 Today when you look at drought, forest fires, hurricanes, all kinds of catastrophes and you ask or the insect apocalypse, the global decline in insect populations, same things happening to plankton actually. And you say, well, what's the cause? We want to have a cause because then there is a solution or potentially a solution. It's comforting and fits into our mindset, into our, our, our customary ways of doing things as a society or even as individuals to find a culprit for something, find something to go to war against, find something to attack, find something to limit, find something to control. So we're very happy if there is a cause for things. For example, oh, the cause must be climate change, the cause must be greenhouse gases. And now we know what to do. It's a lot less comfortable to not have a cause or for there to be hundreds of causes, a complex of causes, because then we don't know what to do. Then our customary way of, of attacking a problem no longer works because we are so fond and so comfortable with addressing the cause. We tend to project the cause, a singular cause onto situations that maybe do not have a singular cause. And then we go to war against the cause that we've projected and the problem isn't solved because we have misattributed the cause. And we tend to rush to the cause that fits into our already existing worldview. Therefore, to address problems on a deeper level, sometimes it's necessary to step back and to be in the space of maybe we don't understand this thing at all. So let's spend some more time observing, let's spend some more time listening. Let's not be so hasty as to rush into a cause and to activate the solutions that we already have available to us. Because what if these are part of the problem? When we say such and such a problem is urgent, we have to do something right now. We are giving power to the existing solutions and to the people who are already half, who are already in power and have the wherewithal to deploy solutions right now. Thereby, therefore, we perpetuate the status quo by rushing to a cause. And it can be a trap because often the cause that we ascribe to something is what fits comfortably into our existing worldview and validates the mindsets and methods that we currently employ. So you say, well, there's been a terrorist attack. What's the cause? It must be these terrorists. Yeah, now we've got something to kill. So let's kill the terrorists. Problem solved, right? By focusing on that, we never even ask what is breeding terrorism? Criminals. Crime is caused by criminals, right? Duh. So the solution is to lock them up. Problem solved. And thereby, never asking or not necessarily asking what are the conditions that breed crime. Because there's not one cause. You get into all kinds of messy stuff. Legacy trauma, legacy racism, economic inequality, the void of meaning in our society that doesn't give youthful energy, an outlet to go toward, I mean, there's not one cause. The cause is pretty much everything. And when we realize that, then we don't know what to do. That's uncomfortable, not knowing what to do. But I think we need to go there. And in fact, the failure of our solutions is going to take us there, whether we like it or not. Because any solution that ignores the deeper causes will only work temporarily. Yeah, I mean, you can temporarily stop crime or terrorism or immigration, you know, by building a wall. But the engine of these things, the engine of immigration, that's not affected by building a wall. The engine may be in this case being military imperialism and neoliberal economics that make life unlivable somewhere. You're never going to touch that when you're just focused on building the wall and the whole controversy becomes, do we build the wall or don't we? And that polarized political energy, that fury gets exhausted in something that doesn't touch the deeper cause. So yeah, I mean, I see it in the climate arena all the time. When we rush to the cause, we end up doing things that don't touch the deeper problem and that even make it worse. One of the primary things being the cause is carbon. So let's bring down the carbon in whatever ways are easiest, most accessible. So you get gigantic hydropower plants that are currently inundating and destroying and draining vast wetlands in the Sahel. Like an area the size of Belgium, I think is what I read, is going to be destroyed, basically. And it's full of crocodiles and hippopotamia, you know, and all kinds of life. And it's going to look good. The numbers are going to look good. There's going to be x gigawatts of power generated. And therefore, you know, x amount of carbon saved, right? Well, not necessarily. The people living in that area, they're not actually using much electricity right now, but they're going to start using a lot. And what about the carbon sequestration of all of those wetlands and all of those life forms? Is that part of the calculation? That's very hard to calculate, so it gets left out. So this is one of the errors that comes from rushing to the cause. Same thing I can say about biofuels plantations, where vast tracts of land in Africa, Asia, South America are getting purchased by corporations and more and more, like getting leveled and the peasants getting kicked out, subsistence peasants getting kicked out and planted with Jochofa trees, you know, or eucalyptus trees, or palm oil, and some of which goes to fuel power plants that get carbon credits for carbon neutral energy. And are you calculating the subsistence peasants that got kicked out and the change in lifestyle that's going to be consuming more? You're not. That's not part of your calculations. So long story short, when our solution sets are part of the problem, when we are not even asking the right questions, but rushing to the solution that fits into our existing worldview, it's time to be a little less hasty in doing something right now and rushing to a cause.