S8. E6: Drew Pendergrass: Half-Earth Socialism
“Animal agriculture can be gone tomorrow. It's not foundational. That’s why I find it very puzzling, the amount of pushback because it seems to be the actual… low-hanging fruit. You write a book about socialism and no problem at all, people are like, ‘yeah, sure get rid of capitalism. No problem.’ Get rid of animal agriculture, they get very mad,” - Drew Pendergrass
Drew is a Ph.D. student in environmental engineering at Harvard. He is also the co-author with Troy Vettessee of Half-Earth Socialism, A Plan to Save the Future from Extinction, Climate Change and Pandemics.
In order to save the planet while at the same time, make life better for all beings on the planet, Drew and Troy have come up with a plan, that includes:
Rewilding half the earth to absorb carbon emissions and restore biodiversity
A rapid transition to renewable energy, paired with drastic cuts in consumption by the world’s wealthiest
Global veganism to cut down on energy and land use
Worldwide socialist planning to efficiently and equitably manage production
The involvement of everyone
The authors also collaborated with designers from the Jain Family Institute and Trust to create a video game based on the book, at play.half.earth. Check it out, it’s pretty awesome.
Please listen and share.
In gratitude,
Elizabeth Novogratz
Learn More About Drew Pendergrass
Learn More About Half Earth Socialism
Purchase Half Earth Socialism on Amazon
Transcript:
Drew: [00:00:15] Our culture can be gone tomorrow. Like it's not foundational. That's why I find it very puzzling, the amount of pushback, because it seems to be the actual like the low hanging fruit. You write a book about socialism and no problem at all. People are like, yes, sure, get rid of capitalism. No problem. Get rid of animal agriculture. They get very mad.
Elizabeth: [00:00:44] Hi, I'm Elizabeth Novogratz. This is Species Unite. We have a favor to ask. If you like today's episode and you have a spare minute, could you please rate and review Species Unite on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen to podcasts? It really helps people to find the show. This conversation is with Drew Pendergrass. Drew is a PhD student in environmental engineering at Harvard. He is also the co-author with Troy ATC of Half Earth Socialism: A Plan to Save the Future from Extinction, Climate Change and Pandemics.
Drew: [00:01:42] Hello.
Elizabeth: [00:01:43] Hey, Drew.
Drew: [00:01:44] Hi. How are you, Beth?
Elizabeth: [00:01:46] I'm really good.
Drew: [00:01:46] Thanks for having me.
Elizabeth: [00:01:48] You and Troy wrote Half Earth Socialism together, how did that come about?
Drew: [00:01:52] Troy is an environmental historian and I am a scientist, so it's a strange collaboration for a book. I read one of Troy's articles and was very interested in it. It was an article that tried to link land use and climate change in this sort of systematic way. That was very interesting. In particular, talking about how climate change has this big land footprint thing in terms of renewable energy sources, particularly biofuels, taking up a lot of land, carbon sequestration, moving carbon dioxide from the atmosphere requires a lot of land. Animal agriculture, as I'm sure your listeners are aware, requires a very large amount of land. All these problems, conflict and this was very interesting. So I wrote to him and this kind of basic insight is the foundation of this project.
Elizabeth: [00:02:43] And then the two of you got together and were like, let's reimagine a whole new way to solve everything.
Drew: [00:02:48] Well, it started small, like the original pitch was going to be a short pamphlet, like 18,000 words, basically a very long article. But then the pandemic happened and we didn't have much else to do. So we ended up turning in a book over three times longer than we originally pitched. So it became our crazy pandemic project.
Elizabeth: [00:03:07] Oh my god and the book is like the book's mind blowing. So let's start with just the title. So will you talk about that a little bit?
Drew: [00:03:15] The title, Half Earth Socialism, is taken from the idea of the Half Earth, which is popularized by E.O. Wilson, the naturalist. The idea is that half of the Earth should be set aside for nonhuman animals, and the idea is that extinction rates are very related to land area, habitat area. This comes from E.O. Wilson's original work in the sixties on Biogeography,Island Biogeography. So he is studying how many species are on an island, and that is proportional to the fourth root of the island area he finds empirically. So a bigger island supports more species than a smaller island. Then this was analogized to nature preserves. So a bigger, more complete nature preserve is able to preserve more species and protect their behaviors in all of these things and prevent extinctions. So taking this fourth route relationship to the globe, the sixth mass extinction can only be averted if a large swath of the earth is preserved in some way for animals, and less than this will result in much larger extinctions. So that's where the half comes from. And what we do in the book is we take that idea and we kind of argue that such a large conception of this averting the massive six mass extinction, especially when you combine it with the amount of work it will take to resolve climate change is something that can only be done under a different economic system, a different society, a socialist society, one that has democratic aspects, because there's a lot of potential problems that might emerge from taking half the earth. We also might question like, what does it mean this half the earth? We talk about how indigenous sovereignty leads to a lot of biodiversity. So we don't need to truck with the traditional nature preserve idea, land back movements can be part of this half earth conception. But we still keep this fundamental motivation by the sixth mass extinction in our title of the book.
Elizabeth: [00:05:15] You start the book. I mean like what, 2050, 2047? It's kind of basically if we keep going, how we're going right now, where we end up.
Drew: [00:05:25] We open with a dystopian little fiction set in 2047. So 25 years from now, what trajectory we might be on if we win a few victories. The point of this is to illustrate that we're talking about very big changes when we're talking about the environmental crisis. So we talk about how solar geoengineering might end up being used. So this is an idea that's being researched at my own institution very seriously. The idea is to fly some planes up to the stratosphere, and spray some sulfur oxides. They will go on to be like an artificial volcanic eruption and block out part of the sun cooling the earth. This is appealing to some because it is very cheap. It would cost a few billion dollars. It would be instant. You don't need to change the economic system. You don't need to change fossil fuels. You don't need to change the food system. You can just do this. Even a single rich person could do this. And this is sort of what gives it this air of inevitability that if we can't do social change, then this will be what we do. Instead of engineering or reinventing our own society, we should reengineer and reinvent nature so that we can continue what we're doing. So we take this as at least a bunch of problems. Right, as you might imagine.
Elizabeth: [00:06:37] Isn't that kind of what we've been doing this whole time, though? Trying to reinvent nature, and it's gotten us where we are now.
Drew: [00:06:42] I think you're exactly right. Yeah. We have a little bit of an intellectual history in the book about this sort of question, but yeah, exactly. I think we tend to try and transform the world rather than do the difficult work of transforming ourselves.
Elizabeth: [00:06:57] Just to go back for a second, when you talk about the sixth mass extinction, aren't we already in it? I mean, isn't it happening right now?
Drew: [00:07:02] Yeah. I mean, I think it depends on how you define it. I mean, I'm not a conservation biologist by training, but I think it's certainly no matter how you divide the lines or argue about definitions for certainly our extinction rate is hundreds of times more than the background rate. So we're certainly living through a massive extinction event and perhaps we could avert maybe a definition of mass extinction if we act.
Elizabeth: [00:07:29] Let's talk about the plan, the plan in your book that actually requires humans to change and in really big ways but kind of nice ways to.
Drew: [00:07:39] Hopefully it's appealing. Yeah. So our book kind of operates on two levels. The first level of the book is arguing for this idea of scientific utopia, which is a wonderfully contradictory term from this philosopher named Otto Neurath, who was living in the early 1900s in Austria. The idea here is that economic democracy, according to Neurath, involves debates over different total visions of what society could be, because any vision of the future will involve some kind of difficult to reconcile elements. We might have a future that has a lot of stuff, like a lot of material things, but that has environmental consequences. We have to dig up the stuff that has labor consequences. Someone has to work in a factory to produce it. It has consequences for how the city looks and all these things. And that might be contrasted with a different plan, which might have less stuff, but it has different other benefits and there might be a plurality of these things on offer, and we can choose which scientific utopia we want. So the idea is that it's grounded, daydreaming. We're thinking about the future, but we're grounded in real trade offs and what this future might be. This is a useful way of thinking about the environmental crisis, because a just world will require sacrifices, or a new world that's more environmentally stable will require consuming less things, but it has other benefits as well and these must be all evaluated because people might say they want more stuff, but do you want more stuff and geoengineering? Which is the actual pathway, right, is it's seeing things at once. Then the second aspect of the book is our particular scientific utopia, which involves global veganism, involves basically abolishing any significant animal agriculture for this freeing up of land, for averting climate change, for like and for rewilding, protecting ecosystems. It's no mystery that plant based agriculture takes up a lot less land and consumes less energy. This is done both through efficiency improvements. So like public transportation rather than individual car use, this sort of passive housing idea or heat pumps to have less energy for buildings, and then also just actually like having some sort of less energy consumption. So some sort of actual sacrifice in the size of houses or that sort of thing. There's some fun fact that California's heating swimming pools consume more electricity than the nation of Ghana. So there cannot be heating swimming pools in our future because that is an insane way to spend our energy. So there are sacrifices. It's not just efficiency and this is where the equality aspect, this is the socialist aspect. We want a world of more equality. So that involves ramping up energy use in much of the world, but ramping down energy use in the rich parts of the world. But this is not just sacrifice. The idea is that we would have a more free, democratic society where we can actually have a meaningful say in how our economy is structured. We imagine a sort of combination of more central voting on how we might run our larger constraints, like how much land should we use for our particular civilization, versus how much should we leave to non-humans? And these sorts of things might be discussed in very broad terms centrally, and then what it means in practice would devolve to more local areas. So it's this almost federal structure that we imagine. So that's sort of our particular plan and we offer it up for people to critique or to run with and perhaps to propose their own plans that differ from ours. So we also have a video game that comes with the book where you can play as a planetary planner and come up with your own plan that might differ from ours or might be more half worthy than ours. More land for non humans. You can do whatever you want.
Elizabeth: [00:11:26] I've worked in wellness, meditation, that world as well for many years. I'm just talking about individuals. When people usually decide, ‘no, really, I'm going to start meditating’. And they do, you know, as a daily practice, it usually takes a crisis. You know, it usually takes a certain amount of pain to get people to really change or transform most people, myself included. And when you look at humanity as a whole, right and we're in multiple crises at the moment and we're still not changing. In imagining all of this, do you see like a catalyst for change that something like this could actually come to fruition?
Drew: [00:12:07] Yeah. So I think for one aspect of your question, right, crises and change, I think it's certainly the case that often big changes precipitated by a crisis, but not all crises lead to change. Right? It's not sufficient to have a crisis. There needs to be a crisis plus a level of organization, a level of direction, a level of purpose to move us in a new direction. You can have a personal crisis and handle it very badly and go spiral off or you can handle it differently and might adopt new practices personally and then societies have a similar principle. You know, 2008 was a big crisis that could have precipitated a change in the economic system, but it did not. And so why it did not, we didn't have the level of organization, the level of direct movement power able to change that. Because I think the other thing to keep in mind is that the system, the capitalist system, is very entrenched. It's transformed so much. To overcome it would be very difficult and to overcome it in a way that's better and not simply like different but bad in new ways requires a lot of work that we haven't really ever seen in history. So that's kind of why it's hard to overcome this crisis, because the crisis is very foundational and it requires a lot of direct effort to overcome. That does not mean we can't overcome it. It just means that it's not easy. Then to your second question, I think, which was more about ways forward for this particular vision, we are not really under any illusions that a single book will change the world. We don't expect this book to change the world. But what we'd like it to do is open conversations and hopefully open up conversations about the very real tradeoffs that are involved. I mean, I would love to see more questioning of animal agriculture that goes on, especially in left wing circles where there's a lot of skepticism of this because it's a personal choice.
Elizabeth: [00:13:57] People don't want to talk about animal agriculture, and it's a massive part of this whole problem. There's a lot of people who just want to stay away from it. We're not addressing that as a whole. We're not addressing it in so many ways. Global meat consumption is going to rise 50% in the next 20 years. So we're going the wrong way.
Drew: [00:14:18] Yeah, I think there are a variety of reasons why it's not talked about. I think one is I think it's wrongly viewed, I think as a populist issue. Like, you know, like everyone a chicken and every pot, the classic Huey Long thing or like, you know, it's like if you take that away, then you might lose a lot of your support. I think this is, I think a little self blind because abolishing fossil fuels is not exactly going to be a cakewalk either, you know? So framing it as like a sacrifice for further gains is really important and something that you're making an honest intellectual case for. So I think that that is part of the reluctance to embrace a critique of animal agriculture. I think there's also this at least more leftwing circles idea that it's an individual choice, whereas we need a collective change. But I think this sort of misunderstands the way in which capitalism is a total system. It's a system of social relations. It's a system where we have production, but we also have consumption, right? You can't just make stuff. It has to be consumed. So there needs to be a whole interlocking system that does these things. So merely critiquing one aspect of the system doesn't really get at how capitalism is this total system of social relations, is this total, this totality, and that includes things like, what we consume.
Elizabeth: [00:15:50] I know you didn't write this to get everybody to jump on board and change the world in a heartbeat. But it's changing the conversation. I think not only do people need that and need to start having these kinds of conversations, a world like this world that you've laid out if anything close to it happens, and the benefits are more than just get the world back, you get meaning back. You slow down. Humanity comes back, right? There's a lot of beauty and purpose in it.
Drew: [00:16:23] Yeah. That's why we have a fictional end of our book. We have a longer fiction to counter our dystopian fiction at the beginning, our shorter little dystopia. This is modeled after there's huge literature in the 19th century of utopian societies, and they are still continued a little bit, especially in the sci fi tradition. They discuss utopian possibilities out there. But this idea of overcoming these aspects of, David Graeber calls them bullshit jobs, which is a particular problem of our era, where if you are doing relatively well, you are making enough money. You often feel as though your job is bullshit. That alienation, this idea that we're not doing anything meaningful, is a major cause of suffering. Even if it's not a material cost of suffering, it's a psychic cost of suffering. So overcoming that, we also imagine in our fictional section.
Elizabeth: [00:17:17] Talk to me about some of the reactions you've gotten, because I'm sure some people especially like the word socialism. So what are people saying?
Drew: [00:17:24] Yeah. So this was surprising to me. The socialism part has not gotten as much criticism as the veganism part, and I perhaps naively thought that the veganism part, which for the record, is not the most top line point of the book. It's sort of a logical consequence. We don't make an ethical case for veganism, even though both of us, the authors, are vegans for ethical reasons, we do not censor that. It is an argument from land use, from the practical consequences of animal agriculture.
Elizabeth: [00:17:55] For people who aren't aware about land use. Well, you just talk about how much land animal agriculture is using.
Drew: [00:18:00] So roughly, animal agriculture covers about 40% of the Earth's habitable surface, something like that, maybe more like 38%. It produces like 10% of the calories. It produces a tiny bit of GDP, but it is this massive land sink. If we want land for carbon sequestration or removing carbon from the atmosphere either through natural rewilding, so like reproducing healthy ecosystems, or through other technical solutions like we're is called bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, where we grow a bunch of trees, the trees take up carbon as they grow. We cut the trees down, we burn them for energy and we capture the carbon emitted as we burn the trees and bury it underground. This would be an artificial way to reduce carbon dioxide. This is a major part of all of these climate models that you might hear about on the news. Often they call for like three India’s worth of land dedicated for this to suck up enough carbon, which we critique in the book. We don't think this is a very good idea, but it does capture the scale of land that is being considered in real models. You can't do this without confronting this massive land use of animal agriculture. Animal agriculture also consumes a huge amount of water, right? Something like over half of the Colorado River. The cause, the one water source for a lot of the West is consumed by animal agriculture, which is sort of ridiculous if you think about it. Like it's a very solvable problem. To get some of that water back is just don't eat the animals. It seems to be a very irrational target. Right? Like whereas fossil fuels they undergird everything. Like fossil fuels are a part of the foundation of our whole system. Transforming that which is necessary is very hard. Animal agriculture can be gone tomorrow. Like it's not foundational. That's why I find it very puzzling, the amount of pushback, because it seems to be the actual like the low hanging fruit. You write a book about socialism and no problem at all. People are like, ‘yes, sure, get rid of capitalism’. No problem. Get rid of animal agriculture, they get very mad, which I was very surprised by. It's really not a major part of the book and that is the main pushback.
Elizabeth: [00:20:16] Yeah, because you guys don't say anything as in you don't make anyone feel bad. You don't say anything about ethics. You don't say anything about torture and suffering and cruelty.
Drew: [00:20:25] No, it’s very sober. But I think the thought of it really, really gets people. I think it's good to confront it, though. Like, I think it's good to just be actually confronting it. It needs to be part of the conversation and we need to kind of switch the script a little bit, which is like in this environmental crisis, why should we be defending this industry that is so irrationally harmful and offers so few benefits.
Elizabeth: [00:20:52] On top of it is making people sick. There's just no upside, but people just don't want to change. I'm still perplexed that that was the big pushback.
Drew: [00:21:01] Yeah, it's very strange. We're writing to like the general audience, but also a left wing audience. There is, I think, on the left there's a somewhat of a romanticization of what are thought of as traditional food ways, traditional ways of eating, which often involve animals. Although I don't think they involve animals to the extent that people think they do. Like my great grandfather and our family farm in Alabama was a vegetarian and that was just not seen as weird. It's just, you know, you have the chickens in the yard and you would eat the eggs and they just didn't want to kill the chickens because it seemed unpleasant. I think we tend to back project our idea of the past by kind of seeing our present and we imagine that in the past people must have eaten a lot of meat. You know, your Renaissance fair, you walk around with your turkey leg because in the Middle Ages they were eating all this stuff but no they were eating vegetable broth. You know, they're not eating meat all the time. Like they didn't have the capacity.
Elizabeth: [00:22:01] There wasn't that much of it around.
Drew: [00:22:02] Yeah, exactly.
Elizabeth: [00:22:03] So how long have you been vegan?
Drew: [00:22:05] Not super long. I've been vegetarian since I was a sophomore in college. I've been vegan for the past three years or so. I became vegetarian for climate reasons and then it's one of those things that as you adopt the practice, you kind of transform in other ways, too. So I only became sympathetic to the animal suffering arguments or sympathetic enough to change after I had already become vegetarian for environmental reasons, which I think is funny. I don't know why that is. It might have been almost like a self protection thing. Like you hear these points about animal exploitation and suffering and you almost can't confront it or something. It's like you have to already have eliminated it to be able to feel it. I don't know. That was sort of my psychic situation. I wonder if other people have similar experiences.
Elizabeth: [00:22:53] No, because for me, I wasn't vegetarian as a kid, like 13 because I loved animals and it took me decades to just go, ‘wait a minute, I still eat dairy’ and then go vegan. But I lived in that kind of bubble. I love animals, so I don't eat meat. But I guess I don't love them that much because, you know, I just wouldn't let myself be aware, even though I knew right. There is a weird protective. You do have to kind of break through like a shield or something when you're so overly conditioned, I think. I'm sure it's a little different for everyone, but I think it takes messages hitting you from every direction. Hopefully not as many now I'm old, you know, like there's a lot more awareness now and there's a lot more online and on social media.
Drew: [00:23:39] It's also easier to do it now. It's not as much of a sacrifice as it used to be. That's also important.
Elizabeth: [00:23:45] Yeah, not at all. Yeah, it's super easy. What about cellular agriculture, lab grown meat?
Drew: [00:23:50] We do not talk a lot about lab grown in the book. I think my personal view is that anything that makes it easier for people to switch is good. We do argue that in our little dystopian section that we imagine an increase in lab grown or otherwise artificial meat, plant based meat. But that rate of growth, even if it's growing very quickly, is not enough to offset the rate of growth in meat consumption more generally. So it's this problem of like we have these substitutes, but they're not growing fast enough to make a meaningful impact. So you would need some sort of stronger form of attack. But all that's to say is that it's not sufficient but I mean, it certainly helps. Like my family, I've gotten to be much more plant based, much more vegan. That's sort of facilitated by things like, you know, like you're beyond burger, it makes it easier, right? Because then you can have your easy meal that you know how to make already for a weeknight or whatever. It makes it easier.
Elizabeth: [00:24:54] You're vegan and Troy's vegan. Did you guys know that about each other when you met, was that part of the meeting?
Drew: [00:25:00] That was part of the meeting but it wasn't a major part, some of our first conversations we're like, what is the politics of making more people give up meat and more politics of a more vegan world. But a lot of people who work on environmental issues are vegetarian or vegan or in some way try to reduce this stuff. So it's not at all rare to encounter this. I'm usually suspicious of environmentalists who do eat meat. it's a little like you can't put your money where your mouth is at all, you know, but no shame, no shame at some of these people. But I just find it a little weird. It's like you're asking for big sacrifices and you should make one.
Elizabeth: [00:25:48] Right. A big part of this is living with less, especially for people who have a lot. I'm talking about consumption and houses and pools and jets and whatever they have. Right. Is there a pushback on that? Like it feels like there would be.
Drew: [00:26:03] Yeah, there is pushback on it. I'm talking about the left again here, there's a particular tradition of left wing thought, which is basically that capitalism has kind of paved the way for this, where we have all this technology, we have all this capacity for production. All we have to do is kind of change out who's in charge of it, make it run by the workers, make it a democracy. Then we can take this machine that's been built for us and use it for everyone. This kind of underlies these ideas of a total planet, like everyone’s a billionaire and that sort of thing. I think this is a key misunderstanding a little bit on what capitalism is. I think it's a misunderstanding because there's this argument for a clock without a spring, which was a critique of the Soviet Union. The idea of the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union is very much in this tradition. We're going to have this great activist empire. It's going to be better than the West because we'll have more stuff that's at the kitchen table debates, if people remember that. But it didn't quite work because the Soviet Union was trying to reproduce the capitalist system when it had gotten rid of some of the elements of the capitalist system meaning one of the motivations for why people work hard under capitalism is that if you aren't selling your labor for a wage, then you don't have any money and you will be homeless. Or maybe you have a somewhat of a safety net and you won't be entirely homeless, but it's going to suck. Unemployment is not very fun. But if you have a society where you don't really allow that, then you're not going to have this terrible engine that's going. There are many other aspects of this system that make it a clock without a spring. You've tried to reproduce a clock, but you have no springs inside, so you're not able to really work. I think it's a fundamental misunderstanding of what it would take to transcend the current system, to think that we could just run it like it is and have no problems, like having no suffering. This is purely from a perspective of people, not even environmental consequences at this point. It's like we kind of see what we have and the only thing we don't like is the exploitation element. Whereas capitalism transforms everything, there's this idea of a real assumption, meaning that the real factory systems that kind of emerge are produced by capitalism to make sense under capitalism. You can even think of animal agriculture as a sort of factory that transforms soybeans and corn into other products. In the same way that we transform corn into soda or into chips or whatever, we can also transform it into steaks and all these things. The animal is simply a factory for this. And so you can see how it's structured by the system. So simply it's not enough to just take what we have because it's sort of governed by this logic that we want to overcome and if we try to artificially run it by the same logic, we're not going to have a better world. We're just going to have capitalism, but worst. Like it's just not going to be very good capitalism, you know, it's going to be like the B-team running the capitalist shop. So that's why I think there's this need for deeper questioning. So this is not like an overt argument in the book, but I think it's very important for people who want to transcend capitalism to think about what that means. Right? Like think about how much that requires. I think it's an important case to make.
Elizabeth: [00:29:16] I think this whole book is an important case to make. Hopefully people are talking about it and that's changing conversations. Tell me one more thing about the video game before we go. How do you play it and where is it?
Drew: [00:29:28] Yeah. So our book's website is Half.Earth, and the game is at, play.half.earth. You can do it in your browser or on your phone. The game is basically you take over, you're in 2022, you're kind of in control of the world, although you are subject to parliament and you can kind of adopt different policies. So you can work up to banning meat, but you have to kind of convince people, or you can do other policies that we don't agree with. There's a lot of people on the environmental front who talk a lot about population and population control. So you can try that and see what happens. So we critique this idea in the book. You can also go all in on nuclear, which we also critique. You can do all these things, you can change your production methods. The goal is to basically usher us into a new, environmentally stable world without getting overthrown in the process. It's quite a hard game, so you will die your first time unless you're very good. The point is to demonstrate that it's challenging, but there are more than one ways to win. You don't have to play the way we play. We recommend in the book to win. Some people have managed to do well with a nuclear energy sort of scenario. But yeah, I mean, it does help to play the way we do in the book. You know, it's a good strategy, spoiler alert. But there are many ways to win.
Elizabeth: [00:30:49] So the trick is read the book before you play the game.
Drew: [00:30:52] Exactly. The book is full of all your cheat codes.
Elizabeth: [00:30:56] That is awesome. It is so cool that you did that. Drew, thank you so much for putting this book in the world, for making us think a little bit better about the world and for being here.
Drew: [00:31:09] Awesome. Thanks for having me. This was fun.
Elizabeth: [00:31:19] To learn more about Drew and to read Half Earth Socialism, go to our website, SpeciesUnite.com. We will have links to everything. We are on Facebook and Instagram, @SpeciesUnite. If you have a spare moment and could do us a favor, please subscribe, rate and review on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen to podcasts. It really helps people find the show. If you would like to support Species Unite, we would greatly appreciate it. Go to our website, SpeciesUnite.com and click Donate. I'd like to thank everyone at Species Unite, including Gary Knudsen, Caitlin Pierce, Amy Jones, Paul Healey, Santina Polky, Bethany Jones and Anna Connor, who wrote and performed today's music. Thank you for listening. Have a wonderful day.
Become a Species Unite member!
You can listen to our podcast via our website or you can subscribe and listen on Apple, Spotify, or Google Play. If you enjoy listening to the Species Unite podcast, we’d love to hear from you! You can rate and review via Apple Podcast here. If you support our mission to change the narrative toward a world of co-existence, we would love for you to make a donation or become an official Species Unite member!
As always, thank you for tuning in - we truly believe that stories have the power to change the way the world treats animals and it’s a pleasure to have you with us on this.