 Are you asking about interplanetary? I think this earth, if you can solve the hard ethical problems, this earth is the most hospitable place. I know Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, a lot of people want to go to space. And it's a valid thing to be exploring, but keep in mind it's inhospitable out there. And this earth, we haven't even tapped into 100th of the regenerative agriculture energy. Yeah, 1% of farmers are organic. Now, some people say organic farmers can't feed the world, which has been pretty disproven. It's bad science, funded by big agribusiness companies. But if you look at Solid Science, Rodale, for example, Rodale Institute, which looks at, you can actually increase productivity with carbon sequestration, which basically means not releasing so much carbon into the universe. There's so much we can do that, and the hard ethical questions are, the problem is some people and places, I wonder if we're at the right place to this private airport, but maybe. You know, who should have kids and who shouldn't? Certain regions of the world where they have more kids and the resources at their disposal can hold on to. You know, that's problematic, but then you smack up against eugenics and things like this as to who decides who should have children and who shouldn't. And so, but humans will have to start solve those and face the facts that there's no easy answers and go into space is not an easier answer either because that will also entail a have and have nots. It'll be the wealthy that take advantage of this. So no matter when you look at hard ethical questions, there is no solution in the sense that you will have to make. It's like Socrates, pick your poison. You know, you're gonna drink hemlock or you're gonna drink, you know, cyanide. There will be hard decisions and humans like to oversimplify and say, okay, well, here's the easy way out, we all go to space. But that does not solve as much as, and you know, Jeff Bezos has the math and says if we keep reproducing in the energy, it will take all the energy that hits the earth just to keep humanity alive for a day, but that's based on a lot of presuppositions that I'm not sure that I think are valid. One of which is that innovation can step in and reduce the footprint we have in addition to potential smarter growth of people, you know? We have to, you do have to limit the amount of people, but that's a hard one to do. And I don't, you know, if the population went from eight billion, 16 billion to 32 billion, 64, eventually just mathematically, you can't have all those people on earth, even if they're even taking a nominal amount of energy. But look at tapping the ocean, you know, tapping the tides. You have infinity, not really, but you have massive amount of energy that can be stored. Now, the heat that's created is the question. The heat that that creates, will that heat up the earth to such an extent that it's just a disaster? But it's, who knows? Think of the things 150 years ago in the 1800s, you thought were impossible. The patent attorney, or the head of patents in the United States, and I think it was the late 1800s, he said, I think we can dissolve this business because I think we've invented everything that can be invented, but it was wrong, it was wrong. So when humans can innovate themselves out of problems, and so, you know, I'm not so focused, I'm much more focused on fixing the biggest polluter, which is agriculture, forestry, transportation, is not so much as much as what I know, that's Elon Musk's focus, but I know the agricultural side, and I know that feeding yourself, food, shelter, water, it will be the preeminent part of things. Energy's important, but where there's already a lot of focus on the energy side, there needs to be more focus, oh, shush, oh, wow. There needs to be more focus on the non-energy side, which is the food, shelter, water, which is the land and, you know, the forestry side, the wood, the mining side of things, and yeah, this is the right way, trying to find this damn private airport, I think this is the way. So anyway, you know, not that who am I to argue with the genius of Elon Musk and others, but I think, look, you're limited by what you don't know that you don't know, and I think that people who are very space-oriented are going to easily, all of us, come to what's called confirmation bias, what our presuppositions, what we want to happen, you know, so if you've grown up, like Jeff Bezos goes, I've grown up loving space and Star Wars, and oh, okay, so you're going to study the science that confirms your bias, that okay, there's no possible way that humans survive without going, you know, to space, but you have to look at the counter arguments to whatever it is you love, and that's hard for us humans to do. We don't like to search, you know, if you're a Republican, you most Republicans hardcore study Republican authors. Okay, somehow we are going the wrong way. Okay, let's take it a little bit further. So, you know, the people who seek counter arguments and they really seek it, I like what Charlie Munger said, you shouldn't be able to argue an opinion until you can argue the other side better than they can. So to be, you know, an honest Republican or an honest Democrat, you should be able to argue the other side against yourself better than you've ever heard anybody do it, that gives you the right to take a strong position because as Frederick Nietzsche, the great philosopher said, convictions are greater enemies of the truth than lies. And that is a damn mind blowing phrase. Convictions are greater enemies of the truth than lies. And we like to think that our strong convictions are what move the world forward, but oftentimes it's the strong convictions. Think of the worst things that have happened from the world. Sometimes those came from good intentions. Even Madmen like Adolf Hitler thought he had, you know, he had what is it called? Not room spring, but you know, he had this idea of Liebenspring or whatever, make Germany needed land. And therefore we have to expand into Eastern Europe and Russia and the Ukraine and Poland and check in, you know, Bulgaria and Romania. And also flip side, you had, you know, tech air was right near signature, right? You also had, you know, Mao Zedong, he was a true believer in what he fought for. And didn't turn out to be very good. And so even Madmen, oftentimes aren't mad in their own mind but they won't seek the counter arguments to their own side. And therefore convictions become great. So, you know, I like to read the argument that says space is good against my argument, but I don't ignore either side. How about I put it that way? Okay, we're here headed to quick trip. Do I go in or stay? All right. So funny how society seems to rule. That's why I don't like politics. Because politicians win by having strong convictions yet they set humanity back. Think of all the strong convictions politicians have had. I mean, you have politicians Supreme Court of the United States had a strong conviction that African-American people were, what was it? The Dred Scott case or whatever, where it's like, I forget what it was called, it's like, oh yeah, African-Americans are two thirds or one third human. Strong convictions by the supposed smartest people in America. Now we laugh and mock at their ignorance, but they didn't look at counter. There was a lot of people. Frederick Douglass was a genius person. The Supreme Court should have studied, feel like this guy's smarter than all of us, but nobody wants to do that because most people are not intellectually honest.