if you tread on their paws, but they have, you know, emotional suffering when they're bored when you leave them alone at home, at least dogs aren't.

33:20And, you know, they welcome you when you come home and they love to go for a run. There's a lot of things that we learn about animals through being close to a dog or a cat. or a horse. And that has led many people on to appreciating the way they're treating or the way they're complicit in the treatment of pigs and cows and chickens is wrong. One of the, I perhaps, you know, the leading animal advocate and strategist of the animal movement in the United States in the last quarter of the 20th century was a man called Henry Spirrow who was a close friend of mine and and he was somebody he was always like for progressive causes he marched for civil rights in the American South he was a merchant seamen and joined a reformist union to try to improve conditions for workers after the Cuban revolution he went there to see it himself what was happening.

34:25But he had no thoughts about animals until a friend of his was going overseas said, hey look after my cat, I've got no one else to look after my cat, he's a cat. And the cat basically charmed him as he says and suddenly he had this epiphany that here he was patting one animal and sticking a knife and fork into another and was that something wrong with that and he happened to come across my animal liberation at the same time and that combination started him off on a career that really improved lives for many animals. Have you considered the suffering of wild animals and whether it's our duty to somehow step in and ameliorate that?

35:08I have considered that. I would say I was prompted to consider it by some other philosophers who started thinking about that issue. I didn't really think much about it in the early versions of the book. But I have a few pages about it in animal liberation now. I certainly think that we should consider the interest of wild animals and they're relatively simple things that we can do. The largest number of wild animals we harm is again fish and we harm them by hauling them out of the ocean and letting them die in cruel conditions because they will suffocate in nets for example or die slowly. So, and we're overfishing the oceans.

35:51So, avoiding wild caught fish is good for wild animals and good for the sustainability of the oceans. And I think also things like trying to install glass that birds won't fly into. That's another major killer of animals. And I think, you know, if you do have a cat, keeping your cat indoors at least at night, if not all the time, depending on where you live, is important for wild animals, because although many cat lovers deny it, there's very strong evidence that pretty much any cat left outside, especially at night, becomes a predator and kills small animals, small birds, small rodents. So keeping your cat indoors at night is a good way of reducing the suffering of wild animals.

36:45If that's the case and you lived in an area, let's say it was overrun with wild pigs. There are some places in America that have this problem and some people get in big helicopters with 50 cal machine guns on the side of them and just chew through dreams and dreams and dreams of animals. How do you balance the ethical decision there? If these animals were left, they would destroy an ecosystem, which downstream from that has a ton of other animals that live in it. The only interjection that we can make is to kill them, but by doing that, you're killing an animal in a pretty inhumane way on the side of a gunship loaded with a belt fed machine gun.

37:28Yeah, we have similar problems with wild animals in Australia too. Look, I respect the environmental values that we want to preserve. and it's our fault for having introduced these non -native species and they've escaped or they've sometimes been deliberately released to breed and we've created this havoc. It's obviously not the fault of the pigs but I agree with those who think that you know there are at least some situations where we can't just let it go. I would like to see more humane ways of dealing with the problem than the helicopter gunships that you mentioned.

38:15Ideally, we would put some research into developing a bait that will sterilize the animals and therefore that would deal with the problem more more humanly over the long term. So, yeah, I mean, in a very small scale that can be done. There's a couple of islands off the Del Marva Peninsula in Maryland, Chinkertique and Acetic, I think they're called, where there was a problem with feral horses, feral ponies, and people care more about horses than they do about pigs. So, when people said we need to shoot all these ponies, people said no, you can't do that. And then they did find ways of sterilizing them.

38:57But, you know, on a large scale over large territory, you probably can't do that very easily at the moment. But, yeah, you might be able to develop a bait that the pigs would take, that the native animals would not take, and that would sterilize them. Yeah, it's a fascinating decision criteria that... So, I got introduced to your position probably about four or five years ago from a friend and I am a meat eater. I still am now, but it's been by far for me the most compelling consideration around my consumption of animals. Where is it being sourced from? How do I feel about eating it? Even little things.

39:39I know that as a utilitarian, this probably doesn't count, but having a little bit more reverence for the food that you eat and for where it's come from has been something that was that was changed upon understanding a more moral and ethical framework as opposed to a screechy person who was shouting about how terrible you are because and then some placard that gets waved in your face, it seemed like a much more scalable way of thinking about animal welfare, given the fact that the net outcome that you're looking for is to just reduce animal suffering and you've been talking about this for nearly 50 years and now revisiting it again.

40:26What do you think about the modern iteration of the veganism movement and it's sort of many hydroheaded version of how it's progressed? What have you observed that's been interesting being on the front lines of this for so long. Yeah, there are a lot of different tactics used. And it's hard to know which tactics are the most effective. That's a difficult problem in social science research to work out what influences people. I'm perfectly clear that really violent actions just put people off and give the whole movement a bad name. And I'm glad that they seem to have ceased. There was a period in the 80s when some activists were using violence and relatively little.

41:14I mean, there was a lot of publicity about it. The number of people who were hurt by it was, you could count on the fingers of your hand, I think. But still, it was not a good thing to be doing for an ethical movement. And the sort of in your face thing, I guess, yes, people find it offensive. We don't know whether it gets them to think in the end or not. But I've been impressed by the recent use of what's called open rescue techniques where people have gone into factory farms and videoed what's going on there. And if they've seen particularly ill animals or particularly maltreated animals that look like they were not going to survive very long anyway, they've rescued them, they've taken them out, they've taken them through a vet.

42:03If the vet says no, this animal isn't going to live, then they put them down. But otherwise they treat them to try to help them. And then they show the video footage and they show the individual animals because then people can focus on individuals. And it's interesting that there's been a move to prosecute these people because after all they are taking property, pigs, pigs or chickens, whatever they are. their property. And there have been a couple of recent cases where the prosecution has badly backfired. So two rescuers took pigs from a farm in Utah and they were put on trial on felony charges.

42:48I think they could have spent five years in prison. And they didn't deny that they'd taken the pigs. But the jury, and this is, you know, Utah is a fairly conservative state, and they were in a rural part of the state. You'd expect to be more conservative, more farm friendly. But the jury refused to convict them. And then there was a second case in California after that too. So it's a way of getting the randomly selected members of the public on the jury to express their view of what's going on in these places. And it's clear that they don't like it. In your opinion, is it moral to convince people to become vegan through an immoral method?

43:25So something like lying to them or emotional coercion or something like that. And now I don't think it is. And I think it's likely to backfire because there will be people who will expose what's going on. And let's say that it didn't in this situation. Let's say it didn't backfire. Let's say that the outcome was that nobody got rumbled. But on route to doing it, it was an immoral means to a moral end in your view. Well, as a utilitarian, I do think that it is sometimes justified to do things that would not be right in themselves, but when they lead to importantly good ends can be justified. So if you're talking hypothetically, I think that could be justified.

44:10If you're talking about would I advise a vegan activist to use those methods, the answer is no because we can't specify that it is only going to have the good consequences and not have the bad consequences. Yeah, it's an interesting consideration and one that I've spoken to a bunch of different friends about. You mentioned before, we discussed this kind of spectrum, I suppose, between factory farming and regenerative farming and living at home with a chicken that lives in the backyard or whatever. But it seems to me that factory farming is the thin end of the wedge that, again, most people that hear the stories about the kind of experiences that you've just described from animals.

44:50Very few of them are going to be ardent, proud, flag waving supporters of it. It does seem like that gets spread out to cover absolutely everything that it's not just the factory farming, it's also the regenerative farming. And lots of people, I think, are changing their eating habits because of a fear of environmental mental impact as well as just what's happening to animals and emotive imagery and stuff like that. In your opinion, do you think it's a almost a failing of moral philosophy to have sufficient impact that you need to rely on concerns about climate change and so on and so forth? Should it be the case that we are able to motivate humans morally without having to layer on top multiple different arguments?

45:37I should be the case that the argument against inflicting suffering on animals is sufficient to persuade people. Yes, ideally that would be the case. When I wrote and released the first version of animal liberation in 1975, I thought that this argument was so obvious and compelling that it would have that effect, that was a bit naive. but ideally it would. If we were more rational, if we were more moved by ethics, more ethical, I'm sure it would. But in saying that, I think the arguments about not eating meat because of climate change are also ethical arguments. They're not appealing to self -interest really, because from self -interest point of view, what I would like is to keep doing what I enjoy doing and hope that everyone else will stop doing these things that will have bad effects.

46:31Strategy of the comments. Yeah. Yeah, the tragedy of the comments exactly. So to avoid the tragedy of the comments, you either need government regulation or you need individual ethical action. We don't have government regulation that's taking the right stand on industrial animal production yet. So we need ethical action. Why do you think it is the case that the argument you put forward 50 years ago that you thought, as soon as everybody hears this, evidently they're going to change their ways. This is going to be the beginning of a kind of diet virus that's going to cause everybody to become ethical.

47:12Why, Why hasn't that convinced more people? I think it's just that eating habits go very deep and are hard to change. I mean, the contrast here would be with some other ethical change, like the dramatic improvement in attitudes towards guys and bisexual people and lesbians and so on, which I don't think many people say in the year 2000, I don't think many people thought that within the next 20 years, a lot of countries would accept not only that we shouldn't prosecute gaze for their sexual acts, but that we should allow them to marry in exactly the same way as we allow heterosexuals to marry. That was a dramatic change, but there's less at stake for most people don't have very much at stake.

48:09They have an attitude, but they don't feel I'm going to have to change my lives. My life is the same that you need to be gay. It's saying that you need to allow it. It's not saying you need to marry someone of your same sex. If people tried that, they would not get very far. But the animal movement of the case that I was putting forward was saying you need to change what you eat. And that's much more difficult. for a whole lot of reasons. I mean, maybe there may be some sort of we evolved to have a taste for meat because that's a very dense nutrient that was available to our ancestors and those that I did did better than those that didn't, but because that's not the case anymore today, it's more of a health risk.

48:53Or it may be that it's embedded in our culture and we think, oh, but if I stopped eating meat, I wouldn't have the traditional Thanksgiving turkey or whatever other, you know, wouldn't slaughter the sheep for the feast of the eye. So meat is culturally embedded in ways that make it harder to change. And there's also that sense of a lot of people say, well, their family eats meat, what are they gonna do when they go and eat with them? Are they gonna tell their friends that they should stop eating meat? Isn't that being a bit self -righteous? We're fairly conformist in that. But there are some people who are prepared to say, no, I'm going to break with that tradition and be a non -conformist, but I think there are a lot of people who don't want to be among the leaders of the change and would rather follow than leave.

49:49Given that vegetables and vegan products, no matter how correctly their source are also associated with an increase in death and suffering of animals, stuff that happens just during harvesting and so on and so forth, it's inevitable that that's going to end up happening. Does this not mean that there is a moral obligation for every human to try and limit their calorie consumption to as little as possible? I shouldn't eat one calorie more than I should. I should also eat a vegan diet, but that vegan diet shouldn't be a single calorie over because as soon as I do, that is unnecessarily impacting animal life upstream.

50:30I think if you're really that worrying about every calorie, you're going to go crazy and you're not going to be very effective in doing anything else. So I think that's, you know, that's some sort of saintly ideal, if you like. It's similar to arguments that I've put forward in relation to global poverty. Again, you know, a long time ago when I was, um, perhaps a little too much of a demanding as it's just that we should give away all of our assets until we reach the point of marginal utility and until we reach the point at which sharing something more giving something more to a person in extreme poverty would lower us to the same level of poverty or suffering as the person we were helping.

51:12That's also I think, you know, not a realistic ethic to put forward and as a consequentialist I want to put forward ethical views that will achieve the maximum benefits. So I no longer make that argument in terms of how much we should give away. I suggest instead saying my book The Life You Can Save, I suggest more reasonable percentages of incomes that scale up as you earn more. And similarly I think in terms of trying to get people to move towards a vegan diet or at least a more conscientiously ethical diet that has concerned for of what animals are experiencing, I think saying you can't eat a single calorie over what you need to maintain your body is not gonna work.

52:01For the people like me who aren't philosophy -pilled, talking about the blending of the position of a utilitarian with that of a consequentialist, I'm a right in thinking that a utilitarian would be looking to maximize the utility from whatever the choice is or the framework is that's being put forward, but the consequentialist understands that there are real world restrictions on that that need to be filtered through. So is it almost like a blending of the two positions? No, I don't think that's quite right. I think that utilitarians will also want to produce the best consequences. Utilitarianism is a version of consequentialism.

52:43Consequentialism is the genus, utilitarianism is the species, and the difference between them is not their attitudes to what's realistic or what's not, it's their attitude to what are the consequences that we want to maximize that we want to focus on. The utilitarian will say the consequences are well -being, the well -being of all of those capable of having a well -being, which means, in my view, all sentient creatures, and we want them to suffer as little pain as possible, to suffer as little, to experience as much pleasure, to be as happy as possible. That's the utilitarian view. The consequentialist will say, I agree that whether an action is right or wrong depends on its consequences, but I don't think that well -being is the only consequence that matters.

53:29I think it's, for example, it's good that people should have greater knowledge whether they use that knowledge to enhance well -being or not. I think it's important that people should be free, whether they use their freedom in ways that enhance well -being or not. And then there's a whole list and that's the thing about consequentialists in general once you move away from specifically utilitarian consequentialists. There are about 50 things that people have put on lists that they think of as intrinsically good and they want to maximize and everybody then takes their pick of these 50 things as to which are the ones that I want to maximize and why and then you have to say, well, you sure this is really good in itself, you're sure like with knowledge, you sure knowledge isn't good because it can help us to improve well -being.

54:12You're sure that just having additional knowledge is good even if it has no further consequences. Those are the kinds of debates that then have to have. Could you imagine a situation in which a human who was brought into the world of ethical veganism and was talking about this sort of stuff on the internet, let's say, or on any kind of platform, but was struggling to eat a sufficiently well balanced diet that allowed them to maximize the impact that they could have on the world existed. So this person believes in the precepts of it and is talking about it online and is doing it in a very compelling way and encouraging other people to consider their approach to what their diet looks like to, but their individual challenges that they're facing with their own health mean that they then consider moving from a vegan to a meat -based diet.

55:06Now, whilst they're on this meat -based diet, they're going to continue talking to the world and encouraging as many people as possible. Would it be an ethical position for that person to hold to say, look, I'm going to do something personally, which I would see as an ethical or immoral, in order to encourage and maximize the impact that I can have on the rest of the world? Yeah, I've actually had, that's not a hypothetical. I've had people come to me and say things somewhat similar to that. I think, you know, it took me a while to accept this because I've always felt great on vegetarian and vegan diets and others that I know have too.

55:49But there are some people who seem to have a different constitution and who don't do well, certainly not on an exclusively vegan diet. So if you are one of those people, but you see the point of the cause, yeah, I would say to preserve your health and to maintain the ability to be an active force for good in the world, you should seek out those animal products that will be sufficient to maintain your health and vigor and will do the least harm to animals, to the climate and so on. So for example we were talking earlier about free range eggs from from Hens who are genuinely free range and have grass to range around on.

56:37I think that's that's an example of something that I would see as doing minimizing harm, providing some animal protein and maybe that's enough for some people. You know if it's not then they need to look further but they always need to think about who is where can I get this product in a way where the animals are really cared for well, where the greenhouse gases are not great or offset. So yeah, those are the sorts of questions and I appreciate that a small number of people may need to do that to keep active and vigorous. loads of muscles just generally don't need muscle muscles today. Oh muscles I see those muscles right.

57:22So eating enough animal products to build up their muscles and in fact no any of our good and that's the five yes you could do that yes that would be a good town go to town on the by valves okay so um obviously one of the things that you've done nearly 50 years between both between this version and the first version of this, the cultural climate has changed an awful lot during that time, the type of arguments that can be made that are accepted widely or even accepted, not so widely have changed a good bit. What was some of the elements that you had to remove from the book in order to make it more palatable for a 2023 audience?

58:04Well, a very glaring example of that was that in the first version of the book. I wanted to make the point at the beginning that this book was not written for animal lovers and that I didn't consider myself an animal lover and that was raising a major ethical issue. And to make that point I used a parallel between this issue and or the way that I was approaching this issue and the way that whites in the 1950s and 60s who were supportive of the movement against racial segregation in the American South would go down to march with blacks in the South for, you know, against segregation of schools or universities or buses or restaurants or whatever.

58:50And to make the point that I was not an animal lover, I said I quoted an epithet that was often used by white racists. So against these, by white Southern racists, against these Northerners who came down to help them. And they used the N word to suggest that they loved the people that they were helping. And I had that in the first edition, I had that word in quotes. It was a quote and I said it was a racist who was saying this, there was no way at all in which I was endorsing the use of that word. But now that word has it becomes such a strong taboo that you can't even use it in quotes in that sense.

59:32And so that editor indicated that they had to go on, I accepted that view. Yeah, I think if, no matter how clean you want to, or how appropriately you want to try and represent the original material, you're inevitably going to have to do that, there's A couple of other bits as well that I'd seen to do with men getting the ability of men to have equal abortion rights or the equal access to opportunity, something like that. Yes, that's right. I was saying that, yes, I was saying that to say that animals have rights, didn't mean that they had the right to vote or something like that, any more than to say that there's a right to abortion means that men have equal abortion rights with women, something like that.

1:00:23I can't remember the exact wording. Yes. And of course, now you can't refer to pregnant women. You should refer to pregnant people as the frauds of conversation. I saw that a little strange, I must say. Well, thinking about this situation, and this is what particularly fascinated me about it. You're a man who is famous for his cold analytical approach and you have had to remove some very powerful arguments that I've heard friends use. I've heard friends use that exact argument about the access to abortion and men's rights to abortion. You've had to remove some powerful arguments for the life of animals because of modern sensitivities.

1:01:10is that, I mean, what do you think that says about our current ethical position in the modern world? Well, I think it says that perhaps we're too sensitive about some of these issues and we should be more prepared to face some of these realities. But I went along with the editors' suggestions on these issues because this book is about a particular cause, a particular issue. I want to attract as wide support as I possibly can because of the urgency to stop what we're doing to say hundreds of billions of sentient creatures and damaging our climate. And I didn't want to get distracted by a small side issue where people would say, no, I'm not going to buy that book.

1:01:57I'm not going to read that book. You've got to decide which wars you can fight. You can't fight all the wars at the same time. Yeah, I understand. So one other modern discussion that probably wasn't a consideration when you first wrote this book was AI and over the last six months we've seen a huge resurgence in discussions about it. It kind of really lulled, you know, Nick Boss from Super Intelligence was 2014, something like that, I think. And that really kind of kicked off this concern about paperclip maximizers and alignment problems and machine extrapolated volition. and then it went quiet for forever because it didn't seem like AI was making any progress, and then Chatchy PT comes out and everything goes ballistic again.

1:02:42Have you considered the potential for AI agents to suffer and our obligations to them? Yes, absolutely. I have thought about that. In fact, with some others, I'm organizing a conference at Princeton University in October, which will include that topic as well as talking about the impact that AI is having on animals, which is significant because some industrial farms are now being basically run by AI rather than by individual humans in the same way. Plus, of course, there's all these decisions that dilemmas about self -driving cars and do you program them to swerve to avoid the dog or only to swerve to avoid the child.

1:03:27So I have been involved in AI ethical questions and my answer to the question you asked about could there be conscious AI, could AI be a sentient being? And if so what would it be? I think the answer is in principle AI could be sentient or conscious. I don't think we have got close to that yet. I think that chat GPT sort of fools us into thinking we're chatting with a sentient being, but when we understand what it's actually doing and how it's regurgitating some of the material that it's fed on and how it adjusts, I think we realize that there's no reason to postulate any consciousness. But if that did happen, and in principle it's possible to happen, then we would need to give that AI a moral status, at least like that of animals, and depending on its cognitive abilities, maybe it would be closer to that of most human.

1:04:26Have you considered or thought of a way in which an AI agent would be able to convince you that it was having a felt sense of an experience because you can, I mean, five -year -old girls have got dolls that will cry if they're not picked up sufficiently frequently. Nobody is mistaking the doll for having the felt experience of being lonely. But you roll it all the way down, and it seems to me, I haven't thought about this a lot, but it seems to me that it would be very difficult to separate out AI agent performing what emotions look like from conscious agent experiencing them. Basically, is every AI just a piece on me in disguise with circuit boards?

1:05:18So far, but yeah, the question of how are we going to know is really an interesting and important question because many years ago, Alan Turing said, if you can have a conversation with the robot and you don't know whether you're having a conversation with the robot or with a real person, then we should assume it's conscious. But that is the case with chat GPT. I mean, you can't do that. into thinking that. So, uh, I don't, and yet as I say, once you understand what it's actually doing, what it's programmed to do, I think you don't think it's, it's, it's conscious. Now, um, the problem is that these AIs are learning all the time, developing all the time, and I think we're going to get it into a situation where they're going to be producing other AI, right?

1:06:11That they're getting to be smart enough to design other systems. And then we won't really know how the other system works in the way that we might know about the ones so far. And it'll be very difficult to tell whether it is conscious or not. Because it's not simply a matter of saying, looking at the algorithms there, because it's learning things and developing. So yeah, I'm not really an expert in this field. I've talked to some people who are more expertise than me and I've started to see the difficulty of this problem. I had Stuart Russell on the show 18 months ago and he wrote human companies written everything.

1:06:58He wrote literally the textbook on AI. It's in some ungodly number of languages. years. And he was saying, if you were a lot of the time, YouTube will be asked, open up the algorithm, show us what the algorithm is doing, or tell us how the algorithm works. And especially when you're looking at something like YouTube, his argument was the engineers at YouTube don't know what the YouTube algorithm is doing. It's got its own optimization function that it is aiming for. It is trying to maximize time on site and click through and watch time. And they just set this bunch of parameters and then it's run away.

1:07:39And it is now reinforcing, okay, let's do this a little bit more. Let's change for that. Select for this kind of video. Once someone does this, then do this. And you realize that, yeah, I mean, if you've got recursive self -improving AI that are creating either improving themselves or creating further agents that are their own progeny in one form or another. I mean, you definitely don't know two degrees removed, but even just one degree removed. What you've created after a sufficiently long amount of time learning is probably not really going to resemble what it was that you made it in the first place.

1:08:13So yeah, getting in there and going, oh, well, you know, we'll just see where's the emotion algorithm? We didn't put the emotion algorithm in here. Therefore, it can't, you know, the sadness, the sadness code doesn't exist within this. I think it's a really, really, and I fundamentally, to me, that seems to be the most interesting and the most challenging question that's going to come up about this. So what point are we going to say that an AI agent claiming consciousness, sentience, the ability to suffer, et cetera, et cetera? Are we ever going to know? Because the only reason really that you believe that I have the capacity to suffer that if you poke me with a pin that I'm not just saying our performatively because I know that that's what you would do and there's everybody else on the planet is just some big robot that's been here to Truman show Truman show Peter sing his life for the last however many decades the only reason is that we we kind of have this faith right between us and we we believe that that's the case very very difficult with no proof no one has has ever been an AI agent that has a felt sense of this and we can't use our theory of mind to try and believe it.

1:09:25I think that's going to be the biggest challenge that we face. Yeah, I think that's a huge channel, and I agree, and I don't have an attitude. Come on, Peter. I don't know what anyone does, but I said that. AI Liberation now. That's what I've come for. Well, look, Peter Singer, ladies and gentlemen, Peter, I really appreciate you. You have got a tour of some kind that you are doing that people can attend. Where is that? It means it happening. I do have a speaking tour. Yes, I'm going to be speaking in Washington, DC on May the 26th in Los Angeles on the 29th in San Francisco on the 30th of May.

1:10:07and in New York City on June 1st and in London on June 4th. And you can find that if you Google an evening with Peter Singer and maybe put in Think Inc. Think and then I &C, which is the organization that is organizing the tour. You'll get information and tickets. And I would love to see you all there and get a chance to speak to you and to hear your questions. Please don't really appreciate him. Thank you for today. Thanks very much.