 All right, so what is new about your approach to human flourishing? What makes kind of your approach to human flourishing stand out? What do you think it's so effective? You mean an energy or in general? In general, and then maybe give us some examples from energy and how it works and how it's being effective. Yeah, I think it might be helpful to start in energy. Because so in energy, what you have is if energy is this huge industry, let's just say five trillion or so dollar industry, and it's got tons of smart people in it and talking about it. And yet really, and you have this fossil fuel industry, which is most of it, it's this huge industry. This fascinating phenomenon of I have a virtual monopoly on the idea that fossil fuels are good. Like a virtual monopoly and you'd think from a market standpoint, this is insane, right? Because why isn't it that shouldn't there be a bunch of efficient market type actors who are like coming in to say, hey, multi trillion dollar industry that's under attack that has lots of money to spend on different things. I think you're good. Why does nobody do that? And this is going to point out what the gap is in energy and what the gap is in other places. And the reason is because moral standards in a society are an incredibly powerful thing that people don't even challenge for monetary reasons. And in the realm of energy, the moral standard is green, unchanged nature, minimum impact. And this is a standard, as I mentioned before, is an anti-human standard. To the extent you take it seriously, it's toxic. It literally means that the perfect planet is the one that would exist if human beings had never existed. It's literally the only thing it can offer rationally is suicide or mass homicide or mass suicide. It's really at this core, but because it's the only game in town, and in part it's the only game in town because this idea of minimum impact packages together, human beings not developing nature and dying, but then also human beings not polluting nature packages those together. So people think in a vague way, okay, we have to be for this if we want nice nature to play in it and we want clear and clean water. It's been very sloppy, but nevertheless it's the only moral standard in town or it was. And so you have a whole society, multi-trillion dollar industry, everybody is towing the line in one form or another. You have a continuum of saying fossil fuels are an unnecessary evil, all the way to fossil fuels are a necessary evil. That's kind of the whole continuum. And then what did I do basically? I said, well, and obviously getting the fundamental insights from objective philosophy, I said, well, I know that in every context, you need a standard of good or a standard of value. And it's really important to think about that. And this is the worst one I've ever heard. So let's have a good one. And so, you know, I and Rand would call it man's life or man's life as a rational being. And so human flourishing is, I use that for certain reasons. What it captures to me that I really like and what people get about it is it captures life at its best as an integrated phenomenon of material and mental. Do you think of flourishing and you tend to think of, okay, the whole organism is flourishing or sometimes when you talk about life or survival in the objective sense, people don't care. So there's one reason why I like human flourishing as a concept. But in any case, just having a pro human standard and then having the confidence that this is right. That's the kind of thing that to the extent I've had influence changes everything because it's now there's the monopoly got broken. At least among people have heard it because now there's this opportunity that well, if fossil fuels are actually the best thing on balance for human flourishing, at least for a lot of people, then they can actually be good. And even if they do impact nature, if they do warm climate to some extent, they can still be good. So this is just one thing, but it was the one thing of redefining a standard of making human flourishing a standard and then seeking knowledge and pursuing knowledge with that as a standard. And in so many other fields, you can think about what if somebody had a human flourishing based standard. So say in relationships, what if, I mean, there's no standard in relationships now of like, oh, the goal is for you to flourish. It's just a mixture of like sacrifice and selfishness is a mess. So how are people going to get clarity about that if they're not, if their goal isn't to flourish for a nutrition? You'd think, oh, that's scientific. But but if you think about human flourishing, you have to think about things like, yeah, taste is a factor like longevity, but also how you feel. So if you're losing fat, but you feel really lethargic, that can't be good. Or if you're obsessing about food all the time, that can't be good. You're not feeling guilty or if you're craving that can't be good. So just thinking about, okay, the right diet has to be one that I'm really flourishing and I have concrete standards for that. Imagine if people in nutrition wrote to that. Most of the stuff they came up with would obviously be bad because even if people are losing fat, they're miserable all the time, they're craving, they're not flourishing. So I think in every field, this is just one aspect. But as a starting point to just have a clear standard of good, and then to look for knowledge in the field as a means to that thing. Because then if you have a standard, everything in the field is just generalizations about what tends to lead to that good. Just like in objective philosophy, it's like, okay, what leads to the individual flourishing? And then there are different virtues, which are mostly ways of using your mind that bring you in that direction. And this is true in every other field, that you want every field of human action at least. Like you want to flourish, and then you kind of figure out what's the cause and effect. But the first stage of that is to have the framing of the goal is to flourish. That itself is enough to be hugely beneficial. But then on top of that, so that's one thing is how a standard of evaluation totally changes what I would call the knowledge system. Because then instead of your knowledge having no purpose, it's got human flourishing as its purpose. But then another key thing is not just standards of evaluation, they're standards of validation. How do we know things are true? How do we distinguish knowledge from non-knowledge? And this is the whole realm of epistemology. I think part of what I do distinctively in that is I'm really focused on the intersection between epistemology and the acquisition of specialized knowledge. A lot of people on epistemology are focused with things like, okay, are the senses valid? And even things like how do you form a concept? And of course those I need to know. But I'm really interested in say, okay, in practice, how do I figure out what's true in energy? How do I separate false, fake claims from knowledge to real claims of knowledge?