Yes, so I said, but pessimism about an atrocity and its outcome is not the same as feeling, or being, "ineffectual" in one's commitment to alleviating the atrocity, nor is it an assessment or equivalent of one's (or one's organization's) ability or accomplishment confronting the atrocity. The fact that a situation may be beyond one's control does not make one's actions toward it, per se, "ineffectual." Lawler's book, and maybe his conscience, benefitted from my book Prisoned Chickens, Poisoned Eggs: An Inside Look at the Modern Poultry Industry, and from other writings of mine that he read. He told me during his visit that until he encountered the idea in Prisoned Chickens, Poisoned Eggs that by eating chickens we are eating their misery, it never occurred to him. And probably most readers never thought of it either, but perhaps now they will.
I believe his book benefitted also from our personal interview and as a result of his seeing our sanctuary chickens living and being treated in ways that differ starkly from how chickens look, act, and are treated in the various situations our species forces them into – situations that, as Lawler describes cockfighting, are about "the human," not chickens. The chickens, poor souls, are simply extensions of their owners, whether it's cockfighting, religious sacrifice, genetic manipulation, or whatever. Those of us who want chickens to live sanely as chickens, instead of as what Lawler calls a sanctuary's "fowl flotsam" and "misfit poultry" – we are not the anthropomorphic ones. The abusers are.