 There's been a lot of research on the ability of trees and forests to sequester carbon and how much they can sequester in different types of forests, tropical and temperate and so on and so forth. And this can be used to argue for the protection of forests or for sustainable logging practices and so forth. But again, the danger here is that when we gauge forest health or when we instrumentalize forests based on carbon, then anything that doesn't have an obvious carbon impact gets left out of the equation. And those could be the things that allow forests to be healthy over a time span of centuries. When we understand that a forest is a living being, not just composed of living beings, but a living being, an entity in and of itself. Then we can't be so cavalier about, say, cutting down trees and hauling them off and building buildings with them. And hey, boy, that's taking a lot of carbon. I mean, once it's in a building, that carbon is in the wood is going to stay there for maybe centuries. So this is good for the atmosphere, right? So let's plant fast growing trees and log them and haul them off these tree farms. If you're only looking at carbon metrics, that seems like the most ecologically friendly practice. In the long term, though, the ability of these trees to sequester to underground or their effect on the water cycle or their effect on biodiversity, that gets left out. And in fact, there's a lot of really deep work on forests, the book, The Hidden Life of Trees, is that what it's called? Give some beautiful examples of how trees and a forest not only compete with each other for sunlight and ground, but they sometimes cooperate with each other and even form friendships where two trees will grow in a way to give each other more sunlight and how stumps that have no leaves, they should be dead. They're kept alive by neighboring trees sometimes for hundreds of years. Why would they do that? From an animistic viewpoint, you could say, well, those are the wisdom elders. And when the forest is facing a 1 in 500 year threat or a situation that no living tree remembers, maybe that memory is stored in that stump. That seems rather unscientific until you translate that into, there might be biochemicals that are useful and necessary when the plague of whatever insect comes by or some viral outbreak or something like that, that is held by the forest. So yeah, the forest and the mycelia and the bacteria and all other plants and the insects and animals, all these together form a living being that is resilient over time. And if you damage it, tree farms are not forests, actually. They are not a living being. They are just like any other model culture. They are seriously reduced. If they are a living being, they are seriously reduced and depressed living being with almost no biodiversity. And they don't do as good a job in creating clouds, bringing in rain, or anything. It's hard to grasp that in quantitative terms. Yeah, another thing I want to say is there are certain fungi that take hundreds of years to grow that only grow on the big logs that decompose over centuries. What are the role of those fungi? Do we even recognize them? Do we understand that yet? Or are they just some, you know, superfluous thing and the forest would be fine without it? We've thought that a lot about various creatures on this earth, not to mention various organs in our bodies, that they're kind of nature's mistake or something's superfluous. And then later we learn actually that they're playing some really important role that may only become visible under extreme or unusual circumstances. The basic principle is that everything is there for a reason. And until we understand what that reason is, if we care about these places, we better not just go around destroying things.