 It would be very convenient and comforting if technology were the answer, because then we wouldn't really have to change our ways. We would just let the scientists do it, come up with the next gee whiz invention, and the problem is solved. That of course ignores the centuries-long history of technology creating new problems that were unanticipated that must be met with even more technology and more technology so it becomes an addiction. Once you go down that path, you depend. You become dependent on the technology. Once you start fertilizing crops with synthetic fertilizers, once you start relying on weed killers, once the soil is degraded, then you depend on those inputs, even to maintain a normal, what had been normal. It's an addiction. It's an addiction to keep up, and you probably need more. Right, higher and higher dose. So the phenomenon of unintended consequences where technology creates even more problems that need to be met with more technology, that is inevitable, because technology and this scientific reductionistic approach to anything, especially agriculture, it always leaves something out. It leaves out, because science is based on only the things we can measure. So if there's anything important that we don't measure or can't measure, then it's going to cause problems. It gets neglected. It gets destroyed. It causes problems in the future. So diversity plus knowing other things are like, ah, we forgot about the insects, and we forgot about this, and we forgot about it, or we didn't see it until it disappeared. Fifty years ago, soil scientists thought that soil was a collection of chemicals, and that if the soil wasn't fertile, that means that you could add, all you have to do is add whatever is lacking. Like a growth medium, basically. It was a neutral thing that you... Right. They didn't understand the importance of the soil microbiome. They didn't understand the importance of the mycelial networks. They didn't understand the importance of life. That was left out of the calculations. So if we're going to rely on technology to solve our problems, we have to ask, well, what are we leaving out of our calculations now? What is important that we don't know is important. And as we can probably assume that we don't know most of it, we sort of have to assume that we cannot go for the easy fixes, or on paper easy fixes, because it always sounds easy on paper. And then 20, 30, 10 years, or two years down the line, we noticed that actually we created more issues with that. Then the natural... I mean, there are two... Then maybe somebody in this amazing theater where somebody raises their hands and says, well, science is nice and funny, but with this life approach and the original organic, et cetera, how are we going to feed the world? I get a question a lot from... Especially people who haven't visited the farm recently, but how do we... There are all these numbers and we have to feed 10 billion people, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. You have an amazing short, which I will definitely put in the show notes as well, a short audio clip, I think it's seven minutes, where you talk a bit about the history of these models, of this research on feeding the planet. And the question, I think the title is literally, can we feed the world regeneratively? But if you had to summarize that, or actually we can take easily seven minutes for that, what do you normally say when people say, yeah, how do we feed the world with this stuff? It sounds great, it sounds even a bit naive, and it sounds like a place that would like to be, these type of farms, et cetera, or these type of landscapes, let's make it a bit broader, but can we feed the world with that? Right, so this is... Yeah, I've gotten this criticism before, it's very privileged of you to think you're a farmer, but the world's poor can't do that, we have to maximize production to feed the starving people. So how bad of you, yeah. You're starving people basically. So that critique is really based, I'm sorry to say it, but it's based on ignorance. And it's based on faulty models, it's based on a very selective historical understanding. In fact, when organic or regenerative agriculture is done properly, it's more food than monocrop agriculture. But it depends on how you do the comparison. So if you're going to compare organic row crops with conventional row crops and hold everything else constant, then the conventional is going to outperform the organic, especially if you're just taking two blank fields and you're controlling all the variables, except one, do you use pesticides on this and not on that? That's just one variable. But organic agriculture isn't like that, you can't hold variables constant if you're really in the true spirit of it. The growing practices in every place will be unique to that place. So you can't really do side-by-side comparisons like that. For organic and regenerative agriculture to reach its potential in terms of yield, that requires years and decades of building soil of learning the land of learning what works in that microclimate of building a relationship. I'm building that microclimate even from scratch in many cases, yeah. Right, so if you did that, if you somehow could do a study where you compare that true organic practice over 30 years to conventional practices over 30 years you'd get very different results. But even you know, even without doing that, there's still an awful lot of data that shows that small, diverse farms can outperform large farms. But it depends on the crops too. If you're going to say well, we're going to only measure commodity crops then the difference is not it's not so clear then.