 And one of the technological myths of our time is that industrial agriculture, the regime of fertilizers and herbicides and insecticides and so forth called the Green Revolution has enabled us to feed a hungry planet. And in the book, I go into some of the critiques of that idea. For example, that traditional small peasant farms in Turkey, there was a big study of them showing that they actually outproduce larger mechanized farms. And such observations have been made around the world. Not to say that agriculture can't continue to develop and cross-pollinate with agricultural traditions in other places and so on. But that really what so-called advanced agriculture enables us to do is to maximize the yield per unit of labor, not necessarily the yield per land unit, but to have high yield per land unit, you have to have a lot more labor. And I did talk about that already, the need for a revaluing of that kind of work, which is already happening. A lot of people are gravitating toward they want to have a garden, you know, so many young people now, they want to be farmers, they want to go back to the land. And in fact, the number of young people going into farming is increasing again after probably a hundred years of decline. And so, yeah, the answer, can we feed the world with organic agriculture is yes. It's just a myth that we can't do it, but the system does need to change. Yeah, I hear sometimes people say that organic agriculture is a elite indulgence, because we couldn't feed the world that way. And that's only true if you take for granted the current agricultural system. If you try to grow a little bit without herbicides, without pesticides, then yeah, it's a niche, but it doesn't have to be a niche. But that requires just a massive change on every level, which is starting to happen. The food movement is one of the most powerful change loci right now in the world. Maybe one more piece is food waste. When we don't hold life and earth and nature as sacred, then we can become very careless with it. And when we have a large scale, centralized, industrial scale agricultural system, then a lot of food goes to waste. Much more than if you're growing food in your garden and you really put everything to use. When the closer you are to your food to the source of the food, generally speaking, the less that you waste, because there's a lot of waste in each step of the commodity food pipeline. There's waste at the harvest level, at the processing level, at the supermarket, at the table and so forth. So since something like 40% of all food is wasted, we could certainly feed a lot more people with a lot less food if we have a shift in our values. And I'll add one more thing. I'm talking about organic agriculture. Organic really has become a shadow of its former self and has in many ways betrayed the original spirit of organics put forth by Rodale. He used the word organic because of soil. Because healthy soil has a lot of organic matter in it, carbon-containing compounds. So today, you can grow food hydroponically with no soil whatsoever and still call it organic. So Rodale is probably spinning in his grave about that. And I'm not saying that hydroponics have no role or anything like that. But when we're talking about regenerative agriculture, we are talking about organic in its original sense to put wealth, fertility back into the soil, which is the basis of all life on land at least. One more thing. Yeah. A lot of the studies that compare the productivity of organic agriculture to conventional agriculture are deeply flawed. Because to make something into a rigorous study, you have to hold variables constant. And you can't do that with true, with deep organic agriculture. You vary your practices on every field and in every season. If you really wanted to put organic agriculture to the test, you would have to use fields and crops grown by people who have been in relationship to the land for decades or generations. You can't just take one field and say, okay, we're going to grow organic in this field and conventional in that field and they're pretty much identical. Because that test field that you're comparing with the conventional field, has that been farmed organically for a long time? Has the soil been built up through trial and error and relationship over decades, over generations? What organic is, you can't separate, it's not just a set of practices and not using certain chemicals. It is a relationship between humans and soil, between humans and land. So really, we don't know how productive non-conventional farming methods can be. There are some anecdotes where people are producing just enormous quantities of food on small acreage that point to what's possible. But if your goal is a healthy, restorative relationship, then you're not going to try to maximize production. So we don't really have a lot of good data on, to answer the question, could we feed the world with small scale local organic agriculture? I think there's a lot of reason to believe that we could. And so the critique that, well, we can't make this transition because we wouldn't be able to feed everybody. That critique is based on, it's an ideology really. It is not supported by the evidence. That's pretty that way.