 It's Arbor Day, and our springs here in Atlanta have been anything but silent, and we are here for the next episode of The FeeCast. And I am here with our awesome panel, Marianne March, Dan Sanchez, and Brittany Hunter. And, you know, Earth Day just passed. It's Arbor Day. We're all thinking about verdant, flowering, green things. And I wonder, Marianne, what was the last time, or when rather, was the last time that you actually hugged a tree? That's a personal question, Richard. This morning. Well, good. Good. It's an appropriate time. Well, with your allergies, you kind of hate the kind of life. Nah, not into trees. I'm sorry. You just... Never. It's all concrete for you all the time. All concrete. Concrete jungle. Concrete steel. And maybe aluminum. I don't know. A little hint of aluminum. Okay. Yeah. Well, hopefully the tariffs aren't, you know, cramping your style. Yeah. There's that to worry about. And like any good millennial, you have to love cacti. Cacti. Yeah. It's a succulence, I believe. Because I don't have to water it as often as other things, so they survive my inattention to them. Well, so we're going to be talking quite a bit today about a variety of green topics. Of course, the mention at the very top about the Silent Spring refers to a person who wrote a book named Rachel Carson. Her book was called Silent Spring. Chicked off the environmental movement. The entire EPA as well, right? It did. Everything came out. In 1970, and this year marks, I believe, year 48 for Earth Day, which started in 1970. And Arbor Day is quite a bit older than that, actually. I was reading up on it. It was a little bit earlier. But one of the things that I wanted to make sure that we talked about was we're always talking about what the difficulties are with environmentalism, how we can manage a growing economy versus lack of resources potentially if economic growth maybe causes resources to be going away. But there are some very, very stark predictions about what might happen. And there have been for quite a while some pretty outlandish predictions about what will happen to the environment if, in fact, we don't get serious about protecting it. And we had an article on the website this week that just blew up, and it was by our friend Mark Perry. And he's with the American Enterprise Institute. He writes in a blog called Carpe Diem. We republished this piece on our website, and it's a very long title, but basically it comes down to 18 wrong predictions about what has been sort of prognosticated when the apocalypse is finally going to arrive environmentally. And predictions made on the first Earth Day. Back in 1970. 1970. Yeah. And some of these are pretty daunting and awful, but some of them are also unintentionally kind of funny, maybe? You think of it as the people who every five years are saying, doomsday, the Armageddon is coming, and then it comes and goes, and nothing happened. That's kind of what this article reminds me of. Chicken Little. Exactly. The sky is falling. The apocalypse is always next year. It's always nigh. So there are some, I don't want to call them funny, but pretty outlandish predictions in this piece by Mark Perry. And I wondered if you might share a few of those with us. Yeah. I made a note of one that I thought was interesting. The prediction was that 200,000 Americans would die from smog disasters, specifically in New York and Los Angeles. Yes. Not funny. Also has not happened. Right. A lot of them were from one particular person, Paul Erlich. And number four in the list was by him, population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100 to 200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next 10 years. Also terrible and also has not happened. Mr. Erlich. Yeah. He actually has one of mine was from him as well, where he pointed out that by between 1980 and 1989, we would have 65 million Americans perish in something he called the Great Die Off. This was particularly funny to me because I was born during those years. So it was not the Great Die Off. I am here. It was actually more of a Great Bake Off with all the new baked goods popping up at schools for all the children that were born and thriving in that world. And the Great Die Off of course included what, 65 million Americans, 4 billion deaths worldwide. That was what the prediction was. And here we are today at a population of just over 7.5 billion people. Yeah. Well, and you bring that up, one of my next ones was about being able to feed all these people. Right. Because of course he also predicted, or someone predicted the great mass starvation that was Dennis Hayes. Unfortunately for that, that was in 1970 when that prediction was made. The U.I. actually counts that 200 million fewer hungry people since 1990. This original prediction was made in 1970. So you can't even imagine how much that's gone up to that. The 70s were a very strange decade. There were a lot of shortages, a lot of predictions of terrible things happening. Yeah. Mad Max was the movie that predicted that because of the oil, the energy shortages that we were going to have like a post-apocalyptic, like there's no resources available for anyone and Mel Gibson would be like a pirate king of the roadways. You kind of understand it though. If you want to motivate someone to see things from your side politically at least, you have to really cry wolf very, very loudly. The thing about it is the wolf continues to be cried about, right? And that's not to say that environmental problems don't exist. That's not to say that maybe there were EPA actions even after 1970 when the EPA was founded like mandating the installation of scrubbers on smokestacks that have not helped the world and cleaned up our country. That's not to say that. But it's just to say a lot of these hysterics around what we are doing to impact our natural world seem to be nothing more than overhysteric reactions to a problem. And a lot of this kicked off in the 70s with Thomas Robert Malthus, who is the famous doomsday economist who wrote an essay on the principle of population. And his idea was basically that our population was going to go grow faster than we could keep up with the food supply and that people were going to starve. And so this led to the ZPG zero population growth movement in the late 60s and there are 70s. And as we've been saying, it just didn't turn out to be the case. We became better at producing food. We became better at producing medicines and keeping people are living longer than ever. Because not only has population actually been booming, but living standards have gone up. So it's not just a whole bunch of more people grasping after the same resources and just living more hungrily. But actually, we are, we actually have too much food. I mean, the obesity is the problem. Not hunger. That's the point. We have obesity as a problem now. I can't really dig on Malthus too much, right? Because he was a minister. His heart was in the right place, right? I mean, when he's making these predictions, he's trying to help. He's trying to offer some solutions on problems that he regards as true to the survival of human flourishing. And he was writing hundreds of years ago. So he couldn't have imagined, well, he could have imagined because some people were at the time imagining amazing growth that we could have and technology, I mean, the industrial revolution had already started by then. Well, one of the other predictions that Mark Perry actually writes about in his article is from a Harvard biologist named George Wald, which I thought was pretty hyperbolic and hysterical, right? And that was that civilization will end within 30 years of the very first Earth Day in 1970. By 2000. So the Y2K bug would have been like a literal disease and famine bug that would have killed us all. But it didn't end up happening. And it makes these claims fairly incredible, right? And it makes them ring very hollow, obviously, once the day has passed when they were supposed to have come true. And again, we're not talking about ignoring the environment, throwing pollution into the water, putting it into the air. But it doesn't really help their case that the apocalyptic predictions never came true. And so I think that one example from history that people often talk about in regards to the environment is Easter Island, which is the island off the coast of Chile, where the population which started at 7,000 people disappeared along with all of their trees and their speculation as to how that happened, whether the people knew that they were cutting down all of their trees. So this is presented as a scary, we could be them kind of situation. But they're so the minority. We take great actions to take care of our things. And we can- Well, we especially take care of our things when we own our things. And that's the whole thing is that actually, we are concerned about the environment too. The free market type people are really concerned about the environment. And we think that the free market will actually conserve the environment better than, for example, a lot better than socialism. Totally. Talk about pollution. The Soviet Union was really had a lot of pollution. They made an article on that. That's right. And you know, islands are always very interesting things to me because you have a very isolated group of people that aren't able to trade with anybody else. And so you kind of get these anomalous sort of reactions out of, I think Tanzania is another place where there have been a lot of studies done on what caused the decline of certain civilizations. And this is written about in a book by Matt Ridley called The Rational Optimist, whereby the civilization actually regressed in Tanzania. You know, it's a good question. And it's worth talking about these black swans, if you will. But definitely an interesting topic that we'll get into as we continue the conversation here. We'll get right back after a few messages from Fee. One year ago, over 700 students, scholars, philanthropists, and business leaders from five continents gathered in Atlanta for a brand new, one-of-a-kind event, FeeCon. But get ready. This year is going to be even bigger. At FeeCon, we celebrate inspiring entrepreneurs, innovators, and wealth creators while helping you set your own path to personal and professional success. And it was awesome. All around, it's been like a vacation. It will become a must-event event next year as well. I'm not going to wait for my invitation, I'm going to invite myself, I guess, so. With FeeCon 2018, Fee is taking the conference experience to a whole new level. With eight incredible tracks, more than 50 jam-packed sessions featuring over 100 electrifying speakers and vast networking opportunities, FeeCon 2018 is sure to offer an unforgettable experience for everyone. It's the must-attend event this summer, and it's all happening at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in beautiful downtown Atlanta from June 7th through 9th. Available tickets are going fast, so register now at FeeCon.org and find out how you can set your path and change the world. Welcome back to the FeeCast. So we were talking a little bit earlier about population segregation, isolated populations, and I said the wrong country. I was actually meaning Tasmania, which I have to remind myself the Tasmanian devil to remember that that's the right one. Not Tanzania, Tasmania. One's an island, one is not. So I just wanted to clear that up for everybody. But I think we want to continue talking about sort of this whole idea that the world is becoming overpopulated, that we're outstripping our resources. And it reminds me a little bit about a wager that a couple of distinguished gentlemen undertook between them in 1980. And these two gentlemen, you've already referred to one of them, Paul Ehrlich, who is a biologist out of Stanford at the time, and another gentleman who was a business professor and economist named Julian Simon, and unfortunately he passed away in the late 90s, but they had a wager. And the wager was this. Basically Ehrlich believed that the resources were going to get more expensive over time because the population continued to grow. Julian Simon, on the other hand, believed that they were actually going to get less expensive over time because we have new and ingenious ways to apply our minds to use what we have around us, the raw materials that are in the world around us. And so Julian Simon believed, no, the price will not increase. It will actually be a decrease. And they set the time frame for this wager over 10 years, from 1980 to 1990. And basically Simon allowed Ehrlich to select five different metals, not controlled by the government, so it wasn't going to have any kind of subsidy effect. But five metals, including copper, tin, chromium, and what else, nickel and copper, tungsten, tungsten. So he selected those five, and lo and behold, by the end of the decade, the prices of these metals, on average, actually decreased by 50%. And so the bet was that whoever won the bet would pay the, or whoever lost the bet, would pay the winner the difference between $1,000 and what happened to the prices. And so one day, miraculously, around 1990, 1991, or something like that, Julian Simon actually got a check in the mail for just under $600 from Paul Ehrlich, no note whatsoever. And this has kind of set the stage for the environmental debate that we continue to have, not only in this country, but around the world. And it gets back to that question of hysterics, right? The hysterics around, you know, everything's falling apart versus everything's just going to be fine. And so just to plug a couple of books here, Paul Ehrlich wrote a book called The Population Bomb, and he was on Johnny Carson all the time when he was on The Tonight Show talking about this, because it was a big thing in the 70s, right? And Julian Simon wrote a book called The Ultimate Resource, and again, the ultimate resource, as he regarded it, was the human mind. And so this wager, again, has really set up a lot of the conversation that we have between Malthusian sort of overpopulation thought versus those folks who maybe take a more temperate approach, I think, and say, look, yeah, the population is growing. That's not necessarily a bad thing, and that doesn't necessarily mean we're going to outstrip our ability to feed and clothe and take care of ourselves. And it's just such an interesting topic, and I wonder if maybe there are some other thoughts that you guys might have on this. Well, it goes back to what you're talking about Tasmania that- Yes, the devil. Tasmanian devil. That's right. That it's exactly why Tasmania, so Tasmania had a collapse, and Tasmania used to be connected to the- like closer to the- it actually used to be connected to the Austrian mainland, but then it disconnected and it got so far out that the human population on Tasmania become completely separated, no contact with the mainland. And so Julian Simon's ultimate resource, the mind and innovation, it became starved of that. There were so- it was too small of a population, there was too little innovation, there was too little division of labor, and that's why they actually regressed that they had certain technologies, like a certain tool set. But then generation after generation, that tool set began to degrade. Right, right, and that was in the example that Matt Ridley mentions, the Arrowhead actually got less and less advanced. It was more advanced at one point, and then there was no trade happening, and so everyone on the island actually had to make the Arrowhead themselves and all the other things that they needed to survive, and so the technology actually went backward. And that's not to say that that can't happen again if we don't trade with each other. It got to the point where they couldn't even fish anymore, so that people who discovered- who landed on Tasmania, they tried to offer them fish and they were disgusted because it was so new to them. That's amazing. How long ago? Well, the rediscovery, I think it was like 100 years ago, or a little over 100 years ago. That was discovered of the regression, but we're talking like tens of thousands of years ago for the actual regression of the technology. Yeah. Well, so we keep talking about overpopulation. Why is this still a thing? Why do people really sort of dwell on this question? And one of the things I think about when we talk about overpopulation is not only are we at 7.6 billion people around the world right now, not only have billions of people not died, contrary to certain hyperbolic predictions, but also, I was actually just looking at treehugger.com, which of course is a very important and relevant website for today, right? They said at the time in 2011, the world's population was just under 7 billion people, 6.9 billion people. All those folks could fit into the state of Texas at the population density of New York City. Everybody in the world? Everyone in the world. In 2011, just under 7 billion people. I don't think it's changed. They could 7.6 billion people, I believe could still fit in Texas today at the population density of New York, probably around that. But the point is that we have a lot of space. We have, there's no lack of breathing room for us. The question really becomes resources, right? I think it's sort of zero sum thinking really that people think that there's a certain pie of resources and the more people there are, then the smaller each piece of the pie becomes. But they forget that the size of the pie is determined by what people do and how productive people are. And people are more productive when they can cooperate. So it's sort of like, when you think about an additional person, a lot of people think of them as just one more mouth to feed. But it's not just another mouth, it's another mind. It's another innovative mind and it's another pair of hands. And not only can they come up with creative solutions, but they can have a division of labor. They can cooperate so that each person can focus on their comparative advantage and as a whole then everybody's more efficient. And that's why a bit before Thomas Malthus was making his doomsday prognostications, Adam Smith was predicting the opposite. Adam Smith was talking about how amazing the division of labor is and how much more productivity we can get out of it and was forecasting greater wealth for the countries that had property rights and took advantage of that. Dan, you are two for two now on Adam Smith references during the broadcast. I'm a fan. I expect that that probably won't let up. There's a lot to quote from that guy. We actually have him up in our office as one of our intellectual heroes for many, many reasons, but one of them is that. The whole question of the ultimate resource also brings to mind what is a resource? And it always irks me a little bit when people automatically assume, well, trees are a resource, water's a resource, air is a resource, exactly, coal, any kind of fossil fuel that's impacted underground or otherwise. Those are not resources by Julian Simon's definition. They are raw materials, right? What really needs to happen for those to be turned into resources which has a productive connotation, right? A resource is something that can be used, right? Is that ultimate resource the human mind? Well, and you think about that. A tree is just a tree, like you were saying, it's just a tree until someone comes along with some brilliant plan to make that tree a boat or make that tree a pencil or make that tree something else. Oh, that's totally right. And we'll get into trees in the next segment when we talk more about Arbor Day. But I would recommend, you brought that up, that people look at iPencil, which is a great essay on our website. We've got the link down in the comments right here. Check it out because it's a great parable about the way in which the market works to create such a seemingly simple thing, right? But it requires so much interaction and specialization over national borders and cultural and religious borders as well. It's just such a perfect encapsulation of what you were just saying. A tree is just a tree until someone takes their mind and applies it to think what the tree can do. And think about how many people there are. Think about how many uses for a tree that means there are. It's kind of a beautiful thing. Yeah, it's kind of like taking order out of chaos because when you think of chaos, that's the wild. And that's just like raw nature. And when you think of order, that is when someone applies their mind to produce something out of those resources. And the beautiful thing that I Pencil highlights is spontaneous order. That there can be this cooperation of millions of strangers who have no central planner who don't know each other and don't have any kind of arrangement. But through the price system, they can create order that turns trees into pencils. And that also preserves trees. Because just because it is a... What was the term? It's not resource, but... Raw material. Raw material doesn't mean it's a negligible thing. That it's something that we don't want to preserve. But again, the way that we can serve our raw materials is through property rights. Because if that which nobody owns, nobody cares for is basically what Aristotle said. And it is nice to think about trees as a resource too because we get to breathe the oxygen that they let out. So it obviously does matter that trees exist and if you consider breathable air to be a resource, which I think could be argued very well, then there is a use for that. However, for most other purposes, such as the way in which we used to burn wood in order to power factories, and we don't actually do that anymore, that just goes to show the progression of how we've applied our ingenuity to something that exists in the world that we need otherwise, but also exists for our use for purposes that used to make sense, but no longer make sense. So we used lumber, we used steam, we now use nuclear power. It's a very different world than it was during, I'm gonna say it, the Dickinsonian era of the Industrial Revolution. And that's two for two for me. That's right, you like Dickinson. Now, to be fair, there are still places in the world where burning wood is a primary fuel source. But I think that something you touched on, Richard, that I want to highlight is the fact that people who care about the environment and people who care about the forest, it stems from, I think, a concern for the future and the idea that this is a great planet we live on and I want it to be here for future generations. And I think that there's nothing wrong with that concern. I think it comes down to people being worried that greater populations with more money to spend are gonna be more wasteful, but there is a wonderful thing called the Cousinets Curve, which if you look at it, it's a graph with the line making an upside down smiley face for our audiences who are only listening. And what it basically signifies is that the poorest countries have very little pollution, but then they become more rich and their pollution increases. But after a tipping point, they become so rich that their pollution goes right back down. And so I think it just goes to show that when you are more prosperous, you can take greater steps to reduce your impact on the earth. Absolutely, and you know, it's awesome. We went over a little bit on this segment. We're gonna hit back on this in just a minute. So we'll be right back at the feedcast. Hi, everyone. My name is Anna Jane Perle and I am the program manager here at the Foundation for Economic Education. We still have one amazing program open this summer for high schoolers. That program is leadership in action and it is open for registration right now. This program is gonna take place at Lindenwood University in beautiful St. Louis, Missouri. Registration is open right now through May 5th for high school students between the ages of 14 and 17. Discover new ideas, build friendships, and most importantly, have fun. Visit fee.org slash Lindenwood and register today. Welcome back to the feedcast. We were talking in the last segment about the wager between Julian Simon and Paul Erlett and I mentioned that, of course, Julian Simon regarded the human mind as the ultimate resource and you'll notice in the list of things that they were betting on, the copper, the tin, the chromium, the tungsten, which is my favorite of those because it was fun to say, that aluminum is not mentioned, right? And we use a lot more aluminum today and we probably didn't realize how to use aluminum back in 1970 to the degree that we use it today. Another thing is plastic. It's going back to those commercials from the late 90s, early 2000s. Plastics make it possible. Think about the fact that back in 1970, yeah, we had invented plastic. We understood what plastic was, but we had no idea how to use it to the degree that we use it today for packaging, for medical devices, including incubation chambers for little babies to survive outside of the womb when they're premature. And so I really do believe plastics make it possible and we have no idea what is going to come down the pike next. And so it just, to give some context to the fact that we have made discoveries since those awful days of shortages and lines in 1970 and throughout the decade, we have made these discoveries that have made our lives so much better and now we use perhaps less tungsten. And then people before then, like how could they have predicted that? You know, the rise of plastics. No way. Any of these other technological advances. And so who knows what innovative people when set free and having the right incentives, what amazing things that they can produce. Yeah. And it's in people's self-interest to do simple things like buying high efficiency appliances and getting double-paying windows. It saves them money and it's also better for the environment. So everybody wins in that case. Win, win, win. Just like Michael Scott used to say in the office. So of course, today is not Earth Day, but Arbor Day, right? They're so close together you kind of interchange them in your mind, but Arbor Day. And there's a fabulous article on our website and I know you were reading this recently. Yeah, and I'll be honest, when we first talked about this, I was kind of making fun of Arbor Day, like, oh, Arbor Day or they too. And then I read this article and I'm thinking like, this is really cool. So Jay Sterling Morton is the founder of Arbor Day. He's got a founder's name. He's got a founder's name. And it kind of came about by him not waiting for the government to solve problems. He had moved from Michigan to Nebraska City, Nebraska and realized there were no treats. What year are we talking about? I wish you wouldn't have asked me that. It was early 1900s. Okay, this looks like, yeah, it looks like he founded Arbor Day in 1872. So it must have been mid 19th century. Yes, and he, well, we'll get to that part. So he just started furiously planting trees. There was no plan that he didn't ask the government for permission. He's just, he just did it. Kind of like Johnny Appleseed. Kind of like Johnny Appleseed, exactly. And it kind of turned into a passion project for him. He later briefly became a state representative and worked dramatically to decrease government intervention and subsidies to farmers. Later ends up being the secretary of agriculture and ends up cutting, I mean, cutting spending to ridiculous levels while still promoting the growth of new plants and new trees. So he's a pretty interesting character. So a whole new view on Arbor Day now. Jay Sterling Morton and he was secretary of agriculture under Grover Cleveland. Who was a pretty good president. One of the best. Yeah, yeah. And he fought to repeal tariffs, which are another big topic these days. What do tariffs have to do with trees? Yeah, and it has to do with where we're getting our trees. So during that time, the US passed tariffs. So I was on Canada specifically, which is where we were getting all of our lumber. So what happens when you pass tariffs? Are you gonna go to Canada anymore? No, so basically the government was subsidizing our own deforestation because now we were tearing down everything here because we couldn't afford to do it anymore, we didn't want to do it from Canada. So you see that tariffs have implications not only today, but back then too. Well, and it's interesting because even that, you have to wonder why that would happen. Because even if we did have tariffs and we were mostly drawing domestically for our lumber, well, it's a renewable resource. So you can cut down trees and then plant new ones. And that's another situation with property rights that people who do own the groves of trees that they have every incentive to not over draw too much so that they have an incentive to make sure that the land is sustainable and that the next generation of trees are provided for. So you have to wonder what kind of ownership arrangements? Was it public land that we had at the time and were people just sort of strip mining the forests because of that, why would it lead to deforestation? It's an interesting question. Speaking of deforestation, I think it's important to note that deforestation is not the huge problem that sometimes we're led to believe. So one, I will, one third of the forests in the world are stable and one third of the forests in the world are growing and that's happening in places like Australia, China and India, the two most populous countries right here in the United States and Russia. And in fact, in Brazil, I have some numbers for you. Since 2004, the rate of deforestation in the Brazilian rainforest has fallen by 80%. 80%, just since 2004, 14 years. And at the same time, their economy grew by 40%. And so it just kind of goes to show that a growing economy doesn't necessarily mean that you're polluting a lot. Mary, and you and your numbers, you just seem to have them, which is always awesome to give us some data on all of this. You know, we're talking about botany and we're talking about, you know, the science of like geology when we're talking about fuel and people might wonder like, this isn't the foundation for science education. Like, you know, what credentials do they have to even comment on these things? Well, and it's just interesting that Julian Simon wasn't a scientist. He was a professor of business economics, whereas Ehrlich is a scientist. And yet Julian Simon won. And I think that there's a reason for that because we're not just talking about physical science. We're talking about economics when we talk about what incentives people have to conserve or to overuse. And so a resource, it's still, economics still applies to all resources no matter whether you're talking about geology or botany. And so that's why economists have, definitely have something to say about these questions. And if anything, oftentimes it's the scientists who are talking about things that they don't really understand because they don't understand economics. Yeah, this makes me think of the great Hyatt quote in all paraphrase that it's the curious task for economists is to show people what they can actually do about what they think is possible. And I think pollution is a perfect example. So there's the economic term externalities, which basically refers to when one actor makes a decision, one actor, one group makes a decision that affects other people who don't have a say in that action. And economists tend to think in terms of positive externalities and negative externalities, the positive externality might be that you paint your house and your neighbor's, the price of their home, their value goes up. Negative externality being something simple like pollution. And social scientists think that they can manipulate the numbers, that they can put policies in place that will reduce the externalities. And there is just not a lot of... Yeah, because economists don't understand some things too. They understand general principles, but they don't understand enough in order to do economic interventions and then have it play out exactly as they planned. Yeah, totally. The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design. One of my absolute favorite quotations from Hayek, which you just mentioned right there. Right, so we're not offering an alternate central plan. We're offering just a simple framework of property rights to incentivize creative and innovative people to use their own scientific knowledge to come up with innovative on-the-ground solutions to these real problems. Which has happened time and we've seen that time and time again when people are left alone from government regulations and free to create and innovate, they do. And it gets me with zero population or these population activists. What would happen if someone didn't get to this earth that had this great idea? You think like, no, promote more minds, promote having more brilliant people on this earth. Right, exactly. And as we were discussing earlier, when you have a greater workforce, then you're more able to specialize and to divide that labor and who knows what we're gonna create next. It's exciting, really. It's really exciting. I agree, it's very exciting. And the strange thing about it, I think, is scientists are always kind of portraying themselves as very optimistic forward-looking people, but they're calling Crying Wolf quite often. And I think it's up to the economists to be able to say, look, here's how the world actually seems to work. Maybe we can have a seat at the table to talk about these issues. I think this has been a fabulous conversation and I hope that everyone out there has agreed, we'll have all these links to all the different articles and quotes and people that we talked about down underneath the video. Until next time, have a great week. Thank you for watching The Feast.