 A couple of days ago, I was talking to an organization that will go unnamed that's in the carbon market that helps regenerative farmers make a little bit of money for sequestering carbon in their landscape, which I think is a fine idea, a theoretical idea, I should say. And what they're doing is they're financing via the sale of carbon in the market the implementation of civil pasture systems, which I think is a great reality. The way they're measuring carbon is with the actual carbon mass of the trees just like when you're measuring soil carbon you're looking at the soil carbon mass the mass or tonnage of carbon in the soil when you're doing it with trees you're looking at the soil, not looking at the So you're looking at the actual carbon mass above the, and they're paying the farmers based upon the girth and height of those trees. And I don't want to bring these down I this is an organization down I rather want to do is just have a conversation around it. I think through conversations we're going to have an actual world where ecosystem services are both holistic and financially accessible for farmers. My question to them is, it was, it seems to me, in the carbon market in order for a farmer to make money, I have to plant fast growing poplars and black locusts and I have to forsake the Oaks, the Hickories, the walnuts right the species that are cornerstone and keystone in our biome that drive I mean, I mean, black black cherries, a slower growing tree, but a dead, a standing black cherry tree can host all of an acre worth of wildlife. All of the bacteria and the fungi and the nematodes and the worms and the beetles and the borers and the in the birds and everything can be fed from that one decadent but standing black cherry tree. But in a carbon market perspective, I have to plant fast growing trees, not good trees, right it's it's this the virgins again that we're seeing between maybe purpose and product. Yeah, or production that's being monitored and monitored and wait. Anyways, enough of that. I'm sure this conversations we had there I'll just stop talking and that's key. I mean, I was actually searching my mind for an example. And you just provided the example that that really illustrates the problem with with reducing ecological health to carbon. Because like it's like you said, like, like, okay, right now there's a happy convergence between what fits the carbon metrics and what is good for the soil, at least a partial a partial alignment there. But as you're saying what happens like when you face that decision, okay, what the land really needs is some keystone species that that will benefit it for 100 years or 500 years. But that is not financially the same dilemma that farmers are having in the industrial system, like that with the land really needs is not financially viable because I have to plant all these poplars. Right. So, and ironically, the capstone irony here is that if you don't plant that, like black cherry tree, then the fast growing trees won't do as well either. Because who knows, maybe the black cherry tree is providing habitat for for birds and insects that control diseases that would otherwise afflict the back the fast growing trees. And so here's like the basic mindset. The basic problem solving pattern of industrial society is find something that you can measure reduce to value. I mean, it's the financial mindset. You find the one thing you can measure and now you can turn it into a financial min max problem. So they're very attracted to carbon as a proxy for ecological health. And sometimes, you know, like, yeah, civil capture, that's good, right? Certainly better than than monocrop soybeans to feed feedlot cattle. But the same mindset is embedded in it and the same problems will will will arise in different form. And that's why we need to really move beyond a reductionistic approach and a quantitative approach and access other ways of knowing, you know, and other ways of of integrating economy into agriculture.