 So perhaps for the people who don't know what is degrowth, you kind of explain at the preface that the goal of degrowth is to purposefully slow things down in order to minimize harm to humans and earth systems. Yeah. So, is that definition the one you generally use or what do you use? In every instance I give a different definition. Yeah, my most cited one is a 2008 one, which I think is the worst we gave because it was the very first one we gave. That's the one that's like an equitable reduction of throughput or something like that. I don't remember. Very engineering. Very engineering. And then people who are more from social science and more like politically motivated with degrowth hate is definition because they say, what is this? Yeah, it's like, what do you mean? Yeah. No, I think on every instance, I give a slightly different one, but I think this is fine. I had a debate with my colleague, Jeroen van de Bergen, we exchanged also articles because he's very meticulous. I'm like, okay, how do you exactly define it? How are you measuring it? You see here, you're inconsistent, you know. And I think like that the world is. Is he a hero or a natural scientist? He's an economist, but I learned now that he studied operational research. So if you've done this type of thing, you think in terms of maximizing, minimizing particular variables, et cetera. Which I think is good. This is pushing you to be rigorous and consistent. I'm not denying that. But at the same time, as I argued with him, there are some words like equality, for example, that, of course, you operationalize it on particular context, but there is not the perfect definition of equality. But when you hear the word equality, you kind of understand what it talks about, right? You understand what is inequality, for example. And then, of course, there are all sorts of different theories of what is equality about. Of course, you can have like a equality that still is growing the economies and you have equality that is still exploiting people. So I mean, this is how people manipulate as well terms too. No, I'm not talking only about manipulation, but I mean, like, once you start wanting to get to the specifics of what is equality, you can have all sorts of different theories, like from liberal theories to conservative theories to Marxist theories. And different understanding of equality. But at the same time, the word, if I tell you, you know, we are in an equal society or inequalities are increasing, more or less you understand what it means. Then we can debate the numbers and have. So I feel with the growth is a little bit the same. Like when you hear the growth, more or less you understand what it talks about now. Then I can give you what is it? Is it a concept? It's a political ideology. Is it a research field? What is as well, you know, the growth because you can give me a definition, but also sometimes it's, it's, you know, it stays in the air between things. And I don't know if we need to anchor it or it's good that it has a looser element into it. I mean, I try to anchor it. That's what I said. That's what I would say in its paper. I'm trying to anchor it and I give a definition. But the definition tends to be different from paper or book to book precisely because there is a different purpose in this. So I want to emphasize a particular aspect of it. But at the same time, it's like, again, the example of equality, you know, it is a political ideal. It's a critique to something which is inequality, which is the opposite now. So it's a critique to something that is happening. And at the same time, it sets a research agenda. So there are people like Piketty or Milanovic or many others in social science that they're studying inequalities and equality. So, and there are people who are making normative theories of equality. So in that sense, I see the growth in the same sense. Just to not sound so vague. Yes, I see the growth first and foremost as a critique of the craziness of the madness of of economic growth, which is something specific. It's the idea that GDP can grow 3% every year to infinity because 3% growth per year means 12 times growth of the economy by the end of the century and infinity in two centuries. So the first and first and foremost is a critique to this. No, and second, it captures this idea of slowing things down. No, like producing and consuming less, which doesn't mean producing and consuming less of everything, but producing and consuming less of things that we up to now have thought it's important to produce and consume more. No, like extract more materials, produce more construct more roads have more airports fly more fly faster move faster. So all these things slowing them down. And of course, at the same time, and reducing more of things that we need right now like health care infrastructures or renewable energy which is a crucial etc.