 here higher. This is the actually would show up sometimes. What? It would be great if she would actually show up in the nameplate sometimes. Stacey Kara. Yeah, so we know that that persona is actually present. Kevin, you're the only one that doesn't know. Well, no, see they're different personas and you're not aware of when Stacey Kara is showing up. That's my premise. We should take a poll on that. I think I'm aware. Exactly. Hey, everybody. This is the OGM weekly call on Thursday, March 31, 2022, last day of March. Spring has sprung here in Portland. I don't know if everywhere else. I know that Judy was saying yesterday that it was sprinkling of snow in Minneapolis, which sounds normal for this time of year. How's everybody else? Do you know it? Thank you very much, Pete. Good. Let's do some checking in. How about Klaus, Doug, Stacey? Goodness, first one up. I haven't really said it on anything. Yeah, well, we I'm working on my next webinar, which we already have 270 people registered. It's in three weeks from now, which is again for business climate leaders on this time, on funding the transition in agriculture. So that looks like an encouraging conversation about structuring carbon markets in ways that is practical and inclusive, particularly also to smaller cores. So that's good. Otherwise, I'm looking at the nose in astonishment, trying to figure out where this could possibly end up and what the trajectory is getting us to and the attempts of the rest of the world to pretend that everything is actually quite normal. So you're talking clearly about Will Smith slapping Chris Rock? Yeah, I'm talking about the Ukraine. I mean, we're trying to maintain a sense of normality and the Europeans are getting increasingly freaking out is the word for that now because it's just one let go. And not this morning, Putin just called up another 100,000 reservists or records now into the military. So he's still clearly escalatory. It's a crazy time. It's a crazy time to maintain your focus and positivity and see where this all wants to go. Yeah, so no, I'm just like, I'm just like, not quite sure what to think. I love that book that we started to refuel. It really just shows you that not much has changed, has it? I mean, we still struggle with the same impulses and the same emotions and trials that we did 2000 years ago or 3000 years ago. So the evolutionary not much has changed in the way that we try to shape our reality in ways that contradicts the natural world. So let me hit pause there for a second. Does that resonate for others? Because I'm not sure I agree with what you just said. Because for me, it seems like our brains got eaten by a different mindset very recently. And I think of 2000 years is very recent history. If you think that aborigines go back 30 to maybe 50,000 years. And so it feels to me like there's been this insane shift and that possibly one of the propositions of the dawn of everything is that we are living inside of and are taking for granted a worldview that's actually disruptive and dangerous that we need to shed and change somehow, which is a different thing than you just said, which is like, hey, human nature doesn't really change. Does that resonate for you or anybody else? Stacey? Yeah, well, the way I heard it, I agree that human nature or the way we think hasn't changed in terms of our fear, our need for survival, and the way we manifest that. So again, you joked about like the whole Will Smith thing. But for me, that was really enlightening to see how everybody was coming from their own sensitivity. You know, we talk about trauma. And yeah, the trauma is easy to say, but we all have sensitivities and we're not always so clear on that. So that part of human nature hasn't really changed in that we're always looking from our own perspective, which for me, I was reminded of why I come to these calls and the other calls I do, they're all about collective intelligence. And I realized that it's so important to get as many different viewpoints into the mix. So I hope that answers your question. I mean, from a German perspective, the German culture is just going through a complete reevaluation of their value structure that developed post-World War II. You know, I mean, Germany really tried to engage Russia in ways that provides them with financial security, buy our energy from you. We engage. I mean, I worked in Moscow and because the company I worked for, we had actually our largest country, most profitable, was Russia. And so there was this penetration of Western companies and Western culture into Russia. But now they're waking up to none of that mattered. And we are now in a strategic position that is just really unfortunate because we have relied so much on Russian energy. I mean, that just couldn't think. It was just this post-World War II, my generation, basically, that people that were born immediately after World War II thought that you could just be reasonable, right? I mean, just this war is so stupid and on so many levels, right? I mean, no one thought this was even remotely possible. So Germany is going through a big adjustment right now to this new scenario, a new situation, feeling really pretty hopeless, I mean, lost in this shuffle. Thanks, Klaus. I'm really interested in what the conversations are like with your family or in Germany, just internally, just looking at themselves and seeing what's up. Let's go, Doug, Stacey, Pete. I'm actually going to pass this one for now. Sounds good. If you want to show up late in the queue, that's Groovy, too. Stacey, Pete, Eric. So I'll just add that what I tried to do in the conversations on my page is reframe the whole thing because I had different people coming from different sensitivities and different trauma, and I tried to, you know, like there were people, like if you came from fairness, then you wanted to see, will Smith suffer consequences? If you came from being made fun of, then Chris Rock's jokes was absolutely unacceptable. And what I tried to say is what about if we just didn't argue over which perspective was right, and we just recognized that anybody with trauma or sensitivity is weaker. And if we change that perception of what weakness is, it wouldn't be such a masculine thing to defend somebody by punching, by hitting them or whatever. So I think what I'd like to see is a shift from, no, I'm more right than you are. How do we just reframe the whole thing so that we can move past who's right and just do something better? Can you say that, what you just said? Can you say it again in a different way, which may be really hard to do, or can someone else speak in a different way? Because I think I understood it, but I'm not sure I understood it. Does anybody think they could say it better? Raise your hand and I'll decide if I will let you. Anyone want to take a swing at that? I wonder if Wendy can unmute? Yeah, she's just following. Here she comes. Good. Oh, see? Perfect. That's good. I caught the very last thing you said because my computer kind of looked out. Do you mind just repeating it and then I'll add? I'm going to say it for myself. Thank you. I changed my mind. What I'm saying is, so everybody's coming with their own perspective. Rather than trying to push one of those perspectives out of the box and embracing the other, what about if we allowed them all to be there and just move past to the solution? Whichever way it is, so again, it wouldn't be about who was right or who was wrong. It would be about recognizing that trauma causes a weakness in the system. Does that explain it a little better? I think it was when you brought up weakness, I was trying to process how you meant weakness and how that fits into sort of a model of how we work. And so trauma and lots of people have suffered trauma and there's also a school thought about collective trauma, social level trauma, which means all of us are sort of immersed in certain kinds of ongoing sustained trauma. And some people buy that and some people don't necessarily. But then you're saying that these traumas create weaknesses in us that are manifest as sensitivities or trigger reactions or other sorts of things. Am I on the right trail? Yes. Yes. And for example, to some people, Will Smith was a hero for defending his wife. That's something that kind of, there's something that's not right there. And rather than arguing about it, I don't know. There's just a lot there. There's a lot. It's not one perspective. For sure. There's a whole, I mean, really that I subscribed to Charlie Wurzel's Galaxy Brain. Is that the one that just came out? And he sort of took a look at it and said, hey, the social media reaction to the incident of the Oscars was sort of predictable. And then he goes and he cites a couple dozen different ways, different takes, including the slap truthers and a bunch of other things that I hadn't seen at all. Like I had, I had not gone anywhere deep on this and I didn't follow all of his links. But it was pretty amazing how quickly this just blossomed into sort of a hairy thicket of goo in some weird, weird way. Yeah, Gil. If I could just say one more thing, yesterday on a call, the idea of self reflection came up. And, you know, in my experience, that was always frowned upon. That's something that was not serious work. So I've always, you know, been on my own with that. I think it would be interesting to hear from each person, which like value showed up for them, not so much how they assessed the situation. But what was like the value like for me, fairness came up. So I wavered back and forth when the apology came when it didn't come. It was about fairness. Also, you know, compassion came up. I just wonder like some people were upset because they came from a place where they were made fun of. So they were furious at the joke, or they came from a place where like people were traumatized over the slap. Other people were traumatized over the joke being told. I'm just wondering if as individuals, we know what was like, not the action, but the value that came in and played into how we felt about it. Thank you. Wendy, did you want to jump in? Yeah, sure. To me, it went in the category of, there we go again. Yeah, I mean, Ken put in the chat, it looked like a grand showing of testosterone. I think that to me there was, it was a perfect example. Not perfect, but one of those examples and symptoms of just how messy our dynamics are, around ownership of our story, ownership of someone else's story, a feeling of that we have the right to defend ourselves no matter what. Like there's so many stories kind of intertwined in there. To me, it didn't boil down to any one thing except to be a representation of common dynamics of how things can escalate really, really quickly over something super small. And I think Stacey's point about the trauma and how reactive we as humans can be when we have past trauma and how we don't help each other with that very much. That the help and the healing is in the shadows most of the time. We don't have good models for, I mean, we do have good models, but again in the shadows, I mean models like out in front in front of everyone of how you heal from stuff like this. And so it's hard, I think for the larger body of humanity to look at it and put it in its right context. I don't exactly know what its right context is. For me, it elicited a lot of compassion of just two people who are hurting, three people. You know, we're talking about the guys, but really it's three people. Plus all the people that witnessed that and then their own trauma was triggered by it and then had to take a couple days to kind of process their own trauma around abuse or whatever was in their past. Again, Stacey I think made a great point about different people were going to be triggered depending on who maybe they identified with most in that storyline. What you do about it, I think in our society, we wanted to have a punishment and accountability and move on. We want a quick answer. But to me, in and while that satisfies I think media and other and other kind of larger decision making organizations or frameworks, it's not a solution. That's not a solution. The solution is to get these people some support, all of them, right? If that's what they need to do the deep listening that kind of happens in these meetings, but around that. So I think it's nice that we're talking about it. And to me, it's less about it quickly becomes less about these three people and more about what are us, right? You know, the people here on this call and who was triggered and who needs support. And, you know, do you do, you know, what do you want to talk about relative to it and how did it affect your life? From my perspective on that front, it just makes me want even more to provide support and services and other things and my I feel like my role in doing that I'm doing by coming here in the sense that I feel like this group is one of those groups that's helping elevate conversation and helping to create the systems and the structures that will hopefully one day be more supportive. So things like this don't even don't even happen. Thanks Wendy. Kevin, you kindly sent me recently a recommendation for a book about masculinity and it's a king warrior magician lover. I'll put a link to it in the chat. And I think you have strong feelings and I've done a lot of work on this yourself. I was wondering if you'd want to sort of jump in on what how this works. I mean, I saw Will Smith acting like an immature warrior and not having his power under control and letting it loose, you know, like somebody said, you know, releasing the kraken. And, you know, I've done that iron john stuff and there's red warrior and black warrior and the black warrior, you know, sometimes it's like leaf Erickson where you have to sit with the cinderbiders when you get too hot and, you know, deal with the pain caused and things like that until you come out again. And I don't think Will Smith has done that kind of cinderbiting pain work with his own trauma to come out and be a mature warrior, realizing, you know, the impact of as Gil said, he was responding to the fact that he didn't defend his own mother. So there's all this crazy stuff where you're defending, you know, that somebody who's not in the room by hitting somebody who doesn't deserve to be hit. You know, it's a chain. You know, that's, that's what that lawyer lover book has helped me do is to realize, you know, you can't just flame on. And how do you frame positive masculinity now? What's your if you take a swing at that? What's your best take a positive masculinity? Yeah, I don't really have a lot of concepts. I do try to restrain my power and and realize the impact, you know, when I'm coming on too strong, quicker than I used to. And sometimes before there's there's a phrase we do in meditation in a group, I mean, it's it's finding the space between my impulse and my action. And that's been really the story of a lot of my meditation for the last couple years, I do about 30 minutes or so every morning. And it's, you know, finding a way to find a space between my impulse and action and not quickly reacting and causing to reflect. And as I say to some people saying, this is what I think they need to hear. And they said, well, there are some good points in there. You know, and they helped me, you know, so I mean, having people who will listen when I, when I, you know, as a friend of mine said, he and I are similar and we've responded to five out of the last three threatening situations. And so, you know, having somebody who can be a container when you think it's a call to arms and it turns out to be, you know, you're being an asshole. Anyone else can you've done a ton of work with Michael Mead and others and men's groups in other places? I'm curious. I would agree with Kevin. This was this was somebody who was really mature. You know, he made it about himself. It was not about Jada at all. That was like you've insulted my wife, which is now you're calling into question my who I am and I have to protect my wife and stand up and defend her. And she's Jada is totally capable of taking care of herself. You know, she could have gone up there and slept and she could have gone up there and kicked him in the balls. She could have, you know, approached him after the event. As could Smith, he could have said, you know, you're going to tell you that was out of line. I didn't want to make him deal with it in front of the whole world, but that was really out of line. I mean, you talk about this, I want to know, you know, where you get off with that because they've had a long history of animosity between them. And so what I find really interesting is the whole debate has shifted to Smith and Rock. Where is Jada in this? You know, why isn't she the subject of this? And there've been a number of women writers who've been pointing this out in the media over the last few days of this was just another way in which, you know, toxic masculinity shows up and and steals the literally steals the spotlight. The whole freaking world is watching and he's got to show up as this big, you know, blustery, you know, any. And Smith is probably got, I don't know, four inches and 50 pounds on Rock. Rock's a skinny little guy and Smith's a big, robust dude. You know, I thought she's a, it's a good thing he's used the open palm. If he'd used his fist, he would have knocked him right out. So I'm just really curious why, why it's, it's shifted from why aren't we talking about Jada and why aren't we talking about how, how Chris Rock and Jada interacted and what's that about instead? It's all about this slap, which to me seems to miss the entire point. Thank you. I love that, that perspective. Michael and Doug. Yeah, I agree with what, what Ken was saying. I said in the chat, I think it's bizarre that Rock's, you know, bleeped out to most people, but if you've heard it, you know, the statement, keep my wife's name out your fucking mouth to Rock. You know, implied such ownership, you know, it's like, my wife who belongs to me, I am dictating that you take her name, which belongs to me out of your mouth, which belongs to you. It was like totally not about Jada, but about like ownership and, and really fucked up ideas about what it is to be a man. And what, you know, the, the shots that you barely saw of, of Jada looking pain and, and, but, but powerfully kind of regally reacting to what was said, that would have spoken more if that had been left alone instead of this bullshit about like who has the right to say what and do what with regard to Jada between, you know, Will and Chris. It was just, it's just so inappropriate. And that, that piece, you know, not that way of not making it about, about Jada just seemed a really good one. It's interesting that it happened and has cascaded these kinds of conversations. I'm happy that these conversations are happening because they were important to do. I'm not sure I wished that such an event, you know, led us to this, but, but it's like, these are important things to think about and talk about. Doug? I'm going to say something that might be unpopular, which is, I am really curious as to why we are caught up in analyzing a media event rather than climate change. Stacey? Yeah, I want to answer that because, so where the conversation is now, I would rather take it to the next step. Well, at least in my conversations I was more concerned with the punitive consequences that people wanted to see. And where that fits in with Doug is if we can't even shift our culture to trying to heal things, then I don't think we can heal the planet. We can't heal ourselves. We can't heal the planet. And again, we all recognize that it's trauma, but when people are chattering, all I heard is this shouldn't be, this should be punished. It's all this heavy-handed stuff. And again, I think that the more sensitive we are to each other and the more we want to nourish each other, the more we'll care about the planet. To me, that's the connection. Thanks Stacey. Pete, then Gil? Thanks for saying that, Doug. And it's interesting, kind of, it's interesting back that you called it a media event. Sounds like it really belittles it. It's like, oh my god, we're talking about the freaking Kardashians instead of something more important. And Anne, through this whole conversation, I've had kind of a growing little forest of reactions and thoughts and things that we haven't talked about yet that I want to bring up about it. But all of that is wrapped in, and oh my god, Ukraine. And oh my god, the Ukrainians dying in rubble-torn cities. And the one that really got me somehow, and I don't even know why this did, but it was like, and the Russian soldiers who have never seen, many of them have never seen cities, even haven't seen paved roads or streetlights, much less, you know, like nice infrastructure that the Ukrainians have. They're digging a trench in the red forest in the radioactive soil around Chernobyl, not ever having heard about Chernobyl, or that there was such a thing, or that they were next to a nuclear power plant. It's like, that is like, you know, like six or eight levels of twisted weird fuckery, you know? It's like, oh my god. And so, watching the discussion about, you know, Jada and Will and Chris, and watching us talk about it, and processing, the thing is, even though it was kind of a big event, it affected millions, affected millions of people. It was seen by millions of people, and millions of people are talking about it. It's also a, it's a self-contained thing, right? You can actually pick this situation up and talk about it from a couple different angles, and the whole thing doesn't spin out of control in a way that climate change does, or even something that's smaller than climate change like Ukraine. Talking about Ukraine and Russia, it just spins out of control and gets so big so fast that it's really hard to talk about it in, you know, in a group of more than three people. So, on the one hand, a little bit, you know, I'm a little bit aghast or something like that, that I'm with a bunch of folks that are talking about a media event. In another way, it's like, this is society learning how to process things, and process a small thing is something that we need to do before we can process a much bigger thing, or a much, much, bigger thing, or a much, much, much, much bigger thing. So, I'm heartened to see our discussion and that we can kind of prosecute our way through it, even though in the grand scheme of things, it's ultimately reasonably trivial, not to say that, you know, trauma for anybody is a trivial thing. Thanks, Pete, and I want to add something to that before passing the mic to Gil in response to Doug, which is Doug, I think you know that my approach to this is that trust is sort of a linchpin behind things and that if we don't sort out trust, we can't handle climate change together. Like part of our problem is that half the world seems to become convinced intentionally that there's no such thing, that we can't do anything, that there's no hope that whatever it might be. And so, we need to figure out how to come back into relationship and learn to trust each other so that we might act together on these global scale emergencies. And then every time we end up in something like Ukraine is riveting, frightening, and a complete distraction from the important emergencies that are going on in the world, like an absolute distraction from things we need to be figuring out together. And yet somehow, each of these incidents of trauma and violence of different forms, we need to figure out how to get people to shift their brains kind of the way Stacey was saying a little earlier, so that we can actually step outside these conflicts and start to collaborate. And if we don't collaborate, we're host. We're like, we're cooked. And I have little hope that we're going to sort all these things out magically. These things are going to melt away and we're going to solve all these problems. So I'm a little despondent just saying what I'm saying because I know that once Ukraine settles into some terrible stasis like Syria or gets divided like North Korea or whatever, or if my wish has come true, Putin gets deposed and Ukraine emerges victorious and China buys Russia. Sorry, did I say all that out loud? There's going to be another incident like that that's just going to take our eye off the ball immediately after. And so maybe an important question is, and I don't know if you like this or not, Doug, but how do we keep our eye back on the ball over and over again? How do we go back in and stay on target for the things that matter and work together on those things despite all these distractions, all these things that are taking us off? And Doug, if you want to reply to that, please do. Yeah, I mean, we've been through a few years of awareness that the media is out to get our eyeballs and our attention. So it seems to me that the event with the Academy Awards should have been off our screen from the beginning. It is going there is dangerous to your consciousness. So I didn't go there. And it's just a different approach. You've got to be staying with what's really serious. And even if it's a low probability of success, the fact that there's any probability is worth waking up for. Thank you for that perspective. I appreciate that a lot. Gil, both of you, you're muted so we can't hear you. For long. There we go. I am so not liking this conversation. At so many levels, I'll see if I can unpack them a little bit. First of all, the whole thing was weird for me because I joined the Oscars a little bit before Smith's award. So I saw him win for Best Actor, go up on stage and give this fascinating and strangely emotional speech. But I had no idea it was connected to the Rock incident from earlier, to know that until the next day. So that's one weirdness. Dolly. Two, this is not about them. This is about us, which a number of you have said. That's why we're so absorbed in it. I mean, some people were absorbed because they lived their lives through celebrities, which I've never understood. But some of us because it's a reflection of who we are. So there's that. Jerry, I'm reminded of prior discussions we've had about Aikido and just how much practice and cultivation and practice and practice and practice it takes to be able to master the surging energies and the impulses. It's, you know, I mean, somebody said that Smith was not mature. I think Smith is probably very mature, but he lost it. And that can happen to the most mature people. Denzel had it right. You know, when he said to him, you know, this is when the devil comes for you. The devil was not Chris Rock, as some people said. The devil was Smith's shadow. But I will echo Doug. I'm, you know, it's just amazing how quickly climate just will not stick in the news for very long. We have mediators who can't pay attention to more than one thing at a time, can't handle multiple issues, can't handle complexity. You know, people are trying to decide this is rock writer is will write or who's wrong. And it's like, as if there has to be a single answer as if everything is a binary logic, which it's not as we all know here. You know, so, so climate is off the news. Ukraine invasion IPCC six number six report code red worst we've ever been off the news in a moment built built back better out of the budget. You know, Biden finally comes through with the big federal budget and none, you know, it's not like none of the stuff is there. There's actually more climate money than ever before, but a drop compared to what was being talked about. And so, yeah, I'm with Doug. That's the more interesting story. Why can't we talk about that? It's obviously it's impossible. None of us can solve the problem. It's beyond our reach. So we'd rather talk about Will Smith and Chris Rock, which is utterly beyond our reach. And that's something we can do anything about either. So here we are, you know, burning hours and electrons and, you know, galleys at being talking about stuff that we can't do anything about, instead of talking about things that we can do something about, like, you know, like elections and electoral reform and climate legislation and where we put our money and how we live our lives. It's really bizarre. And I don't really want to spend an hour and a half talking about it. And I've got to go. I've got to go deal with the trades. And so I'm going to go on mute for a little while. I'll be back shortly. Okay. Thanks, Gil. Stacy, you have the last word on this topic, and then we'll go back to the queue real quickly. I just want to remind us that when we're children, we're told stories because that's how we learn. And I'm just going to leave it at that. Thanks. Let's go, Pete, Eric, Kevin. Thanks. Everybody take a breath. And I apologize. I'm going to say one more thing. The thing that I, one of my past times as a system thinker, system theorist is thinking through disasters and how it turned into a disaster. So airplane crashes and things like that. Positions of cyber attacks, things like that. What confluence of human things didn't, or human mistakes and system failures, system design failures, conspired to create a situation that we want to avoid. So the point where I went to, I don't really care who stopped you and it doesn't matter to me. I don't care. And I apologize if that's cruel or uncaring. The thing that surprised me was what the audience did and what the academy did and what the people who should have had control of a situation did in the aftermath of a singular event. It's like, what? He got to say, no, I'm not going to leave. What? Everybody just didn't stand up and walk out. It's like, I don't need this in my life. I'm out of here. The folks running the show didn't dim the lights and say, okay, folks, let's take five minutes. Okay, folks, this is why we can't have nice things. Get the hell out of here. Mr. Smith just ruined the night for you. Get, go. It's really surprising to me and then it goes to, it's like, okay, so how did the aircraft designers and the people who train the pilots and things like this let something happen? So I'm sure I wouldn't have done better if I were show running the show. But it now occurs to me, what do you do? What do the presenters all know to do when somebody raises a flag? Hey, there's a guy who just fell down on the field and he's got, his spinal cord is probably broken and we don't continue running the show at that point. Why didn't that happen? And why didn't the organizer set up that contingency event? And why as a society do people sit in their seats and let the show go on? And this is kind of a weird situation where the show, I mean, these are people in charge of making sure the show would go on. Everybody in the audience is a, the show must go on kind of culture. So it's not a surprise to me, but it does say something about the amount of group thing and the difficulty of, I'm sure there were people who were like, oh my God, that sucked and I want to get out of here. But everybody's thought was glued to the seat because of social pressure and oh my God, we're on live TV and oh my God, we can't look like something happened. And oh my God, you know, it's really weird to me. Sorry to dig in on that. I want to actually do a quick update and I'm going to paste a couple things in. 15 or 16 of us have gotten together for a don of everything, but club, I think you're welcome to join, although we're probably getting close to capacity. And it's come out in an interesting way. I've helped set it up as kind of an organization, a sovereign in the old OGM speak and some information architecture, what I call information architecture, some ways that we work together and have group memory that I hope will work for everybody a little bit better than we've been doing in the past. Linesburg and the Meta project has kind of a soft launch call next week, send me email if you're interested. Bi-league complex dispatch is coming out next week, send me news and views. Massive Wiki has kind of been dormant for a while. Bill have been actually steadily working in the background, but it feels like things are starting to tick up again. And we're figuring out the next small steps where we can make big progress in making it accessible to people. And mostly that's going to be as a website rather than as a Wiki. So that's really exciting for me. Rob O'Keefe, who's always wonderful and can't make it to this call very much. He always says something that inspires me and last night, late last night, it was, by the way, Pete, could you share some of the maps you're talking about because you talked about the tools and how cool they are. Some of us hang out in something called the maps and mapping channel on matter most. And it's not geographic maps, it's information maps. And it's like, wow, we have never, you know, Rob said, you know, Pete, could you share a couple of maps that you've done with Procreate, one of your tools? And I'm like, wow, nobody's ever said that. And it never occurred to me to share some interesting maps because they're kind of crappy and because they were rushed and because I didn't have space for it. Rob opened up a space where it's like, hey, we could actually share some maps. So I shared a couple, Daniel Tavissi shared some more. They're interesting to look at if you're at all interested in graphic representation of information spaces. So I encourage you to check it out. And then another along with Ukraine and our political system and, you know, climate change and other crap going on in our lives. The thing that blows my mind right now is still the public health responses to the COVID situation. And, you know, those of us who are kind of watching it, you could see BA2 coming. You could see that there's going to be a next wave. BA2 is a little bit worse than BA1 in a number of ways. And our public health system and our culture in general, not unlike butts and seats at the Academy Awards, now that I think about it, is kind of like, well, we're done with COVID. And it's over. We're going to call it over. Even though you can see the next freight train coming at you, it's like, we're done. We're not going to do it. You know, and it just blows my mind that we've gotten the public health system, the public health response, the CDC and everybody else. We've got that to a place where it's run by political culture and probably a bunch of rich people wanting, you know, back business rather than facts and science and stuff like that. It just blows my mind. Anyway, thanks. Thanks, Pete. And I want to go back to one thing you said briefly, which was share your maps. And I want to just sort of register that I'm really glad that that way of phrasing the message got out because for two years here, I've been like shouting, would everybody please share their visualizations or their outlines or they're like, can we put them in a place where we can actually weave them together? And like, I feel like I've been out here shouting that. And it wasn't working, apparently. And so I'm thrilled that we are getting a little bit more aligned on that. So yes, please, more of that. Ken, you had raised your hand while Pete was speaking. Did you want to jump in and then cause? Yeah. Has anyone on this call ever read or seen Ibsen's play, Enemy of the People? Doug. Okay. I would have known Doug. Yeah. Thank you, Doug. Doug. It's an incredible play. I think it was written in the 1880s, if I'm not mistaken. And the outline very briefly is that there's a town in Europe that has waters and people come to take the waters for the healthful benefits. And the town decides you're going to build a big spa and they make a lot of money. It's going to be big tourist draw, right? But the doctor in the town, whose brother happens to be the mayor in the town, has some suspicions and he tests the water and he sends it off to be he gets samples of water and sends it off to be tested. And it turns out that the tannery upstream is pouring pollutants, toxic chemicals into the water, which of course will put anyone who comes to the spa at risk. And he says, ah, I'm going to be hero, you know, the town's going to love me for this. And his brother goes, wait a minute, not so fast. There's a lot of money here. You're not going to release this information. And so you might wonder who's the enemy of the people. And I think the enemy of the people is the advertising dollars. It's, you know, when Pete says, why didn't people with the Academy Awards stop the show? A lot of money involved in there. They're not going to stop that for that. In fact, they love that. That's look at what has happened. The whole fucking week has been about Will Smith and Chris Rock. It has driven all kinds of advertising dollars. So we are trapped in this, you know, economic paradigm. It's the same thing that says there's no such thing as bad publicity. As long as you're talking about you, that's good. I totally disagree. But there's a whole industry built around that. And we're inside of it. We're embedded in it. And it's very, very difficult to get out of. So I just wanted to throw that out there because you submitted that and I apologize for bringing the thing back up again. But I will say when I got on the call and heard this, I was like, God, we're going to talk about this. But I've really appreciated hearing pools perspectives. It's opened up some new dimensions for me because I just sort of dismissed it like, okay, I don't need to read any more about this shit. But you know, we have to take the topical and figure out how like Heather Cox Richardson constantly takes topical news and puts it in a historical context. And I think having this conversation here with with all of you and hearing these different perspectives is helping me to get an historical context on a very topical event. So I wanted to thank you all for that. Thanks, Ken. And also how you do a small thing is how you do everything. The world is a big hologram. And a lot of our attitudes are reflected in every different kind of incident. So the way we deal with climate change is somehow connected to the way we deal with these incidents come in. So Klaus and Michael. Yeah, I think we I mean, that introduced climate change is a title of what in my mind is a whole back of issues that go way beyond climate change because we have decimated the regenerative capacity of the of the planet. We have truly done planetary level damage and it and on so many levels, right, that it is depressing to think about. So maybe Will Smith is sort of a nice escape to the more basic things one can really relate to rather than some abstract form the food supply is running out and, you know, we will probably see millions of people starve to death within the next year because the between Ukraine and Russia, they are providing one third of the world's calories, right? So in particular to the poorest countries in the world. So so they are there and here in the US also. And I'm so embedded in this, right, because I'm working with the Sierra Club and I'm working with business climate leaders and so on. So I'm looking at this every single day. But the there was an interesting exchange in the email threat, you know, where someone was laying out so many issues that someone else said why do you talk about it if you don't do anything about it. So there is this dichotomy if you don't have an educated population that understands what the issues are, you know, if you don't understand what glyphosate does to your food supply to your personal health, to the way we destroy the environment, then you don't have an opinion on it and you don't care when you buy your next box of cereals that has glyphosate in it, right? So you need to be need to be educated on issues that are relevant and have a part based understanding and the world right now is so complex. There are so many moving parts, right? So to crystallize the information that's truly relevant to know about that is a that is a massive task. And for me, the idea of OGM is to extract these kernels that are really critical, right, that are that are important to know about because you will mention it to someone who mentions it to someone who can actually do something about it, right, to bring awareness to these issues. And so to have that kind of clarity. So there is this is an incredibly important moment in time, this is an existential crisis we are in, right? The war in the Ukraine is just an expression of the global crisis that we are experiencing at this moment that the climate system could spin out of control within years. I mean, the IPCC has declared that if by 2030 we haven't changed course significantly, it will be game over. It's done. And so that hasn't sunk in yet. So we talk about some actors slapping another actor, like, I mean, to me, this is like escapism. I mean, to me, it comes out across as escapism from looking at the reality of what we're facing. And I know it's depressing, and my wife wants me every time we meet with friends, shut up and don't depress everyone around you. And that's okay. But there has to be a level of discussion where you really get serious. The people in Europe right now are really serious because they realize this is existential. Germany just declared a stage one energy crisis, right? Because they are at risk of getting the gas cut off. So they are on war footing, right? This is level one crisis. And we just don't even know about this here. We just ignore that stuff. And so, yeah, focus is sort of what I'm trying to say here. Thank you, Koss. Let's just go quiet for a moment with that. Thank you. It's kind of hard to still your mind when all these things are happening and all this conversation is in the room. Thank you for saying that. Michael, and then we'll go back to trivial in life of that. But I think apt what Pete was saying about where we are with the oncoming freight train and attributing it to the political powers, wanting to do what was good for business. And what Kim was saying about advertising pushing the show to go on. It really is also about the attention economy. Because I think one of the reasons that we're not hearing as much about COVID is because people got bored and stopped clicking on those stories. So even the times is not running so many of those stories, not as high on their feed. It's all over. We decide with what we click on that Will Smith and Chris Rock is a big story and is a bigger story than other things that are more important. And we all, again, we get back to the many weeds there are. But the public and their voting with their clicks determines a lot of what the public narrative is. I mean, sure there are forces that are wanting us to pay attention to certain things. But unfortunately, many of us are dictating that we pay attention to less important things because we have the means to do it in a way that we didn't have influence over the news few decades ago. Thanks, Michael. And I just put into the chat pop culture as either, and these are very different framings for pop culture. Is it just sort of denial? Nope, the reality. I'm just going to talk about Will Smith and we're going to go see what the Kardashians are up to next. As stress relief, like, holy shit, I'm just completely overwhelmed by this Ukraine situation and climate change. I can't actually deal, let's go talk about the movies, or as an absolute distraction, which is society the spectacle. Hey, everybody, don't pay any attention over there. There's these shiny objects over here. And look how cool and fun this is and how nice everybody dressed on the red carpet. Lots of different framings there. Let's go back to the queue, which is Eric, Kevin, Michael. Hi, everybody. So I didn't watch the slap and I haven't been paying attention to the news about it. So instead, I was watching Star Trek because these days you have to watch three hours each week to understand what's going on in the modern episodes because they are doing story threading about that. Oh, interesting. And time travel. So you are seeing references to the original series, to a series from 1994 where they traveled back to 2024 and they're currently in Picard traveling back to the same year and referencing the story from 1994, which was looking ahead for 30 years. So you're seeing the perspective we had in 94 of what 2024 is, what they thought it would be like. So they got the tech wrong, but they got the social aspects correct. That's what I saw. It's a series of Deep Space Nine and it's an episode where they get pushed back to 2024 because of a transporter accident and they're in a sanctuary district in San Francisco and so they're with homeless people and they're seeing the stratification of the different types of people in that district. And what the point is, there was one person who, an event that was a trigger point for humanity changing course and that that person died after the riot in that district, but that is what sets Star Trek's future and if that when they prevented that event from happening, the whole Starfleet didn't exist anymore and then they had to really fix it. Love that. Yeah. If there's a couple links you could share that sort of head and take us into the talk. I'm really interested and you reminded me of a great video I watched about time travel in fiction and it references, actually let me just do a quick screen share because I listened to it pretty wrapped. Here it is. And it basically talks about a whole bunch of time travel movies. So Back to the Future, Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, Ender's Game, Primer, Primer, Looper, Harry Potter in the Prisoner of Azkaban, et cetera, Groundhog Day of course and it then presents visually how these different, you know, because there's all sorts of different approaches toward time travel and, you know, there's time travel schemes where you can actually go back and change the past, there's time travel where there's parallel lives, all kinds of stuff. Anyway. I think about what Star Trek's doing for the present day. They're giving us a mirror showing us what we could what could happen to us in 2024 and there is a positive way out of it if society wakes up to the problems that are in that just right around us and does something about it. I love that. It's so ironic if the pivotal incident was two movie stars, one slapping the other at an Oscars event. You don't think so? Okay, good, good. Maybe. Cool. Thanks, Eric. Anything else? Basically, I'm just, I find that I get in the way of myself a lot and I just can't sympathize with that at all. Yeah, right. I gotta push myself through that somehow. Yeah, yeah. Thank you. What was the other series, Picard, and which one? Deep Space Nine. The episode names in there. So it also references an original series episode. So I'll put that in. Awesome. Thank you. And I'm sure some fan out there is mapping these loops and twists and references, which would be super interesting. They are doing such an excellent job, the whole Star Trek community, run by geeks and nerds that they've got it. I love that. Kevin, Michael, Wendy. Hi. Two things. We're doing this conference, Neighborhood Economics, and it's really all about the overlaps and one of the overlaps and it's a series of design labs and one of them is public policy for good. And back in Mississippi, I'm in this kind of literary cultural society set up by a real old friend. You know, we rode into Sardis Lake together on the moonroof of an old Z 88 with a purple rain playing and we didn't go far into the lake, but he's a federal judge and he's really influential with a lot of other federal judges. And we all wrote about Emmett Till last year, including, you know, we have a sane and compassionate senator in Mississippi and we have a crazy and mean one and the compassionate one is in that group. And we're thinking about stuff and I'm trying to get him engaged with the folks creating public policy for justice that is, you know, largely African American-led financial platforms that help people claim economic power that gets them to claim political power. And this is an interesting guy because he goes back and for the last 15 years he's gone to, you know, the Slavic countries, Balkans, etc., helping people set up civil society after civil wars. So he's been a civil society designer in a lot of kind of hard places where people were killing each other. And I want him to engage and say, hey, what would you do with this political power that these folks are doing because he's been designing public sector power. And there's a lot of other, you know, federal judges and I don't expect our senator to come, but he's a really good guy. He just can't do good things keeping his job. So that's pretty interesting. And then suddenly it's a confluence of a bunch of software and we built what's called a learning management system for helping churches engage with economic justice. And then we're building this other, this big church, Trinity Wall Street, number three landholder in Manhattan. I'm building a learning management system for young priests on how to do everything from manage a budget to handle conflict. And then we're doing social enterprise and how you can get engaged in the economy. And those two things, and we're linking it with Caitlin, who's building the software behind, where Landsberg is one of the nodes. And we're looking at a marketplace there, donor advice fund is a public utility marketplace. And then there's this linking everything software coming out of the cooperative extension through an HBCU that can link all those data plays together and get them talking. So that's kind of interesting. And so a bunch of software learning to talk to each other that has reasons to want to figure out what it's doing. And then, you know, maybe I can get some of these, you know, powerful Mississippians to help to work with Black folks to help design new forms of political power because they've been doing it, you know, in the Balkans for a few several years. Thank you, Kevin. Because I don't know anything about how to design political power and Mike does. I love your quote. He's a good guy, a really good guy, he just can't do good things and keep his job. That just encapsulates so much. Yeah, he wrote a really good poem about Emmett Till, you know, this is a whole bunch of Mississippians counting the cost, you know, and we got a bunch of costs for wherever we come from. Let's go Michael, Wendy, Ken. I feel like I've gotten to say a couple of things. You're good and complete. Right. Thanks, Wendy, Ken. I think I'm good. I'll pass. Thank you. Let's go Ken Dave Gill. So I'm not sure I have too much to say either. Anything I want to say here, let's see. I'm good. I've been happy to comment on what's gone on. I don't really have anything pressing to share. It's just good to be here with you all. Good to see folks. And as always, I enjoy the conversation. There is something I want to say now, think about it. With regard to confronting an existential crisis, I don't think there's very many people in the world who know how to do that, know how to do it well. It's not something we're trained for. I think I have a little bit of capacity here because I did so much work with Joanna Macy back in the early 90s around despair and empowerment. And I went through some really flat out laying on the ground, sobbing, kicking, screaming, holy shit, the world is fucking ending and I don't know what to do and feeling completely overwhelmed in the context of a group setting, which helped me to unpack that and realize that, yeah, it's possible to handle that. And then I look at the descendants of slaves and I look at people who have been through war and suffered tremendous trauma, the Tibetans. There's so many people who actually have confronted the destruction of their culture and their people. And we don't, as a culture, turn to them and say, how did you get through? There's deep lessons there for us. But I don't think people would much rather talk about who slapped who with the Oscars than to confront this because it's really freaking scary and hard. And nobody wants to deal with scary and hard. So it stays on the edge until the edge gets so close you can't deny it anymore. And then you're overwhelmed, you don't have any resources for it. So where is the question that arises me? Where's the leverage point to invite people into an emotional healing space where they can actually confront the level of challenge that's facing us right now, because it needs to be done. And I don't see, I see some work around that, Joanna Macy's great journey, Joanna Macy, according to the Great Journey, the word three connects. But I'll see a whole lot of other stuff that's really confronting that. Maybe I'm not well enough informed. There might be many other movements out there that are doing it, but I'm not connected to them. So that's what I would like to go into this conversation today. Thank you, Ken. I'm glad that showed up. Doug, and then back to the queue. Yeah, a thought about what to do about climate change. I'm convinced that trying to do something individually is a total waste of time. The real leverage is to work in an institution that you're part of, any institution you're a part of, and try and get it to take a stand. That's where I think we could get a snowball effect and actually have some impact. I want to say a word back to the Academy Awards, going against my own view here. And again, this might be pretty unpopular. I grew up on the south edge of Harlem in Manhattan. I lived in black culture. And part of black culture is instant reaction to anything that is a threat to the ego. Insult is something to respond to. If you don't, you're really a coward. And I think that there's a racial dimension to this that's not being talked about. Agreed. And thank you for putting that in the conversation. And you'll completely ignore the fact that you talked about the Oscar situation. But I really appreciate that. Let's go, Dave Gil-Me. Thanks, Jay. I mean, I don't have a lot to say either. I've been ranting in the chat. So I'll probably leave those just standing as they are getting increasingly grumpy about climate change as a framing. And my one right thought on the Academy's actually was I translate, I've always marveled at our focus. If you have after a mass shooting, the newspapers will then say authorities are still trying to understand the motivation of the shooting. And it's like, really, that's what we're going to go. It's like, was it a justified shooting? Let's spend a lot of time trying to figure out the motivations behind some guy that shot 75 people in Las Vegas or something like that. And I'm always puzzled by that. But it doesn't have a very human instinct. It's like, why did that happen? I just think it's always a puzzle by a person. So I think a part of that is just to try to figure out how do we hit undo on whatever caused this individual to go do such a stupid, violent, horrible thing? Can we crawl inside their head so that we can learn to stop other people from doing it? I think that's the impulse. Yeah, right. But when you get to the point that while they're crazy and they need mental health care or something like that, we don't ever take that next step. So, you know, totally agree. Totally agree. And then we don't cope with it well at all. Let's go Gil, me, Julian Ingrid, Doug, and that'll maybe see us through until the end of our time. Yeah, thanks, Jerry. Just a few things. So Ken, thank you very much for the last bunch that you shared. One second, I got two of the devices going here. Really appreciate that. I would remind you, though, that my friend Ken Homer always asks the questions of who are you talking about when you say we and everybody and so forth. So of course, we fall into that all the time. Which takes me back to Doug's point about Black culture. There is no Black culture. There are many Black cultures like anybody else's culture. And if you've, you know, if you've watched the voices out of the Black community since the Academy Awards, they're all over the map. Just as stuff from pale skin people is all over the map. There are folks who take the point of honor. I mean, I know folks who tell me don't ever look a Black man directly in the eye because that's taken as, you know, as an act of hostility, whereas in my culture, it's a very different thing. But I've seen other Black people who thought that Smith was utterly out of line. And so let's not simplify that too much, although, you know, what you say is real also. I'm reminded of something I think it was Stacy said earlier on in the call that we need to solve this human interaction mess before we can solve the climate mess. I don't think we get to solve the human interaction mess. We get to work on it. We get to practice it. I'll go back to the Aikido example. Again, is that, you know, this is constant or anybody here in a relationship with somebody else, you know, you don't solve it. You deal with it and you learn and you learn together and you shift your behavior and capacity and you open somebody talked about opening up the space between reaction and response. That's what we do. And I think, you know, the ancient Greeks had this figured out very well when they focus so much on tragedy as an art form of, you know, dealing with the shit that is there that ain't going to go away. You just have to deal with it again and again. And so that's where I go with this. Ken, again, thank you for bringing up Joanna's work and the despair and empowerment work. I was afraid to do that stuff back in the nuclear freeze days. I wasn't consciously afraid, but I didn't. It was always an opportunity for me and I didn't. And I realize that now that it was a kind of fear as it is now of really diving into the lying on the floor screaming and wailing, which isn't one of the many appropriate responses to where we are now. And then of course, then you get up and, you know, chop wood and carry water, right? The other thing I wanted to say was what? Yeah, to David, your thread with somebody about somebody else and me and a couple of others about, you know, is climate change the issue? And I agree with you. It's not. It's central, but it's not the tip of the iceberg. It's a symptom of many other things that goes down to the relationship of how humans in industrial society live or don't live as part of a living world. And so biodiversity and soils that class is focused on and the health of the oceans and the toxification of wholesale environments and the food chain and everything else. All of that is the same mess. Climate is the very visible and dramatic component of it. The other stuff is like the minute hand of the clock that we don't see moving. So it's not that we need to be all in on climate, but we can't even talk about the one that's most obvious. I guess, I gotta argue a little bit because it's not that obvious, right? It's really hard to tell climate's changing. You know, I mean, it rain and mourn, it's not weird and it's hard. You need to tell the baby starving, right? Yeah. There's much more concrete things that are interrelated here, I think. And for some reason, a certain group of people and arguably a bunch of us have focused on climate as the motivator. I think that's actually a sign of privilege. If climate is your biggest concern, you're doing pretty damn good, right? My favorite tweet this morning from a guy named Jason Jacobs. I don't know who he is, but he posted something that said, I can't help but continue to think that at least in the U.S., the most effective climate messaging is no climate messaging. Jobs, national security, more convenience, more reliable, better performance, lower cost, U.S. leadership on the global stage, which Biden could have done in the State of the Union. Okay, but let me go back. So we're sitting here in this room, bunch of, quote, systems thinkers, and we're still framing it as climate change. But you just acknowledged it's not really climate change, climate change is a symptom. Yeah. And there's a system. Why can't we do a better framing, even amongst ourselves, right? When we know that we need one. When I do class, my point to you is kind of like, we've been doing climate change for a long time. We haven't really moved the boulder. Isn't it time to try a new strategy? And that's, that's really my, that's what I'm very grumpy about this stuff. I admit that my, what do you suggest, Dave? Dave, what I've been trying, I agree with you completely. And what I've been trying in my own messaging as, you know, I've spent my career trying to sell corporates on why it's in their interest to attend to the things that we're concerned about. And that's sort of, I put myself in a trap every day. Consciously, you know, riding, you know, playing an inside game and an outside game and feeling schizophrenic in it. And what I'm finding myself asking more and more now is what might it be like if we did business and we did everything we did as though we actually belong to a living world? And it's, if I may, if I may jump in here because the next webinar that we are giving here on April 19 is focused on commodity cores, large farmers, industrial farmers. And we spent a good week discussing the script in ways how to frame language. So it would be context specific to commodity cores. Right. So, so I don't think I need to do context specific discussions in this group here because I assume everybody's up to speed on what we're talking about when we're saying climate change. Right. But so for, for these commodity cores, you can't say climate change because you off the map instantly, the conversation has ended right there. But when you talk about adverse weather systems, you know, flooding, and actually the film that we're showing is the Farm Free or Die film, it's all about starting out with this agriculture, this farm fields flooded on one end tried out on the other end. And then we're talking about the regularity of adverse weather impacts, weather events, and every farmer can see that. So you do context specific language to engage with the people, this is spiral dynamics, basic, basic theory, but which I think everyone here understands has thought about and read. So, so I think we need to, I just want us to elevate the discussion, right, to, to, to stand on a platform where we get it, but then how do we reach out to people who live in different contexts and, and wrapped up in, in a level of consciousness that just, that just demands to adjust, you know, how you speak about things so that you avoid causing a rupture in the communication. And I think our framing of climate change has made us blind, right, we've got a carbon myopia or something. And, and I got to say that film is problematic because it is incremental improvements on industrial farming, right, it isn't we can make farming better position, it is a farming could be less bad position, right. And we have it, we're putting so much psychic energy into this topic. And if all we get out of this is climate change slows down, we lose, right, because there's like six other planetary boundaries that we surpassed, right. So we've got to do better. And we're the smart guys in the room, right. And I just feel like, you know, we're trapped in this climate change box. And until we get ourselves out of that box, right, we're going to continue to fail. And, and so I, you know, I just I feel like we're our own worst enemies of us. I don't see myself really look at that film again, and critique it from a regenerative framing and see what it looks like. Yeah, the film is simply setting up a conversation, the conversation is aimed at the investment community, which is investing money in ways that is uneducated and actually steals the system into the wrong direction. And we have farmers explained to the investment community, why what they're doing is not working for them as farmers and how the system is being derailed in the process. So the film is not at all where we're going. So that the that's the, and we are offering a frame to to a funding mechanism that has been widely researched. I've routed this through the professors from Columbia universities, through other specialists, the Soil Health Institute, this is a framework that could actually work, but it has to be communicated. So now I mean, you, you, you have to have, I mean, I published, I shared here the hypothesis that we have set up, right, to define why this by this webinar needs to be said, I'm gonna post it again. And that has been circulated with the panel and circulated across a wide range of investors and farmers. So, so no, I think the we just have to think back, right, in, in, in where we can engage and then trim it down to very specific target groups that, that we need to engage here. So no, I don't have this kind of pessimism that talking about climate change is not going to lead anything. I would love to have a discussion instead of disparaging terms, I would love to have a discussion of how we can frame it in ways that makes it more open, more understandable, more, more acceptable to more groups. Dave, your grumpiness resonates strongly with me. Kevin, let's give you some floor time and then we're pretty close to the end of our time together. We're gonna miss a couple people at the end. One project, you know, climate folks are focused on climate. And I work in economic justice. We've got a project in our watershed that links the social determinants of health of a community that was moved to create the Biltmore with the Vanderbilt mansion. That's the heart of our tourism industry and the Shiloh community and they're the confluence of the river. And so they're unhealthy and largely because of the lack of health of the watershed that they're part of. So we're getting to climate folks to look at and get some money from the social determinants of health hospital foundation that will clean up the watershed. And that's the first thing I've seen where economic justice folks and climate folks have a common cause. And the climate folks look beyond climate to engage with marginalized communities that are the victims. And there's probably lots of those, but it's the first one where I'm, and I'm getting health money to plant trees. So it's kind of interesting. Thanks, Kevin. David, I think your question is a spark for a bigger conversation that we need to have as well. And I don't know. It's skeptical, but it opens up a bunch of interesting thinking paths for me. So I appreciate that. And maybe, Kevin, and I like that framing of, I feel like this is, we're all in this together kind of thing. We want a framing that allows people to join. And I feel personally a little bit like the climate message is, oh my God, how could you possibly pay about attention to anything else? Only climate matters. Right. And that's been kind of a campaign strategy. Right. It is a communication strategy. And I find it to be a dysfunctional one because it disempowers anybody who has any other concern. Right. And it's like, yeah, climate is a serious problem. But And that's why getting climate folks to see the impact that is economic injustice on the marginalized community is really eye-opening to them because they usually just think about the trees upstream and not the folks who are shadowing downstream. So it's a real opening to them to, oh, we need to care about those neighborhoods. Oh, dear. I don't know. And if you're looking, you know, again, plows, I mean, the industrial agriculture stuff, the immediate impact of the downstream pollution from the Midwest on like the Gulf dead zones, which is the climate impact maybe, but really isn't the climate impact of the pollution impact is probably more pertinent in the immediate case. Right. To a lot of people. Right. But it's not a climate thing. It's a pollution thing. That's what I'm talking about, Dave. I mean, that's exactly what I've been talking about. I'm looking at, this is the fifth in a series of webinars. My second webinar was a systems perspective. Climate, let's look at food and agriculture in context of climate as a system. So I've been on that track all along. So I don't know why we all of a sudden narrow down to climate change. And I was trying to explain that this is a much more expanded conversation. So I don't know why you're narrowing it down as if this was the conversation. So hold on. I want to go to Stacy and Wendy, and then we're going to wrap ourselves out of this call. Yeah, I was just going to say that last week, Doug proposed a call that I think would have addressed some of these framing concerns and might have even led to a next step. But I don't know where he is on that. And Doug, if you want to jump in, I think framing this conversation well would be really great. And then we can have a specific call, a pop-up call, just to do that. And maybe the place to do that is one of the Mattermost channels or something like that. Doug, are you on the Mattermost server? Yes, I am, but I don't use it very much because there's too many details. Yeah, exactly. I don't blame you. I would love to find a good framing for to have this as a fruitful conversation and make sure that Dave and Klaus and whoever else is interested, but make sure that we sort of can attend together. Yeah, be okay with me. Cool. Wendy? Yeah, since I'm at the end, I'll also try and kind of wrap up with a couple comments. I think this conversation is really fascinating around how we frame it. And what I'm hearing is on one side, there's a communication issue. How do we want to communicate so people feel like they have an entry point into doing something that matters to them? And I think that has some people have near-term immediate concerns and some people have long-term concerns. And I think when it comes to climate change and a bunch of other issues, it's not limited to climate change. We have a messaging problem often in the US. And of course, our belief systems and our stories sometimes influence how we hear those messages and what we do as a response to those messages. And at the same time on the other side, you have the complexity of the system, the truth of how everything's interconnected, and not everyone's ready for that message. For some people that like explodes their brains and overwhelms them and just makes them stop and not do anything. So I think both, it's actually both and for me, that we need a clearer message that motivates people and helps them understand that anything they do for the betterment of their society, their community, their family is in service to everyone. It's just anything. And then on the other side, it's understanding how to weave those things together on a more meta-scale and understanding how each one influences the other. And for the decision makers to help prioritize on the larger scale issues, how do we prioritize that this needs to come before that become before that? Or that these three things would really benefit from happening together or whatever. And not everyone can think at that level. And so I'm hearing two conversations. And thank you. It's good to do that. Love that. Thank you. The Q had me, Julian Ingrid, and maybe rolling back to Doug, but it feels like my brain is full, ready to explode. So I think maybe we just hold our call here and head into our days from this. But thank you. I'm very grateful we have these conversations and that we annotate them, share them. I've learned a lot about time travel and science fiction as well as framing of major issues and et cetera, et cetera. So yeah, no exploding brains. So with that, I thank you all and let's find it. So maybe if we frame this properly, it's a topic for next Thursday's OGM call, or maybe it's a separate pop-up call. Let's talk about that. Thanks, everybody. I like that Gil's phone sounds. I love that. It's taking us out. It's the closing music. So perfect.