Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2018

The Current Transcript for March 26, 2018

Host: Anna Maria Tremonti

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Listen to the full episode

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: It's hard to argue against the possibility that all of us are not just the creation of some kid in a parent's basement, programming up a world for their own entertainment.

ANNA MARIA TREMONTI: That is none other than science superstar and astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson musing about the idea that you and I and everyone else on this planet are all merely characters living in a computer simulation. That would mean the things we do, our interactions, the places we go, are all part of an elaborate computer simulation created and controlled by an advanced intelligence or perhaps even our future selves. Now if you find this concept hard to wrap your head around you are not alone. Some of the world's most brilliant minds question whether this is even possible. It is a terrifically challenging and exciting idea for a Monday morning and we're going to take you through it in half an hour. And then if we are in a computer simulation some higher intelligence or maybe that kid in the basement really likes cats.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: Very regal example of the Norwegian forest cat, exquisite profile on this cat, lovely grooming, he thinks he's king. He is. This my top cat for today.

[Sound: Applause]

AMT: In just over an hour we take you into the world of the cat show circuit where pampered felines arrive with attitude while their proud and competitive owners get their claws out. But we're starting with the issue raised here.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: When we see reports showing microfibre in the ocean, in fish, in plankton, we're alarmed by its impact. We encourage customers to wash it just as few times as they possibly can.

AMT: That's an executive of the outdoor equipment company Patagonia talking about their polar fleece clothing, something they proudly introduced in the 80s only to discover the synthetics that made it and so many other clothes such great products have a downside that we can't even fully measure. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti, this is The Current.

How washing your clothes is harming the ocean

Guests: Lisa Erdle, Stiv Wilson

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: In this small remote place with very few people tens of thousands of pounds of garbage wash up on our beaches every year.

VOICE 2: What the heck is a computer monitor doing floating in the ocean in the middle of the pacific?

AMT: You've likely seen images before of the so-called "great ocean garbage patch." A vast swath of plastic garbage, floating as far as the eye can see. It's a powerful image from, somewhere, in the middle of the ocean. But, closer to home, the plastic pollution in our waterways is hardly visible to the naked eye. A lot of what's in our water is in the form of microplastics. Tiny bits of plastic, up to five millimetres long. A study in Vancouver found over a 1,000 of these tiny particles in one cubic metre of seawater. And while a ban on the microbeads commonly found in beauty products takes effect in Canada this summer, there's another source of plastic pollution you might not be aware of: our clothes. Fabrics shed microfibres every time we wash them, and some of these end up in waterways, in the air and in fish. That Vancouver study found that 90 per cent of those bits of plastic in the water were fibres, from clothing and other sources. Lisa Erdle is a PhD student studying microfibres at the University of Toronto's Rochman Lab, which studies the source, fate and effects of plastic pollution in our environment. Lisa Erdle joins me in Toronto. Hello.

LISA ERDLE: Thanks for having me.

AMT: So how do microfibers from our clothes end up in lakes and rivers and oceans?

LISA ERDLE: Well when we're talking about microfibers from clothing, we're talking about laundry lint, and through shedding and through washing our clothes they can end up in the environment. When we wash our clothes there's natural shedding and they go through sewer systems and go through wastewater treatment plants and can end up in our lakes and rivers.

AMT: How do they end up in the air?

LISA ERDLE: They can end up in the air just through normal wear and tear. There are probably microfibres floating around us even in this studio.

AMT: Ok, because there's microfibres on the carpets and everything and what I'm wearing today. Are talking all synthetic fabrics?

LISA ERDLE: Yeah. All synthetic fabrics and actually all fabrics in general will naturally shed. You can sometimes see it in just house dust, different colours, and that probably comes from carpets and clothing.

AMT: So what are you and your lab finding so far about these particles getting into fish and other wildlife?

LISA ERDLE: I'm looking at two species of fish from Lake Huron and Lake Ontario and I'm finding that there are as many as 100 microfibres per fish — in the fish that I'm studying. And there's such widespread exposure. They're found here in the Great Lakes. They're found in the ocean. Even in remote places. Microfibres have been found in the Arctic and in animals in the deep sea. They're all around the world.

AMT: And so do they end up in us? In humans?

LISA ERDLE: Yeah, well we found that there are microfibres in seafood and recent work suggests that they're probably in our drinking water as well. So we're probably consuming microfibres when we eat shellfish or even drink water.

AMT: And how concerned should we be about the health effects of this yet?

LISA ERDLE: I think we know now that it's in the food we eat, it's in the water we drink, and there's enough to cause concern and we should be looking at what some of the effects are in humans. We don't really know what the effects are in us. But we know that we are ingesting it. And I think it's something we should look at more.

AMT: What effects have we seen from other types of microplastics?

LISA ERDLE: From other types of microplastics, we know that there are effects at the genetic level. There are negative impacts on cells and microplastics can affect things like development of plankton and fish, growth, feeding behaviour, even mating. So we know that there are impacts of these microplastics. But microfibres might be different. Microfibres have different chemicals associated with them. They have a different shape, so there maybe the same or potentially different impacts of these microfibres.

AMT: I've read a lot about microbeads. Do we even know that microfibres existed say a decade ago?

LISA ERDLE: It's relatively recently that we've discovered that microfibres are as common as they are. Right now as techniques have gotten better for sampling we're discovering that around the world microfibres are often the most common type of microplastic. But it's only really since 2011 that we had the techniques to really measure them even. And since they're so new we're only starting to look at what the effects are and test with those effects.

AMT: Why did you start studying this?

LISA ERDLE: I started studying microfibres because I was working on a boat and worked with students and we would pull up nets of plankton and mixed in with that plankton there were these small pieces of microplastics and most commonly microfibres. So I became very curious about what the impacts are if things are eating them and what kind of chemicals can transfer to them?

AMT: And how much do we still need to know about this stuff then?

LISA ERDLE: We still have a lot to know. We don't for example know if our synthetic clothes are worse than natural fibres. If a zooplankton eats a piece of polyester, is it worse than eating a piece of cotton? There are different dyes and chemicals associated with both and we don't really know what the effects are if they're different and what the long term impacts are. They're all around us at high concentrations being ingested by wildlife and in the long-term we don't know what the effects will be or if we can even remove them from the environment. We don't have any good solutions to remove these microfibres and other microplastics in the environment.

AMT: And so because we treat other natural fibres and dye them, we could actually be making them just as bad, we don't know this yet?

LISA ERDLE: Yeah, we don't know. They could have different impacts. They could be the same. It's a question mark that we still don't understand.

AMT: So what would you like people to think about when it comes to microfibres?

LISA ERDLE: I think it's important to know that there are existing solutions to reduce microfibre pollution. There are things you can put in a washing machine to catch fibres when you wash your clothes and regulators are trying to think of new ways to reduce microfibre pollution. And in Japan there's a washing machine filter built-in when you buy your washing machine. I learned recently that you can buy a washing machine in North America that has a filter built-in and captures that lint in the washing machine.

AMT: And there is actually somebody selling washing machine filters who created them here in Canada — Nova Scotia — and we're going to hear about them shortly. Lisa Erdel, thank you for coming in.

LISA ERDLE: Thanks so much.

AMT: Lisa Erdle is a PhD student studying microfibres at the University of Toronto's Rochman Lab, which studies the source, fate and effects of plastic pollution in our environment. She was with me in our Toronto studio.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: So I'm here at the laundromat on Oak and I'm just sorting my laundry. I think this one is some mixed cotton with something else. I don't know about this one.

AMT: As that person sorts his clothes in Vancouver it is worth noting that California has proposed a law to deal with microfibres by encouraging people not to put certain clothes in the washer. If passed, the law would require all clothing that's more than 50 per cent polyester to have a label saying that it sheds, and that it's better to handwash them. Here's how that idea was received at a Vancouver landromat.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: I mean I think it's a great idea. But to be honest, I don't know how much handwashing I'd do myself. I think it might give me a better sense of what clothing to buy rather than how to wash it. Having those tags would basically push me to try to buy clothes that I could wash in a washing machine without any trouble rather than actually doing the handwashing. Because the truth is, it's hard to get a whole bunch of people to do something that is inconvenient.

AMT: Another potential solution is coming from Canada. Blair Jolliemore in Nova Scotia created a product called Lint Luv-R, which catches microfibres before they leave the washing machine and end up in wastewater. And he thought up the idea after a harrowing ordeal at home.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: We had been in our new home for a year and we had our septic system back up, the problem was lint from our washing machine has plugged off the outlet pipe to the septic field. In turn the septic waste water came back into the basement. I went out to the hardware stores to try and find something suitable to prevent that from happening, essentially a filter, and what I found I was not happy with. I found them cumbersome and they would block after a couple loads of laundry and create more headaches. So I said I am going to come up with my own idea. So when we went down to the basement level of the house, so what had happened is none of this waste water from the house was going out into the tank — well it was going into the tank but not out into the field. So I had to get the septic company to come in and pump out the tank. It was like a grey carpet laying out on top of the tank and I was very surprised. I wasn't aware of the lint problem until I had a problem and then I did something about it. Ironically enough washing machine manufacturers used to have filters on the washing machines back in the 70s and people never cleaned them or forgot to clean them and it was affecting the performance of the machine and from public pressure the washing machine companies just did away with the filters.

AMT: Our next guest has looked broadly at potential solutions to problems with microplastics and was part of the push to ban microbeads in the U.S. Stiv Wilson is the campaigns director for The Story of Stuff Project, an NGO that works to change how we make, use and dispose of stuff. He is also campaigning for the California bill to be passed into law. And he joins us from Berkeley, California. Hello.

STIV WILSON: Hello.

AMT: Let me ask you first of all, if this stuff comes out in the wash, how does handwashing change anything?

STIV WILSON: Well it's hoping that leads to more agitation, the more friction that you create, intuitively is going to create more shedding. Though handwashing isn't the best solution, we understand at least from the literature we have now that this is a better solution.

AMT: So what can we do as individuals to stop the spread of microfibres in the environment do you think?

STIV WILSON: Well I mean that's a hard question for me to answer because ultimately I think when you look at a problem that is so vast as an individual and you can't come up with a solution immediately that's a metal detector for demonstrating that the system in which you're living in is flawed. And so I would say quit asking so much: "What can I do?" And start asking: "What we can do?"

AMT: Do you think there are steps that clothing manufacturers can take?

STIV WILSON: Well I think ultimately that the burden for this problem lies with the people who are creating it and that are the consumer brands. You know looking at washing machines as sort of the way that we're going to mitigate this problem to me is really unrealistic from a policy standpoint. And in the United States, for example, you have 103 million washing machines and so I don't know how you would ever police or create a regulation that could be enforced to get people to filter their washing machine effluent.

AMT: What makes the microfibres more difficult to address than microbeads?

STIV WILSON: Well I think microbeads were a bad ingredient and a product that ultimately was a vanity product. And you know the companies were aware that this problem was happening and when we first approached them they kind of spoke like they had their hand caught in the cookie jar. And you know from a product standpoint it was still a billion dollar industry. But it was something that could be removed and replaced with a natural ingredient.

AMT: Well let's look at clothing products. I have two clips I'd like to play you from the clothing industry. Let's listen first to Bob Kirke, the Executive Director of the Canadian Apparel Federation and the Canadian Textile Industry Association.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: There are many companies coming to grips with the life cycle of the clothing that they sell. If you look at the total lifespan of textiles it’s really where they are being made in the most unregulated conditions and that’s where the biggest impact is. I think that's where we need the global industry needs to focus on that and who knows at this stage I do not know if there is clarity about whether the processes are there to minimize this pollution or to eliminate it so it's a little bit new for everyone.

AMT: Ok. Stiv Wilson, what do you think of what Bob Kirke is saying there that it's sort of a new wrinkle so to speak which the garment industry doesn't quite know how to address?

STIV WILSON: Well I think that's accurate. I think the garment industry has known about this since 2011 and they really haven't made any steps in a direction that is going to mitigate the problem. They've assembled some working groups and some discussions. But ultimately you know we're going at seven years of inaction. And I appreciate the comments. What I think we need to be careful about is it's not a zero sum game. There's lot of environmental threats and vectors from how we produce the goods we make. But I don't want to get into a conversation about comparing you know a gunshot wound to cancer and which is better and which is one we should focus on. The answer is we need to focus on all of them. And both of them.

AMT: I have another clip for you to listen to. Some of the first studies on microfibres looked at how polar fleece sheds — along the uniform of hikers and other outdoorsy types, and a staple at Mountain Equipment Co-op. This is Jeff Crook, MEC's Chief Production Officer. They have been working with Canadian researchers to look at the impact microfibres from their clothing have had. Let's listen to him.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: We want to remove the harm from the supply chain so what types of fibres are being shed from textiles and how they are getting into the waterways and that helps us go back into the supply chain and work with textile production facilities and try to engineer the fabrics differently so that we can lock fibres down better so that there is less release.

AMT: What kind of new fabrics do you want the industry to look at?

STIV WILSON: Well I think we can look at a lot of different fabrics. There are natural fabrics like hemp or cotton. You know I really appreciate Erdle's comment before. I mean we don't know which fabrics are going to be ultimately better because they are treated with so many different toxics to give them the sort of performance attributes, whether that's waterproofing or any of these other things. But you know intuitively we know that nature understands what nature produces and fossil fuel derived persistent microplastics shedding from synthetic clothing is very different than say cotton or hemp or something else or wool. Nature understands how to deal with what nature produces for the most part. I'm not saying that scientifically. But intuitively we understand that.

AMT: So what are the statistics? Sixty per cent of clothes are made with synthetics.

STIV WILSON: Yes, 60 per cent right now are different blends of synthetic fibres. But 98 per cent of all textiles — this is talking drapes, upholstery, carpet are synthetic. So you know we've moved really far into the direction of sourcing our textiles.

AMT: So should we also be talking about what kinds of clothes we wear, what kinds of things we actually buy?

STIV WILSON: Ultimately I think we need to change the system to have any sort of transformative solution. I think the individual actions are a great place to start but they're a terrible place to stop. We set up government exactly for this and we have brands that are accountable to their customers and pushing back on those brands. And you know I appreciate what MEC is doing. I think we need to get to a solution faster. You know ultimately they know that this is shedding and they know it's a problem. So you know how much research do we actually need when we already know the answer that clothing is shedding?

AMT: Stiv Wilson, I've got a statement from the Ministry of Environment Climate Change in Canada, a spokesperson responded to us saying, in part: "The health of our oceans is a priority and that's why the Government is focused on protecting them through our Oceans Protection Plan, by expanding marine conservation areas and joining other countries in banning plastic microbeads. We know more work needs to be done and that is why oceans will be a central focus of Canada's 2018 G7 Presidency."

AMT: What would you like to see Canada do to encourage more international action?

STIV WILSON: I'm really are excited that Canada is taking such leadership for our oceans. I think you know speaking truth to power and speaking authoritatively on some of these issues is going to be really important. You know I think with the G7 we get a lot of watered down resolutions at times and sort of watered down discussions. Canada isn't as kept by corporations as a lot of other developed countries. So I would like to see Canada use this pulpit to frame the issue differently and call for a systemic solution not just individuals.

AMT: Ok so we know what we should be asking them when it all happens. Thank you so much for your time today, Stiv Wilson.

STIV WILSON: Yes thank you so much. It's was a pleasure.

AMT: Stiv Wilson is the campaigns director for The Story of Stuff Project, an NGO that works to change how we make, use and dispose of stuff. He was in Berkeley, California. Stay with us. The news is next and then we are talking about simulation theory. How's your world today? Are you just part of a giant computer simulation? Wrap your head around that one in our next half hour. This is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Are we living in a computer simulation? If it hasn't happened already, it probably will, scientist argues

Guest: Rich Terrile, Sylvester James Gates Jr.

[Music: Theme]

AMT: Still to come, there are cat people and then, there are cat people. A new CBC TV documentary takes viewers inside the claws-out world of competitive cat shows. In our next half hour, I'll be joined by the filmmakers behind Catwalk: Tales from the Cat Show Circuit as well as one of the cat fanciers featured in the doc. But first, life is but a dream.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: Have you ever had a dream Neo that you were so sure was real? What if you were unable to wake from that dream? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world?

AMT: That of course is a scene from a classic sci-fi movie, about a dystopian future where we all live in "The Matrix." Reality as we know it is really a computer simulation created by our machine overlords. And only Keanu Reeves can save us. Well, mind-boggling as it may seem, a lot of very smart, people today. People like Elon Musk, of Tesla and SpaceX think there's a good chance that we are living in something like the Matrix. The simulation hypothesis is a theory first created by philosopher Nick Bostrom, in 2003. He suggested our reality is just an elaborate computer simulation, run by an advanced civilization. Here's Elon Musk, at a conference last June.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: The strongest argument for us being in a simulation — probably being in a simulation — I think is the following. Forty years ago we had Pong — two rectangles and a dot. Now 40 years later, we have photorealistic, 3D simulations with millions of people playing simultaneously and it's getting better every year. If you assume any rate of improvement at all, then the games will become indistinguishable from reality. So given that we're clearly on a trajectory to have games that are indistinguishable from reality and those games could be played on any set top box or PC or whatever and there would probably be billions of such computers it would seem to follow that the odds that we're in base reality is one in billions.

AMT: And Elon Musk isn't alone. Astrophysicist Neil deGrassse Tyson is also a believer. And as for our Keanu Reeves? According to reports, two tech billionaires are currently funding scientific research on breaking us out of the simulation Matrix. Rich Terrile has spent a lot of time thinking about this theory. He's an Astronomer and Director of the Center for Evolutionary Computation and Automated Design at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Rich Terrile is in Pasadena, California. Hello.

RICH TERRILE: Hi.

AMT: Help me get my head around this. What is simulation hypothesis?

RICH TERRILE: Well it is this idea that the reality that we're experiencing is a simulation. Now why would we even conceive of something like that? It is something that even the Greeks have thought about, dreams within dreams, Aristotle and such. It's an idea that's been around a long time: What is the nature of reality? The reason we are focusing on this idea of a simulation is it really goes back to a very very peculiar property of the universe that we live in and that is that it is computable, that it conforms to mathematics. Science is really the discovery of this underlying mathematical nature that predicts the way the natural world behaves and that really allows all of us scientists to do our job. We are discovering this mathematical framework. But because the universe conforms to this the very very peculiar property it has is that you can simulate the universe with a series of equations you can carry around in your pocket. And what's more you could simulate the universe on a computer much smaller than the universe. We already have that kind of ability, that technical ability, to do that. We believe that everything that we see in science, including very very complex things like evolution, like biology, like even self-awareness and consciousness, conform to science, conform to mathematics. And consciousness itself may be an emergent property of complexity just like temperature is an emergent property of having lots of particles in a confined area. So if we look toward the future we now have the ability to create simulations of the universe. We see them in our video games. We see them in many many different aspects of our lives. And the idea is just extrapolating a little bit into the future. We would probably be able to simulate sensory real environments that are indistinguishable from the reality that we see. And if we're able to do that then it's reasonable to think that in the very near future we will have the ability to digitally live within these simulations and in fact if you look at the progression of computers — computer speed over the last few years — it basically doubles about every 13 months. But if you look at that doubling when we first started the space program in 1961, Kennedy made this announcement we're going to go to the moon, the biggest computers we had are things you can fit in your pocket. And I'm not talking about cell phones, I'm talking about key fobs. We've had a 100 billion increase in computer capabilities since then which really has given us this enormous ability to create better and better simulations and we're already at the state where our biggest supercomputers can compute faster than the human brain can.

AMT: Ok, so you're making the point that everything is a mathematical equation and we can do this. But is it being done? How likely do you think that we are actually living in a computer simulation now as opposed to being able to create one later?

RICH TERRILE: Well that's the great question. The great question is certainly possible to create simulations. The question is it probable? And if you believe that in the near future we'll be able to create these sensory real simulations and if you believe that the computing capability that we have allows us to create many many more simulated environments than there are real people in the world then you can ask the question: What's the probability that we are within a few decades of being able to do this and not over that time? In other words might we not be a few years, a few decades, in the future reality and actually living in one of these created simulations.

AMT: Ok, so how likely do you think it is that we are living in one right now?

RICH TERRILE: Well you know Nick Bostrom makes the calculation that you know anywhere in the universe, if life evolves and evolves this technical stay where they can create simulations, then you will see many many more simulations in the universe than there are real environments. So the statistical argument it's very very unlikely that we are — I like to refer to it as the alpha generation — the linear progression of subatomic particles to atoms to molecules to biology to evolution to intelligence to self-awareness. You know if we are the single point generation from the big bang to that then what is the probability that we are that or we are a subsequent simulation? And his argument is that it's very very unlikely that we are the alpha generation. This is really asking if there is a foundational assumption that we are making that is incorrect and 500 years ago we predicted the path of planets in the sky and we were very very good at doing that and we had things called the ecotariums which were these machines, these little metallic calculators basically, that would have wheels within wheels and it would calculate the position of planets in a very very complex way. But it got the right answer. It was complicated because we had this foundational assumption that everybody believed and it was so foundational, so basic, that nobody even understood it was an assumption and that assumption was that the earth is the center of the universe. Of course everyone believed this. Everyone knew this. It was only when Copernicus came around again about 500 years ago and said 'well you know if you if you transfer the coordinate system to the sun then the mathematics gets a lot simpler and we can really understand the path of the planets in a much much simpler way more elegant way'. And it turned out to be that's the right answer. But it was so fundamental that people didn't even realize it was an assumption. Likewise I think today there may be some assumptions that we make that are so foundational that perhaps we don't realize that are assumptions and again one of those assumptions is that this elaborate origin story that we have created about how the universe came into existence happened to us.

AMT: So just let me understand... the universe is a simulation, it behaves mathematically, and it's also broken up to pieces, the subatomic particles, sort of like a pixilated video game.

RICH TERRILE: Exactly. If you look at the quantum mechanical level, the level are very very tiny, then the universe is pixelated. It has a finite number of components. There is a fundamental limit on how small you can break up matter, volume, energy, even time. So there are a fundamental number of states that the universe can be in. And again this makes it computable.

AMT: Ok so let's just take this further. It's complicated. But I want to imagine then what the world is like if we are living in a simulation. So if we close our eyes and we picture this, let's start with the fact that you and I are talking, I am hosting a radio program, you are NASA astronomer, take us outside our simulated world. What's outside of it?

RICH TERRILE: Well let's make the analogy of a video game. Ok. Let's suppose we're playing a video game. I'm looking at you know Grand Theft Auto V where I've got an entire city; I've got an entire created landscape. That landscape in that city is millions of times larger than my computer. But the computer allows me to look and see that city and see the bricks and every little element of it wherever I look. So as I look around in this video game I really feel that the entire city, the entire universe within this video game, exists. If we look at our real world there are some peculiar properties about the way the real world works and thatit is quantized. It is broken up into little pixels so to speak. And it only really exists in a definitive state when we're observing it. And this is one of the really peculiar properties of quantum mechanics. It is something that we physicists struggle with. The fact that it looks like this something called the measurement problem where it looks like consciousness is almost a required aspect of making something definitive in a measurement where a particle will be in a super position of acting like a either a particle or a wave or something else until it's observed and then it becomes definitively a particle at a certain position.

AMT: So if I look at it, it exists. When I turn my attention to it exists in front of me.

RICH TERRILE: Only when you turn your attention to it.

AMT: Right.

RICH TERRILE: You can demonstrate that when you're not looking at it really doesn't have a definitive state.

AMT: Ok so again you and I are talking and we are who we are and we're in that that Grand Theft Auto or Grand Theft something. But we're inside, right? But what's going on outside? Take me outside. What am I seeing?

RICH TERRILE: Well we don't know what's happening outside. Let's move ourselves 20 or 30 years into the future. You now have an Xbox or PlayStation or whatever. You put on the virtual reality goggles and then you can basically step into a photo real environment which is different than the one you're experiencing every day. In that photo real environment you might have digital characters. Today our digital characters are very simple. They have simple behaviours. Those digital characters in the future could have consciousness.

AMT: Ok. I'm following you. But if I'm part of a computer simulation that means that somebody else is doing the simulation. So who's out there watching Anna Maria and Rich have a conversation?

RICH TERRILE: It could be Anna Maria of the future. It could be our future selves. We are going to certainly evolve and continue to evolve. We're connected with our machines in the future. I don't know what society and environment is going to be like in the future but when we are able to develop simulations and choose to live in them and choose to act in them then we will have extraordinary powers really; powers over mind and matter. We can move things. You know in a simulation you're not bound by the laws of physics that we have now that bind our existence. Once you have that ability then it might be interesting to create these kinds of simulations. But we do that now.

AMT: Ok. And if I am in a simulation right now as I speak to you, do I have a past? Do I have a childhood or do I just think I do?

RICH TERRILE: That's a good question. I don't know.

AMT: Ok.

RICH TERRILE: It's possible you have a past — the past that you believe — that may have been your path through the simulation.

AMT: So like I'm an avatar essentially but that means I might just be right now, but not later.

RICH TERRILE: That's correct. That's correct. We don't even know for sure that time doesn't stop and start just like it does in a video game.

AMT: This is tremendously freeing you realize that [laughs].

RICH TERRILE: It's a possibility. The fact is that there's nothing in the natural world that we see that does not conform to something like this. It's certainly consistent with some of the peculiar aspects that we have in our theories.

AMT: So again if we're in a simulation, does it mean our world is very similar to the universe we're simulating necessarily?

RICH TERRILE: One would like to believe that just because one would like to have this handle on what the universe is like and maybe it's likely that whoever is simulating — us for instance — would start off with something which is very very similar to the world that they live in. So I mean that's one idea but not necessarily the necessity.

AMT: Do we know we're in a simulation? We don't really, we’re just experiencing it?

RICH TERRILE: No we don't.

AMT: It's whoever is controlling the simulation and watching us who knows what we're experiencing.

RICH TERRILE: Either controlling it or just having it set up and allowing it to continue. Not necessarily someone driving — with a joystick driving — what Anna Maria does.

AMT: Ok they're just watching maybe or just letting it happen.

RICH TERRILE: They've created an environment, a world to play in, and you're allowed to play in it.

AMT: Now I feel like a little mouse [laughs]. Why was the simulation created?

RICH TERRILE: Well why are we creating them now? Because it's incredibly economical to do that. In the near future I can create a shopping mall that I can walk around in without having to buy real estate, without having to construct things; it's very very economical to do that. I can have a vacation home on the beach without having to worry about the property values and such. I can live anywhere, choose anywhere I want. I could fly. I could go back in time. I could talk to people who I would normally never be able to talk to. All of these things are possible in a simulated world. So I think there's a driving motivation to do that, to do that at a higher and higher fidelity level.

AMT: Ok. Who would create a simulation where we have to worry about Toronto mortgage prices? [laughs].

RICH TERRILE: Well... interesting.

AMT: A very evil higher intelligence [laughs].

RICH TERRILE: This is something that religion struggles with. Why would God create all this horrible suffering? And you know why would we create these simulations that also have suffering in it? Why wouldn't everything be idyllic?

AMT: Well in fact we create simulations of war and killing. And we actually make the point that the simulations we create don't feel things.

RICH TERRILE: That's right. That's because our simulations so far don't have that fidelity. We can't fully experience things in simulations. But it's likely unless you believe that there's some aspect of our perception of reality and our perception of self-awareness that is outside of science that cannot be engineered. Then you know we will get there.

AMT: Ok so you've taken me through what the universe would be like if in fact you and I are living in a simulation. Let me ask you a few more questions. How much computer memory would be required to simulate an entire universe?

RICH TERRILE: Well we experience the universe with the human brain. A human brain calculates at something on the order of a million, billion operations per second. And this is about 100 times slower than our fastest supercomputers. So the hardware already exists. And as I said computers speed increases every year and we expect things like PlayStation's to exceed that computational capability in a decade or two. That doesn't mean that they're conscious. The real question is what does it take to create consciousness? And again if unless you believe that there's some supernatural aspect of consciousness, something outside of science, then it is an engineering problem. And there are two paths that we are taking to try to understand that. One of them is to understand the way the human brain is wired and works. We are looking at brain scans at higher and higher resolution to try to understand that wiring and eventually replicate it. There's another aspect, one that my lab works in, and that is in evolution. Can we evolve the complexity of the mind? Can we create neural networks that can basically wire themselves to become conscious? And this again gains from this tremendous speed up in computer capability that we get every year. So it scales and that kind of capability is with us and probably will get us to this discovering the architecture of consciousness within the next couple of decades?

AMT: We're certainly watching all of those advances with AI. So could a computer ever be able to replicate the subtleties of all human sensations?

RICH TERRILE: I see no reason why a computer couldn't have the same kind of sensitivities and awareness of the universe that we have.

AMT: Could it simulate the feeling of falling in love?

RICH TERRILE: Again unless you believe there's something magical about that and it is not an emergent property of the way our brains evolve, you know our brains evolved from being very survivalistic. You know we had these emotions and aspects of ourselves that were built in to create survival, the feeling of longing, the feeling of missing, all of the things maybe emergent properties from these very very complex behaviours.

AMT: Ok. I do. But maybe that's because I'm in the simulation [laughs]. I'm going to keep going. I'm with you here. I'm trying to work with you here. If we're going to be able to create simulated worlds and beings, could we become Gods of a simulated world?

RICH TERRILE: I think it's exactly that. You know religion has for a long time created this concept of a God. God is the supreme being that creates the universe and keeps things in existence. This is what I learned as a young Catholic from the Baltimore Catechism and you can get into atheism which believes that there is no God. I look at it from the point of view as is God possible in our world? Is there a situation where you can actually have God in our world without invoking miracles, without invoking a time travel or breaking the speed of light or anything like that? Is it an engineering possibility? And it is in the realm of a simulation. If I am simulating an environment which this universe allows me to do at any level of fidelity then I basically have those attributes that religion has put on God. I can create a universe. I can keep it in existence. I can set the laws of physics and everything else about it. So as a simulator there basically is this kind of Godlike power

AMT: A lot of people have pushed back against this idea, including theoretical physicists such as Lisa Randall at Harvard University. She has said there is no real evidence and no real argument for this. How do you respond to her?

RICH TERRILE: Well you know there is no real concrete evidence. There is this idea that it fits into the mathematical realm of science. You know 500 years ago people were making the same arguments about the nonsense that the Earth isn't the centre of the universe. You know we were stuck with this kind of fundamental assumption. You know I think as a scientist we always need to be questioning our assumptions. We always need to be looking at particularly the most foundational ones.

AMT: Ok. Rich Terrile, I want to stop it there. I have someone else I'd like to bring into the conversation now. Sylvester James Gates Jr. is a theoretical physicist and Ford Foundation Professor of Physics at Brown University. He was a member of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology during the Obama administration. Sylvester James Gates is at the University of Maryland in Maryland. Hello.

SYLVESTER JAMES GATES JR.: Hello Anna Maria. How are you today?

AMT: I'm well but I've gone down a rabbit hole I think. So I'm going to get some help from you on this, James Gates. What do you think of what Rich Terrile has been saying about the so-called simulation hypothesis?

SYLVESTER JAMES GATES JR.: Well he has I think done a great job in elucidating this idea for both you and your audience. I'm in a very peculiar position in this whole matter. Many people think that I am a supporter of this idea because of some strange attributes of my own direct research. But in fact I am not convinced about this so-called simulation hypothesis. One of the things about the simulation hypothesis which Rich actually touched on is the fact that it takes us outside of the realm of the natural universe. If you believe in the simulation hypothesis you then have to hypothesize simulators and then if you believe that then why couldn't someone simulate the simulators? And then if you believe that someone simulates the simulators then you can see that we can take this back to an infinite regression. In fact it begins to remind one of some of the mythological beliefs that one finds in Earth's history. There were cultures that believe that the Earth was supported by a giant turtle and then the question was: Well what does the turtle stand on? And the answer was the turtle stands on another set of turtles. And there's the statement about its turtles all the way down. So this same problem [unintelligible] this whole idea of the simulation hypothesis. Another reason that Rich touched on is when you take this as a working hypothesis then in fact you also must necessarily take into account the possibilities of entities that look like deities. They look like the Gods in classical mythology whether it be Greek or Roman or any other cultures mythologies that you have entities that have the ability to violate what we call the natural laws. That is the laws we observe and how nature works. And I think one of the things that science has moved us forward in one way is to move away from this idea that we are puppets in this stage where there are these entities controlling things. It starts to look like a religion. In fact the logical structure of the simulation hypothesis looks exactly like a classical religion where you substitute the word simulators or programmers for the words deities and guides that has exactly the same logical structure. Let me just however get to something that's frightening about it. If one takes this position that the simulation hypothesis is an accurate picture of the universe then ghosts and reincarnation are literal possibilities and the reason is very simple. If we are something equivalent to programs and if we run on a substructure that is like a computer then our death would be simply the ending of the operation of a program. On the other hand if that substructure is undamaged in time then you could reinitialize the program which in the context of us would mean that you could read initialize the presence in the simulation of persons who formerly have died which means ghosts and reincarnation must be part of this possibility.

AMT: Well of course you know there are many people who believe in ghosts and reincarnation.

SYLVESTER JAMES GATES JR.: Of course I'm very much aware of that but the problem for me and I think most of us who are scientists is that we can't nail down evidence of these beliefs and what science is really about which is perhaps often lost in discussion is that science is about things we can measure and if we can't measure it can't be science, which brings us then to another real downfall in my mind to the simulation hypothesis. I was on a panel a few years ago with Neil deGrasse Tyson who I think you mentioned earlier. Another person on that panel was Max Tegmark who has written a number of books, one of them about the mathematical nature of the universe, which I think all of us who work in science are acutely aware. But Max pointed out and he supports the simulation hypothesis that evidence or the lack of evidence in a simulation of the presence of the simulation could be part of the simulation which means that this hypothesis actually runs afoul of something very basic in the notion of science. When a proposition is made that something is science those who are forwarding the proposition must allow for a definitive way for the proposition to be disproven. In this regard I see no way out of that particular box for the simulation hypothesis.

AMT: In other words if you can't disprove you can't prove?

SYLVESTER JAMES GATES JR.: That's correct.

AMT: So Rich Terrile I'm going to bring you back in. Briefly how do you respond to that?

RICH TERRILE: OK. I have no argument with his arguments. I think we just kind of fundamentally disagree on a few things. In terms of the turtles at some point and I agree this infinite regression has to have someplace to plug in. It has to have some kind of real world environment that begins this process. The process doesn't necessarily have to begin with the universe that we see and perceive. This 13.8 billion-year-old enormous universe could have begun somewhere else. So I see no problem with that. It doesn't necessarily mean that because it's possible this universe has to be this infinite regression.

AMT: And let me just say he's saying that you can't disprove it then you can't prove it. And so that's where it falls apart.

RICH TERRILE: Well you know I mean it's funny that someone working on string theory would say that, which is something that that is also very very difficult to make predictions from. But we'll agree to disagree on that one. If entities and God's — there are things in mathematics constructs called “boundary conditions” and the boundary conditions that we have discovered in our universe is that it conforms to mathematics, that there are no Gods, and there are no deities ghosts and entities like that that that do not conform to the kinds of mathematical and physical law structures that we have. You know among the other boundary conditions that we have are you know there is something called “the great silence.” We're searching for evidence of communication of other intelligent beings elsewhere in the universe. Fact is we haven't found any yet and we probably are getting to the point now where we should have found evidence of communication. This too is a very very interesting attribute of our universe, the fact that we really seem to be alone at least at this point in our ability to discover. This too may be an attribute of the boundary conditions in simulation.

AMT: Ok and you make the point that you're just going to have to agree to disagree. But let me ask you Rich Terrile, how has thinking about this theory affected the way you live your life? Do you change anything?

RICH TERRILE: Same way as always, only with the knowledge that there may be something else beyond the realm of existence that we have which is maybe more encompassing. I think there's a certain bit of optimism that we have because of this idea that if we are in a simulation then at some point we as a society have gained that ability. We've gotten out of the primordial soup and evolved into a technical civilization which is capable of creating these simulations.

AMT: Ok so I think you're surrendering to the simulation in your daily life? Is that true? [Laughs]

RICH TERRILE: I don't think it affects life in any way. I mean just keep going and have a certain optimism that at some point in our future we have made it.

AMT: James Gates would you agree with that?

SYLVESTER JAMES GATES JR.: If the question is about does my science inform the way I live, I would say the following. I am an enormous admirer of Albert Einstein and one of the things that Albert Einstein said near the end of his career was that he had a sense that at the end of all his study of science that there's something extraordinarily mysterious about our universe and that one must have a sense of this mystery of our existence. And I think there's something extraordinarily mysterious about this place that we call reality. Having to make the mental space for that I think is an extraordinary thing — important thing for humans to do. And as a scientist the other thing that I would say is at the end of this session I had a few years ago with Max Tegmark and Neil deGrasse Tyson and quite a few other people we were asked what we think was the probability that we were living in a simulation? And I gave the answer one percent or less. You'll notice I didn't say absolutely that I know that I don't live in a simulation because in fact that's a non-scientific answer. Science in fact doesn't lead to certainties. What it leads to is saying is the best possible understanding based on measurement. And so my criticism of the simulation hypothesis is that it entirely contains no way for me to figure out how to use a measurement to either prove it or disprove it. And by the way that's different from string theory. It doesn't in principle contain in it a principle that says that you cannot falsify it.

AMT: Gentlemen we are out of time. We have to leave it there. Thank you for this discussion.

SYLVESTER JAMES GATES JR.: Thank you for the invitation Anna Maria.

RICH TERRILE: Yes. Thanks for the opportunity.

AMT: Rich Terrile is an Astronomer and Director of an evolution laboratory for NASA. He is in Pasadena, California. Sylvester James Gates is a theoretical physicist and Ford Foundation Professor of Physics at Brown University. He was in Maryland. What are your thoughts about these big ideas? Send us an email by going to our website, cbc.ca/thecurrent and click on the contact link. We're on Facebook, and Twitter @TheCurrentCBC. This is The Current.

Watch the fur fly in the surprisingly competitive world of cat shows

Guests: Kim Langille, Michael McNamara, Aaron Hancox

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: This is a household cat. She's a rescue kitty. Her name is Baily. She belonged to a friend who died. You can see how calm — she won't stop purring. Yeah [laughs].

VOICE 2: This is Colin. He's a Norwegian Forest cat and he's now back out in the show circuit. He loves it.

VOICE 3: When you look at him, you first of all you notice his size but then it's his coat. You just look and go, ‘wow that's a...’

VOICED 2: That's a cat.

VOICE 3: Yeah.

AMT: Some of the cat lovers featured in the new documentary Catwalk: Tales from the Cat Show Circuit. It follows some of the top competitors in Canada as they chase top honours for their feline friends. Joining me in Toronto are the filmmakers, Aaron Hancox and Michael McNamara. And from Moncton, we're joined by Kim Langille. She organizes the annual Fundy Cat Fanciers Show there. And she is the proud owner of a champion Turkish Angora, Bobby. Hello to you all.

AARON HANCOX: Hello thanks for having us.

KIM LANGILLE: Hello.

AMT: OK. Now we’re calling him Bobby, but he's really Boston Rob of Finland. Tell me about him.

KIM LANGILLE: Bobby is a fun and feisty Turkish Angora. He has a little bit of colour on him and he's just a ball of fun. There's really no way to describe him other than just to say he's a fun, fabulous cat.

AMT: And tell us more about what he looks like for those who horror of horrors do not know what a Turkish Angora looks like.

KIM LANGILLE: So a Turkish Angora is the national cat of the country of Turkey. They are a natural breed. If you go to Turkey you can see them roaming the streets. They're basically a medium length coat cat. Their body has medium length hair. Their tail, their wrath, at their chin area and in the pantaloons you can guess of that that's around the buttocks that is long hair. They're very silky. They only have one kind of fur where most cats have two or three kinds of fur. And so they don't mat. You don't get a lot of knots. you can just comb them out once a week and you're done.

AMT: And Bobby is white. Are they all white?

KIM LANGILLE: No. They started out as white and if you go to Turkey you're going to see tons of white. But white and blue eyed brings deafness. So a lot of breeders have started breeding in colour into their cats to get rid of the deafness and improve the breed.

AMT: And so Bobby is very beautiful white cat with a really spectacular tail, I have to say. I really didn't know much about the pantaloon thing. But ok if you say that's what they're called, we'll go with that. When did you think Bobby could really be a champion?

KIM LANGILLE: The first show I took him to when he was maybe a five month old kitten, he was best kitten in show on the first day. And that's the first time that's ever happened for me and I just sort of went, "What?" And the next show he was best kitten both days. I was going to Mexico so he was sent off to Toronto for a three-day show on an Easter weekend and he was in the best of the best every day and then he became an adult. And so it was basically there I said ‘well we're going to see where this goes then’.

AMT: Now Aaron tell me how you stumbled into Kim's world, this world of competitive cat shows?

AARON HANCOX: Well geez it seems like ages ago now but it was two summers ago and I was at the CNE — Canadian National Exhibition — getting dragged there by my girlfriend because I do not like amusement park rides. And I saw what seemed like a handwritten sign that said “Cat Show this way.” And I got very excited and I ended up dragging my girlfriend in. I'm not really sure what I was expecting. I think I was expecting like an opportunity for me to play with cats and some cute kittens.

AMT: You like cats.

AARON HANCOX: I do. I do like cats. And what I saw was very surprising. It was a world that I had no idea existed. It was a full on cat show like you'd see a dog show. Only there were no tricks. There was a podium, these beautiful looking cats, beautiful looking kittens, and really really engaged audience members who didn't necessarily look like me. They were really dialed in. They were experts. So I thought that the people were just as interesting as the cats and I stuck around for half the day.

AMT: Wow. Now Michael what appeal to you about the idea of making a documentary about cat shows?

MICHAEL MCNAMARA: Well you know we make documentaries about subcultures. We're really interested in stories about people who are doing things that not everybody does. People who are passionately interested in their field of expertise like Kim. People who not only are passionate about it but they like to talk about it and tell you about it. And when you're a documentary filmmaker finding people like that is a challenge. Aaron has been working on this for a number of years and when he came in and started telling us about this we all went, ‘ok this sounds like a movie doesn't it’.

AMT: Are you a cat person?

MICHAEL MCNAMARA: You know I like to look at them but I can't own them. I have allergies and my eyes get itchy automatically if I handle them.

AMT: How did you make the film?

MICHAEL MCNAMARA: Well I very carefully didn't handle any of them. Although you know whenever I'm in a room with cats they pick me out because they see me as an opportunity for a convert and they will usually get very close and they'll climb into my lap or you know they'll rub up against me. I'm pretty sure they know who's a cat owner and who isn't and they are...

AMT: They are very clever, yes. Now this documentary is a story about a rivalry. So let's talk about the competition. Tell me about Ooh La La.

KIM LANGILLE: You want me to tell you about Ooh La La?

AMT: I want you to tell me about Ooh La La. The rival to Bobby. [Laughs]

KIM LANGILLE: Ooh La La is a red Persian who is a CFA winner — international cat association — that's very active in the U.S. and in China. And she is apparently an excellent specimen of the breed and her owner grooms her wonderfully.

AMT: Kim you say at one point Ooh La La just isn't your kind of cat. Why not?

KIM LANGILLE: She is not.

AMT: Why not?

KIM LANGILLE: I like the crazy cat too hanging from the ceiling and Ooh La La just doesn't do that. If I was going to get a cat like Ooh La La I'd probably go out and buy a $50 cushion and put it on my couch. [Laughs].

AMT: Those are fighting words. [Laughs].

KIM LANGILLE: I say it to everyone. You know it's not my kind of cat and the person who owns Ooh La La, she would lose her mind with my cats in her house. It's night and day — the activity level.

AMT: Well in fact you're good pals with her owner, Shirley.

KIM LANGILLE: I consider Shirley a friend. Yes.

AMT: Is there ever any tension?

KIM LANGILLE: I'd be happy if she didn't show up last year to shows. But I'm glad I got to meet her. She didn't have to come to all of the shows. [Laughs].

AMT: We should just point out Bobby was winning. Bobby was like head and shoulders above the other cats. Cat arches above. And that's all I'll say because then it becomes a rivalry. But yes Bobby was getting some stiff competition from Ooh La La. Aaron, be unbiased, how would you describe Ooh La La?

AARON HANCOX: You know I have to be very careful because as a documentary filmmaker I need to maintain some kind of objectivity here. I have a cat. My cat is more like Kim's cats. But Ooh La La is gorgeous and she loved the camera. I think she really liked me which was helpful because I was behind the camera sometimes. She's a consummate show person — show cat. She shows up and puts on a show, struts her stuff, loves being adored, and looks fantastic on camera. And what's great about her is she's such a great competitor but she seems to do it so effortlessly which makes for a great kind of tension in our film.

AMT: So what does it take to make your cat a champion, Kim?

KIM LANGILLE: Your cat has to come close to breed standard. If you have a cat that is breed standard perfection you're going to do well no matter what. If you have two cats that are close to perfection for breed standard and you have one that says “I don't think I want to be here,” and one that has a top hat and a cane and is dancing across the judging platform, you can pretty well guess what's going to happen. So in last year we had two top hat and cane cats.

AMT: You often run across cats who don't want to be there? You can tell?

KIM LANGILLE: Oh I have cats that didn't want to be there. [Laughs].

AMT: So we talked a little bit about the grooming and the importance of what suds up and that kind of thing. How much time do you spend working with them, preparing them for shows?

KIM LANGILLE: I am very lucky. Turkish Angoras, you put a comb through them once a week so that if there are problems with their coat it comes out. The Thursday before a show I'll take them and bath them as close to the show as I can get. I whiten them up. I fluff them up. I blow dry them and they're done. And in-between shows there are no baths unless I look at them and say “Oh you don't really look white anymore.”

AMT: So how do you wind up a cat?

KIM LANGILLE: There are whitening products.

AMT: Like what?

KIM LANGILLE: It's actually called White Lightning I think is the one that I use. Every brand of pet shampoo has a whitener. It has a shampoo for black cats. A lot of them have like very colour specific. There are red shampoos and there are golden shampoos.

AMT: I have to say when I had a cat I gave it a bath once and I probably still have the scars. [Laughs].

KIM LANGILLE: That's the awesome thing about cats is that they're basically self-cleaning. It's just you know sometimes they get dandruff in the winter or they get into a mud puddle and you have to step in. But it's very little work for most of them.

AMT: What's the hardest thing to do when you're preparing them for shows?

KIM LANGILLE: Blow drying. My guys don't like to be blown dry but I sort of demand it for pieces of them. The long haired part of them sort of need to be blown dry and then ok go off and dry yourself for the rest

AMT: Do you have to blow the pantaloons?

KIM LANGILLE: That is the hardest part to get blown dry because some reason they don't like hot temperatures back there. [Laughs].

AMT: Describe the room where you keep your cat show awards.

KIM LANGILLE: Ribbon palooza. I have wire on the wall and basically clotheslines and there's rosettes from every show hung up on those lines. It covers a wall.

AMT: What's that look like, Aaron? The first time we saw it.

AARON HANCOX: The first time we saw that room we just said, “Quick get the camera and Kim we're going to need a couple of minutes in here without you just to get all of our cutaways.”

AMT: And you guys are competitive. A one point Kim you're kind of musing about ‘well you know if Ooh La La didn't show up, like if there was an accident or if somebody got sick’, and I'm sitting there going “Oh oh.” You were just saying. You were just saying. [Laughs].

KIM LANGILLE: I was just saying. That's exactly it. I was not you know sending poison in a cat treat format to her house in any way. But you know if there was a snowstorm and a flight didn't make it into Moncton, it could have been a completely different story than what it ended up being.

AMT: Michael how did making this film change the way you think about cats and their owners?

MICHAEL MCNAMARA: Yeah well I have to admit that I probably bought into the stereotype a little bit that you were just talking about. And to be fair it's true that probably 95 or 96 per cent of the competitors are women. They come from all walks of life. All different socioeconomic backgrounds which is really interesting. And the one thing that they have in common is this passion for the cats and I have to admit having gotten sort of closer to this world and spending a lot more time with the animals than with the people who love them. I really am trying to figure out a way that I can actually have a cat in the house. I mean I think there are supposed to be hypoallergenic cats and I'm very curious about those. I think Kim could help you with that approach.

KIM LANGILLE: I tried a couple of weeks ago. [Laughs].

AMT: Why am I not surprised? So Kim I'm going to give you the last word. What do you love most about having cats in your life?

KIM LANGILLE: They're always there to give me a hug at the end of the day. I come in the door and Bobby is sitting on the table next to my door and he stands up and puts his arms around me and gives me kisses all over my face and who doesn't need that in their life.

AMT: And who couldn't call that a champion cat then, right?

KIM LANGILLE: Right.

AMT: That is a champion. Thank you all of you for this. The film is running soon. Thank you.

MICHAEL MCNAMARA: Thank you.

AMT: I'm learning more and more about cats. Bye.

AARON HANCOX: Thanks very much. Thank you.

AMT: Aaron Hancox and Michael McNamara are the directors of the new documentary Catwalk: Tales from the Cat Show Circuit. And Kim Langille is one of the cat fanciers featured in the film. Her Turkish Angora Bobby has won prizes at cat shows across Canada. Visit our website to see photos of Bobby and scenes from the cat show circuit cbc.ca/thecurrent. If you want to see this documentary it shows up on CBC Television Easter Sunday, April 1st at 9 o'clock. It is released online cbc.ca on Friday. Stay tuned to Radio One for Q. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. Thanks for listening to The Current.

[Music: Theme]

March 26, 2018 Episode Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode