 Imagine going into some kind of government committee or policy meeting or something and saying, you know, I think we should protect the river just because it's sacred, because we love it and it's beautiful. No other reason. That doesn't fit into the policy conversation very well. What fits in is the costs and benefits. So if you can demonstrate an economic benefit to doing that or some kind of cost savings, then it becomes part of the policy conversation. And this isn't just me saying this. I mean, this is what a lot of people working, you know, hands on in the field are telling me that they have to find some way to translate that into the language of policy. So it's an encroachment of financialized thinking onto our collective decision making. And underneath that, it's the infatuation with numbers, with quantity, which suggests that we can understand the world and control the world through reducing the world to number, something we can then manipulate and know exactly how to manipulate. So that's like the maybe deeper philosophical or even metaphysical myth underneath all of this. But as it plays out, the language of love is foreign to a lot of the political, the workings of the political system. You know, you're going to be looked at suspiciously if you just go in there and start talking about love. What you have to be realistic. You have to be practical. What does that mean? What does practical mean? Practical means it can translate into some numbers. That's what it often means. And I think that this is if we follow this, we're going to end up with a world where all we have are the things that we can translate into numbers because we will not have cherished and protected anything else.