 Yeah, we've 38 this morning. Wow, 38. Of course, it's, oh, it's October. Yeah, of course. Yeah. Excuse me. So I live in Thailand. It's almost never cold. I was surprised to see your, your parka jacket there. 38 that is. Yeah, that is pretty cold. It'll be single digits. It's cold, but it's refreshing. Yeah, of course. I was last home in Scotland, I think three going on four years ago in, in November and again in December. And I remember walking around Glasgow with my boots on and my dad's parka going from office to office in the refreshing. Cool. It was beautiful. Hello, Jerry. Hi, Greg. How are you doing? Hi, Jerry. All right. Hey, Doug. Thanks, darling. Good night. It's my daughter, dutifully handing me her tablet and going off to bed. Oh, nice. No, no, no electronics at night. That's great. No, no for, oh, we had an issue. Going on a year ago, I guess, and we had a big talk about it. And since then she's just been wonderful about it. And she knows herself. She feels a lot better. I love the head that you have the out the ging over your shoulder there with the motorcycle. Yeah, and I'm still struggling to get through the age of surveillance capitalism. Oh, goodness. What a heavy, heavy book. But it's a comedy. No way. Really hard to do. Really hard to do it. Although, you know, historically satires and things like that have had very good effect. Yeah, it's a good approach. Yeah. Serious points to make. Yeah. And the gesture, the gesture often has more liberty at court than anyone else says to say things that the team doesn't want to hear. So. There's different ways of delivering bad news. Yeah. How is everybody doing okay? Despite the world melting. We're good. Last week. I think it was Pete who said, Hey, why don't we like something to focus on? So I just sent the invite out saying, Hey, why don't we pick something to focus on and we'll alternate weeks. We'll do regular check in rhythm every other week. And then let's try for a while. Just to zone in on one topic that we care about. Yeah. So I'm going to go ahead and take a look at some of the topics and see where it takes us. I will be annotating in my brain. Of course. But let's see what else shows up. And what we can do with it. So now taking the floor is open for nominations on topics. Hey, Alison. Hey, Gail. The floor is open for nominations on what topic we should spend our 90 minutes on or some portion of the 90 minutes because it doesn't have to be one thing for the whole period. Okay. You said that you had a nomination of topics. Why don't you go first? I will describe a question that came up yesterday, which requires some expertise to answer. But the question a friend said that this new open smart contracts environment with Ethereum, et cetera, et cetera, is like this huge open database that will solve a tremendous number of problems because you'll be able to query it for who did what to whom, et cetera, et cetera. And I think it's much more opaque than that. I don't think that all these transactions are naked. I don't think the smart contracts are easily queried. I know that in the blockchain, and this is where I realized how shallow my expertise was. I know that in the blockchain stuff is encrypted. And you know that something happened and that some amount of transaction happened between persistent identities, but not much more is disclosed. But then in the layers above, I actually don't know how the operate in relation to or, or whatever else is going on. Anyway, I'm overposing my question, but the question is just how exposed or naked or available are smart contracts on platforms like Ethereum. It's a geeky question, but it goes to what kind of a society are we going toward and how visible is everything going to be? I have one question I want to insert and maybe. If anybody has an answer and they want to throw in a name of who might be a good person to pose that question to, it might give us a list of people that we would want to interview on weaving the world. That's a very nice idea. Thank you. And so, and so even as we pose questions to maybe talk about any suggestions for resources, people, other sort of stuff, drop them in the chat, say them out loud, anything like that. Mr. Kaminsky. Jerry, I wonder if you could write your question in the chat. Maybe I can do that. And I wanted to. I wish from last week was not so much that we have a topic, but that we capture what we talk about and have an artifact, not just a converse and ephemeral conversation. I would like to open a hack and the page so that we can join you on taking collective notes or are you thinking something different from that? How about the room? Would you be interested in having a hack and do where we could take notes together? Anybody else? I'm thinking the answer is no. I'm not saying jumping up and down, but. Well, the other way to do that, maybe a better question to ask, could you persuade me that we should take notes on hack and ephemeral conversation? We could also take, we could also take notes in the chat or on the matter most, which then makes them messier and not, not easily editable, but it certainly gives us a record of what happened. I think trying to keep notes in the chat would be fine. I think another, another component of my wish kind of is that. Instead of. Talking and talking and talking and talking and drifting. We talked for a little bit and then reflect on what we've talked about and try to capture that a little bit, maybe into the chat. I think that's a, that's better than just like continually kind of cycling and drifting. That sounds great. I love that. Gill, it looks like you are being freed from the carbon night that you've been frozen into the last millennium. And you're muted. And there's no telling what's going to happen. Exactly. Exactly. You can see it's all flowing. Yeah, exactly. I got to orient to Chewbacca is frozen next to you. I want to see him thought too. Yeah. Anyway, it seems that there's two questions in there. One is fairly technical. It's about how this shit works. And the other was whether this is a good idea because it presumes that life is transactional and I'll assert that it's not or not. But there's a lot more. There's a lot more than can be rendered in a transaction description. Yes. And there's also these sort of. Economic socioeconomic implications about the need for government and essential institutions. There's a whole, there's a whole argument about the D web that's kind of involved in my question in a sense because, because his assumption of great transparency was, was a statement of great faith in the, in our future, because this great new distributed. But I think it's a lot more than is what I'd like to say. I think it's more than data base was available to query, like crazy. Alison, would you like to talk for a second about your question? And then we'll go to Gil. You put one in the chat. Sure. I am. I guess I'm just kind of wondering whether or not there's any consensus with the room and you know, it feels to me like. Sometimes we're talking about blockchain. Which is good. It's too soft. A problem of creating that. chain, but I understand what your question is kind of from Julie, how do we really know it's fine. And it but it feels like then we're putting trust into the blockchain. So stepping back a little bit, I'm just curious about whether or not there's consensus because I kind of tend to think, and maybe I feel a little bit like a zealot about it. I was in a conversation the other day, actually not a conversation. I was in a room listening to Paul Hawking introduce his new book about climate change regeneration. And he's putting together a website that's the world's largest repository this time we're aiming to be a solutions for solving climate change in one generation through regenerative solutions. And so we're looking at this from a materials and environmental perspective. And even though Paul verbalizes my here verbalize a lot that the economy is the central cause to climate change. The climate economy is a central cause to inequality and the climate economy is a central cause to war. And the climate and the economy is a central cause to political instability and kind of all of these things. So, so the solutions that are proposed are to get people to call and divest their funds from banks, you know, get banks to divest their funds from fossil fuels. And that felt kind of like 90 solutions to me. And you know, Paul's brilliant. And this whole website is brilliant and beautiful. And I hope that it attracts a lot of people, but it occurs to me that what we're failing to draw attention to or to acknowledge on a broad level is that a debt based monetary monoculture is kind of the trim tab of trim tabs, the skill might say, right, within the middle of it, that sort of spirals out and creates so much more. Now, when we can acknowledge that we, we might approach the problems differently, we might just jump into blockchain and maybe it doesn't mean anything. But just looking for some wondering what you all see. Thank you. And there may be a hybrid question here that emerges as we put our different questions in the conversation here because, you know, the nature of money, the theory of money, the use of debt, the foundational elements of our modern economy and whether they're going to change or how, I think those are great questions as well. And I think a bunch of us have scratched our heads about them. And, and for some of them, experts would be really helpful in the room. And for other aspects of this, experts would be really damaging in the room, because I think that the conventional wisdom on a lot of these things is pretty broken. So experts would be good at defending conventional wisdom, but not really that open to these strange futures we might be getting into. So you, you've addled off a bunch of questions, I wonder if we want to put this in chat, or if we want to. Well, I would say that I keep it a yes or no question to the very initial one. It's not about much else other than is a debt based monetary monoculture creating so much else, right? Is that is that to blame? Yes or no? So let's, let's put that on the table. Then, Gil, you had a you wanted to contribute a question? A couple of things to the D I am not at all persuaded that a D web solves the solves climate collapse, the voluntary transaction solve climate climate collapse. We're at the mercy of voluntary transactions here. And you know, we're trying to build a global regulatory structure. But if you look at the Paris agreement, there's no 100, 196 countries signed on to that. All but one is not meeting their goals. Only one is on target. You look at the corporate claims of net zero by whenever hardly anybody's on track. You know, a lot of the loudest corporate voices for climate action are spending their lobbying money opposing climate investment. So the world of voluntary, libertarian, associative, you know, smart contracts that are great. But does that get us to where we need to get to? And then there was something else you said that I wanted to respond. I don't remember what it was. I love I love your riff. I just got off the phone with a young woman in Sweden in Malmo, who was reporting that her younger chest to younger sisters, her youngest sister is really different from the rest of them. And she is pissed. She just turned the family, the extended family upside down by reporting recently at a family event that she decided not to have kids because the world was such a mess. And I said, is she mad like Greta Thunberg met? And she said, that's a big piece of it. And and and and the person I was just talking to said, and I keep telling her that she's right, like, they've got the data, like I agree. But how do we move things? So and something like half of millennials have had it with capitalism. Yeah. And we're at this weird place where we don't know what the next script is. And a bunch of people are saying, Oh, it's D web, it's it's cryptocurrencies and D web, that's going to solve all our problems. A few wealthy billionaires are saying no, no, we have to populate other rocks. That's Yeah, there was a really good political cartoon. I'll share I'll screen share it in just a second that I saw yesterday. That makes an interesting point about that. See the exchange between Shatner and Bezos after the landing. Yeah, yeah. Shatner wants to talk about the profound spiritual experience of being in space. And Bezos wants to spray everybody with champagne. Yes. And also, and also let me see if it comes up. Come on, please open. There we go. Perfect. Let me do a quick screen share to show you the political cartoon that came by yesterday. Yeah, kind of make this point really well. So one challenge is what I wanted to say is that we tend to hop on solutions in the next shiny object. But but you know, prescription without diagnosis is considered malpractice and medicine. We do a lot of prescribing without not we this group, but we humans do a lot of prescribing without a clear without a clear diagnosis of what's going on. And that gets messy in this realm, because we're drawn to cause and effect and cause and effect is not very good with complex inter-twinkled messes. Right. So that's partly what I'm wondering really careful about that. Yeah, I'm wondering if this is if this is in fact an analogous to a medical situation where you could get a diagnosis properly and work from there. And one of the things that's that's cool about OG on other reasons on here is that this is a group of people who tend to orient at least somewhat to complexity and multi causality and the not and the not simplistic mechanistic approaches of the dominant culture. And so that's part of our richness here to me. And I want to really want us to elevate that and all that we do. Anyone else want to offer a question or refine the several questions that are on the table? Doug? The question that's most on my mind is how do we actually start cutting the use of fossil fuels? It seems to me that there's no cut that wouldn't immediately lead to loss of jobs and homes. And so we're stuck. And so there is no concrete proposal right now that I'm aware of as to how to start actually cutting the use of fossil fuels. Doug, why do you say there's nothing that would result in the loss of jobs when we have more jobs in the renewable industry than fossil industry in this country now? Well, and trend it? I would tend to make that a question. I mean, the issue of jobs is complicated. But if you cut a specific use of fossil fuels, it's going to cause new jobs, loss of jobs that are not otherwise being lost. Whether it's like a transportation or home heating, or whatever. Well, home heating, there's a whole bunch of new jobs coming because we have to transform a building stock of tens of millions of structures. But like, isn't this isn't this true of every technological? Yeah, but let me take exactly what you're suggesting. That needs to be put on a timeline to replace home heating with from gas to electricity is a mega project in terms of time cost and geography. And the California Energy Commission is grappling with it in very specific terms just promulgated this week. I don't know if it's proposed or adopted to have to go to heat pump heating and water heating systems by 2030 and all new construction and some and some pace of change for retrofit. It's it is a massive project. But there are organizations that are grappling with it at a policy and programmatic level. I think the numbers don't add up, but that's I got a question. Okay. So there's I think there's a class I'll go to you in just one sec. I think there's a general theme here about mental models and how they've changed our behaviors and how to sort of rescue ourselves from some from some of the really dysfunctional ones that part of this is sort of debt slavery and the monetary monoculture. That's that's that's actually sort of a set of agreements and and assumptions. And also, I think things done by people in power in order to enforce taxes. There's a really good book against the grain by James Scott, where he talks about why were the four grains were so important to early cities early civilization. And his point is really lovely. He says they grow above ground, which means they're visible, you know, when somebody planted them, they ripen and are harvested roughly at the same time. So there's a big harvest festival, they are easily transported and stored with some minimal loss, but you can kind of store grains pretty well. They're they're good for taxes. Potatoes are shitty for taxes, they grow underground, you can kind of put them any place and you can pick them up out of the ground at any moment, right? But grains. So so forcing people to make a lot of grain and be create grain based economies is really, really good for kings and churches and whoever that I hadn't thought about that. And it's super interesting. And people are saying that he's saying that grain agriculture came about out of compulsion. Yes. Wow. Yes. And that the people in the early cities who had very grain based diets reading lots of bread and not a lot of variety, not that much meat had, if you look at their bones, they had dietary issues that you can see from their corpses, that the Marsh Arabs who were living out in the in Mesopotamia did not have because they had really varied diets, right? Anyway, I'll put the title of the book here, but but there's a there's a lot of what we're talking about that's kind of about the framing of how we see society working and what the role of a thing like a currency even is. And where that goes. Class sorry, I meant to go to you. Yeah, to duck's comment on on jobs. I mean, clearly, we are in a transition period that may be comparable to the industrial transition in the 19th to the 20th century, except it's on fast forward. When you look back, I mean, my favorite example, which is New York City having over two million horses on the streets by 1880. And by 1920, there are pictures where you can see the same street, full of horses and horse-trawn carriages. And then by 1920, everything is automobiles and locomotives pulling tollies. So we in the disruption, this cost really severely contributed to World War One, and then resulting into World War Two. Because the I mean, the Habsburg Empire, for example, was being outperformed technologically by the British. They couldn't compete, but yet they had all the power. So when you when you look at the disruptions being caused by technology, it is it is significant. So here we are going in the same way, getting out of fossil fuels is an enormous disruption in the economy everywhere, in agriculture, in transportation, in power generation and so on. And it doesn't really matter what you do with the monetary system that drives it, the monetary system, the changes in monetary system, enable us right now to decentralize the economy. I mean, technically, we have the capacity to decentralize and create regional currencies, local currencies, you know, that could assist in rebuilding the economy from ground up. But obviously, that is changing the fortunes of very powerful and very rich people, who don't really, don't really feel yet compelled to participate in this transition. So we are forced to force the transition, which is unfortunate, because in a sane world, we would all understand what needs to be done. But that's not happening. And we have little unity about where that transition in fact ought to go. What the right moves are for that, Allison? I kind of feel like it's a a 12 angry men situation or something. And I'm, I'm determined to bring everybody over to acknowledgement that that actually that that piece of the debt based monetary monoculture I wasn't sure if you were on board with that close, is in fact, creating what we call extractive capitalism. So to say that it's extractive capitalism and not the debt based monetary monoculture, then what we go to is we talk about people's values and you're right. Pete, I think that we have this screen that becomes then our value system, but we haven't seen how much that's been incentivized and driven by by the by the monetary monoculture. And when we look at blockchain as like a new opportunity to change our money system, we're failing to perceive all of the different ways that money has been used and created throughout history, and the repercussions of that. So, so yeah, I'm going to still get. Yeah. Thank you, Pete. Pete, go ahead. You're muted locally. Thanks, Allison. Allison and Stacy and I had a bit of discussion in chat about debt based monetary monoculture and extractive capitalism. My my feeling is that debt based monetary monoculture is is an enabler for extractive capitalism. But I don't think that extractive capitalism is a value system that we came to. I think it's a hyperscale social structure. So starting with more or less grains and agriculture and learning how to tax grains and use the taxes to have a state that gets bigger and gets more people sucked into creating grain that creates a more wealth. You you start this you start this vicious circle of something that's bigger than a small tribe of people or an extended family, you end up with social structure that competes with other social structures that are getting big at the same time. And you you you get winners out of that. So it keeps bootstrapping. And nobody likes the fact that agriculture, grain based agriculture made you more sick and less healthy. But you are coerced into participating in that social structure and an economy. You're starting to see money in there and stuff like that. But you're coerced into participating in this social structure that's not necessarily good for you, but it's good for the social structure that's getting bigger. That social structure competes with other social structures, they get better and better and better. You you end up evolving into feudalism. You end up evolving into multinational corporations. You end up evolving into the extractive capitalism that we've got now. So nobody like said, Oh, my God, extractive capitalism is my value. I want to extract as most the most value I can. Unless they're driven by the thought that if I die with the most money, I win. If I accumulate the most money I have the most power, I can influence the most politicians to make rules in my favor. I win. So capitalism is kind of like a mind virus that preys on weak humans that want to get bigger and more powerful. And it creates a social structure with a lot of mass, a huge amount of mass, an unimaginable amount of mass, something like Amazon or Google or Facebook is got more mass than you can imagine. And these big social structures rampage around and do stuff. So I think debt obviously helped, you know, helped finance corporations and the 1400s or the 1500s or whatever. The financial markets, the way that we've said, Well, I'll tell you what, I'm a capitalist and why don't we make this rule that that the way to the way to account for my power is with dollars. I think that's a I think, you know, since I have billions of dollars, I think this is a really good way to keep score and a really good way to make decisions. But if I make, I help make rules that make that more important, money gets more and more important. And then we started inventing like financial derivatives and all that kind of stuff. And we think that's important. All of that is, you know, it's around that debt and around money. In that situation, I think a monoculture of money you want. It's kind of like a fractal echo of the fact that capitalism got big. Capitalism likes monocultures. It makes sense that you would end up with a monoculture of money. But that's not the cause of it. The cause of it is the structural thing that let human minds form a social structure and then for those social structures to compete with each other. So that I didn't hear anything else. And I agree. We agree. Well, it's important, though, it's important to notice. And sorry, Jay. Actually, I was going to ask you if you want to jump in because you raised your hand and put it down. Just like I think it's really interesting. And I'd love to look at the book, but this grain piece is really great that drew attention to it both of you. And I think it's crocs, right? And that, yeah, like the system started to be built upon that in the militarized and in one control kind of a way. So how do you pay for a military to protect your grain? Right? You make an official currency. But the issue beyond that, actually, is just one way of doing it. It's one way of doing it. Another way of doing it is having a potluck. That's another way of doing it. So the grain is inherently going to deteriorate, but the money does not. And that's another part of it. So maybe I should add to it instead of debt based monetary and monoculture, a refusing to die Voldemort debt based monetary monoculture. So that's inherent in it too, because because the grain will decompose eventually. Right? So you need to be able to share the wealth. And that's a gift society, other than protect it, hoard it, use it as a way to accumulate. But the money system that you put behind that is what enables the military. It's what enables hoarding. It was incentivizes hoarding. And then it incentivizes this buying for power and incentivizes extraction and incentivizes the extraction. So we have this, this, this broad values, humans are complex. We have all these wonderful things that we're capable and horrific things that we're capable of. And what we're capable of, just like a genetic disposition, or, you know, talking about what Gil is referring to on looking at this as a medical condition, right, we might be genetically disposed to have some heart disease, but that's going to depend upon the environment. It's not just automatically have heart disease. Right? So it's what genes come alive within the environment that we have. So what human characteristics come alive within the environment that we have. And I don't think that a large part of climate action or political action is recognizing that the human characteristics of greed, and of power and of playing just to win are caused largely because of the cesspool of Voldemort that based monetary monoculture that we swim in. And so when we try to replicate another system, because we don't trust the government, we design these technical systems to do the same thing. And until we get to the position where we recognize the effect that it's having us and what other options and opportunities there to make money, that is, that is benign. Look at the wampum, right? Really important to look at what money can be in its most beneficial way of truly creating trust. And at this point in time, it's worth talking about. Thanks, Alison. A couple of things. First, it feels like we've sort of landed it on our question. So that's good. Second, I wanted to slow the conversation down a little bit and just offer up the bits of evidence that I've collected around this and talk about the book against the grain a little bit, and then talk about a couple of the things. And I've created a thought for this call, which is this thought right here. And I've connected it to monetary monetary culture, which I have not connected up to other kinds of things. And I was also going to connect it up to one of my favorite books that many of you have heard me talk about really often, which is Polanyi's book, The Great Transformation, which I'll bring in in just a second. But against the grain is lovely because James Scott, who's writing I really, really like, he also wrote three two cheers for anarchism. He wrote, here we go, two cheers for anarchism, the moral economy of the peasant. And the first time I ever heard about him was domination in the arts of resistance hidden transcripts, where he talks about how people who are being suppressed usually peasants, how they fight back. And the one example that stuck in my head was the king is parading down the aisle and one of the peasants farts really loudly. And a fart is a form of silent protest where you can't actually tell who farted. But it's a way of, you know, sending a fence back to the back to the king. So I meant to continue sharing my screen. So anyway, let me go back to against the grain, which I do recommend. And what Scott did was he said, look, this has been really bugging me for a long time. So I so I vetted this thesis with all kinds of people who go deeper than I do into the anthropology into the history and everything else. And they checked off on this. So so in some sense, in the intro to this book, he says, you know, I doubted myself, but I went and had this vetted by a lot of people. And he talks it out. And so this point about serial grains make it easy to tax people. Only grains are visible, divisible, accessible, storable, transportable and rational. Taxable cereals also require a ton of labor, labor, which drove slavery, which drove war. And then Allison, you were talking about how then you need an army to protect it, etc, etc. Because now you have a standing asset. Farmers do a tremendous amount of work to grow grain to protect it against pests to do all these other kinds of things. And it all all factors into the formula. So there's a particular kind of society, then separate from this in Algonquin, I think, or had Nassani nations that were mostly matrilineal, the men, the way of allocating food, and other sorts of resources was all surplus was put in a couple of long houses and the elder women of the tribe allocated it backed out to whatever family needed it. And it was all considered sort of communal property, whoever brought more stuff in went and took it there. And then, and then the Great Transformation for a second says something that sorry, my brain is my little fan has turned on, everything is overheating. So here's the Great Transformation, which I will connect to today's call as well. And I've got a five minute university on the Great Transformation, which I'll post in the chat. But basically what Polanyi says is what I've got actually sort of written over here a bit that capitalism is like a cuckoo bird. And cuckoos are brood parasites, cuckoos don't raise their young. Cuckoos raise lay their eggs in other birds nests. And the first instinct of a cuckoo chick is to shove everything else out of the nest. And so capitalism, one of the premises of Polanyi in the Great Transformation is that he says market, market economy requires market society. That's one of his more famous quotes that in the double movement. But what he means, I think, is that capitalism can't happily coexist with people doing the matrilineal thing with long houses and living happily on land they don't own and separate. And capitalism absolutely has to have land you can buy labor you can hire money you can you can sort of buy anything with and everything needs to have a price for capitalism to be happy. So I think one of our questions here is sort of existential about capitalism. Because what is the causal relationship? Is it capitalism that they're agreed or agreed that created capitalism is what is instrumental to what what is causal to what I don't know. And I'm not a philosopher and that's sort of beyond my pay grade. And I'm interested but it's way beyond my pay grade. But we're living inside of a series of systems which ran rampant and ate our world. And ate most of the world like like it's surprising how far and how deep this this system of allocating and living has gone. And and when I see the SDGs the United Nations Well Intentions Sustainable Development Goals, one of them is like a minimum wage. I'm like, God, damn it. Why why do we care that anybody must have $20 a day in order to get food and shelter? Why don't we say, Hey, it would be great if a bunch of people on earth were now living really well without having any wage. But they have shelter and resources and knew what to do. I'd be like happy if we were actually moving into a world where that were happening. And I think a future like that is dramatically difficult for anybody to envision. So in the middle, we get these weird conversations about universal basic income or you know, how do we sort of share the wealth? The moment you try to tax the rich. I love that AOC wore a white big coat that said tax the rich to the awards that were held recently. Now the Met Gala, she had a you know, in red in blood red on the back of her coat, it said tax the rich. I'm like, whoa, okay, make a statement. But the moment you say that the far right and all the people who have wealth and who have assets basically scream bloody murder and say you're not you know, you're taking my wealth over my cold dead hands. It didn't say eat the rich, which I think is a good thing. I think it had it said that it would have been even more controversial, but maybe more fun. Anyway, I'll stop there. But I'm offering in lots of different threads that I've found over time are really interesting and important for me in figuring out how broken capitalism is how it broke society, how it broke us, whether it's fixable. So one of the big questions out here is, can capitalism be fixed? Or do we need to actually replace it wholesale? And if capitalism is a cuckoo bird and a brood parasite, then chances are it's going to be really hard to fix it because it doesn't like to coexist with any other system. But I could be wrong about that. You're muted. You're you're hard act to follow today. Oh, thanks. Yeah. Did the grains enable armies or did armies enable grains? So very few places had a standing army way back when standing armies were new. Let me say it a different way. Yeah, did big strong guys with a bunch of, you know, friends who are thugs enable grain. You know, if if somebody said before the grain had grain agriculture had to be compelled, and this takes me back to Andrew Schmuckler's amazing book, The Parable of Tribes, and if people are familiar with it. But it basically asserts that if you imagine an island with 10 tribes on it, nine of them are likely to have Nassi and one of them is like is a bunch of thugs. It's very hard to see it to see a scenario where the thugs don't dominate eventually. So that's the background problem here. This is if we're in a system that is that is a system of compulsion. How do you beat that without, you know, without an arms race? That's a fundamental question to the let me let me just leave it at that for now. There's many threads that you've spun here. Oh, yeah, yeah, I'm sorry, Pete, if I could sorry, if I could just finish the thought. If if capitalism as we know it now is an emerging system emergent over, you know, both the last few hundred years and the last few thousand years, not like somebody sat down in Babylon in, you know, 2700 BCE and said, let's invent something. These things kind of emerge. So and now are deeply richly intertangled in many ways. You know, the question is, is how do you unravel it? How do you design something different? How do you design a transition? You know, what's the name Ben? Ben hunted epsilon theory, which is a very interesting site, people aren't familiar with it. Periodically set has a hashtag bitfd burn it the fuck down. But you know, that could get very random. The history of revolutions is pretty problematic. And so, you know, back to Doug's point, what's the plan? It's not just a plan for decarbonize the economy. How do you decapitalize the economy? There's not going to be a single plan to do that. And a lot of heads are cracking against that wall right now. And in the meantime, there's a whole tribe that's saying the answer here is Bitcoin, blockchain, cryptocurrency is decentralization, the D web, blah, blah, blah, which really complicates things and may or may not be the answer. Don't know. Sorry, Pete, go ahead. Gil, I liked your, your parables of purple tribes thing. And what's, you know, how do you counter one, one bad egg, one bunch of strongman? I think there's a bit of a I want to say false dichotomy in there. I think one of one of my observations about the society that we live in, the society we live in, I, I feel like it's the evolutionary winner of a couple thousand years of arm races, right? And, and we, we are blessed with being the survivors of a bunch of nastiness that wiped out any humans that weren't, weren't able to be enslaved or feudalized or whatever. One of the artifacts of that is we have a really hard time thinking about society other than a strongman society, extractive societies and things like that. So it's I felt tricked by that question, you know, okay, you put 10 tribes on an island and one of them is nasty. And so the nasty tribe is going to infiltrate and take over everybody. That's the story of our history. And we can only see whether we like it or not. I do not like this history. I do not like subjugation. I do not like slavery. I do not like feudalism. And yet, I, I'm not even forced to live in that society. It's just an outcome of, of the history that, you know, my ancestors were either subjugate, subjugated or the subjugators. And anybody who disagreed with that philosophy or, you know, some kind of cool, matrilineal society that actually, you know, solved problems with, with peace rather than war. We wiped all those people out. We literally killed them all. So I think, you know, I, so I go back to that question, you know, I think it's an unfair question. That's not the way the world really would have worked if you put a thousand humans on, on an island in 10 tribes or something like that. I, I'm not even sure that, you know, you would end up with a bunch of assholes in one tribe. And I'm not sure that the other nine tribes wouldn't like push them off the, you know, off the island into the ocean and let them stew for a while and then come back and and be nice people again. I kind of think that 10,000 years ago, 20,000 years ago, the root stock of humanity was a bunch of diverse people. And it would, it didn't have to turn into a combat winner takes all thing. I think we could have come out with different, different equilibria, equal, equilibrium things. It's just that we didn't. And now I find it really hard to even think about any other solution to that, right? It's like, well, of course, you know, assholes take over the world. I'm not sure that's true. And, and, and yet I'm not sure, you know, I, I'm not, I don't know how to figure out a way to think, you know, from my ancestors from 10,000 years ago, instead of, you know, where we ended up now. A couple of brief things and then I'll pass it to you, Julian. This is why I don't like Lord of the Flies or Anne Rand and Objectivism and things like that. And when people quote what John Galt would do as if like a normal human ought to do that, who is morally good. I'm like, Jesus Christ. But all of that points up to one of the stories that is sort of sitting in the background for me here, which is that we're in a constant fight over the narratives in our heads, right? And the narratives in our heads are what Peaches said, ate our brains, which is like, there's always a dominant ruler or what he'll put in, you know, in the conversation that, that this always devolves because the strong man wins or whatever else it might be. And some of this is, is sort of the, the conclusions from evidence overlooking at history. Some of this is just bad stories that we shouldn't let infect our brains because there's better stories hiding right behind them that we need to get back to in some way. And then Gil, what I said about how Hollands get feudalism, if this is a tiny side note, but it's actually really interesting, there's a book titled Amsterdam. That's about the history of Holland and the Dutch. And it turns out, hold on one second. I need to shift places for a second, but oops. I'll keep going. So this is quick Amsterdam, which is basically says that the Dutch wound up having wealthy merchants. They, they invented the, they invented a kind of boat called the Herring Bus, B-U-S-S, I think. Got this all in my brain. And one of the, one of the ways that Holland got wealthy was they invented a way to fillet herring onboard ship early. And then they were doing a particular kind of filling that left the spleen and the liver in the Herring, whose enzymes made their Herring sweeter. So Holland Herring was a luxury good during that era. Everybody wanted some. And that made their, that made a series of wealthy merchants in Holland who didn't need land. There wasn't land. You were busy reclaiming land from the ocean. So the whole culture of polders and everybody has to work together to drain water to make land for the country. That makes for a different spirit. Anyway, there's a bunch of things that are about Holland that are different. And note that Holland is the place where the first stock exchange happens. And by the way, the etymology of stocks is stock from German Dutch. A stock is a stick, a piece of wood. And the original ones you inscribed the trade or the debt on the stock and you broke it in half and you gave a half to each party. So that was a stock back in the day. But there's lots of sort of exceptions to the rule as we go and we forget them. And I'll add something where I'm just repeating something that I think Pete said earlier, which is we get humans are so adaptable that we get very used to the current circumstances and we adopt current assumptions and we forget how things happen before. Julian. With respect to Lord of the Flies, I was going to bring up that it's a total fiction as opposed to what came out a couple of years ago was a real life Lord of the Flies and the complete opposite happened. So it is possible to create societies like that. The other thing is I don't understand Doug's comments that look kind of like iPad of the Flies. Is that what you meant? I said again, your comments, it looks like a semi colon pad of the Flies. Oh, I'll have to change that. Thanks, Julian. Yeah, I'm trying to come back to the this power equation that's inherent when we started out with looking at currency. We are going through a complexification of the economy that makes it impossible for a single entity to rule a complex economy as it has evolved. And I think the Trump administration was sort of a last kick up, hopefully last kick up of trying to have a top down governance of the economy, realizing that it's just not possible any longer. So the this mandated diversification of the economy driven by the complexity of our technology of our society in general, demands a decentralization of power. So there has to be a new, a new form of governance that that by force is decentralized and spread out. And that is the fight we are currently seeing. So so the that's really what is what is playing out, you know, where you were elements of central control and most of that linked up to the fossil fuel industry is hanging on to, to, to their control over the economy over society, versus this being quite broken apart by innovations and new ways of doing things. Food business is a perfect example of that. So I think much of the turmoil that we have right now is driven by the technology and by by the complexification of society, not so much because the people in governance have a great interest in decentralizing power. Let me slip and sound also a different way by going back to Alison and saying, are we near your original question? Can we get out of our way back toward it? I'm wondering, I don't know, I kind of want to keep it really as simple as possible. Well, your first question wasn't that simple because like the original phrase and I've forgotten now beyond Voldemort, but it involved a series of different sort of sort of actions. You weren't asking only about monetary monoculture, which would have been like the simplest maybe question in the middle of it. There were like layers to it already. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. So I think that there's there's a few things that are in threes. The monetary design, I kind of see it as three aspects to that design that are problematic. One is that it doesn't die. That it doesn't deteriorate or decay and ultimately go away. And so when it's being put into savings, it needs to grow metastasized compound interest in order to grow its value against the decline value of the unit itself, right? So it needs to have exponential interest attached to it through compound interest growth. The next thing is that it's loaned into existence so that there's basically never as much money that is being circulated as there is that is owed, right? So I oh, when I pay back my loan, I owe my principal plus the interest of it and nothing's wrong with loans, but it's the way money is issued. So we're always robbing from Peter to pay Paul, putting us in competition with one another and the money siphons upward and outward of the system. And the third thing is that it's a monoculture. And so we're completely dependent on this and we're not having other options. We're starting to create these options with blockchain now, but they're not at all. You know, we've created them throughout time through complimentary currency. So I see it as those three things. And I know that one in the group is interested in salutogenesis and that everybody's heard of salutogenesis, right? Now, salutogenesis is health promotion. It was kind of the beginning of the positive psychology movement back in the 70s by Anton or Aaron Antonofsky, which states that there are basically three things that people need to be well. And that's a sense of meaning that life has meaning that life is manageable and that life is somewhat predictable. And we can look at that and see that the economy in some ways is is how does how does money salutogenic or not? And what we have with money is, you know, what meaning does it have? What is the meaning of the transaction or the relationship that's being created to that life is manageable? So do we have enough money to meet our needs as a meeting the medium of exchange? Right? And three is, do we have a store of value? So is there a sense of security in the future? And so with the monetary design, we are trying to meet those needs with one design so that the medium of exchange is actually something that operates against a store of value and vice versa store of storing our money is antithetic is antithetical to using it as a medium of exchange, using the same money for those two purposes, those two fundamental human basic needs of meeting, you know, making life manageable and predictable is they're operating against each other at odds with one another. Have you heard of demurged currencies? I heard of demurrage. Yeah, that was the sales thing. And that actually worked really well in a way that if we look at where it was used and started in the city of Wargle, have we talked about this yet? No, you should. Will you tell the story? The miracle of Wargle was right there in Austria. So it's an Austrian town after the Treaty of Versailles was written that that's after World War One, saying that that Germany was going to need to pay back all of their debts in Austria to eventually. So because of that, those debts were absolutely insurmountable, actually to be able to pay back who emits those economies, the response of the government's right were to create money underground in order to fuel a new military. And that was all happening underground. But and Hitler was rising to power as a way to say, Hey, we we're going to live well again someday. But there was a mayor who didn't go there was a small town mayor and he'd read Sylvia Gazelle's work about how to create money that deteriorates over time. So it incentivizes people to use it. And that's the process of demurrage. So he created the money he spent it into existence, instead of lending it into existence. So that's not a debt based money. He gave it to people. So it's called Freigeld or free money. And it was an exchange for services. So there's a church that was deteriorating. And so people didn't have any work. He said, here's the money, take the money that we are printing and in exchange for fixing up the church. And then the the bar would accept the money and you know, the local markets and so it was circulating it created circulation because the only thing that was missing was a medium of exchange. Everybody had the food was there. But it was about doing the work and making things happen and having faith that we could trust one another. Anyway, by the end of the time that we're using this money, they repaired a bridge and built a ski jump. It wasn't just meeting needs. They went beyond that and built a ski jump as the most beautiful metaphor, in my opinion, for how how good can it get. And hundreds of mayors actually came to learn from their roots in Gutenberg about how he did that, how he created prosperity and peace in his village. And as soon as this event was going to happen where he was going to teach other mayors how to do it, there was a legal mandate by the central bank that said, No, we are the only people who are allowed to create money. You can't create money. So it didn't have anything to do with what good was being caused in the village. Or what was working. Nobody was what they was just who had the power to create the money and we've continued to do that kind of thing throughout history. And we went into World War two. What would have happened if all of these mayors that did what a thought experiment would be? If that idea had spread at that time and continue to spread? Where it feels to me like Ursula Gwynne has written some books that are like alternate histories of what you're describing that I should have read that haven't been I don't know where to start, but I think she was experimenting exactly what these kinds of ideas in a really lovely way. And I just lost my thread, I was going to add something else to what you were just saying. Jubilee I had in there and it's kind of it's kind of remarkable how much commercial activity runs against what the Bible says, for example, like, like I don't know, it seems like religious capitalists choose their biblical phrases really carefully. Gil, you're except you're munching you're so in the middle munching and hi Jane is really like really lovely to say anyone wants to speak. Let me just add something the wonderful the Bible lends itself to selective reading. But on this subject, it repeats itself many times the whole the whole business of the Schmidt year of the every seven years, when land is fallowed and debts are remitted and slaves are freed is is is is is set forward at least three times in different parts of the world. I mean, which is you know, which are learning from that is that this is really important. Something's report repeated a bunch of times. It's really important such as a casual thing to interpret however you want. So there's that and I put some stuff in the chat about that. It's a very, very rich and extremely radical component of that lineage that for obvious reasons is selectively, selectively read out of most of the readings because it's just too hard for people to grasp. Jane wanted to add something here she is. Oh, good morning. Well, there's an idea that's been having me for many years, having its way with me. And that idea is that it's possible to align human financial, bioregional economic credit with the drive to enhance ecosystems rather than degrade them. And that this is a source of value in bio regions. And this is the source of value of money of the demurage kind. And that if you do good to your bioregional ecosystem services, it goes into a bioregional bank and is credited. The value is credited. And as values accrue, ecosystem diversity goes up and all kinds of measures of ecosystem health go into the positive zone. And human beings, farmers, people, citizens can create those stores of value in a bioregional currency. And that currency can be issued as credit. And bioregions then become the source of the codification of wealth, real wealth in America. And that eventually, because bioregions span state regions. And Gil, could you stop the rustling, please? States, Gil, could you please stop the rustling? Thank you. The scale of currency matters gets confused in people's minds between state and local governments and the federal fiat system, which is the issuer of currency. But bioregional currencies could become issuers of bioregional currencies. There's nothing in the state laws that prevent states from developing complementary currencies currently. And I could foresee a situation where the bioregions accrue their ecosystem values, their their accrual of soil, you could literally create soil and create credit at the same time, that eventually the states, the bioregions would become the source of extending real credit to the United States federal government in a system of real wealth that is the original in God we trust. And that the politics of the United States would shift around this issue of bioregional self-reliance and trade. And human forces would be driven to enhance ecosystems and not degrade them. Thank you. Government budget crises that are constantly happening because state budgets have to figure out how to tax in order to have revenue. That problem will begin to be solved. And we would free, we would have a freer thinking in our population that would allow the federal fiat system to do best what it does. So we would have a storage currency in the bioregion and a flow currency in the federal system. And it would work. I'm not sure how, but Allison probably knows. I have the same vision and people are working on things like this and envisioning it. And I think I agree with you. I love your vision. I think multiple flows, different flows in the ecosystem that are both bioregional and that can be, that actually because they can communicate with each other like a bank or, you know, a national universal kind of a thing that they can communicate. So for when hence it emerges, that's kind of like this sense of ultimate empowerment, right? The virus is that we're dependent and the value of our work is dependent on working hard enough to prove ourselves worthy to get access to this currency that somebody else has and that freedom of the mind to say that what we can do is create our own, right? Which is kind of what's happening, but with what intention? What's behind it? What's the meaning that we're setting forth in that contractual relationship or, you know, in that promise that are you? And even an expression of need is creating wealth. Whereas right now in this system, it's shamed. There's a soil there's a climate scientist in the soil. He's a soil scientist and a climate scientist and then Walter Yenny, J E H and E. He's Australian and he has the notion of soil sovereignty, creation of of grow bags that are these bags made out of that felt material from recycled bottles that a wicking bag that you would give a child on their birthday and the wicking bag consists of a bag of soil of a degraded soil and a tube in it that you use to put your garbage in for earthworms. And as the earthworms create beautiful soil, you plant your vegetables and food you need to live on. You plant your vegetables in the grove and it's above ground. It can be moved. It can be owned by a child or a family. And as a child has birthday after birthday, by the time they're 15, they have enough bags of soil to really support their life with vegetables and produce. And he he uses the term soil sovereignty because you can take it with you. It's not owned by the property owner. There's a tube system in the bottom that can retain water so that the plants are self-watered. And his notion is that we need to have sovereignty with respect to soil and growing food for urban peoples. And the big fights of the future are going to of the very near future are going to be overshade and buildings and density and access to sunshine. I wanted to add a couple of things in to build on this. And first, I want to ask Jane and Allison, if you have any resources, articles, other sorts of things you can share with us that we can add sort of to for the rest of us to go get familiar with a lot of these things. I'd love that. Second, John Wesley Powell famously sent a suggestion to Congress saying, hey, as we expand westward, it would be great if you made the state boundaries, the watershed boundaries, yes, which would create these natural sort of governance regions, which I thought I love the idea. Third, the US Civil War is when Salman chased the Secretary of the Treasury invented the US dollar to finance the Civil War, before which there were multiple banks issuing regional currencies all across the US. And if you happen to travel across the US, you needed to exchange currency as if you were going from country to country in the world. And so and so they illegalized on purpose, all local currencies. There was one Fiat monoculture currency and that's part of a little piece of the history of currency in the US. It also seems to me like we're playing a lot here with the meaning of the word wealth. And I love the spelling W-E-L-L-T-H that makes me really, really happy, like shifting from wealth W-E-L-T-H to something you have to hoard and preserve to actually creating shared wealth. And then I put FALC, which is fully automated luxury communism, which is another vision of what we might be heading toward, like if automation actually solves the problem of generating food and all that kind of stuff. And if we get rid of most jobs through automation, we're going to need some other system. And FALC is what one of the proposals for for doing that. And then finally, I wrote Gandhi leaving his own cloth because one of the reasons Gandhi wore Doti and wore his own clock and had a spinning wheel was that before the arrival of the British Raj, India made the most beautiful fabrics in the world and was completely self-sufficient for food and clothes and cloth all around. And the Raj basically made looms illegal. They transformed India into one big cotton plantation to ship the cotton on ships to British factories in Manchester and other places that newly formed industrial revolution. And then they shipped those finally manufactured cloths back to India for people to buy who didn't have any money to buy them. And then ironically, you go to a place like Nigeria, where there's an entire culture of really beautiful fabrics that come from Holland. Like there was this dependency created, I think it's Holland, but like like local cultures, in many cases, appropriated these manufactured goods and baked them back into the culture in some weird ways. But there's all these kinds of things happening in the world. This is a very interesting perspective on capitalism as a wealth creator versus something else. Possessing earthworms could become illegal. That's right. I will be one of the first to join the earthworm police. Because they're automated creators of wealth. By the way, there were no earthworms in North or South America before Columbus. This is one of the things that Charles Mann says in 1491, the history of the Americas before Columbus. And if an earthworms do something to the understory that makes the makes soil different and makes forests different. So in the ballast of some of the early ships, earthworms show up, they propagate across the US and change the very nature of our forests. Yeah, Africa's fabric is Dutch. Thank you. That's I think that's the article I was thinking about. Okay, let's take a deep breath. We're 20 minutes from the end of our call. I think this is a bunch of good stuff. I'd love to just, as Pete suggested earlier, think about our process and and are we going too fast too slow to what is this like Goldilocks zone? Thoughts, thoughts on the process and where we are just meta about the call. Yes, earthworms are the dolphins of soil. I like that. That's Jane isn't this is an unusual kind of call that can't be planned for. So if you want to set up a rhythm of calls, something like this is going to just spontaneously show up every now and then where we're just where we're ripping fast and richly. And I like it and it makes it challenging to harvest, but it's good shit. And I don't know. I mean, this is coming up sort of feels spontaneously because we're going into it in this way. But I think we could have chosen we could have chosen the topic before the call and ended up with some paraphrase of what Allison put in front of us and and had a similar conversation with a sequence of calls that have a theme. I think that that might still work. I'm not sure that we would lose the energy we had here by being more orderly about it. But we might it's a it's a it's a pop. But I for one adore waiting into topics that are big like this and then sharing what we know and trying to figure out pieces of the puzzle. Pete, I wonder will we remember what we talked about today in a month? So I'm taking notes in my brain. I will remember it because I'm connecting all these things up and I'll post that openly to and three people in the world will go find that. This is a Thursday call, so we will have a transcript. Right now we're doing nothing with those transcripts. And Pete, if we succeed in funding you to create Project Crop, then the transcript will automatically be woven into a better place. We'll then back into the video maybe at some level, but we'll be more usable for anybody who wants to go back in and you and Bentley already have filters for the zoom chat so that we can harvest all the links that we're sharing in the zoom chat at this point. So that's done, but it's not linked prettily back into the big fungus. But all those things need to be pushed harder and done better. So we're we're on track for for having the machines remember it. I wonder if as a group will remember it and as a group will we refer back to this conversation? Question. So I have some things at the end of this call that I know I need to get smarter about and do research. Part of the reason I'm asking Jane and Allison for resources on on that. Everybody else what do you think cost? Yeah, I posted this letter to a Hindu that was written by told story about 100 years ago. And it is such foundational wisdom. I mean, it really moved me. You know, it's really worthwhile reading so because these are eternal insights and that have been reflected in the most modern way by you will Ferrari, because you will Ferrari documented the human journey from stone age to modern economy. And he's now trying to look forward and see where do these trends that are currently apparent are going to lead us. And his conclusion basically is survival is optional, right? And most most profound reason statement. But there's nothing new. I mean, you go into into Bible, right? King Solomon, but there is nothing new under the sun. Everything that you see has been already and it will be will be forgotten by generations yet to come. So we're going through this cycle of learning over and over and over. And nothing much comes out of it. It's like a temple where you look at the French Revolution, you know, it resets the power dynamics only to revert right back into what it used to be with a new as a new face on it. So right now, I think we are in an era where that can't happen again because it's absolutely going to kill us, right? It's going to be we're at an end phase where whatever transition we decide on right now will determine our survival as a species. And that sounds like so over the top when you say it, but when you look at the trends and when you look at where we're heading, I mean, that is clearly the only outcome that you can think of. You know, we're in survival mode and 99% of the population hasn't hasn't accepted that yet or doesn't even begin to understand it. So the so we know everything right? Karl Marx lined out the the fallacies of human nature impacting the economic system and predicted quite accurately where capitalism would end up invariably not because of the economy of the economic principles embedded here, but because of human nature. The value of values, the values of the system, the systems value structure drives the the entire political and economic process. So that's that's I think where we basically on it doesn't matter what currency we are using, what matters is how we're using these currencies to to generate change. That's been right there. The crux of something that Klaus just said that if we're going to address Pete's question is what do we propagate widely and share? What do we come from our learning today that I if we say that it doesn't matter the design of our currency, it's what we do with it. That is a critical from my opinion. From my perspective, it's a critical flaw in the way that we perceive currencies and human behavior, that the that there is a genetic coding in the currency that incentivizes human behavior in a direction or another for not recognizing how we are motivated or moved by that currency and how that's influencing our behavior. We haven't we haven't been able to put our finger on the pulse of what's making us sick and the society level and be able to change it. I want to pause for a second and go back to the meta question about our process because we dug right back into the content. We we like took a took a little U-turn straight back into the issues. Anybody else? Stacey. To the shared memory report, I think it would be really useful to look at the chat and see what three questions might be next steps. And I think one way to do it is to see where there's at least three people honing in on one point. So for example, he put in a comment. I can't I might be paraphrasing but it was something like so we need to poke holes in the existing socio legal structure, something like that. And Klaus then jumped in and said, what better place to start than the food system? So to me, that's one conversation. Maybe we could come up with two more. So at least we leave here with some connecting of the dots. Does that make sense? I'm looking at all your faces and I'm not reading that you get what I'm talking about or that it even is valuable. I think you're trying to find focal points where with several of us are curious about something or want to push harder on a question and then you make those the carry those forward in our next conversations to make them the focal point of our ongoing discussions. Something like that. So even the process of taking five minutes together as a group to see what those three things might be might air to the might add to the shared memory the same way for you when you put things in your brain that helps you remember. Exactly. Exactly. Pete. I love it, Stacy. Thank you. I there's a practical thing where I can't remember all the things we talked about. I feel like we talked about 10, you know, really juicy topics. And in the last five minutes, I don't think I'll do a good job of kind of trying to figure out, you know, what the what the next conversation might be about. So. So then the question what to do with that is we take the the knowledge asset that we've been building for for 100 minutes, 80 minutes and and process it later another time. But that will be hard because we'll want to talk about new stuff rather than talking about old dead stuff from a week ago or two weeks ago. The other the the other thing is even though I love Jerry that we we did talk more slowly about fewer things this call the I think the way I would do it and I'm not saying that everybody should do it or that we should do it this way. But the way that makes sense to me is to go even slower than we did today. And, you know, as we come around to kind of one question and really dig into it and start to write down more and start to start to listen actively listen to each other more. So as Allison says something or as Klaus says something or as Doug says something more of us could be saying I think what Doug said was this is what I took away from it and if we if we go deep on something instead of kind of a little bit deep and then go to the next thing I think my my goal would be to have an understanding like all of us could have ended up in this talk at this time having, you know, the two or three next things in mind instead of I think I think for me what happened is we went through enough stuff that I have no idea what we talked about anymore. I kind of have some some things. I kind of have my pets. I kind of have some a couple like sound bites from people that said really smart things and I'm going to have to go back to the video and find them. But I don't have anything cohesive. I still don't have that. So I think I think the answer from my my my engineering expertise would be to slow down even more and to make that in the moment rather than trying to catch up with ourselves in another week or another month or whatever. And I think we did go really quickly and I think I'm partly guilty for that because I want to overshare all the different pieces of evidence that sort of build a case or that are you part of this? Totally agree. And then close, I went back to your post about Tolstoy and Gandhi and I kind of want to go deeper on that. But first, let's go to Gil and Doug. So thank you, Pete. I hear this as an invitation to breathe and maybe establish a different kind of rhythm in this in these conversations where there's a pause. Yeah, for everyone speaks rather than us jumping in as I tend to do at one of them who does that. I think of Quaker meeting where there's a lot of silence and a lot of reflection and speech and that would mean much lower volume of words in this conversation of a very different vibe. All of us begs the question for me, Pete, as I was listening to you, like my teacher Bob Dunham would often say for the sake of what? I would say there's always a for the sake of what behind every conversation like, you know, or in regular English, what are we here for? Why are we doing these calls? What are we trying to get? What are we trying to be or do or produce and implicit, Pete, in what you were saying, is some assumption about that. And it might be useful either now or perhaps another call to talk about what's OGM for. Because whether we follow your recommendations, Pete, or some other, it is in some way an answer to that question, right? And, you know, maybe that was clear a long time ago. It hasn't been clear since the time I've been here, except to be a bunch of really interesting and wonderful people talking about interesting and wonderful stuff, which is great if that's what it is. But your suggestion is pointing to something that. Thanks, Kim. Doug. Well, kind of a better comment. I think that we are putting out tsunamis of words and crushing the very thought that we start our little speeches with. I used to run a group in Palo Alto called Serious Conversations and the one piece of coaching that I did was to say, look, the reason to talk is not to convince other people that you're right, but to stimulate their imagination. And as soon as you see that you've done that, guess what? It's time to shut up or you're continually talking will spoil the very thing that you just created. So hard. And when we meet face to face at retreats and things like that, I use silence strategically here and there, but not a lot, but it helps. And I find I use it way less in Zoom. So it's really strange. We just sort of keep going at it. So I need to learn some different pacing and to slow things down a bit. We're trying that. It's like there's sometimes where there's a real enthusiasm when people want to jump on top of each other and maybe that's fine. But maybe you could set a kind of a different base rhythm. I know. And part of this is back to periodic. We do 90 minute calls, which are relatively long calls in the world where people have very short time frames and short attention spans. And not that I'm worried about who's listening to these calls, but really I'm worried about our own dedication of our time to this process. Because if we did, if we had had this conversation as Quaker meeting, it would be Sunday right now. And we would still be waiting for the next message to show up because we said that many things like in Quaker meeting, you wait a few minutes before between messages and you process things. It's lovely. How long is meeting for worship on Sunday? One hour. So do it just for the hour. I know. And then I feel like then I feel like I'll miss everything else that's in everybody's heads that's germane here. And a part of me feels like maybe there's a pacing which is, hey, let's throw ingredients in the stone soup and stir the pot really hard and hot. Then let's stop and breathe and step away from it. Then let's step step back into the same topic and slow it down. I'm trying to architect a piece of this into weaving the world by saying we're going to have shadow episodes, post-processing episodes, feed the fungus episodes. I'm not exactly sure yet what to call them. But where we don't try to bring new material in, we go back and look at what was said on the original episode or call and then weave it, connect it, enrich it, do other kinds of things to it. And this is this call is a great lesson in maybe what not to do or what to consider in trying to figure out how to do that. Sometimes soup is better than the next day. Exactly. Had a chance to sit for a while. And I'm sorry to tell you, but you will never get everything that's in all of our heads. Oh, I want to extract it now. I want to. I want to surrender, Jerry. I want the Vulcan mind melt. You will. You will surrender now. Sorry, Stacy, then to him and then me. I don't know if this would work, but I'm just throwing out the idea of maybe after a half an hour, take a total five minute break like a commercial where people could write in whatever thoughts they have in the chat. Then we come back, reread those thoughts and move on from there. I like the suggestion. We can try. We can test that out. Julian. So I was wondering on this topic of going through old things and bringing them back out. Who is going to do that? I mean, like who to the point of names? And then the second is, how are they going to make what they find available? And we'll go through the curation process and make the results of that curation. How are they going to make it available to the group? So first, I think the first answer that is whoever is passionate about whatever corner of what we talked about will be personally motivated to go do some piece of this. So the who I think is just self-informed. We don't have an appointed editor. We don't have a budget for somebody to post process. And I've seen some really, really skillful people who could do that. But that's a rare skill to do a really good job actually of summarizing these things. The second is, we are in the infancy of the means for sharing these ideas well. When I say the big fungus, I'm envisioning, I have my own little ideas of what that thing looks like, but boy, it needs to work for people who represent things in different ways. It needs to be accessible, findable, usable, a bunch of stuff that we don't know yet. So I think that there's a lot of experimentation we can engage in to figure those kinds of things out. Yeah, I would actually disagree that we're in the infancy because over in the KM world, this has been a hot topic for quite a couple of decades, really trouble. It really boils down to money again as getting these tools and being to be able to wield them. Sort of. But my I've been watching camp for three decades and it's been mostly fruitless because they have the wrong mental approach toward most of it. Like, like I haven't seen that many useful KM systems. Maybe I just haven't been around. That's where the symbiosis would be better than going out of a new start. Yeah, well, we clearly want to absorb lessons learned and all of that. And then. Just for one, just for one second, just maybe to start a later conversation, I'm reposting with Klaus one of Klaus's posts earlier. The letter from Tolstoy to Gandhi and I and I only skim this in the in the chat as we were going because we were going so quickly and we were having a parallel conversation in the chat with lots of interesting things that I missed. I'm seeing and as I scan back up to find this one. And Klaus, I think what Tolstoy is saying to Gandhi is that whatever society you look at always, everybody winds up bowing to a ruler. And I actually disagree with this. And I I'm an amateur. I'm not an anthropologist, but I actually actively disagree with this. And I think there were many successful societies where leadership was transitional, transitory and matrilineal societies who find very different kinds of organizations. If you if you scroll back far enough and sort of investigate the wisdom that survived from those places, there were lots of other ways to be alive in a group. And I don't think that human groups devolve to always having an authoritative or authoritarian leader. And it's worth it's worth reading the entire letter really. The vast majority there are exceptions, but the vast majority of of human civilized 10,000 years ago, human civilization have been following this authoritarian bent. Now, in in in the tribal areas before that, the leadership was based on meritocracy. There was the strongest, the most powerful hunter and so on and so on. But when you just just read through the letter, I mean, you look at sometimes it was the oldest person, not as Congress. It was the wiser. I mean, I think there were lots of arrangements. And that's that's like way, way, way, way back there. And, you know, let's face it. We are today where we are looking around the world. You don't see a whole lot of meritocracy in any civilization that's alive today and functioning. So Tolstoy is really laying out, you know, the root causes of of how we came about this. And you will have a reason basically also laying it out in greater detail. This is, to me, the culmination of the era of enlightenment. But Tolstoy Wright's day is what the what the leading thinkers during the era of enlightenment had come to conclude. And and and it's really hard to argue with because when you look at Karl Marx, I mean this as bedeviled as he is, I mean he was totally correct in his predictions to where capitalism would end up in the way that it is that it was conceived at the time that it would result in an accumulation of capital, not because that's inherently embedded in capitalism, but human nature would use it for that purpose. Right. So yeah, yeah, I mean we can there are exceptions to the world. What we want to do today is look at the exceptions to the world and see if we can recreate something like this. Right. But it's not there today. I mean, and nowhere in the world that I can see does it function. And we are at the end of our call time and you've just opened four interesting conversations in what you just said. So I just want to open the floor to whoever would like to offer a wrapping comment to this call and then we'll process everything we just figured out and see if we can't experiment more with our group process. Alison. Thank you for entertaining the question. Thank you for putting it on the table and arguing it and helping us understand it. And I'm really interested in taking it apart more and seeing what's there. And we have the OGM community has a bunch of people who are like deeply experienced in lots of parts of these issues. So we can we can sort of tap more broadly and invite people in and things like that. So any other thoughts? I really love this call. I thought this this call felt different than some of the others. Not that I don't like the others but it was something special about this one. Thanks Daisy. I loved it too. I'm in a good place. Thank you all. Yeah. Until soon. Now we'll play our closing theme music.