 This is the start of the OGM weekly check-in call on Thursday, August 25th, 2022, except our format today since we alternate is not check-in as much as topic, but we don't really have a topic. And Pete has asked for the transcript, which is great. Thanks, Pete. I was forgetting. Good call. And I posted a couple of thoughts for topics in the Mattermost channel, just a moment to go. Chris, I'm going to mute you for a moment just because you were getting your ambient noise, so you don't have to. Unless you'd like to jump in right now and say something, you just need to nod. Tilt your head in the right way and I will unmute you since you're in motion. Yeah, no, I was just, I'm doing some stuff around the house. I have a really large amount of physical work I need to do here. I'm going to turn myself on mute and without camera, but listen in. Thanks, Chris. Cool. And the questions I had posted to the Mattermost channel were, I'll just copy and paste them into our chat, assuming the copy and paste works, there we go. How might we add more senses and dimensions to our conversations? How do we get out of our heads and into our beings and bodies? And then also like, what is listening? Sometimes we whip on by so fast that we don't actually listen. And happy to try things out. Ken, if you have any thoughts for places we might go or exercises we might do that they're extremely welcome, but that was a thought. Just to focus back on what came up in the last calls when Kalea joined us. And it's like, I would love to figure out how to not always be what we seem to have defaulted into being and make this an easier call to be in. Anyone else with thoughts? So should we like do massage joint massage through the, I'm going to massage Doug right now. Ready? It's actually Doug Carmichael. Sorry, Doug Breitbart. You're way down. I was doing Doug Breitbart. Did you get that Doug? No, no, no. You were getting the full number. I don't know. This hand thing isn't making me feel safer. Ken, I got it. Well, I have a topic sort of. Please, Doug. Which is, why is our thinking about climate change so pathetic? Our thinking is not very good. The keep paradox, which is that any economic activity creates CO2, but we've got to be cutting down CO2. So we're in a crunch. But there are many issues like that that are not being faced. In this last week, I've been in some conversations with people who have a fair amount of financial or political power. And their framing of the questions are so weak. So I'm fascinated as to what the heck is going on, how to understand them. We have a couple of hands raised. And I have a question about your statement that any economic activity creates CO2. I'm unsure that that's necessarily. Let me motivate a bit. Anything you do, for example, if it uses computing, computing uses electricity. Electricity has to be produced. And across the nation, the only way to do it is with fossil fuels. I mean, there are pockets of cleaner energy, but most things are going to be using electricity, it's prunes, profits and fuels. If you do a startup company and you have workers coming to work, they're commuting, that takes energy. If you do anything to heat or cool that space, it takes energy. Looking for my gloves. So I would say that if you look at the consequences that go into producing any kind of economic activity, you're going to find it takes energy. And on balance, that energy is coming from fossil fuels. Let me go to Doug B. and Grace and Klaus in order of that way. Yeah, my response to the question, why is our thinking so bad is because the feeling part of the climate issue is missing. And as long as we leave out the living parts of us in relating to our world and our challenges and stay stuck in this rational, the bottom of this rational hole where everything's about figuring out and thinking our way out of where we're at, the course doesn't change. When people are drowning and when people are starving and when people don't have water to drink, it sort of brings it home. So are you an accelerationist? I'm not sure what that is, but if you want to share, I'd be happy to respond. I believe it's, hey, if disasters are going to precipitate social change, we should just accelerate capitalism and all these things in order to bring on the disasters faster. No, no, I definitely... That's an answer that relieves me a lot, but I was just asking. Yeah, well, another part of accelerationism is it brings innovation faster. Well, yeah, I'm sort of... And maybe I'm an optimist or delusional, but I sort of like to believe if people are not just in thinking, but are in feeling, which means they're also open and they're in learning, that they do tend to come together and sort of collectively put shoulder to the wheel. So I'm more interested rather than, let's feed and steroid pump up and grow the dark wolf. I'm more in the category of how can we energetically catalyze that awakening and reintegration of people, heads and hearts. Like how do we have people reconnect on a human being level with each other to collectively align and take action? Because when action is catalyzed in those rare cases where it's happened, what human beings have been able to do on a massive bottom up level is unlimited and extraordinary in changing course. So that's sort of more where I'm set to. So it sounds like your statement has, as it's thesis that felt crisis would lead to more people changing their opinions and changing policy in which to happen. Is there a way to test this hypothesis? Does this actually turn out to be true in groups? How does this work? I mean, I could certainly point to evidence of, feeling an emotion and provocation of it and or manipulation of it and or support and encouragement and stimulation of it has produced amazing manifestations in the world, changes in the world. Good and bad, so I mean empirically, but I'll stop there. No, exactly. Thank you. And I asked that sort of intentionally because I have a thought in my brain that I've pointed to I think many a time in these calls which goes emotion and membership, Trump reason most of the time stories of the vessel. And so emotion is used for manipulation all the time and emotion is feelings, but it's not necessarily authentic feelings, blah, blah, blah, there's a whole chain of logic there, right? But I think that's an important piece of this to look at, grace than class. Okay, so I think I wanna kind of answer both inquiries at once. The first one being, how do we make this into a different kind of thing? I don't know what a different kind of thing is. I've been in different kind of things and I like this thing and it reminds me a little bit of this like, okay, the story about the guy and his donkey and his son and trying to fix it so that everybody would be happy with it. And I think that people who are here who want to, you know, the spaces can go to the spaces. I just love the space, right? I'm not trying to be anything different, but... And answer the question of, what about this energy thing? Why are we thinking about it so poorly? And then the third thing that was just said was and why aren't we feeling what we should feel, right? And say, well, what are you doing or what do you know you're not doing, right? Like you can see me here piling up my words for the winter, like, you know, good Slovenian, right? And are those renewables? I don't know, they're more renewable than some fossil fuels. And when I moved here, my landlady said, would you like us to put in a new heater with pellets? And I was like, oh, no, no, no, thank you very much. I could see this coming out of the pipe, right? But on the other hand, this year, for the first time I bought a car because public transportation following the flow because public transportation following the pandemic got much worse, I haven't had a car for 12 years. I don't like cars, it's really environmentally not a good thing, it's not good for traffic and not good for paving, it's just silly private ownership of cars. But I got to the point where all I can think of is how do I move even further out of the city to a place where buses don't come? And like I said, during the pandemic it's train travel in Europe got so much worse than it was that I just can't get around anymore. And but yeah, I mean, why don't we talk about why our thinking is demented? And I can tell you my thinking is demented because it's inconvenient. I have a conference coming up in London and I thought, great, London, I can get to London by train. I can get to Vienna, okay, that's five hours. And then I can take a 14 hour overnight train to Paris and then I can take a two hour train to London. Yay, I didn't use any airplanes and that'll cost me 400 bucks. And then I could fly and it'll take me 60 bucks and two hours, right? And I'm like, my thinking, like, how can I think about that, right? And then I have this privileged thought of, well, my time is valuable, I'm trying to save the world and so, no, no, no, no, no. And so what am I gonna do if I lose two hours of my time and 400 of my dollars? So that's one of the ways that our thinking becomes corrupted. And I think that this is an opportunity for us to kind of change the way to the conversation and stopping all intellectual and be like, well, what's corrupting our thinking and how do we see ourselves being victims to that? Because to me, it's every day. Every time I get in my car and drive to the gym now instead of taking my bicycle, because I have a car. Completely. Thanks, Grace. Klaus. Yeah, I mean, to Doug's question, why we are going around with climate change and have no grip on this topic at all, we had an interesting exchange on the thread this week where we basically had to acknowledge that the majority of the American public is so misinformed purposefully so by design. So that climate change instantly raises up all kinds of emotional issues and you go online and look at the chatrooms and there's just unabated debates and really ugly conversations taking place about climate change. So if I talk about climate change, why not talk about the next level down to where you actually make an impact in the community, within your sphere of influence and you would be amazed how big your sphere of influence is once you put your mind to it. So for example, what drives me crazy is there's an incessant focus on energy when soil and water, particularly water is far more immediate, far more urgent and they're threatening our food supply, they're threatening our survival here. I mean, when you look around the globe right now, water is a disaster, you know, the crop failures around the globe, China has massive crop failures, Europe, massive crop failures, the United States the same thing, right? So we're talking about bicycling. I mean, okay, that's a great idea but this is not going to fix anything in regard to our water tables. So when you, and then I come back to Donald and Meadows, right? I mean, you have the, we are floating around on the narrative stage, but then once you have an idea of what needs to be fixed, you need to move down through the administrative layers of the economy and see where you insert. So for example, I'm right now working on setting up here in Bend, Oregon, community initiative and I'm working with the League of Women Voters and the Citizen Climate Lobby and the CERA Club and I just wrote a paper to the local newspaper because I want to get a conversation going here about what is of instant concern. So the bill that just got passed, you know, the Going Climate, what is called the Inflation Reduction Act another insane title here, but there are $20 billion in there to help communities fix their water. I mean, and people don't understand the link between what these $20 billion are supposed to do and how they can insert that money but this is basically money to pay people to fix watersheds, to reduce nutrient run-off from fields, very practical day-to-day thanks. At the same time, the money in these title to conservation programs in the Farm Bill also assists communities to set up food hubs to assist food processes to establish themselves and it needs community support to take products of these farms as they are changing their production cycles. It's just really practical stuff, right? So I mean, I see a bouncing around on the surface with snippets of the energy-focused ideas. Intentional communities like that, you know, Garden World, I mean, there is phenomenal opportunity here to assist people, right? To share their resources, to engage in an economic activity that is not going to add CO2. In fact, it reduces CO2 and helps people to get people off the streets now and people who are in desperate straits. So there are so many things we could be doing, right? But for some reason, we have a really hard time shifting into, you know, let's roll up the sleeves and do practical stuff. Anyway, sorry, it's a good morning. No, thanks, Klaus. And Stacey asks in the chat, could you just clarify what a food hub is? Oh, a food hub, I mean, food hub is an aggregator. When you're working with smaller farmers, the difficulty they have getting into the markets is because they are too small to support a commercial account. And that historically, you know, has been the role of the aggregator, poker, you know, or a food co-op, right? Who has worked with maybe a hundred smaller farmers and now they get an order for a thousand acres of carrots and they deviate up between their farms and they consolidate the order and then now they can supply large commercial accounts. That market has been systematically dismantled by the buy wall market and Costco and Groger and all these guys because they brought this aggregation function in-house, which means they control the market. So for independent farmers to get into the market has become extremely difficult. And you know, what gets me going, for example, there's a national organization, Good Foods Network, funded by Walmart, by the Walton family, right? And they're almost designed to keep these guys impotent because if they really wanted to help, they would open a Walmart for access to smaller farms, but they don't, right? So they have these guys circling there. So the public still doesn't recognize the urgency of the moment, right? We will have a massive food crisis next year because the crops that are not coming out of the ground this year are the ones that we need to be on the market next year. You always have a six to 12 months lag between crop failures and market impact. So we think today, I mean, this time around, we still have plenty of food on the shelf. That's going to drastically change because the winter crops are not coming in. Think about California. California and Arizona produce like over 50% of the US winter vegetables. They're flat out of water. And the Colorado River is dry. So we have not, we haven't, but by the time we hit the panic button, it's going to be like, yeah, it's done, it's too late. So right now is the time, where you want to have the foresight, but unfortunately our mass media, our corporate controlled way of engaging, where right now, I noticed Reuters is organizing a big conference for global food companies. And I look at the way they're positioning this conference and it's completely clear that they're going to perpetuate the current business model. They want to perpetuate status quo business models because what they would have to do to really make an impact is radically decentralize their supply chains and assist regional markets to evolve and for farmers to prioritize what they grow in order to restore water sheds and soil back to health. And that's not happening, right? And it basically, yeah, and the general public is simply not informed enough to have an opinion here and to engage. So that's, I'm sorry, that's a long story. Sorry Klaus, thank you. I want to slip a couple of things into the conversation before passing the kin. One is I kind of miss Paul Krafel's presence because he, through Arthur Brock's prompting of a video that Paul had shot years ago, that got me thinking about the importance of water and how one of the beautiful things about that video was that one human being with a hand trowel could make significant changes in a local landscape by paying attention to the dynamics of water in the landscape, damn, which is really interesting and fabulous and I think inspiring. I think it's inspiring. Then another problem here is that Doug B when you were talking earlier about, we're not feeling this, et cetera, I started thinking about, and I know nothing about physics, but sort of that, let's get in the fields and feel this is like a weak force in the face of a ton of strong forces that are very intentionally blowing oxygen, lots of oxygen in the furnace of emotions on a bunch of stuff that wasn't there before. And a piece I read recently about how the current inflammation over draconian abortion, anti-abortion laws used to be racism. And then the racism avenue kind of petered out politically and in other ways, and I've forgotten the logic of it, I can find that article, I'm sure. And so they shifted. And if you look back right after Roe B Wade was passed, the Southern Baptist Convention's platform says, hey, Roe B Wade, we like, this is okay, some abortion is needed. And that's the same group that splintered recently into the ultra-conservative branch and the regular branch and is suddenly like on fire about all these issues. These people are on fire about all these issues because they're being lit and because kerosene is being poured on their communities and because there's this massive spin machine that involves the echo chamber and all the things that we sort of talk about now and then so I'm trying to figure out how do the fields win against the spins? And that's really hard. So then I wind up going back in my own head to how do we hijack the spins? How do we, if QAnon is an alternate reality game as Adrian Hahn wrote a couple of years ago, then how do we become the game master and spin the sermons to something good? I don't know, but I'm worried that unless we get behind that, it's not gonna work. And then back to where Doug started us off a bit. Doug, every time you say all economic activity involves CO2, my heart bleak cries a little bit. And I kind of wanna say, if your next sentence were, but by different kinds of actions, we can chip ourselves away from the fossil fuel economy. And every time somebody creates an absolutely renewable source of energy and takes cleaves away from the energy economy, some piece of activity that will now cost nothing because the device has been produced, the sun is dropping energy on us and it's working, and that can power compute engines and can power a bunch of stuff. I mean, a whole lot of the data centers are trying to get over to 100% green solar renewable energy. In that process, they're going to have to buy and install a whole bunch of gear that's going to, et cetera, chew up resources and cause pollution and so forth. But in so doing, they're cleaving things away from the fossil fuel economy. And I could see a thermometer going up of, hey, here's 100% of the economy and here's the progress we've made carving ourselves away from fossil fuels. And then large policy initiatives can actually make large dents in that, et cetera, et cetera. But so also all those different things are kind of playing in the dynamic here for me. And I'm also noting that we're going at pretty high speed as usual through these issues and wanted to slow us down just a little bit, but I'm not entirely sure how. So Ken, then Doug C. So with regard to why is our thinking about climate so fractured, I just want to share something here for a second. So this is from the Yale 360 program on climate change. You notice that there's an awful lot of people in this country according to this survey and it's a model of 1,000 people. But if this is even close to accurate, there's an enormous, much greater number of people who are very concerned about the climate versus those who are disengaged, doubtful, and dismissive. So we already have the majority there, but there's a very targeted campaign by big oil company, big energy companies, big auto companies, you know, we want to keep the fricking debate going of, no, it's not settled science. And so that's a really big issue in terms of, I think there's a tremendous amount of people in this country who want to see change. A couple of years ago when Lessig was running for president, you know, his organization represent us. He said, you know, the chances of legislation passing with 90% backing from the American public or 10% backing from the American public are exactly the same because the American public doesn't actually have a voice in policy. And I wish Mike Nelson was here to help us think this through. But, you know, we've got, we have huge majorities who are disenfranchised from having a voice in this conversation because it's one dollar, one vote, not one person, one vote. And when you've got a billion dollars or 1.5 billion dollars to give to a company, a nonprofit who's gonna install right wing judges. I mean, we've got a real problem here. Capitalism and democracy are not, they don't play well together. And capitalism plays really dirty and wins by horrible tactics. And it's destroying the whole fucking world. People go, that's okay, I got my Pete's coffee and I got my place and I'm fine, you know? But I don't think that's actually the case. And there's a lot of people who are just very disgusted so they don't engage. And if we can come up with a more palatable way to involve folks and really get them, you know, together. I'll just mention Damon Cento and more time. He did a, and I think I put it in the chat here. Did a thing where he had people who identified as red and blue come together to look at NASA's climate data. And as long as they knew that it was red and blue, it was an echo chamber, they kept reinforcing. And so then they stripped that away there because they had a little elephant or a little donkey and they were just stripped that away. And people didn't know they were talking to somebody from the other party. That identity of I need to uphold my party's line went away and they actually came to a huge consensus, something like 72% said, wow, this really is a problem whereas before it was totally, you know, polarized. So there's a lot of capacity, a lot of ability, a lot of know-how out there, but it's not being effectively deployed yet. I think we're watching, the trend is upward for me, I'm watching that, you know, and it's discouraging because it's not happening as fast as we'd like it to. But when we talk about our thinking, we have to really separate out and go, who's thinking are we talking about? Are we talking about the special interest thinking? Are we talking about the general public? Are we talking about pockets of concern? Are we talking about people who actually get involved? Are we talking about people who don't have time to be involved because they're working three jobs to put food on their family? Sorry, George Bush reference. I always say that, I can't help it either. So I just, I want us to be a little bit more thoughtful about our language because it's really important that we don't lump things together that, you know, then have us go, that's a lump over there. There's a whole lot of discrete parts that are being fused together in a way that's not helpful to furthering our aim. And politically or in the media sphere, I feel like this is a knife fight in an elevator over language. So we have to be careful about language here, but there is an active battle over language and possession of language and all that. I'm reminded here, there's a couple of people who do interviews of conservatives and they're just really smart interlocutors. Some of them are a little too cynical and they're just trying to win points. Some of them are just like really open. And one of them walked up to an older white fellow who said, you know, what do you think about CRT, critical race theory? He says, oh, we can't have any critical race theory taught. And then he was like, so what is critical race theory? I said, I don't know. I don't know. I just know I don't like it. I'm like, he's been really successfully trained and it's an instinct and openness to the idea of understanding what CRT is and its role in the world would run completely counter to what his entire tribe is trying to do, right? He can't easily step there. It's clearly not impossible for him. He's not an idiot. He's just like, CRT has been painted in bright red with horns and I will not go there. And it's that easy. The thing that really frightens me is it's that easy to make a topic untouchable and radioactive and it's been done over and over and over. And anytime you think things are settling down, the people who are sort of behind the curtain, I'm afraid, go, oh, let's do CRT now. Let's do woke books. Let's go make sure that every librarian in the country is fearful for their jobs and prison time and fines if they don't remove books that any parent, how did we become like the book banning culture? Like, but hey, there we go. Doug Carmichael. Okay, I think we need to think about causes and effects at the same time. Separating them is not helpful. Klaus says that the crops are failing because of heat in three major parts of the world, which is true, but it's being driven by rising temperatures, which is driven by the amount of CO2. It seems to me we have to think about both and that divide and conquer is not a way to deal with climate change. Sorry, Doug, divide and conquer might cover many different things, including what I said about cleaving away parts of the economy. I don't know which divide and conquer you mean. Dividing of symptoms from causes. So separating symptoms from causes. Can you riff on that a little bit more? I'm not sure I followed you. That the heat is causing the agricultural problems. It's not the only cause, but it's a major one. The heat is causing the failure of crops in major parts of the world. That's caused by the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. So the effect is the failure of agriculture, which we have to work on to get to try and feed people. The cause is the rising temperature, which comes from CO2 primarily. And the causes sort of keep going back. It's the five wise exercise you can sort of keep going back to, and then there's also Aristotelian causes, the formal cause, I forgot. Yeah, but you're swamping the thought with lots of words and stuff. Just focus on the idea that rising temperature is a key problem that's driving a lot of other ones, and that is caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Okay, it's cool. Yeah, Doug, this is really, really an important relationship and connection to make here. One-third of global emissions attributed to the way we farm. You have emissions coming directly out of the soil when the soil is getting ripped open by plowing. That generates maybe eight to 10%. You have emissions because of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer, which is made with massive amounts of natural gas. And we're talking about like a billion tons of synthetic fertilizer that is being put out on the fields. Pesticides are made from oil. Then you're dealing with thousands of miles of logistics networks because the way food is being shipped all over the world. So if you were to stop the energy production today and go to zero on CO2 emissions from the energy sector, we would still crash into the wall because the way we farm is so destructive. And it is not only the contribution to CO2 that is directly linked to the way we farm. It is also the destruction of soil, which then loses its ability to hold water, which destroys the soil microbiome, which is a direct contributor to the massive species extinction which we are experiencing today. So soil and in Africa, soil and water, the way we farm, the way we produce our food is more significant at this point in the energy sector. And it has the capacity to be more immediately rectified because an educated public has the capacity to modify their behavior and make massive changes. So that's when we cause an effect here, agriculture is far more insidious than the average American public understands. Okay, two points. One is what's the timeframe by which it would be conceivably possible to change the farming practices? I certainly agree we should work on that, but I don't think it's an immediate effect that's gonna change. The second- One crop cycle. One crop cycle, you can- Yeah, but that's policy. That's not something that people are actually gonna do. Well- So when you are thinking about the energy right to climb on a bicycle instead of driving down your car, you eat one less hamburger a week or you emphasize the types of food that you eat, you have a far more serious impact. But is there any plausible scenario of how we could say cut farming output of CO2 in half by the end of the decade? I don't think there's any plausible scenario of what people would actually be willing to do, what legislation would do, what technology would do to achieve that. Those are- So also wait, wait, wait, wait. Second point is that if we cut all agricultural output of CO2, the amount of CO2 we already have in the atmosphere is going to keep the temperature rising. So I wanna actually go into that point, Doug, because in my head, I'm assuming that if we invented the perfect carbon capture technology, I'm assuming you would say, let's put all of our resources into the perfect carbon capture technology and just sequester CO2. And Klaus is like, if we do that, we're all gonna die. And the last thing I heard from some of the scientists is that there is so much inertia behind carbon that it is relentless and will not be bent back to normal very easily or very quickly. In the meantime, we're going to have to adapt like crazy people. And part of what Klaus is trying to say is that food and water and soil adaptation strategies are high impact and they save people's lives. Then they will help people like have food and shelter and water. And if we don't do those things, that the death is going to happen even sooner. And then we can totally agree with that. We've done it with effects and causes simultaneously. Okay, so is there a contention here or not? Because Klaus is like, hey, dude's over here, agriculture, waters, all this kind of stuff, this nexus pays off really well to toward the results you want us to get, Doug. But I feel like you're at loggerheads. And the results are gonna be too slow coming given the political and social realities which goes back to the lockup we have in politics and all that. I put a- I'm saying let's work on both at the same time, the causes and the effects. And I put a post to the Four Pest Campaign that Mao ran in China in the chat just to say that sometimes when you have a lot of power and a chokehold on things, you can actually drive enormous changes really quickly and cause famine for 20 million people and kill a bunch of people off because one of those pests was sparrows. They managed to get Chinese people to walk around and startle sparrows off of branches so that they died. And the sparrows were eating all the plant pests. So basically locusts and other plant pests ate the crops and they had famine. Like a famine we can't begin to imagine famine across China caused by social policy at a very large scale. So that's the dark side of what we're talking about. It's like, you don't wanna do that. You wanna have some self-steering gear. But one of the really appealing things about regenerative agriculture and I think regenerative economics done well is that it creates a feedback mechanism and a self-steering gear kind of to head toward fixing the problems and measuring the right variables to improve the situation on the ground. Grace, then Gil. Just wanna stop for a moment because there's kind of a dynamic of this conversation that doesn't feel good to me. And it's sort of like Doug is as, you know, I feel like, I feel your pain, right? Like this is really not working. But, you know, Klaus has some very practical ideas and I don't wanna be in a group where as soon as somebody who's actually got practical ideas and is an expert on this thing, like as soon as he talks there's like, Doug is like, no, but that's never gonna work. It's gonna take like, you didn't say it quite in that tone but I do wanna point out that that's how it was sounding to me. Like here we've got somebody who's actually on the ground doing something, an absolute expert in this area. And yeah, it's true that, you know, Klaus is always banging on the same drum but we all gotta eat, man. And maybe it's not enough, but it's his corner. And I would really much rather have people, first of all, encourage one another's projects. Honestly, like I don't agree with everything everybody does, but I don't know, right? Like I know my little corner. And secondly, you know, and whatever you're pointing at, I really wanna see a little bit more like inquiry and wonder and then again, this goes to Jerry's first point. How do we make this more friendly? But this is one of the least friendly conversations I've been in so far in some way that I, and so I just, I wanted to stop and say that because how it was sounding to me was starting to be a big argument. And that's not the atmosphere I want here. Thank you so much. Thanks, Grace. Let's just go into silence for a little bit here. I'll bring us back out. Just let's ponder where we are and how we're coming into this. Thank you very much, Grace. Thank you, Mr. Friend. What Grace said. Thank you. And just one other thing, Joe. I'm trying to find the quote. There's a quote from Sri Nasturigata, something to the effect of the cause of all things is all things. And I just offer that as a kind of caution on our very deeply held tendency to look for cause and effect in what risks being a mechanistic way. We're in poly crisis. This is a mess of messes. It's all deeply tangled. And the question of where are the most effective leverage points is not an obvious one. These are thorny tangled problems, et cetera. And Doug, just for me, I honor and love the fact that you come to these calls full of burning fire, like the house is on fire, we need to act right this second damn it, people. I then have some trouble engaging with the things you say. It's like, yeah, but we can't build or do anything. It's like, we must act immediately, but anything we do will cause carbon to exist in the world so we can't do anything. I never said we should act immediately. I've never said that. And I'm also saying that we should work on Klaus's project and the bigger one simultaneously. They're both very important. I think we're not hearing you say that. I really like what he's doing. Yeah, I'm not hearing you say that. And I'm hearing urgency from you every time you speak up. I'm actually hearing we must act immediately from you. I don't, if you're not intending that to come across, it is coming across. It's not what I'm saying because I don't think anybody knows what acting immediately would be. We want leadership to do something. But we have no script for what we want leadership to actually do. So we're stuck in a really difficult place. And I'm not proposing anything like immediate action as a way out of it. But what I'm raising the question is the quality of our thinking about what it's like to be stuck in a polymorphous problem like we are. Thank you. Mr. Freypart, you're muted. I wanted to pick up on a sort of a variation on the theme that Grace phrased that I experienced in the Grace session. Yes, was that yesterday? That was just yesterday. Okay. And... No, I guess it was Tuesday. Or Tuesday. No, it was yesterday. And my experience of it was sort of a more positive energy, but repetition of the same phenomena. And that it's sort of escalated into an almost feeding frenzy of incoming directed at her. Mix and match of questions, suggestions and elements. But the way I saw her in the middle of it was that she was... And Grace, I don't mean to project on you. So if your experience of it from the inside out was completely different than my perception of you in the middle of it, please feel free to add that facet because I'd love to hear it. But it was this, no, not that. Yes, maybe that, that might be interesting, but it was sort of like you were in the middle of a circular tennis court. And it sort of, you know, energetically ramped up into this almost feeding frenzy of stuff. And, you know, part of the thing that keeps living for me, and I think I'm trying to think who just sort of through the dimension of stillness as a perhaps counterintuitive, but legitimate response reaction in a moment. It may not be what our thinking is, but it may be the way we're being in response in relationship with. And I have more and more of this feeling in looking at the world, the problems and all the people interested in speaking to them, of there's just a mass, there's been a massive distraction, diversion in our culture that's professional. I mean, that's like really big deal that keeps us spinning and missing the big points. And what I keep feeling pulled toward is how's about we get off the merry-go-round, like you find yourself at the bottom of a hole, stop digging, like how about really trying to find enough space to shrink all of what we know down into a small enough and distant enough thing to get above it and to start clean with a look at the whole kit and caboodle and go, OK, like what is needed? What's the biggest bang for the buck? What's the single most important thing to respond to the scale and scope and complexity of the challenges that are happening? And if the space and that moment and that opportunity isn't taken to get far enough away from all the bugs and the details and the distractions and the contentions and the stuff, to gain perspective on what's the path? We're going extinct. Like we're just not going to get to a solution that's going to save our collective, our assets. And so that, yeah, I'll stop there. Thanks, Doug. Yes, I'd like to respond. Just, yeah. So I think that one of the things that I found really doesn't work, and I didn't point it out at the beginning, and I should have tried to do this better, is that it doesn't work for the person who's, let's say, the subject of something or trying to run the project to also run the meeting. So if we're having a brainstorming about my project and I'm also facilitating the meeting, it doesn't work very well. And I think that that creates a really difficult dynamic. So that's one thing that happened. And yeah, and we're going to do it every Wednesday. And I think the other thing was I framed the question a certain way of what I wanted to handle. And one of the ways I didn't frame the question was, let's really try to understand my project very deeply. Because I'm happy to have that conversation, but I've been thinking about these things for 10 years. And to try in one hour for me to explain all these different aspects of the project, I think that's where it came out. I really don't want to talk about self-overdidentity right now. It's a really big issue. And it's not the topic. Or I really don't want to talk about how I'm going to do everything. That's a different topic. And I'm going to write a white paper. And I'll definitely want everybody's feedback and all that stuff. And so I think there was a frustration on my part in trying to bring the conversation back to, how do I get this damn thing funded, which is my main question. And I think it's just fine for people to go, I don't know. So we had from the EU, and I was like, well, I do speak to somebody because I got really, really practical about it. And I think there is a tendency for this group to get a little theoretical. And I was trying to do something extremely practical. Yes, I'm very familiar with the intentional communities. The problem with the intentional communities is they have no money. And I'm really committed not to take money out of the poorly funded movements and actually to bring it from some of the better funded movements. My commitment is try and get money out of the cryptocurrency and the high net worth groups rather than take it out of what's already scrapping by. My theory is that most of the money that's in circulation was extracted from the ground, from fossil fuels, as we're talking about. And the more I can get back into the ground, it would be great. And I think say, I can't quite read the chat, but I just think I need every person with money to donate. I need enough of the people who care about the air and the future and their children. And I don't think it's fair to generalize about rich people anymore than it's fair to generalize about any other population. So anyway, that's for that. Thanks, Grace. I wasn't thinking of taking money out here, but I was thinking of putting money in because clearly there is not enough funding to really make this work. But yet what an amazing opportunity to have an operational foundation for some of what you're trying to do. That was sort of the point here. Thank you. Thank you. And as to the question that you just brought up about the most important thing, I think each of us is going to have a different answer to that. I don't want to spend any time thinking about that. I want to spend all my time working on what seems most important to me and hopefully enough of us will do that. Anyway, yeah, sorry about that. No, don't be sorry, Grace, thanks. Ken. So I'd like to tell a little story. About 30 years ago, 29, 30 years ago, I was doing a lot of volunteering at Spirit Rock, which is a meditation center here in Marin County. And they were having a conference of Western Dharma teachers. These were all people who were born in the West, but they were teaching the Dharma, which is a very Eastern thing to do. And there are about 200 teachers there. And they brought in for keynote speakers, Corissa Pinkola Estes and Michael Mead. And it was a really hot night. And there's like all these people packed into this building and we're all kind of sweating and fanning ourselves and Michael Mead gets up and he says, what's the greatest challenge facing humanity today? It was a long, thoughtful pause and people started to say, well, you know, climate change was not quite as primal back then, but we talked about global warming at that point and, you know, loss of habitat and nuclear war, nuclear waste and poverty and inequality and it got really heavy. And Michael's listening and he says, you know, those are all really critical challenges, but they're all secondary because until people can learn to sit in the same room with each other, when they have really big differences of opinion and not resort to violence and not leave when the conversation gets hard, we'll never make headway on solving any of those problems. And that was a lightning bolt moment for me. That was when I decided I am gonna dedicate my life to learning how to have effective conversations and to help groups have effective conversations. And I think this is something that people miss. You know, we think that because we're informed about something and that we can make a good case for it that that's somehow is gonna change people's minds and really coming back to what Jerry's initial point on this call was it's in the listening that change happens. Can you actually sit and listen to somebody who has a really different opinion than you? Can you make them feel valued for their opinion? Even if you highly disagree with it, even if you think it's total bullshit, can you be with them in a way that makes them feel like they wanna stay in the conversation and learn? And I think that's something that OGM could get a lot better at in terms of learning how to sit with diverse opinions and cognitive diversity and all the other kinds of diversity that are required, you know, that are natural to this earth that are inherent that we are wiping out at a astonishingly frightening level. So that's my little story. And I have to go in about five minutes. I have another call. So, but this has been really juicy. Thank you, everybody. It's good to see you. Thank you, Ken. And I've mentioned him a couple of times before but one of my heroes in the dynamic that Ken just described is Daryl Davis, black jazz musician who has a garage full of Ku Klux Klan robes because many years ago, white guy came up and leaned on his piano in a bar as he was playing Boogie Woogie and said, hey, never heard a black guy play Jerry Lee Lewis quite like that. And they got to talking and turned out this guy was a grand dragon in the KKK and through patience and respectful listening and staying in the conversation. Two years later, the guy hands Daryl his robes and then lather rinse repeat and Daryl Davis shows up at KKK rallies and is handled with great respect for listening with great respect. It's really, it's really, really, really interesting. And then there's a documentary about Daryl's work and toward the end of the documentary two young black activists are interviewed and they're really upset. They think that what he's doing by even engaging with the other side is not worth it. It's a very interesting short interaction toward the end of this talk. And I'm like, dudes, dudes, he's actually melting. He's actually melting the other side. You need to melt the other side, not try to break it. It won't break. And the more you try to break it, the more it resists and uses your energy to come back at you with worse stuff. So, ah, anyway, I'm an amateur on this stuff. But it feels like, it feels like, it feels like we're at this very lovely, dangerous cusp of human history where we have superpowers. We are like gods. We might as well get used to using it. We have a zero marginal cost super connectivity even though there's carbon being consumed as we have this call, not consumed but created, sorry. And we are in the middle of all these spiraling crises that we've been talking about more than a little bit here for more than a little while. Among people of broadly like-minded, we're not like, we're not on the same page necessarily in the sheet of music, in the book of music, but we're pretty close and dot, dot, dot. And Grace, thank you for repeating to us that this is a community which as it stands is a place you choose to come to and enjoy being in. That matters a lot to me. And I feel exactly that way. Like what it is and what we are right now as Pete kind of said in the chat as well. Like, hey, the fact that we don't have a formal mission and whatever else might not be a terrible thing. It might be that this is a loose agglomeration of people who come in here, maybe get replenished, learn some stuff and then go back out to their project and do stuff. And that the nature and kind and frequency of our conversations enables us to level up a bit and calm down a bit and come back in and out of that kind of dynamic that we're all in. But this is a really crucial crazy moment. I'm stunned at the magnitude of events that are happening out there from Russia deciding to just go like try to shoplift Ukraine in front of everybody to, you know the climate thing we're ignoring because we're busy trying to prevent the handmade's tail from becoming, from getting put into the history part of the library instead of, you know science fiction. That's just crazy stuff. And we have to get under this somehow. So we're at the hour and we could actually, Ken's got to go. Thank you for being here. Anybody else who needs to drop, please. Pleasure. See ya. And we could also take this in a different direction if we'd like. What is in our hearts? We could also go quiet for five minutes and just meditate. Thanks, Grace. Brother Kaminsky. Thanks, Jerry. And thanks all for the conversation. I keep coming back to something Grace and I were chatting recently and I come back to something she said about this call and I'm sorry she's not here and I hope she doesn't mind if I relate the story but she said something like one of the things I really like about the OGM and especially the OGM Thursday calls is that we don't pretend to try to get something done. It feels a lot more like hanging out in a pub with a bunch of really smart, really committed, really thoughtful people. So I cherish, truly cherish, especially thank you, Doug and Klaus, both of you holding a really important position and continuing to remind us of it. And I really resonate with Doug saying that we need to level up the quality of our thinking, especially around carbon. And I really, really appreciate Klaus continuing to say we just need to fix soil and water and it's really important that we do that very quickly. But I also like when we just kind of hang out and don't get things done. Thanks. Thanks Pete. Yeah, I was in a conversation with Gene Ballinger. He started a new workshop with a group of OGM type people and it's focused on the second prime. So Jerry pretty much down your ally and in fact I forwarded him the video that's from your New York visit. And in that conversation, it's about record keeping. How do you keep track of your knowledge base and different types of software that are being introduced and talked about and so on and so on. And so finally I'm going, I mean I'm trying, I use different, I use Google documents, I use different email accounts, and then I track specific conversations with different codes and so on. And I said, but every time I go back into my database and look for stuff, I realize it's outdated, right? I mean, because I look at a file and then I run it through a query and lo and behold a new science report or some new data came up that modifies and all just sometimes even contradicts what you had come to believe. So it's a really, it's a challenge really for us to, and then the important part was that the biggest risk that we have is to look at the world from within our own context. Because we're all in a silo, we're in a bin, we all are because of the information world that you're embedded in. And so the challenge is to climb out of that silo and look around and see the relationships and connections. And what we, once you do that, then you see that so many silos are operating quite independently, trying to fix stuff and in the process of fixing it, creating externalities that make the whole worse, right? This is the demics, now the power of suboptimization system, suboptimizing a system, which is now the most, when you have a dysfunctional governance as we do, then this kind of suboptimization between power blocks is one of the first things that happens and that's how you screw up an economy and in a society really, and this is where we are. So the challenge is to look at our own data or own way of compiling information and try to connect it, step back and see how does that link up to other stuff that I don't normally look at and what are the relationships between those two? So I thought that, so we're meeting again to explore this challenge and we'll be talking about our projects, right? So what project are you working on and then let's collectively step back and see how does that project link up to things that you may have overlooked or not have thought about? So it's a challenge, I think we all really face in prioritizing because ultimately, collectively, we have come to a level of prioritizing what we need to focus on and fix. And when we are working out of these silos, we see priorities in different lights and in different perspectives. So how can we collectively agree on like my thing is now focus on soil and water, elevated to the same level as to the energy sector and so on and so how can we achieve collective alignment, consensus, right? So we can focus our energy on really pushing something that would be a leverage point that has the longest lever to pull on to push that system into a different track. Thanks, Klaus. Michael. Yeah, I was just thinking about what Klaus is saying and then circling back to what Ken raised earlier from Michael Mead and whether the prerequisite to us all getting in a room and being able to talk without violence and with understanding is the ability to have the tools for thought to pull in and organize information independent of our silos and of course, that for those of you who know me, that's like kind of one of my pet issues just being able to group the content one consumes and filter the content one consumes with intention rather than being the victim of the feeds that are fed to you. But I do really think there's an opportunity in the thinking before getting into the room and I guess it was just the Michael Mead connection that struck me that I wanted to share just like how do we be the kind of people who will get into a room and not be violent and walk out and scream and yell. That's all. Thank you. Just to schedule a viewing of the Connections episode which I've wanted to do for a long time. How's 8 a.m. Pacific next week on Tuesday or Wednesday for anyone who'd like to participate? That work okay. Pete? Yeah, I think that's good for me. Wednesday starts to run into Grace's call I think. Okay, that's true. So how about next Tuesday at 8 a.m. Pacific? Jerry, I didn't fully get what the conversation would be. It happened in the chat, sorry, Koss. So James Burke's PBS series Connections is a big favorite of mine. It inspired me way back when and then Eric many calls ago, we talked about Holland and stuff and he was like, oh, that's in this episode. I would love to watch a couple episodes of the Connections series together and then just hit pause and talk about stuff a little bit like maybe and I don't know if at the same pace as the book club that Pete is guiding through the dawn of everything. And so the notion here is just to take I think a 90 minute slot next Tuesday and to convene to co-watch, to watch together and we'll use whatever best co-viewing technology works to do it. I think piping through Zoom should work just sort of playing it through collaboratively. And then we can pause and chat and use the chat and I'll be doing some weaving in my brain. Anybody else who wants to weave as well but that's the general project. And if we like it, we can sort of lather and repeat on another episode or other kinds of things but it is the BIRC Connections series. And BIRC was also a brain user, it turns out. Yeah, he used it on the web as his web interface for a while on his website had something called the K-Web. I got to shake his hand once and he immediately turned to the next person said, oh, hi, I was like, dammit, miss that. So I cannot make Tuesdays, sorry to say. Okay. Are you interested in participating in this? Yeah, just the time is a real problem right now. I could go earlier, April's gonna be gone for a while so I'll be less disruptive but I could go even to 7 a.m. some mornings. But that's West Coast and that gets people up really early on the West Coast. Well, I'm on the West Coast and I could do seven to eight. On Tuesday, it so happens I have a call at seven but Wednesday I don't. Any thoughts, suggestions? Pete, do you like getting up that early or is that too, we used to do a bunch of really, really calls but. Yeah, I'm up by six. And Grace's call started at nine so if we started at seven on Wednesday, how's that for people? Good for Doug. Yeah. Pete, good. All right, cool. So 7 a.m. on Wednesday I will set it for 90 minutes and we'll go as far as we go in 90 minutes. Jerry, I'm very interested in that project but I'm gonna be on the vacation for the next two weeks. Will you be able to record the sessions? I think so. There might be a little complication in that we'll be watching somebody else's intellectual property and it might get flagged by YouTube if I repost it to YouTube. That could be a problem. I would be fine to record the conversation and not the episode. Yeah, exactly, record the conversation and I can join the conversation later on when I'm back from vacation. Great. Sounds great and I'll post it to OGM town hall so we've got that as well. Yeah. Cool, thank you. Sweet, I'll do that when we hang up here. What else? We have 15 minutes more to play with if we want to. We can also fold the call early. Well, of course, I'm reflecting on what happened to my initial question about our thinking. And you're welcome to reflect more out loud. I think I'll be quiet for a bit. Pete, go ahead. I feel a little embarrassed. I am called to share something by Umair Haak who is a bit of a pundit. He's a bit of a... He got more popular when he was kind of a doom and gloom. We're all gonna die, chicken little person. And that kind of peaked and he quieted down. He's an interesting person, likes to think and talk and write. The depth of his thought is maybe not as even as deep as we go here. But on the other hand, one of the things he posted just recently was five projects our civilization needs to start and finish if it wants to survive. And I'm like, yeah, yeah, yeah, it's gonna be about carbon capture or whatever. And he took a different tack on it. And so I was going to share a link and some summaries here in chat. So what he says is kind of we got to change like all of society. And I'm like, well, thanks, Umair. That's not very practical. That's gonna be like something we can't do. And then I'm like, yeah, actually, class talking about Deming. Deming says you can't optimize a part of the system because that's not gonna optimize the whole thing. And we get stuck in this, how are we going to untangle this complicated mess? Why don't we just fix carbon? Why don't we just fix soil and water? Both of those are extremely important and I want them fixed. But the root problem is things like income and money, inequality and the way that we do politics and the structure of our society. And until you fix those things, so you can't fix carbon and energy because because the whole sphere is captured by hugely, massively resourced energy companies. And they are the way they are because people are the way they are. So I appreciate Doug saying that we need to kind of work both ends. We need to work cause and effect. The cause runs deep and is built into the structure of our society. And give me a lever and a place to stand far enough away. The lever needs to be pretty big to change all the things we need to change. And that's kind of what we need to change. I'm not saying that it's too big to change, but changing the way society works and then where our culture works is the root cause. That's what we need to work on. Not easy, but gotta do it. Pete, thank you. I met Umair long ago when he worked for HAVAS Media. We both gave talks at one of the HAVAS events, et cetera. And he had slides that were like dark blue text on black background, which is illegible. He was mumbling into his cuffs. It was really kind of funny. And, but what he was saying, I was completely agreeing with. I was like, oh yeah, this. And then I've watched him grow his audience and popularity as kind of a doomer. And it's weird because you become a Cassandra. You become someone who's so predictably doomy that people are like, do they then pigeonhole you into that spot and go, so I haven't read any of his posts for a while. And I'm very grateful that you're putting this one in front of us with some summaries. It's lovely. So I'm harvesting that into my brain and we'll go back and read the piece. And thank you for that, Mr. Breypart. Yeah, I sort of, in looking at this, it's in the spirit of, and I'm sort of, it's very much preaching to my choir, if that makes sense. It's speaking to what's needed, you know, on a blank check basis. Not what's needed, qualified by what I internally believe is possible. Not what's needed based on already having a handle on a way to actually achieve a result. It's like, what's really needed? And this is extrapolating out to the scale and scope of the transformation that's called for. And I think there's a huge value in expressing that, in articulating that. The universe is sort of this massive creation machine. It's agnostic and we get what we ask for. And it's not hard to get left out of the room with asking for something where everybody else in that space goes, oh yeah, like that'll never happen. That's not realistic. That's not this, that's not that, that's not whatever. But at the end of the day, we do get what we ask for. And somebody's got to ask on that scale and scope and recognize how far the actual difference and delta is, but asked anyway. And then maybe work backwards. So thanks for the share in the link to this. And I'm a big thumbs up on where he went. Thank you. So many things. John, nice to see you. You're outdoors and everything. Yeah. Can you hear us at all? Yes. I'm getting you. Excellent. I'm obviously at the web. Oh, right. Exactly. You were going to gorilla drop in. Thank you. Anything to report so far? Well, it's, it would be hard to overestimate how much changes when you change the environment. Not just nature. I mean, that's a pretty big one, but you know, just the fact that I just, she moved away. I was going to show you their children here. 26 children, including babies. And there's just all kinds of people. Australia and Germany. It's much, it's much bigger. It's only 400 people, but I mean, it's bigger in the sense of scope. And I imagined. So that's kind of like the capsule. That's great. Thank you, John. And thank you for giving us a taste of it here. I'll sign out and let you guys complete your conversation. And I'll, I'll try to watch the replay later. Thanks John. Gil. There we go. Two things. I'm a, I'm a long time fan of Omar. Hey, and I'm very tired of his constant doom drum beat because it seems like it never changes. So Pete, thank you for offering. Something with different flavor. I'm struck by those five points as being so vast that they're not actionable in the sense that Doug Carmichael is talking about. But they're worth stating. You know, it's worth having those in mind in the background as we look at the more specific things and kind of, you know, in terms of the climate policy. And maybe we can get a little bit of a helicopter in from level to level. So thank you for that. Do people remember the prop 23 referendum campaign in California. About 20 years ago. 15 years ago. Which one was 23? This was the one that was going to overturn California's climate and energy policy. from fossil to renewable economies, focusing on energy efficiency and so forth. And somewhere along the line, I think about 20 years ago, a referendum was initiated in the lovely California process funded by out of state fossil fuel interest to overturn the climate policy. And a really interesting thing happened. In every environmental battle until then, the political landscape was in virus on one side and business on the other side. And it's kind of the classic familiar battle of wills and money and so forth. In this one, it was the fossil fuel industry on one side and the environs and the rest of the California business community on the other side. The business coalition was split because the non-fossil businesses saw their benefit as being really different than the fossil companies benefit. And despite being outspent, I don't remember if it was five to one or 20 to one, despite being massively outspent, we beat back the challenge. And I raise that just to say that there are strange bedfellows possible here. And we have possibilities of doing things together with people who are enemies on certain issues, but allies on certain other issues. And so for me, that's kind of a hopeful thing to think about. It's a reminder that it's worthwhile being a lot more gentle at who we decide to hate, back to Ken's point about the listening. Because we have differences and commonalities. And we don't have to only work with people who we agree with on everything. I mean, Klaus, you know this, I'm sure, every day in the work with ag. You're working with people who may be voting differently than you, but have a common perspective on soils. And so for me, that's one of the hopeful things to look back to. In this landscape, think about how do we move? Because all the things we need to do, if we're going to overturn Citizens United, which is a logjam on democracy, we need actually democratic power to do that. But to do that, we have to overturn Citizens United and how do you break these cycles of trappedness in the political landscape? And I think it has to come with both building the grounded power and clarity of what we're working in, but also finding ways to listen across these divides and find common interests and common concerns. Because, you know, somebody said before, the fossil fuel industry clearly has an interest in predatory delay around climate. They're going to extract as much value as they can as this industry rides down before it gets stranded. That's a completely rational thing for them to do from their perspective. But more and more, the world is going to see that as not in its own interest. Well, in the general capitalist default setting, yes, that's the rational thing for them to do. But I mean, this may be a silly example, but Netflix was not called Red Envelope. Netflix was called Netflix, even though the beginning of their business was mailing us little DVDs and envelopes and then fetching them back and they built distribution centers. But I think they deeply understood that the envelopes were just a temporary hack and that they were going to get rid of all those distribution centers and become just this online sort of thing. So if the energy companies did what British Petroleum sort of seemed to try to do years ago, but I'm not sure it did, but it was to do. Exactly. But if they were sincere about actually sort of figuring out energy in a sustainable way, and it would probably help a lot if there were better policies that penalized bad energy behavior and rewarded good energy behavior, which they resist at every turn. But if they were on the side of helping those policies come into being because their environment still is fruitful and then they're in charge of renewable energy in the future and they're still alive as an entity, as opposed to people going like stamp them out and salt the earth that they're building a stand on today because we hate them so much. Yep. And the popular term in Houston these days is energy transition. It's like it's a lot in that industry. They know that it's going to change and the question is how to change. And, you know, there are some that are more forthright and aggressive than others. And there are some that are delitory and making little moves to delay things as long as possible. I still assert that there is a in, you know, in the traditional capitalist framework, there is a value to them to slow the transition because they need to extract the value of the reserves before the reserves are closed. But there's active work looking, you know, what are they good at? You know, they're good at moving liquids and gases and refining complex chemistries. There's all kinds of applications to that in a renewable energy society. And some of them are looking at that hard and some of them are looking at it as a delaying tactic. Some of them are looking at it as an instead of, you know, mechanical carbon capture instead of the agricultural stuff that Klaus is talking about. But there's work there that's relevant, what we're doing about it. You know, it lives under the heading that I've got in my bucket called change without change. You know, how do we change things as little as possible so we can keep doing most of what we're doing? I think that's not going to wash in the challenge that we're facing. But it echoes for me the, you know, the United Front work of the 1930s where people who were fierce political enemies came together to fight fascism. And in the absence of the rise of fascism in Europe, they would have been killing each other. But they said, let's just put down our guns for a while and work together because there's a greater common enemy. So for me, that's a reminder to be really wary of the kind of political and cultural purity that seems to be on the rise in the progressive circles in this country. We need bigger forces. Are you familiar with the Taoist concept of Wu Wei? Yeah, say more about it. It's action through least action, not through inaction, but it's very much allied with what you just said about how do we cause a lot of change without having to wrench the system around? Well, you and I are both like Yidokas. So we know that we don't we don't fight by meeting opposition like that. We need it like that. So, yeah. Exactly. Cool. Cool. Anyone else? Last words for this this call. Thank you for a very thoughtful call. We've bounced on a lot of different things. Lots of things, at least for me to chew on. Leaving this call. So thank you all. Thank you all.