 I can ask you kind of a different kind of question. I was watching you on a podcast. I think it was with Russell Brand. And you were talking about how sort of one, so if you only have a scientific view, if you don't sort of incorporate that, what you keep talking about, sort of like integrating the spiritual component as well, is it dangerous thing to do? Because then you sort of working from a purely quantitative mindset, you can sort of reduce nature to all these numbers. And so I think the example that you gave was, for example, that it's okay to maybe erase this part of nature because you can offset that if there's gold underneath it, which then can be worth more in monetary terms. Yeah, this is a good example of one of the out-picturings of a reductionistic metaphysics. One of the main metaphysical principles of science, actually I don't think I mentioned it, is that everything can be measured. Anything real can be converted into quantity. This goes all the way back to Galileo and Descartes and Hume, who basically said, if it's not measurable, then it's not real. So the ambition of science became to bring more and more phenomena into the purview of measurement. So for example, a scientific characterization of love would be a quantitative enumeration of various brain states and hormonal states and biochemical states. And if you could fully characterize love as in those terms, then you would have a scientific explanation of love. So the question is what gets left out? Is it, for one thing, is this metaphysical principle true? And this is something that philosophers talk about all the time, like qualia, you know? Like is it true that everything can be reduced to quantity or are there some things that are irreducible? Now I'm not going to solve this philosophical debate that's gone on for millennia in this moment, but it's what comes up. And if there is something besides quantity and we navigate life and public policy scientifically, i.e. solely through quantity, we're going to leave important things out. Then there's also the very practical question of, okay, even if everything is on some fundamental level quantifiable, are we able to do that? What kind of things do we quantify and what do we leave out of our measures? So this is where the example came up that you referenced, Andreas, the climate change policy, where if you reduce ecological health to a matter of how much carbon is in the atmosphere, then you leave out everything that doesn't contribute in a way that you can measure to carbon dioxide levels and you end up cutting down one forest to offset something else. Like you end up cutting down the forests in Namibia woodchipping the wood, sending it to Germany, burning it in converted coal-fired power plants and getting carbon credits and congratulating yourself on how green you are. Because actually the number, I mean, if you actually did the math all the way down to the base level, then probably you are not actually reducing carbon dioxide by doing that because of the ecosystemic reverberations of cutting down forests. But you can't easily account for those. So this is what's been happening in our science-guided climate policy. A lot of damage and destruction is being done in the name of the environment. When we, especially through industrial biofuels, wind turbines are also kind of problematic. It's just not so clear that we, that through this quantitative approach, if we're really going to produce anything different, maybe what we need is to take a qualitative approach that acknowledges that there are some things that are sacred or maybe that everything is sacred, but that a forest is sacred and that if we reduce it to its carbon sequestration potential, we are committing a sacrilege. So this is an example of the perils of getting lost in the numbers, getting lost in the science. And on a personal level too, like what would your life look like if you based it on whatever cost benefit math that you could calculate that's available to you to calculate? I mean, even if you could somehow quantify your happiness and put it on a spreadsheet, like is that even gonna work? Is that actually, is happiness, does it come from quantifiable influences? Like is that the way to live life? Is that the way to run a society? It had seemed that way, if you read science fiction from the 40s and 50s, Isaac Asimov, like these geniuses with their calculators calculating the best public policy, but I think that we are coming to doubt that way of navigating the world.