 I think if technology could have solved all of our problems, then it would have already solved all of our problems. Theoretically, we have all the technology we need to live beautifully on Earth and beautifully with each other. But we have not lived beautifully on Earth and beautifully with each other. So something else has to happen. Technology's had its chance ever since the age of the steam engine. I mean, that was supposed to bring on utopia. A machine can do the work of 1,000 men, so very soon we will only have to work 1,000th as hard. That never happened. And that promise has been renewed every time that a revolutionary new technology has come into being. Electricity, atomic power, chemistry, nanotechnology, genetic engineering, each one of these was supposed to bring on finally the age of leisure and the conquest of disease and so forth. The kinds of technologies that we call technology today are insufficient to the task. They're very good at certain things. And we've developed along that axis to a very high degree. But the challenges we face today are unsolvable by the kind of technology that we're accustomed to. We're seeing this really obviously in the field of human health. Technology delivered miraculous results in the first half of the 20th century. Life spans increased by 26 years in America, if I remember correctly. In the second half of the 20th century, they increased by maybe another six years. Today, life expectancy is falling in America. And it's not because we stopped spending money on healthcare, quite the opposite. In the first half of the 20th century, all of the dread diseases, where most of them were conquered, eradicated. In the second half of the 20th century, or in the last 50 years, almost no new disease has really been eradicated. It's always, well, we're making progress on it. Meanwhile, all these new diseases have come up seemingly from nowhere, starting with AIDS and all the autoimmune diseases, autism, allergies, all of these things. We're almost unknown. And the arsenal, which is a significant metaphor, the arsenal of modern medicine is pretty helpless against those things. So that is just one example of a more general trend that you could translate it onto politics, onto the ecological crisis. We don't really know what to do. So I think if you expand technology to include a much more broad array of human interaction with matter, then yeah, technology will save us, but not the kind of technology that we're used to. The kind of technology that we're used to is infused with an industrial mindset that depends on standardization of processes applied to kind of generic media. So you take an agricultural technology, say monocropping with pesticides and herbicides and fertilizers, and you can apply that pretty much anywhere. There's a formula for it. Regenerative agriculture or permaculture doesn't work like that. It depends on an intimate relationship with that piece of land to know its unique characteristics, the microclimate requires getting to know it over time. It requires intimacy and you cannot then abstract the knowledge and apply it formulaically somewhere else. The same thing is true with holistic medicine. It depends on a deep understanding of the entire being that you're treating. You can't just apply a formula. Now there might be common principles that it's not like your knowledge in healing one person is useless in healing another person, just as permaculture principles in many ways can be transferred from one place to another. But the core of it, the essence of it depends on an intimate, unique relationship. And that is contrary to what we, the way that we've operated technology. It's like a different mode of technology is necessary today. It's not that technology as we've known it will become obsolete or useless, but it will recede to its proper domain. We'll use it for what it's good for and we won't try to apply it on everything.