I ran across this article from 1997 when clearing out my files last week. That is awesome. Wow. That is awesome. I love that. That is really funny. I've opened up boxes. I've found a whole bunch of old stuff that predates my time with Esther and back to new science and all that. I've got boxes that I don't know what to do with at this point. We should have a call that's about clearing out files. It couldn't be more timely. I can tell you that. Problem is I enjoy the little discovery. I just hate going through the 500 nondiscoveries. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. No, I had a couple boxes that I labeled as a time capsule and so I put a bunch of old tech in there and I opened them up and I have two Metricom modems. I have two little Metricom modems and I was like, oh, okay, so if Metricom actually crowdsources a mesh network, they could actually deliver and that never happened. And I have a clipper chip phone. Ooh, nice. One of a few thousand. You want to send it off to Vladimir and see if you want more privacy? I keep thinking I should just take those boxes and recycle them. I just want to recycle them entire without looking in them. Then I look and I find like one really valuable thing among 500 other useless things. Yeah, that's the problem. In my case, I've got, you know, White House notes that, you know, captured some incredibly interesting conversation that when I write my write my history of the internet of internet policy in 30 years. Exactly. Right as soon as I'm like, I want to read it around in three years. If anybody is interested in processing lots of paper. There is a good Fujitsu makes a printer series called the scan snap, which are like very good for bulk scanning of lots of stuff without being industrial strength like what the archive needs to use. But they're pretty cool. Could use some women on this call. I was just looking around going where are the women of OGM. Huh. That is strange. Moscow. I guess that. Hey, see. Universe is providing. Yay. The cheer is for you Grace. We're just saying we need some women on the call. Welcome. I would hate that. You would hate what being the only woman on the call. Well, being the like, oh, yeah, there's a woman on the call. It's like, yeah, thanks guys. The brain. You know, you look at the advantage of the situation that's definitely. You know, there's that research that says if you want to make groups smarter, you add more women. It's not for collective intelligence. Isn't it actually that you subtract more men. That would be the politically incorrect way of saying it. I thought it has something to do with duct tape on the men's mouth.  And I was like, well, my first idea. It's no man. And they were like, that's actually not the, not the worst idea I've ever heard. So, so Liberia. Got a little close to that Iceland has done pretty well, but I was looking at the Arab, the Arab spring. And I was thinking, you know, what they should do in each country in the Arab spring is say, no man in any governments for a decade. Like, let's see a fatal change the power structures and fixation. It's like, like no man. And I'm wondering like, in many cases around the world, strike might be an interesting way to sort of bring peace because it worked in Liberia. This is strata. And this is strata. Exactly. Well, you know, the, the, the early Americans or at least many of them had a process where in council, first the young warriors would speak. And then the older, you know, the adult men would speak and then the elder men would speak. And the last ones to speak would be the grandmothers. And that's where the decisions got made. It sounds really familiar to me. Why is that? I think I just said that on your, you know, the, the, the early Americans or at least many of them had a process where in council, first the young warriors would speak. And then the older, you know, the adult men would speak and then the elder men would speak and then the elder men would speak and then the elder men would speak and then the elder men would speak. I think I just said that on your call yesterday. And wasn't it the grandmothers who were the ones who made the decisions to go to war, not just the last to speak, but the only ones who can make the decisions to go to war too. Yeah. The information I got from, from my teacher was that the council of grandmothers was essentially in charge of everything because grandmothers were the, the keepers of, of life. And so any decision that was coming back, if they're going to install a chief, they had to be interviewed by the council of grandmothers who would essentially look at them and say, when push comes to show, are you going to act on your own behalf for that of the tribe? And if a chief made a decision that went against the good of the tribe, the council of grandmothers could remove them. So there was a very strong, you know, emphasis on the continuity of life and taking care of the whole. And it was the grandmothers responsibility to make sure that that happened. So that's where the horrors invested in. And there was a chief by the name of skin and dough over may or may not be the same person they named the Shenandoah Valley after we said to Franklin, Jefferson and Washington, you're really screwing this up. You need to give them the vote. And they said, well, we'd love to, but we don't think we have enough votes in the part in, in the Congress to, oh, there we go. We don't have it. Yep. There we go. Franklin. Since I speak, we don't have enough votes in the parliament to be able to not problem at the Congress or pass that same thing with slavery.  It took us a thousand years to get rid of it. Super interesting. So is this, is this the, the paper for grandmothers? The story that you're saying grandmother's council, the little Carol Schaefer, because the other hits are all the council of 13 grandmothers, which is not what you're talking about. This, this comes from Franklin listens and I speak actually comes from personal conversations with Paul Underwood before she passed away, but it is also referenced in Franklin listens when I speak. Cool. Thank you. Whenever people go to saying women are better stewards on this sort of stuff. I keep in mind that white women broke for Trump. In the election. So the gender is no guarantee of anything. Well, we're also talking about different stream. The, the, put in a sonny and the irrecoignations of the 17th, 17, 1800s versus women today. It's really huge difference. Well, because the thing about the grandmother, it's not the grandmothers. It was the council of grandmothers, a group of people in a culture as well as in their, you know, gender roles. That's right. Some, some similar to the honeycomb. Where the queen, the old queen might be actually replaced. By take over, but basically, that she's protected by this council. Where was that? The honeycomb. the bees, not the flowers, only the bees. I don't wanna step over that comment about women broke for Trump as an evidence of something.   Well, what I took that comment to mean was there was other demographic factors that were much more pronounced.  So that's... But I think another demographic is age. And Jerry, one of the most interesting things after the fall of the wall was that certain countries, particularly the Baltic countries, basically said, nobody over the age of 35 gets to be in the government. And so you had all these people who just assumed it was a blank slate and did incredible things. Well, that's part of what happened with Estonia. It's like they got their country back, which they haven't had for very many years through their whole history. And then apparently somebody showed up with a Milton Friedman textbook for Chicago, like an expat Estonian. They said, well, maybe we should try some of this stuff. And then they started implementing some of that. Then they went all electronic with their government because like, we don't really wanna just start generating a lot of paper. So everything in Estonia is electronic. And they did a whole bunch of really interesting experiments. Yeah, got rid of a lot of the corruption because everything, all procurement was online. There was a lot of transparency. I just think it's unfortunate they're sliding back.  Stacy, and then I'm gonna guide us over to the topic that Pete started for us last two weeks ago. Well, I bristle a little bit when I hear like a dichotomy of men and women because we all have masculine and feminine energy and it depends how well balanced we are. There are certain men that are way more in balance than certain women. And I would rather them be making the decisions. Yeah, and also the idea of how things were way back. So many women, especially in the corporate world and it may be changing, but I'm just talking about people that I know personally. So it's anecdotal, have really had to adopt some ways where they suppressed their own feminine energy. So I think we have to consider that as well. Thanks, Stacy. One of my contacts here in Sweden, he was curious to find out, he's a neuroscientist and he wanted to find out how his daughters were thinking so he started to brain scan them and then found out some very interesting comparative or benchmarking patterns between the male and the female brain. And I do think you have his name in your file somewhere, Jerry. His name is Marikus Heilig. This guy. Yeah, and the book he wrote was she, he and the brain. Oh, cool. I don't have it here yet. So I will add that. I think what Stacy said was elegantly said and very efficient use of language. Yeah, and I just want to kind of piggyback on that, Stacy, because I think it's important both you and Grace speaking to how the female energy is. And I just wanted to add that too, that if you've grown up in a patriarchal kind of society and culture, and I think someone else had mentioned also that culture here is important, that that also shapes the way you think and it shapes what you think authority should look like and act like. And so that, I believe that also plays a huge role here as well. The point from Marikus Heilig was that female brain tend to process information more lateral than the male brain, which is more vertical processing of the data, which means that you have it somewhere across in that, which might be perhaps your personality. Someone on our call yesterday said that the density or size of the corpus callosum differs in male and female brains. Does anyone know? Yes, corpus callosum is thicker for women generally, which means there's more inter-hemisphere communication. But the remarkable phenomenon in our time is how tribal communities that have existed for thousands of years and have mostly not been very visible are all of a sudden really popping up because I think people sense a time of uncertainty and danger and risk and they're rallying together to their roots, right? Where people are familiar and seek community to protect themselves. And you see that in so many communities that were buried under the Soviet Union before and they're coming free and they have been suppressed. Look at Cheshire and others where they have been violently suppressed and kept in check. And those that escaped during the breakdown of the Soviet Union are now looking in horror and returning back to the subjugation that they experienced. And the Ukrainian people are saying never again, basically you're rather die as a free man than throw back into enslaving myself to this, right? So it's a fascinating time really. So, and Ken just found which study? Oh, second corpus callosum, there we go. So let me go back to Pete's statement. Did anybody have a chance to rewatch the video from the marker where I sent a couple of people? Good, good, good. Awesome. And my case was watching for the first time. I'm so glad you flagged it. Excellent. And I took notes on it in the way I do in my brain. So these are alphabetic, not chronological from that segment where Pete was talking, but it was, you know, it's not that capitalism sets out the kill of the systems, but that's what happens, localize the weirdness. Natural selection and collaborating groups is different from individuals. You don't wanna leave stewardship of the commons in the hands of nation states. We're trying to find new ways to hook people together to change the way we are doing things to turn the ship around, which might have been maybe a central thought here. We're in an experiment where social animals create better society. Things seem static in the frame of three to five generations, but change does happen. Small focus teams interoperate well with other small teams. This is, these are sort of bits and snippets from Pete from that segment. And I will pass the mic to you for a second. If you'd like to like blow some oxygen on the embers. Okay, thanks, Jay. Although I'm not sure, I'm not sure how to. You could just open a conversation by asking anybody else what that segment struck for them. Mike Nelson and Stacy Wave that they had watched the video maybe interlocute with them. Maybe a question, and that's a great way to start. Thank you, Jay. So what did you all think? One of the things is just that shift from, I guess maybe two big shifts. One of them is from individuals thinking about individual selection to thinking about group selection and then how you select for groups and what happens when you do that. And then maybe the other one is No, that's good enough. I don't want to muddy the water switch. Thanks, Mike. Can I share a few thoughts and just ask questions? For me, the revelation and the brain expanding part of the talk was what you just mentioned, moving to super scale. I mean, we've all heard about how tribes and flocks of geese, they evolve as a group and they adopt behaviors that may not be optimal for the individual. But the idea that you can have conflict between capitalism and communism and the rules of solutions start kicking in, I thought was fascinating. I've spent a lot of my life on tech policy issues and watching alternatives to government structures for managing things. And it was said very nicely in a tweet this morning from a friend who said, look it, we've got these three things on the internet that are magical. One is the allocation of IP addresses, which is fundamental. Second is the management of domain names, which is a little more complicated. And then we have this thing called Wikipedia. And all three of these are managed by a consensual decentralized process. You know, there's a little bit of glue from the top that kind of keeps things together, but it's not management or government, it's really coordination that fosters the magic cooperation that makes it all work. And I thought, and there's a whole other chapter to your thesis in looking at how do we manage these new digital resources? And what we're seeing right now with cryptocurrencies cryptocurrencies and distributed ledgers and the competitions between these different technologies is another example of where governments may try to control this, but math is math and smart people with cloud computing and other resources can do some pretty cool stuff. And it is a new mode of doing things. Whether we get across the chasm is the other points you made. I thought that the other thing that will stick with me for a long time is that you mentioned the quote where the old system is failing, the new system is not yet born in between the monsters. And I think that's part of what we're seeing in a lot of different fields right now and not just national security and not just the economy. So it's gonna be an exciting 10 to 15 years and somehow we're gonna have to figure out a way to build in more resilience and build in more options and build in more coordination and cooperation. And I don't, that was the unanswered question in your primer is how do we build enough trust and enough faith in the future that we can make a massive shift between one system to another.  I've got some thoughts on how coordination works. And I've been thinking through that in OGM and now also in the meta project. And I think the key is small autonomous organizations, really small autonomous organizations that depend a lot on transparency, not absolute transparency, but a lot of transparency and a lot of interchange with other small autonomous organizations making agreements between each other, formal or informal agreements to do things together to get things done. So I think that combination that not just autonomous, the organizations really need to be focused and have a real mission and be really aware of what their mission wants to be. It's kind of like what we imagine democracy is supposed to be like, everybody gets a vote kind of, but it's not representational democracy, but it's direct democracy. But then it's not actually direct democracy of individuals. It's vote with your feet in autonomous organizations that are moving in a direction, maybe kind of together, maybe less together. But the autonomy and the focus on what we need, what we think is the right answer is super important. There may be a place for gamification and develop these policies. I just, I'm so excited about the tools we have out there and so frustrated and pessimistic about the barriers that stand in the way of something radical and new. But the big thing is the capitalism or post-capitalism or whatever, I don't know if I wanna say monster, but whatever we have right now that has so much mass behind it, it's huge, right? And it's gonna take a lot of kind of reconfiguration to get something that challenges that well. But that's my suggestion is that we somehow try to identify the individual systems that are gonna have to undergo a radical shift one system at a time. I mean, I'm sorry to go on so long, I wasn't there for the earlier discussion, so I had a lot of thoughts. But anyway, money is one, voting is another, marketing, and there's about 15 or 20 education is probably the best example where things are gonna change. And I like the idea of focusing on those individual autonomous projects that can scale up, link together, grow into something new. Let's go, John. That might also lead to... Sorry, Leif. Yeah, it might lead to that the label is not coordination, it is cultivation, where you are cultivating the threads of the network, the missile of various independent communities into something. So cultivation is probably a key word as a verb for this development and not coordination. Thanks Leif. Let's go, John, Doug, Grace, Stuart. Okay, thank you. Great, great beginning. Thanks, Pete. Thanks to everybody who's, you know, coming into this really good conversation. This is a small point, but it might be important. There's these things that happen magically on the internet, great examples.  It's not bread and butter. Now, what am I saying there? I'm saying that the area in which the super overarching coordination can emerge less, not without controversy, but less controversy is if the issues that the super arching coordination is stewarding don't appear to be immediate bread and butter, life and death to the folks who have to accept it. Now, so who should do the bread and butter, life and death? Well, I mean, I think a lot of us would say we prefer a world in which there was a local transparent autonomous organization that was doing that. It's gonna be a transition. It's gonna be a messy transition to get to that, but I see a couple of evolutions. I see one is a lot of experiments at that local autonomous organization level and trying to supplement. So like you don't immediately get rid of money. I mean, it might go, it might collapse. You know, it could collapse quite soon, but I mean, if it doesn't collapse, you don't completely get rid of fiat money and you don't completely get rid of national governments, but you gradually try to create these more robust local transparent autonomous organizations that supplement people's livelihood and that buffer them against the craziness as the other parts of the system come apart. And then for the very big overarching things, you look for things like those internet examples. I think they're all good examples, including the Wikipedia one, which I wanna apply the Wikipedia model to disinformation, but that's a whole nother topic. I don't wanna introduce that here because we're on a very good topic. I wanna stay with it. But anyhow, just that notion of different evolutionary principles operated different scales. Just real quick, the separation of powers, you know, the separation of powers and the federal government is messy, not perfect, blah, blah, blah, but the honeypot that Jerry referred to, you know, the thing that allowed Stalin come in, the honeypot in our system is clearly the executive. You'd rather be the president than a senator or a congressman. You'd rather be a senator or congressman, generally speaking, than a member, than a justice of the Supreme Court. Why is that? Lots of reasons, you know, but I mean, among them are the fact that the Supreme Court operates within this highly constrained, highly technical process of decision-making where the executive wakes up and says, you know, whatever, you know, so I mean, that distinction I think is important and you putting that distinction into the planning for the scope of the organization is also very important. I think I've spoken long enough. Let's keep going. Oh, thank you. We're bringing a whole lot of different ingredients into the soup. I really appreciate it. And it's reminding me of a bunch of stuff that I used to know, but I forgot and I even thought about, Doug, the floor is yours. Okay, I think a key word is the mission. What's the mission of this extended network? So it seems to me that the mission has to deal with something where it's really pretty essential. So what if we think of the internet as the way of coordinating guaranteed annual income distribution, the adding up of the tasks that society needs to get done and putting them together with what people are willing to do so that you get global coordination across from each according to their skills to each according to their needs mediated by the guaranteed income using the internet. Thank you, Doug. And I was just nosing around in my brain on this idea of what are our next stacks? And I'd forgotten about the book, The Stack, which Grace mentioned in the chat by Benjamin Bratton, which I've not read, but this idea that we're trying to negotiate our way towards some new forms of governance at the social level, at the organizational level, et cetera. So this is how I'm sort of clustering these thoughts and I'll connect this thought to today's notes as well. Grace, you have the floor. I just think the whole way we're having this discussion is it's not accurate. Like this idea that there's this like governance that makes decisions and that that's gonna, and there's this big global government. I mean, it's just, it's not how things really happen. I'm not sure that's the assumption behind what everybody's saying here. I don't know, there's like a wave approach. I just wanna say there's a wave approaching that seems like the blocks, right? Rather than the stack. And also this idea, oh, everybody's gonna get, there's gonna be a distribution of this UBI from somewhere, I don't think of it that way, right? And so, that's why I mentioned the stack. Like I'm thinking about it much more like how do we change the circulatory system and rather than, you know, how do we change these institutions and what's good about the institutions? I mean, to me, it seems obvious we're gonna evolve out of our current general structure and into something else. But I actually wanted to go back to the original question that Pete was asking about culture and group and coordination. And I think that what we've really lost is the importance of culture and some sort of, I'm gonna call it religion. And, you know, how do you select for a group? It's like, well, actually how do you create the frameworks for your group that work for everybody? And how do you deal with, you know, people who are not cooperating and collaborating? And I think that a lot of what we've been doing and we have to be doing at this stage of this transition is selecting our groups for, you know, like that we get to get along and like we can come to OGM, we all behave a certain way and, you know, and eco-villages and cooperatives are kind of like these exclusive groups. And religion gave us a way to handle the people who didn't fit into that. And I think that we're, there's something about secularism and science, you know, science and whatever, that that stuff is meaningless. And I think that stuff is incredibly meaningful and being able to get along with other people, like simple things, like deciding what to do. I don't know, I was staying in Airbnb with some friends and they brought in bananas. And I'm like, oh God, bananas, you know, right? Like you're going to put them in the garbage can and they're going to smell and they're going to whatever. And, you know, I don't know, I belong to a religion which has like, you know, all these things that are almost down to that level of detail. Like what to do if your tree overhangs or your neighbor's yard and like, and all those things seem kind of silly, but like it's the negotiation for the banana breaks down friendships because we don't have religion anymore and we don't have these traditions.  You know, I just feel like there's so much that religion gave us that because we're so anti-religion today, that we don't want to talk about it as part of the stack. But I think it's really important. You have opened a very big Pandora's box and a lovely one, Grace. It's just full and rich of all sorts of things. And I was pondering in the shower this morning. I have some objections to some of the ways religions prioritize certain things. And I like, April went through Yoga Teacher Training a couple of years ago and learned about the yamas and the niyamas. And if you go through and read the yamas and the niyamas they're a very, very good way to live in the world. Like there are instruction sheets with no, they don't give you bizarre, there's like not an awful lot of bizarre advice in there. There's a whole bunch of things about non-grasping and I'll go to it in my brain when I pass the Florida Stewart, but they're really good. And then I see so many other religions with like layer after layer of not just useless but counterproductive craft that is dangerous. And then there's this battle over religion or not religion and which one and who's better and you know, all that kind of stuff which spills out and is really like big in the world right now. Like religion isn't that small. A huge number of Americans identify as evangelicals like a huge proportion. I'm sure somebody can Google it and figure out my guess is 60% or something like that. But anybody else have a guess or know the number? I just wanted to say like somebody was, I was actually listening to a podcast and they were talking about the, I wasn't even a podcast that was a really interesting I could probably find it a sub stack or something about the similarities between the things that you were supposed to do to prevent COVID and religion, like washing your hands and you know, keeping a certain distance and wearing a certain face covering and like in this parallel and how it had become these religious wars and these ritualistic things and which authority do you believe who's the priest of the, what to do about COVID and how this took on a very religious character which really does hint at how strongly these things are important to people. Thank you, Grace. Stuart. Yeah, they're important to people I think because people don't like to take responsibility. Obama hinted at that during his campaign when he was running and he got blasted for it because you know, it's much easier to follow a dictate than to in some ways think for yourself. One of the things I appreciate being in these conversations is that everybody is so smart and everybody is thinking about the challenges that we are facing. Pete, I thought you did just a brilliant job. I had to leave early that day but when I listened to what you were saying, I said, wow, this is just kind of creating a frame for everything that we're talking about and thinking about and where I went to with it was the notion that if you look historically, the evolution of different kinds of structures of governance kept getting different as the scope that people were exposed to was different. You know, the whole notion of people at one time thought the world was flat, all right? And so governance kind of structures kept evolving and now we're at a place where people see that we've got planetary concerns that we've got to be cognizant of.  If we don't have some, some, oh, and people are already thinking about governing out space stuff, all right?  And what rolls around my mind right now, especially because it's in the public conversation is, do we have to have a nuclear holocaust before people just really wake up in some way to the fact that we need something different? I'm not sure what it is. I thought, I don't know if it was Ken who alluded to it before, the council of grandmothers that they appointed a chief, there was a chief, but the check on the chief was a committee of grandmothers that were, that could be trusted to take in many larger elements, you know? Maybe that's the governance structure going forward on a planetary level. It's a fun time. It really is kind of a fun time. And I also appreciate, Grace, you're talking about the bananas. It evoked for me Woody Allen's movie Bananas when he took over leadership and made the proclamation, everybody who's under 16 is now 16. We will all wear our underwear on the outside and I forget what the third one was, but yeah. That's about as most sense as I could make of the larger schema that we're in right now, Woody Allen movie called Bananas. It's kind of Bananas time. I also thought earlier about the, how the primates, the Bonobo tribes deal with difficulty and conflict as also something that, you know, might have some place in the culture and civilization we live in. So thank you all for being in this conversation. Love that. Klaus? Yeah, I'm just thinking, not sure I would call it fun, but it's certainly stimulating. And so I think we have come to the point of a Yuval Harari, right? Where we are, the clue that binds us is a story. So stories that we have come to believe governing our behavior, driving our behavior. Now, when you look at the information world out there, our stories are all over the place. Now, we are clinging to old stories that have lost their relevance. We can't agree on what the new stories really should be because whatever story manifests itself, thrives everything, the politicians we bought into, the political structures we embrace and so on. So how do you help? I mean, how do you engage in this process? So I'm working with several NGOs and mostly on the policy and strategy level. And a lot of them, particularly the older established NGOs are pretty stuck in what they can do because their funding comes from sources that may have opinions on how far they can go and specific things. So how do you constructively engage in ways that changes the story, not by offering solutions, not by pointing out, not by coming up with ideas on what everybody should be doing, but basically by information. So in my sector, food and agriculture, once people truly understand the impact of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer on the soil and the pollution that is causing on a larger scale, that makes you think because now you understand why you have an algae plume in your waterways. So simply providing enough information that links the system, makes the system transparent, opens up an understanding of issues that impact our daily lives. We have come to the point that is, first of all, politically doable because you're not telling anybody what to do, particularly when you work with farmers, they don't wanna be told what to do, but when you can provide them this information that is undisputable, that science evidence-based information that changes the relationship, that changes the conversation. So I think the best, and for example, Doug sent out Garden World yesterday and I responded to that because Garden World is a wonderful idea, co-ops are a wonderful idea. People coming together to protect themselves, share their resources, share their gifts, their talents and so on. That's an amazing idea. But how does that really work? How do you scale something like this? And there is this concept of soft franchise and a franchise system is basically the consolidation of know-how and tools and sourcing that enables a local franchise to be set up swiftly without having to do much research. Everything is ready to go. Now a soft franchise allows a modification and customization at the location level because each location has different circumstances, has different issues to deal with, different people, socioeconomics, climate, water, access to capital and so on. So what I'm thinking about is the vertical integration of knowledge. So if we at the high level come to the point of saying we need to shift into organic practices because we're killing the soil, which is the root of our life. So what does that mean? We shifting into organic practices. What does that mean in the application of a farmer who is raising commodity co-ops and is being told to use GMO seeds and doused them with fertilizers? So what's out there that can help them to transition? So the vertical integration of knowledge, that means that you bring it down to the ground level and with including an understanding why I'm doing it. So there's a higher overarching goal. And when you think about biblical knowledge, I mean the Bible basically laid out rules that helped people to be safe and secure. I mean, kosher food, what is kosher? Kosher in the before refrigeration and before dishwashers, talked about separation of food groups that don't belong together, spoiled when you put them together, cross-contamination and so on, pleading out an animal so that you don't have any blood left in the muscle structures, which periods faster, that's kosher. Now today we have refrigeration and we have dishwashers and so that doesn't make that much sense anymore. There's to today that now it's like a custom, but it used to be a life-saving thing to know and to follow. So we have to re-establish these kinds of knowing things to do even if we don't necessarily understand all the science behind it and agree on these are the right things to do. That's sort of where I'm steering. Now we're talking about the farm bill, for example, the farm bill is enormously impactful on our entire life, everything is governed really amazingly impactful things. So how do you change? Now you don't want to go in fight with anybody because that doesn't lead anywhere, that people were much more skilled in fighting than we are. So just provide information, provide insights, just open up the eyes of understanding and consciousness to people who have the capacity, the cognitive capacity to understand and then respond to it. May I share with you a little story from FESTA. Perhaps FESTA, perhaps you know FESTA, it's a pneumatical global company from Germany, very skilled and they have a FESTA university. It's called FESTA Academy. The FESTA Academy has roughly around 50 to 50,000 students a year, especially in Asia. And they are using this university to find an alternative to the ownership of the old intellectual property rights. So instead of fighting with the Chinese about the patent laws, et cetera, they are providing precisely what Klaus was referring to the insight of how to get productive with the help of insights from FESTA. And they are extremely successful. So there you can find it if you search on the net, FESTO. Oh, FESTA. Yeah, it's so great in their alternative way of operating to the traditional intellectual property laws, which is about I own this knowledge and therefore I pass it on and that leads to the franchise conflicts, et cetera. So they are living the message of Klaus that you share the insights, not the knowledge. You share the knowing and that is the cultivation that I was adding in to the initial part of the conversation. It's not knowledge sharing, it's knowledge cultivation and knowledge resell development. Can you say more about FESTA, which their website is really annoying. And I'd love to learn more because they seem to be on a really interesting quest. And our notions of ownership versus stewardship, private property and intellectual property versus the commons, I think that Doug's garden world is like, hey, why can't we just provide food and shelter for people in some other way because those are the kinds of things that people need. And if they've got food and shelter, everything else can sort of emerge and people will be safe and well fed and whatnot. But can you say a little bit more about FESTA? Yeah, FESTA is about pneumatic, it's a power house and that is actually a key ingredient for the automation of our factories, which leads to a higher productivity. And this high productivity is translated into high value adding. So it's a key ingredient in the evaluation of your currency. But they have managed to have this culture of FESTA growing and I'm really impressed how they handle the issues that US is fighting with the Chinese about the intellectual property laws. They don't fight about it. They share the insights of which is the cultivation of relationships. And that's why they have so many students, 4,000 to 50,000 students a year in FESTA Academy. That is a big university in a way. And that leadership is so impressive. Perhaps we should come back to that and he might send one from there to share the insights. Because if you think about it from a different angle, we have an emerging intellectual property battle between the East and West and between China and the US. And if FESTA is sitting on a different paradigm on these relationships handling, which are much more related to the human dimensions than the technical dimension, in spite of being a very technical company operated by compressed air, which is thematics. Super interesting. Thank you. And thanks for doing some searching Pete and finding stuff. Where are we in this conversation? And how might we guide it sort of? I can add another picture which you can help us to upload. And that is from World Values Survey. And it's a map on values mapping around the world. And it shows that some countries are progressing very well based on two dimensions. Freedom to think, exactly. Freedom to think and secular dimensions. And if you look at this one, you can see that you have Japan much more to the East in the picture than you have US. What could be the reason behind that? Survival versus self-expression and then traditional versus secular values. Yeah, this got some attention recently and looks really interesting. And I haven't had any interesting conversations about it. So thanks for bringing it into the conversation. One thing that I learned at IBM was that they had been doing these personality studies of values of almost every employee at IBM for 30 years, half a million people. And they could use that very quantitative data to plot where people in different countries fall with different cultures. And it was so funny because it was so stereotypical.  The Japanese were the other side, very much communitarian. The Latin Americans tended to salute when the strongman told them what to do. It was really fascinating how this data came out and they did it for a long time. And this is a survey of IBM employees. IBM employees from 1960s to about 2015, I think. I'll see if I can find the best write-up on it. It was the life work of this one guy. And it really was impressive. It hasn't got as much attention as it should. Let me get back to your point though about what do we do with this? I wanted to hit on what Grace had said long about 15 minutes ago saying, we seem to be starting with the top. And some of the words that people used might have sounded that way, but I don't think there's a global system and I don't think the people on the call think there's a global system. But there is some kind of cathedral or building or pyramid that we build out of different building blocks that lead to a system. And every time the US or somebody else has tried to parachute into a new culture and impose, well, it hasn't worked very well. But countries that develop an organic system do it one system at a time. And we just talked about intellectual property. In my world, I would argue encryption is a big decision. Copyright online is another decision. Data localization, do I hoard my data? I keep it in the country. There's a bunch of these decisions and they're 40 or 50 big decisions. Currency, do you reward maternity leave or do you take, put more focus on elder care?  And I just love to know if anybody's seen any good assessment of the 15 or 20 most important values, decisions that countries have to make and how that leads to something different. Because obviously we get very different systems. Love the question. We have been doing this for some decades now. It started in a collaboration with the University of Hong Kong on values mapping. And then we've escalated that to nations. So if you Google on the national intellectual capital you can find roughly 60 countries being mapped on some 60 indicators over some 15 years. And that could lead to another discussion of what are the driving ones, but we can come back to that. It relates to also research that started in Santa Clara with a professor and his friend they were doing values mapping of similar type like IBM. And his name was Brian Hall. And his colleague's name was Benjamin Tonner. And has anybody taken these value maps and try to understand how they relate to political structures and governance structures in the private sector? Francis Fukuyama wrote this book called Trust which I still think is the best thing he ever wrote. And he looked at six countries, three were high trust countries and three were low trust countries. And he really did a great job of saying this one factor completely influenced whether there was a strong man type of government or a bottom up town meeting type of government and Italy, which is a low trust system very much focused on family firms where you could trust your family and nobody else. I mean, it was really beautiful the way he wove those things together but I haven't seen anybody really develop it much more in the 15 years since they do the values mapping but they don't indicate how that results in a different community structure. Partially it does actually. And you can see it in work some years back by Hans Rosling. He was doing this with a software called GapMinder which was acquired by Microsoft. And then it has been growing and I used it also for this national intellectual capital mapping of these 60 countries. How do you say Hans's last name? He's on the, right here, Hans Rosling, ROS. Okay, yeah, of course, so we know him well. Yeah, the GapMinder guy. Whose son is still doing that work. Yeah. Sorry to interrupt, thanks. Go ahead. Well, I do think that your observation is very good and we could come a long way by reiterating together with Rosling, the family of Rosling because it's both his son and daughter-in-law working on it, this GapMinder. But what we found in our work on intellectual capital is that the most important indicator for institutions as well as nations is renewal. So if you look at an institution and you can actually see very, very quickly whether that institution is renewing or not. And then you can refine, of course, the indicators. But basically it is the speed of renewal that avoids you from drowning. Stuart, you've been waiting patiently. And then Doug. Thanks. So just kind of, kind of reverting back to Pete's thesis a little bit in terms of us waiting for the next step of evolution. I think everything that everybody says has value. And yet there's an element, an elephant in the world. The elephant right now is this guy named Putin in Russia who's kind of rattling his saber with nuclear holocaust. And so at some level, given that we've created this incredible destructive capacity, what is the international planetary governance system that takes care of in some way bad actors? I mean, to me, without that context, you've got people who are kind of insecure in whatever it is that they're doing day to day or moment to moment.  How do we deal with this? How do we grapple with this at a global level given the large instruments of destruction both in the form of like a nuclear holocaust but also in the form of, we've had a natural pandemic but we also have the capacity for biological warfare. How do we create a planetary governance system that is effective? Because it seems, if you think periodically, I mean, the last kind of craziness was Hitler running on the loose in Europe and people are saying that Putin might do the same thing. And how do you balance that against Eisenhower's warning in the military industrial complex? I don't have any answers to any of these things but it's the kind of stuff that I noodle with and I'm curious about people's thoughts. Thanks Stuart. I'll come back to it when I've got time but something about design from trust is explicitly about what you just said. So I'll wait my turn. Leif, if you could put your hand down while we're going and then let's go Doug, Pete, Grace. Well, it seems to me that values are organized around the way we do food and shelter but the value studies almost never talk about food and shelter, which seems to me to lose them key leverage points for how things change. With regards to Putin, I've been reading a history of the Ukraine and it's amazing the struggle over that piece of land between starting more recently, the Communist Party in Russia and the Communist Party in Ukraine and whether you're gonna have Ukrainian speaking schools or Russian speaking schools and it goes back through with the Ukraine being dominated by the Mongols, by the Vikings. It's extraordinarily complex history. So I think one way to deal with people like Putin is to be much smarter about what are the conditions that create that kind of leadership. It's not coming out of nowhere. And I think we're very weak in our understanding of the complexities and subtleties of the historical process. Thanks, Doug. And in my brain, I sometimes try to track things. I have like all the popes head detailed because Wikipedia pages say followed this person and then there's the schisms in the church and then there's the major Eastern Orthodox and then there's this and that and I tried to do it for like kings and queens of England, for example, fricking too complicated. I could not tell you the history of just England, just this little island off the coast of Europe. And so you dip into any piece, any couple square meters of dirt on the earth and there's a tremendous amount of history that we don't know that we've forgotten that got squished and intentionally erased, et cetera, and that just plays in because maybe intergenerational trauma because I don't know what else, but we need to understand more history and then somehow get over some of the trauma but I'm acknowledging it is often the path to getting over it. Sorry to go on for longer on that. Pete, Grace, and me. Thanks and thanks everybody for an awesome conversation. I wanted to, I was especially moved by Mike's comment that there's, I forget how many thought 30, 40, 50 kind of like big poll kinds of decisions that if you make them, you shape a lot of a nation's, the way a nation works. I kind of guess there's probably more than that, probably a couple hundred or whatever, but that, and listening to Mike and his comm soothing voice is like, oh wow, we could actually manage politics. That would be an awesome, wonderful thing. I have apparently lived in our United States for a little bit too long and have come to believe that I appreciate that people are doing that work and I find it a little bit hard to believe in the management of the system. I think, so one of my lessons from my pitch last week or one of my core thoughts is that we don't really get to decide what hyperscale social structures do. We can influence them and we can influence them in groups like a group that's super interested in eldercare or women's rights or infant mortality or something like that. They can make a lot of difference and we have seen that just one or a few people can like torque the system around. So we have in the United States at least, we have a kind of a dual is the wrong way to say it but we have a split brain kind of way of managing the system or the way that we govern our governance, is nominally kind of democratic process, blah, blah. There's also a shadow thing where the rules of the games that the founding fathers set up and then the turns that mostly probably rich entitled people took over the next 200 years or so ended up with a system that is highly manipulable in certain ways. So you can manipulate voting with the way that you've set up boundaries. You can manipulate public opinion by setting up the right kinds of things tanks and hiding behind the fact that you've got a hundred or 200 think tanks that sound like they're really reasonable and swamp everything. It turns out oddly enough that you can actually just attack a bunch of social media outlets with probably hundreds of thousands of bots and like swing opinion back and forth.  Like frickin' dropping the mask mandate. This one is one that pisses me out personally. I don't know if y'all are maskers or anti-maskers but I pissed about this and depressed and freaked out. Not so much even that we dropped the mask mandate but that we did it for the wrong reasons and in the wrong way. And now as a person who likes to wear a mask out in public, I feel like I'm taking my life in my hand.   I'm worried about things. I'm worried about getting attacked. And that was a weird decision. Whether or not I feel like it was the right decision, the process that got us to undo mask mandate on transportation was just like inane. Like much of the Trump presidency was. It's just inane watching the system getting yanked around by a grifter.  This is our governance system that can just get played with by a couple of well-meaning or anti-well-meaning fall and a cadre of people around him in different kinds of things. This is like insane. So anyway, we've got this, a thing that we don't, I think we don't pay enough attention to is we have emergent social structures and they are huge. And they do amazingly powerful things to our lives. And when we say, well, I wish, I wish some crazy federal judge didn't have the power to yank our whole public health system around. Like that kind of wish is something that you speak into the air and it evaporates because there's no handle for that. There's no handle on that emergent process. So I think I have two things. One thing that we didn't kind of get around to in this conversation was scale. For better or for worse, a big social organization commands more resources than a little one and can end up bullying the little ones to death until and then it gets bigger and bigger and bigger. So just as kind of a blanket observation, we love our scale because it lets us do amazing and wonderful things, build the internet and talk to each other on Zoom and stuff like that. Advertise various junk food things and then all can eat the same junk food anywhere in the world. Let's just go to the moon and things like that. I think scale has done some wonderful things for us but it is fricking dangerous.  Why the heck would we want one system with one kind of weird whatever Mark Zuckerberg's background is deciding how billions, literally billions of people like exchange information and work together in social cultures and stuff like that. Doesn't that sound like a recipe for a fricking disaster to anybody else?  It gives Mark Zuckerberg and whatever whims his tortured psychology has from however he grew up, control over like, I don't know, 20 or 30% of the mind of humanity, what? And then we can get into the Murdoch folks and stuff like that. We end up letting these hyperscale social structures get so massive that they have so much power that we feel powerless against them. And then we come up with cool ideas while I'm going to quit Facebook and that'll make a big difference. It doesn't because there's still a couple of billion people on Facebook doing the Facebook thing. Another poster child for a scale for me is the US military. I super appreciate the fact that I feel warm and secure in my home mostly and I don't worry too much that some president is going to take over the government and say, hey, military, now I own you and you can do this in San Diego and make my life hell. I don't worry about that too much. I actually do worry about it. But on the other hand, we over the past, especially like World War I, World War II and then on military industrial complex, got so US military industrial complex, got so huge that it rules the world. And I appreciate a lot of that and I have a little bit of guilty feelings about appreciating it because I don't want the US and its military force stomping around the world deciding what happens or worse, the Congress having some wild ass plan of doing something and then the military ends up essentially enforcing it. It's dangerous, it's crazy, it's literally like insane. It's an insanity that we have these massive social structures that get away from us and then we can't do anything about them. So if we wanted a different government in the US, how would that work? If we wanted it radically different, could we turn a switch? And it's like, no, we've got too much inertia and too much at the root of it, like dozens of times more military strength than we need that's going to stop that from happening. I don't mean to pick necessarily just on Facebook or the US military or the US, there's just a, I use those as examples of scale, gone insane. And I think the answer is, I think it was Mike also that said 15 years, I think we're in for a hundred years of craziness but the end of that is little groups of people living locally doing the right thing for them or the wrong things for them as it turns out, not everybody, not every group is going to be virtuous but we need to decentralize the power structures in the world. And I don't, you know, it's like power structure is such a weird kind of like it's, I mean it more fundamentally than a quick gloss. Concentration and scale, hyper scale is just fricking dangerous. I have a weird, I have two weird touchstones off of my favorite social platform which is also highly centralized and too big Twitter. One of them, this is an interesting person who I don't know if she's right or not but she's like, dude, I started looking at the anti-CRT legislation in Florida and I think I don't wanna feel like a crackpot but I think it's just the Carlisle group wanted to be the only book publishers selling textbooks in Florida. And that's the kind of weird, I don't know if this one is true or not but that's the kind of weird stuff, you know it's like a small group of white men probably somewhere ago, well, we need to take over this market. Let's torque all of society around so that we get our billion dollars of profit or whatever. The other one, and I've mixed up the, so that was Judy Stern came up with that and that's this tweet, the previous tweet, Yishan. I actually don't know his background. I think he was managing a lot of Reddit but he talks about, there's an interesting thing going on Twitter, Elon Musk threatened or offered or however you would use the verb with Musk to buy out Twitter and then run it the right way.  And so his rant, the terror, it's not a terror, it's a rant, long, long rant. It's like, dude, Elon Musk, whatever he thinks about free speech and that anybody can speak on Twitter. His point, the point that he makes for me and he's not trying to make this point but the point I see is that what he says is in a hyperscale social network, you get weird effects and you have to stomp things out. Thoughts actually do matter at scale and you end up, humanity, humans and the way they work, if you have a billion of them talking to each other, you get these weird pockets of people that you literally have to stop them talking or like really bad things happen in the real world. So the answer to me is like, I don't care too much whether or not Musk buys Twitter and I actually love Muskier. So I feel bad about thinking that it's fun even at hyperscale. The answer to me isn't better management of Twitter. It's like, why do we have Twitter or Facebook with billions of people? Why don't we cap our social networks at about 10,000? Do you really need to talk to more than 10,000 of the right people? The solution that the big hyperscale networks gave us was finding the right thousand people that you wanna talk to. But we don't have to do that by having interlocking access to a billion people. All you need is the right thousand people. And I think you can do that by joining a couple 10,000 member social networks instead of one that's three billion people. So I don't know how you would affect that. I actually really like Stuart's question. How do you, the way I translated Stuart's question about governance of big things is how do we steward the commons? Pick a commons, air, water, food, whatever. So I've still got a conflict in my head, right? I think the right way to do it isn't like massive scale. So how do you govern a commons that has massive scale like air or water or soil? But do it with small 10,000 member clans across the world. And I think part of the answer is sovereigns that focus on council councils. So a bunch of 10,000 member communities all kind of contribute to a more hierarchical thing that collects and stewards on behalf of 110,000 member groups or something like that. And you kind of work your way up from there.  But it's hard. And I think in 200 years, somebody listening to this is going, I don't know, man, scale sounds pretty good. And it solved a lot of problems. We should go back to doing that. I think that's gonna happen in a couple of hundred years. But from my point of view, right now, it's like, it's a big mass and it wasn't worth whatever we got, even all the cool stuff like quitter and the Apollo missions and whatever amazing healthcare that we've got, healthcare innovations even if we can't deliver it. It's not worth the heartache of destroying the ecosystems and being dragged around by a few crazy people because they're in the right position in a hyperscale social structure anyway. Thanks. We have a lot to say and we're not gonna make it through the queue as it currently stands. Grace, what was yours? I just think it's so cool how things seem to come around by the time they come around to me, I'm like, oh, yeah, that's exactly the point I wanted to continue on. Nice. But it really is about this, the question that Stuart asked, how do you manage this, whatever it is, the big global problem? And I think what it is is more like a sensory system. I think about sensory and response systems like we have in our bodies or in natural systems and it's like, okay, we're having a drink and maybe we're having a few too many drinks. And if we have way too many drinks, we pass out, right? And so there's sensory systems at different levels and basically you wanna handle it at the smallest possible level, like, oh, my toe hurts right now, I better look. But usually I ignore that for a while, right? And then pretty soon I'm limping and then maybe my hip hurts, right? Like there's that, you know, and we all have a different level at which we're like, oh, I better see a doctor. So that's kinda how I think about these global systems. It's really interesting, I was listening to this interview with this guy who had been on the Ukrainian border and he was talking about how there were all these different groups at the Ukrainian border. And there was like one with people with cerebral palsy that were trying to take care of people who had children or adults who were disabled. And there was one who was the, whatever it was, this speaking of people with relatives in Italy. And they kinda all knew who each other were and they sent you to the right tent when you came over the border at Poland. And it's kinda like, okay, it's a bunch of sensory systems that aren't really tightly coordinated, but they all know each other and there's like this way of handling the situation. And so I think about it that way, like that really when you're having, I don't know, my neighbors aren't recycling, you know, you just go and knock on the door.  And it doesn't mean even everybody has to agree. It's just enough people had to agree to do it again, like the people who are handling the refugees at the Polish border. It's like, you just have to send enough, there's no vote, there's no decision, but you have to send enough people over to the place where the swelling is happening and put a few ice packs on it or whatever it is in this case. And hopefully you've got enough, whatever it is to respond to that issue when it's happening. And then, yeah, and how do you deal with, okay, nuclear weapons, that's pretty big, but I feel like there's something in that paradigm, that's all. Love that, Grace, thank you. And we've been going kind of at warp speed in this whole call and I haven't slowed us down very much sort of intentionally because it feels like there's just a lot we're trying to share here, but I would love to sort of go back and revisit this in lots of different ways. Let me try to say some of the things I wanted to say because a lot of the stuff where Pete was talking and everybody else was talking really fits. So part of my design from trust thesis, this thing over here is that years ago, somehow we lost faith in humans. Somewhere after the alphabet, the discovery of the alphabet before World War II, we lost faith in humans. And part of this is from Leonard Schlein's book, The Alphabet Versus the Goddess, where he makes the point that the linear alphabet sort of changes our brains. And it's an interesting debate, but we've been designing our systems based on mistrust of the average person. And when you do that and then you go, oh my gosh, there's so many people, you begin to worry about scale in an industrial sense. And then you begin to design coercive systems. And I call this design from mistrust. It's the opposite of design from trust. And so we've been also then ideas like capitalism in our brains. So we designed for efficiency, scale and profit, ignoring meaning, connection, well-being, the commons, all those kinds of things. And in the process, we convert the commons into natural resources to sequester and plunder. And people into raw materials and inputs. And we do all these weird mental conversions that flip everything around and make it really hard to unfuck the system that we're in. So in the middle of that, there's this whole idea of scale. And there's lots of interesting conversations about scale. And I think part of the problem is that so industrial scale or engineering scale is like Intel when they create a fab and they say replicate exactly this process. Just everybody do the same thing that, here's 10 test lines for the new chip. Number three is the line that worked best, replicate exactly all the settings for line two and put that everywhere. But we try to do that with society. And then we create systems that somebody goes, if I get in charge of the system that does all education like the school board or whatever, then I can in fact shape our youth and change their wiring for the next generation. And boy is that great because scale that is engineering scale typically creates bottlenecks or pyramids. And then I think I said this last week, you get like Stalin says, ooh, if I could take control of the entire Soviet Union, look what I can do. And so there's this whole notion of emergent fractal distributed scale where people adapt and where people swarm to problems that make sense to them. The way Grace was just describing at the border between Ukraine and Poland, for example, and where knowledge is shared broadly and widely instead of a lockdown and locked away like IP law does to us. And like textbooks do, textbooks are these wonderful strangleholds where if you want to control what people think what you do is you go control textbooks. And the Texas School Board has this terrible long history with textbooks because half the school boards in the country follow whatever the Texas School Board says. And of the 15 members, the Texas School Board 10 are conservative.  So scale kills in some sense because we designed for scale because we've lost faith in humans ability to actually step up and solve problems. And in the process, we've institutionalized all those problems and created large scale institutions to try to solve those problems. So it's no longer my responsibility to do these things. There's a department of acts that's actually going to take care of that.  I can empathize with that in the sense that there are enormous institutions that should be gotten rid of because they're busy protecting industrial scale and removing our responsibility and authority and sense of agency to do stuff.  And it's not like societies haven't always been like, well, I've got a nicer plot of rice than you do, but we've just taken that to this incredible maximum where it blinds us to the need to actually come back into society at some sort of atomic granular scale. And earlier in the call, I went to Hakim Bey and I didn't realize that it was the pseudonym for a philosopher who was also in my brain so I made those connections. But he was talking about temporary autonomous zones. And then there've been some permanent autonomous zones created on earth, which I linked to today's call which are places where there's sort of different rules. And so the sapatistas on the Yucatan are like a permanent autonomous zone. They are separate from the Mexican government. They run their own government internally. We don't understand what it is they do. And there's other things like this in the Rohingya in Kurdistan, or I've forgotten who they are, but there's a bunch of these interesting sort of social experiments on earth that we should learn from. And then as I think Ken and others were saying in the chat there are 40,000 years of our Aboriginal culture that isn't a religion, but that has a mythology and a bunch of other things. There's probably a lot we can learn from them which is something we've been saying on calls here. Sorry to go on so long, but there was a whole stack of things that we had touched and I'm trying to help weave them together as we are. Let's go a couple more minutes and then we'll wrap for call. So let's go Ken and Michael. So when I raised my hand, it was a very different conversation. This always happens on these calls. I'm part of the book circle on the dawn of everything. And there's a question at the heart of dawn of everything that I really like, which is how do we get to be, how do we arrive at inequality? And so I wanna invert that and just I'll keep this right brief and say, what if we began to design our systems is if we were all truly equal? We have in theory this idea that we're all equal before the law, but clearly that is not the case when it comes to actual practice. So not how do we make that happen because that puts it into the problem solving mode, but rather I'd ask you the question, what would it look like? Let's get into an imaginal space. What would scale and governance system look like if we truly designed from we are all equal before the law were all equal to each other and we all deserve to have a decent life. This is one of the things that in the indigenous critique, which is the second chapter of the dawn of everything, we find that the Enlightenment thinkers were way off base and it was actually the dialogue with the Native Americans that brought about the true Enlightenment in Europe. It's like, you guys here, you have this idea that you're better than everybody, you're constantly fighting among yourselves. We make sure everybody has the means for a good life. And then we, once they have that then things are flow from there. And I just wanna briefly read something that Gil sent out yesterday. This is from Graber's book, Debt the First 5,000 Years. Freudian tells the story of how one day after coming home hungry from an unsuccessful walrus hunting expedition, he found one of the successful hunters dropping off several hundred pounds of meat. He thanked him profusely and the man objected indignantly. Up in our country, we are human, said the hunter. And since we are human, we help each other. We don't like to hear anybody say thanks for that. What I get today, you may get tomorrow. Up here, we say that by gifts, one makes slaves and by whips, one makes dogs. So how about we start to operate from there? Thank you. That's beautiful, Ken, thank you. Michael, thanks for posting what you wanted to say in the chat, but go ahead and give it a swing and then we'll take us out of the call. Yeah, I just really love the tug back and forth on the issue of scale. And I mean, the key thing that we get from the scale we've got is at least the opportunity for transparency on how different people operate with different values in different places. And the idea that the ways we should be and the values we should have are going to be bestowed on us by world governance, I mean, no. And people do wanna differ and some terrible things could happen at the local level if everyone was allowed to do whatever they wanted to, but so long as the universal value was the freedom to leave and that might involve UBI and some things like an end to racism and generational wealth and a bunch of other stuff. But yeah, I can't put it in a nutshell but if anybody's interested, I've stuck some more coherent notes in the chat. And the key thing that it comes back to is interoperable standards that I use a food metaphor and what I'm saying in the chat, that people are gonna eat differently, people are gonna do things differently. The best we can hope for is to be transparent to have nutrition labels, to let people make their choices of need is murder or not and let people learn, take advantage of the scale of protocol that we've got via the internet to learn from people who are not in the same locale but might share the same values and doesn't involve I have to influence all the way up the hierarchy to get my nation to change its policy and then conquer another nation that has a differing policy and get it all the way down to the other end. No, people in that not coercive power hierarchy but in that sort of more species like hierarchy can realize that, oh, this way of living here in North America has learnings to have from this group of people in Southeast Asia and that one in Northern Europe, fine. It doesn't mean that everybody in between has to do it the same way, that's me. Thanks, Michael. Ken, I'm assuming you're stepping in because you have a nice way to wrap our call. Yeah, it's actually nothing to do with this call. In about a little over 24 hours from now, I will be interviewing our favorite person on the call, Pete Kaminsky for the Society 2045 call, which didn't make it into the Plex. So I'm gonna send the invitation out on the OGM list. It's 10 o'clock tomorrow morning, Pacific time. There's a Zoom link. You can get it, we'll have to have some of you on the call as members of the studio audience to ask Pete questions after I'm done interviewing him. So anybody who can make it, please do so. Nice, we can do some heckling from the audience? Yeah, absolutely, but except you'll all be muted. So it's gonna have to be gestural heckling. That's not fair. No, you can do that. Yeah, whatever you want, you know. Mike, do you have something else to point us to? Be easy on him. He's a great guy, come on. One last thought, if you want a better world or at least a better web, vote for the Webby Awards. Today's the last day. Vote for the Webbies. All right, everybody. Thank you very, very much. Up your empathy quotient. Great, great. Thank you so much, really good. Thank you, Jerry. Thanks, guys. Thank you, Pete.