 So you've been tracking these spaces for a long time around our footprint, our corporate footprint, our human footprint on the planet, how we're relating to it. And an idea around a new social contract that the contract we've had is broken and has not been working. Give us a little slice on what you've been seeing even recently that's got your attention in this space. Well, first, let me just police your wording a little bit. Please. Just like the concept of a footprint. Typically, it invites you into some kind of calculation of how much ecological resource you are consuming with your lifestyle or with your corporations supply chain and so forth. And this idea that you can calculate your impact converted into a number and navigate your relationship with the world through that number. I think is actually part of the problem. It's a very comfortable and familiar way to deal with things because navigating by the numbers is in the DNA of not only the corporation but but modern the modern consumer the modern neoliberal subject like you you navigate according to what is going to maximize a number, so it's not that big a step to expand that number to include the environment. And so the easiest way to do that is to calculate your carbon footprint, and then abracadabra, you have a way to be moral to be ethical to be environmental. And my, my, so I guess to answer your question I can say what is on my mind a lot with that is what gets left out of the numbers. Mm hmm. Yeah. So I just came across a film I haven't seen it yet, but my son saw it and was profoundly affected called sea spiracy. And it's about the fishing industry. And at the same time as another friend wrote me about her diving like, you know coral reef explorations, and just like being blown away by the beauty there. So, you know, here we have basically an industry, the fishing industry that's killing the ocean. Not that environmentalists are ignoring this, but if you just talk to environmental funders or, or, you know, read environmental media, like that issue is tiny, compared to climate change. Climate change is framed in terms of carbon. And so it fits into the same mentality of find something to measure and go to work on that. And what gets left out is the whales. What gets left out is the coral reefs. And yes, it's not that that climate is unrelated to these things. But one thing that I'm becoming increasingly concerned about is how the climate narrative sucks the air out of the room for other environmental issues. Are actually more important when you look at the world through the through the lens of, of life of a living being to understand the planet as alive as having a physiology as having organs. Things get a lot more complicated than this geomechanical view that compares the earth kind of to like a big machine. And there's levels of this and levels of that and tweak those levels kind of like an engineering object. So this is just to give you an example of this, this basic mindset and how, you know, it's part of our economic thinking that's part of our scientific thinking I mean, and to suggest the magnitude of the change in front of us, if we want to have a different kind of future. Charles talk talk us through you've touched on a very important points. And I think what you're saying is climate change has become carbon footprint in terms of the marketing message, both at an individual level and at a company corporate level all through the different segments and groups. And often there is some almost a generalization that if we source out the climate issue will probably sort out the environment. Earth will be fine again. And I think what you're saying and you touch on some very important points may sound obvious to many of us when we hear this but you talk a lot about cause and symptom. And you can describe that momentarily. But I think one of the things you did you do do talk about is outside of the stuff you're not seeing outside of fixing the carbon issue. What else is going on a byproduct of mass consumption and mass production and some form of aggressive capitalism is that we've got used to building things. We've got used to getting things fast and cheap globalization is something to do with it. We're building buildings all over the place. We want food as quickly as possible. We want it we process food is one part of it pesticides. I mean, if you look at a market like India, you know, there's a there's a farmer revolution going on in India right now, because they've been forced to do certain things that goes against the grain of what it means to be a farmer. And that involves using much more chemical in in in the food production. We've seen that in the West already and all sorts of deforestation and land abuse. So can you tell us what sits on the other side I've touched on the big big areas but just break it down for us so we understand the other side the stuff we're not seeing. Well, let me start with India. What's really going on there is a coordinated effort to destroy village life and the rural economy and to put it in the hands of multinational corporations, chemical companies seed companies, you know, big agricultural companies that and to, to, you know, convert essentially the land of India into a industrial agricultural production site, which is similar to what's happened in in North America. In most of this continent. And yeah the farmers are right to protest and they really deserve our support because And like, you can, it's not like the corporations or the people in them are evil. They are doing this work with their own high ideals that unfortunately depend on a very limited view of of the consequences, and also a prejudice about what the future of humanity is and what a good life is, and what our destiny is. So, the ideology of progress has long implied that we move away from the land that we become more global that we become more efficient that we produce more using less labor. Right. And in that view, the lowliest profession would be the subsistence farmer. And progress would mean, yeah, my father was a farmer but I've gone to university, you know, and my children are getting PhDs, and they're operating in a mechanized or information environment and not soiling their hands. So, so this, and they're producing much more food with less labor and we need more food right because there's so many hungry people. And we need more goods because there's so many people in poverty. But after now how long has it been since the Industrial Revolution, which was supposed to erase poverty and want forever. It's been a couple hundred years now, and we still have tremendous poverty and inequality and it's because of the inequality, like, there is actually no objective shortage of food in the world. There's a huge surplus, but half the world wastes enough to feed the other half. There's no shortage of floor space per capita in the world yet, or in North America, for example. You know, half a million or a million homeless people and 10 or 20 million vacant housing units coexisting. So the problem, the solution of more upping the numbers isn't actually meeting the need. And even those who are wealthy in conventional terms are not as wealthy as a traditional villager in India has been in certain important ways. The feeling like the experience of community, the experience of feeling at home in the world, the experience of feeling free to be generous. If you ever go to a traditional society, it's amazing how generous people are, how connected they are, how at ease they are with time. Like where are people more in a hurry of a traditional village in India? Where are you from originally? Where is your family from? My family is from Delhi. Yeah, so maybe you've gone to some of these places. Where are people in more of a hurry there, or London, or New York? Well, those in London and New York have access to a lot of labor-saving devices. In India, to have a conversation, you have to walk to somebody else's house, at least until recently. But in New York, you can just pick up your phone. So that saves a lot of time. We should be in an abundance of time in a modern technological society, but it's the opposite. So this failure to achieve the paradise that technology and efficiency and capitalism has promised is becoming harder and harder to deny. And it is fomenting a, you could even call it a spiritual crisis. Like the question, what are we doing here? Is this really me in this role? I'm thinking of being trapped in a system that I don't really agree with anymore. And maybe all of us being trapped in it. And how do we get out? Like, these are some of the things that are boiling under the surface. You know, this is reminding me, Charles, last time you came on here, you talked a lot about this narrative that we have around disconnection, that we have a story that we're disconnected from our ecosystem, from our planet. And therefore we can have more of an extraction relationship versus a generative collaborative relationship. And I know it's really underneath so much of what we're talking about here. So here's my question to you is when I look at a lot of organizations, we are seeing a lot of trends toward being more sensitive to their impact to their employees to their environment to their consumers. There's much more receptivity toward that than ever. There's some hope in some of those ways. And it also seems like there's a whole revolution that still needs to happen to really build this next level of empathy and compassion, which is one of the titles of this talk today of how to how do you actually generate compassion. How do you start to feel more empathy toward that if I'm destroying my backyard, I'm destroying myself. How do we any any tips you have on how to help people connect those dots a little more clearly. Yeah, so you've actually named two different things. One is compassion or empathy. The other is self interest. So, if I destroy my backyard I'm harming myself. If I destroy the whales I'm harming myself if we cut down the rainforests, we're harming ourselves. That is one reason to stop doing these things. But it's not a good enough reason. Like, if you approach a corporation and they're like, they're like, Rick, I'd like to become, you know, we would like to become more sustainable. And but we want to make sure that it, we're going to make even more money. And you say, yes, that's possible. If you do this, this and this, you're going to make more money. Well, are they actually doing it because they want to be sustainable? Right. What are you appealing to? At some point. Okay, like there is this kind of dogma that if you are socially and environmentally responsible as a corporation, then your profit profits are going to improve as well. And morale is going to improve. There's lots of reasons why you're going to be more innovative. You're going to anticipate future regulatory trends with your pro social and pro environmental behavior. And all these arguments why profit and social environmental responsibility is not in opposition, except it's not always true. And probably anybody who's running a company or making these decisions, or even as a consumer, like you're going to have moments where the more ethical product is more expensive. It sure looks like your bottom line is going to suffer. And maybe it will suffer. Like, because the question is, why are you actually doing this? Is it, what do you care about? What God are you serving the God of money or the God of life? That would be one way to put it. The choice point will inevitably come up as a way to clarify the driving question of a human being, or one of the driving questions, which is why am I here? What is the purpose of my life? And so we're given these opportunities to clarify that to ourselves and to whatever social or divine witness there is. What do I serve? And it's necessary for it to seem like a choice to seem like, yeah, I have to either, you know, play it safe, minimize my risk, maximize my profit. And maybe within that, I'll make the best ecological choice. But you're serving the profit. Or are you going to serve what you really care about? That's the choice point that every human being faces in one form or another.