Alright. So thanks for inviting me. Well, maybe I'll start with, just a bit of, like, history. So, you know, I've been reading up on micro history, the history of humanity, basically. And so one one of the things that I learned is that civilization was actually a reaction to climate change. So there was a great drying eight thousand years ago, and North Africa, dried up, and Mesopotamia swampified. And so the people who live there either had to leave or or or manage nature. Right? And so civilization was a local thing, a geographic thing, where, like, basically, the countryside and the city. And what is new today is that we have this major capacity for non territorial coordination. So that's basically also what coordination is about. So in other words, we now have the capacity to cooperate between people who are no longer in the same place, which before was difficult. You know, Telegram, horses, pigeons, I mean, it took time. Now we have instantaneous potential collaboration between people anywhere in the world. So that creates a second layer. And then the question becomes, what is the optimal relation between those two layers? And I'm probably not the only one to feel that we are in some kind of meta crisis. So there's different aspects of our civilization that are simultaneously at stake. And in this sense, I see cosmologicalism as a new paradigm, right? So the end of five thousand years of physical civilization and the beginning of something new, which is a civilization that is half physical and half nonphysical. And so, okay, that's the history. I think this is where we are. The definition that I use, I'm not sure. It's not mine, but I got it from somewhere. But I really like the formula, which is everything that's heavy is local, and everything that's light is global and shared. So why is this important? Well, we spend two or three times more in thermodynamic expenditure, so matter energy, to transport than to make. So it makes a lot of sense at this stage of civilization history to say, we really need to relocalize. Like, that could potentially save us two thirds of, you know, matter energy expenditure. So that's very important. But what will be catastrophic is that we localize and we lose all the advantages of global cooperation. And this is something that maybe people who love localization will not necessarily appreciate. But, you know, local communities don't innovate that much. And I remember reading, a paper on the Inca empire. And I don't know if you know this, but the Incas have these, like, different levels, terraces. Right? And each terrace has a different biotope, allows different types of vegetables to grow. None of the indigenous tribes had that. So when the Inca empire retreated, there would be like a die out of up to 90% of the population. So the surplus population comes from the civilization, right? And so when the civilization, in other words, when the intellectual cooperation diminishes, the culture diminishes because culture is thermodynamic. Like, if you don't have as much matter and energy and knowledge, then you can no longer support so many people. So if you if you combine reterritorialization of material production, and I use the difficult word, the subsidiarity of material production, you know, to relocalize to the extent that it makes sense. Right? It's not like, an absolute, but it's like a relative term. But then we need to obtain what I call economies of scope. So under capitalism, we have economies of scale, meaning you produce as much as you can from one thing so that the price per unit goes down. And that then allows you to operate with more profit, but at the cost of more matter energy all the time. Economies of scope means doing more with the same. In other words, mutualization, in other words, commoning. Right? Circumensoscope means that if you are an ecosystem, then any innovation in that ecosystem through the digital corporation becomes available for the whole network. Right? So you combine distributed manufacturing using all the new technologies that we have today, like three d printing and those kind of things. But you combine it with what we've learned in open source, which is global mass collaboration, global mass coordination. And I think we have three coordination methods. We have market pricing, pricing for the market. We have planning, which can be dictatorial or democratically decided, but is a command system. And then we have StigMergy, which is the capacity to coordinate through mutual signaling in open ecosystems. And of course, this is where the ledgers come in. Right? So the the blockchain ecosystem for me is the shift from a narcissistic accounting, like, I'm making more money. I'm having more capital for my entity, which I can see in my accounting, but everything else is blind, to the capacity to the ledgers to create permanent open ecosystems where every player in the system can see what the other players are doing. And so this gives you like a a three layer capacity of, first of all, mutual coordination, you know, like work. I don't need a command to know what I have to do in Linux. I can see what is missing or Wikipedia or Arduino or whatever. Right? Then you have market pricing. And now we can have new types of accounting, which are in three d. Right? So you have classical accounting with double entry. But now we have REA accounting, resources, events, agents. That is always telling you where you are in the network. So in other words, the accounting becomes ecosystemic. And then the third layer, this is a bit more controversial, but I think like can we solve the resource issues that we have today, you know, peak resources and all of that? Can we solve that in a non authoritarian way, like without command and control, rationing? And I think that, so this is called the global thresholds and allocations approach. So imagine you have a scientific entity that keeps track, you know, the table, Mendeleev table. And it knows how much copper there is, how much rare earth materials there are, like what's the average productivity growth, what is the bio circularity, so how much you keep after you reuse it. And it knows particularly the negative thresholds. You cannot go under this without destroying the renewability of that resource, right? And something very simple to remember is whenever you're more than 1%, you're exponential. Right? So What do you mean? Well, if you have more than 1% growth per year, you are exponential. Like the the cumulative growth Right. Okay. Yeah. Becomes, infinite. You know, not immediately, but, you know, it's like the grain and the and the checkboard thing. Right? Right. So so so imagine we have a table that tells us this, you know, the thresholds and then the allocations. Now, of course, that's a huge political problem. You know, is there any powerful country willing to abide by limits that, you know, favor less less strong. But I think when you look at history and of course, it's a bit cynical, but whenever there was a huge cost of warfare and conflict, we actually came to these types of of solutions. Right? So after Napoleon, we have hundred years of peace in Europe, not outside, but in Europe. After World War II, we have the welfare state for seventy years. Right? So each time there is a huge conflict, and I think we're building up to it, there will be reasons to actually shift to something that sounds utopian today but may not be tomorrow. Anyway, so cosmonolocalism is, again, it's a new way of looking at civilization where we combine relocalization, bio regionalization, bio circularity, you know, like a real shift towards a balanced economy. But we we need fast innovation in these regenerative approaches, and that's why we need this global cooperation level. It cannot be IP based because then, you know, the corporations keep it for themselves and don't want to share it. So,

So we so we created geographic civilizations based on creating a surplus from agriculture. And then humanity experimented with various forms, empire, trading coalitions like the Greek polis and the Phoenicians and the Hanseatic League, feudalism, and maybe then the nation state, and maybe today bioregionalism. So we're trying to find out what's the best way to manage geographical locations, which also depends on identity. Right? So if you're a nation state, you have an identity that is like a cultural history, a common cultural history. In empire, you had more like a world religion because it was independent of the local culture. And so now we're starting the same in the immaterial field. So as we create these non territorial coordinations, which is a brilliant concept, I think, coordination, I think is really wonderful. So the question is, what is the best way to do that? And then, again, you can see the open source Flows Foundations was this one way. So when I look at open source, I see a triarchical structure. You have the open source communities, which do stigmergy, like how do Wikipedians work together, and Linux, how do they make up their rules over time? Then you have market players and how was the relation between the community of the contributors and the market players. And then you have Flos Foundations, which they found is the best way to have like a neutral collective entity, which manages the infrastructure of cooperation. I think what you're talking about is already like a step further because I think what people what we are discovering is that some people want to retain a nation state and there's a certain revival of nation state identity, especially like populism, Brexit, and all that stuff. So what some sociologists call the somewheres, they're really attached to that and I can understand that because they want to regain sovereignty and so they want to re strengthen the nation state. But you have a lot of people, the nowheres, or I like to call them everywheres, but I'll come back to that. So we are more free from our nation. We can work anywhere because we have the digital. And so you can imagine that amongst those people, the identity markers of the nation are weakening and that you have a need for new identity. Right? So in that sense, that's nation. I'm not saying yet state, but that's already nation. So the idea that if we are predominantly working online and relating to people non territorially, that we need more. We need more identity. We need more culture. We need more collectivity. And so I think that starts, you know, like a yearning for a new type of nation, not yet a state. And I can imagine that the next step would be, well, okay, we are a nation. You know, we're digital nomads. Like, I met here this group of Chinese people, the Global Chinese Commons, right, like a diaspora that tries to organize itself. Well, that's clearly a form of nation. Like, they have a specific identity. We are Chinese. We work abroad. And we want to maintain and renew our Chinese culture. That to me is already like stepping to a nation. And the next step would be, well, maybe we can have solidarity mechanisms, right? Maybe we can have legal structures. Maybe we can have lawyers that can defend us when we have conflicts. So that's already like going to a step further. Right? Would you consider that the Chinese diaspora

Well, the way I mean, I I can't speak for them, but I had several conversations. And so what they tell me is that they feel troubled as Chinese, that they have a difficulty of knowing exactly what it means to be Chinese. Right? And so because they have all these old philosophies, Confucianism, Taoism, then they have the layer of Marxism and how China adapted to Western philosophy. But now there's a new layer of crypto. Right? And so they want to make sense of their lives and of a common condition. And I heard there are 34,000,000 digital nomads now. I can vouch for the figure, but that's what I read recently. Recently. That's huge. And, you know, like, I I am one. I live in Thailand. As soon as I leave Belgium, I was cut out from Social Security. So I have no I get no services in the Belgian state. I mean, maybe if I get arrested or something, I could, you know, ask the embassy for help. But you have more and more people like that. Right? And so if the nation state is not taking care of them, who who will? Right. So now it's purely private insurance. So I I think it's like a logical step to think, well, actually, we want to be a community. We want to help each other out. And, you know, since we are people moving around, like, let's create more structure. And is that going to be a state that I I leave that open? But it's certainly a direction to more than just a nation. Right? Right. There's institutionalization there or maybe executionalization. I'm not sure. But anyway, do you see what I mean? Right? So I think it's a logical, like, organic evolution.

engendering and and focus on the politics. Absolutely. So what I found so and actually, enthusing, so, Nicholas Hu, he wrote a paper about this, and he's very specific on, like, we're going to create this community and co working centers, but we'll be at the service of local communities. Right? Not Chinese communities. Like, they're in Thailand, they're in Turkey, they're going different places. So that's amazing. That's that's cosmologicalism for me already. And then the next step is, you know, there are people in China who are, like, transforming their farms, into co ops, and they want to be connected with the knowledge of the outside world. They don't want to be just like Chinese. They want to be, you know, Guarduino, which is, you know, the Arduino is the open hardware computer and Guarduino is an adaptation of it, like, to monitor, plants and vegetables in in glass houses or something like that. Right? And you have the Appropriedia, which is a Wikipedia for appropriate technology. Right? So they want to have all of that. They want to be cosmological. They don't want to be just local. And so imagine this connection between the Chinese diaspora, you know, working with Thai and Turkish communities, but also connected to communities. I mean, that's cosmological. And eventually, I mean, this might be utopian, but I think, you know, in terms of war and peace, I I know I know people have thought about this, that technology would, you know, change the world. And and I I still like to believe that on a very fundamental level, living like that for, you know, some decades would really make people think, like, why would we go to war with this other physical nation, you know, and we're actually cooperating with these people all the time. I I don't I hope that makes sense, but I I think that eventually that creates this extra layer of human consciousness and identity that will create, you know, more planetary cooperation and and peacemaking.

we say, less educated, blue collar workers who really want to I'd like to say something about that. Right. Yeah. So, you know, the if Christopher Leisch was the first to write about this in the seventies when, you know, he wrote the culture of narcissism, and he was already noting that, like, there was a educated class that was really detaching itself more and more from working class, concerns. And, you know, neoliberalism, what else was it than that? Like, basically sacrificing your national working class to get cheaper goods abroad. Right? And so this is where some new sociologists talk about nowheres and somewheres, right? So somewheres are less educated and therefore are bound to their to their region. They cannot simply leave because they don't have a skill set to do so. Or their skill set is just heavily

bound. Yes. Yes. And then you have other people like us that, you know, we can move around and there's a crisis in Greece where Greek people can work in Portugal and they can go to Berlin. And and so but here's the thing that, you know, I think we can critique the crypto world is that it is some way it's a secession of the elites. Right? So in Rome, ancient Rome, there was a secession of the plebs. And like five or six times, the plebs actually left Rome to put pressure on the Senate because it wasn't taking into account their concerns. And but we are doing the opposite. It's like the elite is leaving and is you know, we talk about deplorables and all of that. And and and so a lot of crypto libertarianism is kind of this idea, okay, we know the situation is bad, but we are gonna use crypto to escape somehow. Right? Like, a money system that can survive a crash of the fiat, And then we can coordinate and move around. When there's a crisis in Argentina, we can move somewhere else. But I think that's not sustainable in the long run because in the end, we need food. We need things to eat. We need objects, and the cognitive is in in some way dependent on all that. Right? So the idea that you can just, like, have a cognitive world that is separate, from the broader population, I think, is profoundly mistaken in the long in the long term. And so that's why I like things like the crypto commons alliances, but actually, I'm even critical of that as well because I think they should be much more keen on actually working with physical commons Right. Like community land trust, you know, collective housing, coworking. And that's why I also partly like this Chinese project because they are using crypto governance for physical spaces. And that's I I don't know of many examples before. So I changed my mind coming here in Zuzalu because I saw how many people are actually trying to escape this kind of, like, elitism and connect, you know, and creating, like, regenerative, productive communities that can be like examples, right? Like the monasteries were in the Middle Ages, like, you know, people who basically saw the agricultural crisis of the late Roman of late antiquity by creating a vile mechanism in the rules of Saint Benedict. And they completely restored Italian agriculture, which had been collapsing. And then in the eleventh century, pan European. So, you know, these were educated agricultural workers, basically. Right? So who so I'm not saying we have to copy that kind of, kind of

But you could argue maybe that, you know, it has some kind of spirituality of life, you know, like it's Sure. It's, you know, it's like a set it's a vision that doesn't necessarily draw on any theology, but that says, yeah, we have to save life, we have to care for the earth, we have to care for others. I think that's a very good thing.

Oh, yeah. Of Yeah. Digital

I I I was thinking about this because, you know, Joel Kotkin wrote this book about the two middle classes. And he says, you have the business middle class, and you have the clerisy. And he says, that's me and academia, and they're dependent on government funding and NGO funding, and they've become like, an adjunct to the system. And then the business class, you know, because of neoliberalization and the industries is being alienated. And so that, you know, they vote for the other side now. Right? Right. This is different. Like, this is an like a third, you know, I I think we need to theorize this. I I haven't done it myself. But I'm thinking, yeah, these are neither one nor the other. Right? They're not clarity. They don't work for NGOs and and and and media and academia, but they're also not in traditional business. Like, they, you know, they don't have employees and and they don't pay wages. And so this is, like, really almost like a native class. Right?

category. They've created a way to pay open source. Right? With tokenization

This is a brilliant, insight. And I, you know, I didn't know that vocabulary is very interesting. I you know, so neoliberal states, right, they have this thing which is attract capital. And I think said this the only thing worse than being exploited by capital is not being exploited by capital because then, you know, you stay poor and there's no investment. There's nothing. And I think what you see now, like, in Montenegro, in Portugal is that they start competing for talent. Right? They start competing to to have digital nomads come to their country. And that's, yeah, that's already a sign that they have, power of attraction. So I I want to introduce this concept of everywheres. So right? Somewheres and nowheres. Right? And so the nowhere vocabulary kind of indicates this detachment. And so you don't care about the somewhere because you don't mind. You can move. And I think everywhere for me is like a new instantiation of the idea of organic intellectuals. So you think about the nineteenth century, you know, if you were intellectual, you could either work for the system or you could work for the labor movement. Right? And so there was actually a substantial amount of people who were privileged, educated, but at the service of the labor movement of the working class. And, you know, Gramsci wrote about this and and and others. And I think this has gone wrong. Like, where are these people today? So less and less the case We need more class traders. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. And so I think the way I see it everywhere is so imagine you have all these local instantiations of distributor manufacturing, right, and doing the local stuff. But then you have people who were the connectors. And they know how the global corporation works. They know the protocols of corporation at a translocal level. But they're at the service of these local commons in in instances. And I so I you know, I think we need this. You know, so in the Catholic church, we had the prophets and the bishops. There's a fantastic book by Karl Kautsky, Foundation of Christianity, where he shows how the bishops took took the power away from the prophets, like the apostles were traveling around. And, you know, to the degree they wanted to control their their resources, they they shut them out. And now we need to do the opposite. Right? We need to recreate these local commons, territorial production with distributed manufacturing. But we also need people who can move around, who are highly educated, know the protocols of cooperation, and and can be more flexible than the average person with a family who wants to stay in one particular place. Because I I hope you noted that most people here are in their thirties and early forties, late twenties. And, you know, the digital nomad lifestyle may not be ideal once you want to, you know, like, have a kid, which I think a certain amount of people still want to do.

Yeah. You know, the way I I think is, like, high-tech, high touch. Right? You the more we move up because I I think the crisis of our civilization is also hyper mediation and virtualization. And, like, we just lose touch with the basic needs and how they are produced, and that creates, like, ecological alienation. Mhmm. Like, we just don't care about the physical basis of our of life. And so in a way, you know, I I I mean, I'm not an expert in these things, but I would like to see an education a bit like Steiner schools, all of schools where, you know, you go you're like, you're in school, you make the food in the school, You do some crafts. And so you you realize, you know, embodied in an embodied way that, you know, doing the cognitive and the art and the culture is really connected, you know, and embodied and related to. And there's some interesting, new schools that try to do that. You know, there's, it's a bit conservative as an example, but it's it's called Saint Joseph the Worker. Saint Joseph the Worker. Yeah. Okay. And it's, you know, they're like social Catholics. So they're culture conservative, but they're like socially progressive. And so you you become a craft person. You you only pay the first year. And then after this as as of the second year, you already have a master fellow, you know, type of work, and you already earn money. But then they they actually at the same time, they learn high level intellectuality. So they they study Aquinas. They study Dorothy Day. They study basically the dignity of work. Okay. You know, you don't have to believe in that stuff, but I think that kind of melange, I think is is very good. Like, you you know, I'm a typical example of somebody who who doesn't have that. Like, I just can't do anything with my hands, and I don't think that's normal. Right? And, you know, okay. But we so we should have human beings who don't have that, you know, unipolarity. They should be more balanced. And, you know, our new types of education should be able to do that.

coordination. So in in a sense, I think that the medieval times were cosmological.

communication. Wait. Wait. Wait. I I think they had a global open source community called the Catholic Church.

all the Benedictines, they shared their technical knowledge over vast distances. You know, it it took some more time, but, you know, it was a viral mechanism. Right? So that the way it worked was you, you know, once you had 48 monks and don't forget, they were agricultural workers. Like, half of their day was spent, you know, growing food. When they were 48, they had to split. Right? And so they had all this knowledge that would just, like, get to another place, and and they were learning from each other. So you think about 98% of people in cities were members of associations. And everything was based on contracts and agreements and charters because there was no strong central power. Right? I'm not saying it was perfect. That's not what I want to say, but I'm just saying it's it it shows that it's possible to have those kinds of arrangements. Right?

we are still a different early city. Yeah. Yeah. It's very different. But you have to remember that if you were a guild member in the Middle Ages, you could actually travel. So you had they had halfway houses in different cities. So if you were like a mason or a carpenter, it wasn't just local. Like, you you know, because the cathedrals, you had you had, like, two generations of workers to build a cathedral, but then they had to move. And so there were all kinds of, you know, works going on in different cities, and they actually had a a global European system. And in the Islamic world, it was the same. They had a global, you know, guild system in the Islamic world where and traders were were guild members as well. We had the merchant guilds. Right? So So I think the in terms of centralization, I think there's a bottom up centralization and a top down. Like, okay. So the Mongolians take over, you know, the whole of Eurasia. Like, that's purely top down. But when the you know, in Europe, we had the the peer to peer castellation process. Right? There was no central power. The Vikings, the Saracens, the Avars, you know, were invading Europe, and every local lord was making his own castle. And then they make agreements. You know, is basically saying, like, you know, oh, we will support this overlord because then we are stronger. Right? And so that was like from decentralization to centralization. And I think you can so there's nothing definitive about human history. But there are cycles and patterns. Right? And I think in terms of centralization, decentralization, you can look at history. You have big empires. They collapse and they create a decentralized system. And after some while, that consolidates again to a new centralization. So definitely now, I think we are in some form of I mean, we can feel that the culture is moving towards distribution, right, distributed infrastructures. At least in our imaginary, that's what everybody wants.

And there is another type of network infrastructure which is just the same type of network, but the governance of the network is highly centralized. Versus the guild. So I I think, you know, you know, capitalism originally the word was invented to to show that it was a continuation of feudalism. You know, feudalism, capitalism, it was it was pejorative. And, basically, you know, the way I the way I see Balaji is you have venture capitalists, and you create a nation, and it's $1, 1 vote. And, you know, the more you invest in the thing, the more, I mean, I'm not sure it's 100% that way, but I think that's, you know, a very strong part of his ideology. Right? And then what we want, I think, is more like guilt, which, you know, pure democracy where, you know, there's a collective, governance of all the people. And I think that the fact that we may not be in dependency relationships in networks actually favors that kind of peer to peer dynamic. Like, you know, if I work out of enthusiasm for Linux, sometimes I'm paid, sometimes I'm not. And that creates this kind of, like, egalitarian ethos because why would I work for free and listen to you? That doesn't make that much sense. So we need to find other forms of coordination and consensus making than pure, you know, authority driven, which is basically what capital labor is about, right? I give you a job and you listen to me. The labor contract is a contract of subordination by definition. Like in at least in continental law in Europe, that's what it says. It's literally a contract of subordination.

Right. Or very little. Okay. Maybe that's a bit exaggerated. But, no, I I do think, like, for example, here, you know, I'm I'm very aware that there is actually a lot of community and and very positive dynamics. But, a lot of community and very positive dynamics. But my question is the following, like, does it last when they're in trouble? Right. Right? That's the big question. Because if you're young and healthy, yeah, sure, you can work. You are contributing. But actually, the whole welfare state is a system to help people who can no longer contribute. Right? So you have responsibilities. And that kind of solidarity, if we don't have it in the networks, it will never replace the nation state.

actually That's that's like a proto guilt. Right? And I know there is actually, you know, protocol guilt and they're they're trying to go in that direction. Mhmm. But the guilt system had an ideology of care for outside the guild as well. So do they have that or no? That's my question. And I think they should have it. But there's good reason to because, you know, as when you're a digital nomad and your nation state doesn't take care of you, you really fall between the cracks. Right? Right. So I I think eventually, maybe these things will will also come from them when they realize that Yeah. It's, you know, in their interest to to actually have a broader vision of of care.

Well, I I I do think I I think I agree with Primavera that, you know, when you observe the scene over the long term, I mean, they were very resilient over time, right? It's not just a short term profit. It's a real ideology. It's a world building project. And in that sense, it's a bit like a religion in a way. I don't say that in any pejorative way. I mean, in the sense that faith moves mountains. And when you're in a bear market, if you don't have a belief system that keeps you going, you go under, and they are not going under. They, you know, they just let two they just lost two thirds of their valuation, and they're still there, and they're still moving. There's, like, no sign whatsoever that they're beaten. I mean, yeah, there is this, kind of irrationality,

the same type of Well, you know, I I worked for three years for SMART, which in French means, So originally, it was an artist collective. And I really like their concept of autonomous worker. So basically, what they do is you join them, and they will do your invoices. Right? And then after six months, they make some calculation and say, okay, now you have two accounts and you pay yourself a salary. So for the state, you're paying taxes. You get a full measure of welfare support. But actually, you're still a freelancer choosing your job and choosing your clients. Right? So you merge passionate production with protection. And I think this is, like, one of the potential solutions. I really liked when I was consulting with them for three years. And they were really creating an identity. So in one of my proposals, which they didn't follow but I think they should have, is that to build an interface between digital nomads and the national protection systems so that I could become a member of them in Thailand, do the payments, but then I would be connected legally to the Belgian system. Right? Those things don't exist. And I think they might and should exist. As also should and could exist, you know, full on solidarity mechanisms for people who don't who don't need that connection with their original,

infrastructure to support each other. And you talk about kinship, which, you know, I question because I thought, well, that's not kinship, you know, but you talk about kinship. But it's a form of kinship in the sense of, affinity. Right? So it's not blood ties, but, like, you if you all love us the same social object, that can actually create a powerful identity, a common identity, which then pushes people to do more. And that's where I see the evolution towards nation. And then eventually, I'm not sure I believe that, but, you know, eventually, the state, full on state option is is maybe in in the cards.

No. I I don't think so. But, you know, so you so one of the things that I think is important is our ability to project to the future. Right? And especially on the left, we have collapse, deep adaptation, degrowth. I mean, there's a lot of negativity, which, of course, I don't deny that there are real dangers that explain that. But we have to be able to go to the other side of that darkness. And in a way, the right wing, because they don't see or don't want to see it, they have a more positive outlook and they have less mental issues. But I think both are wrong. Not seeing the danger and only seeing the danger. Right. So the left has to a certain degree losses utopias. And so I think that commoning the commons is like we are building something for after. Right. We are building seeds that will actually allow us to go through the storm and then create a new civilization. And I think that's very important. So the formula I use is not for me, Adam Frank, I think. So we went from an immature biosphere to a mature biosphere. And now we need to go from an immature techno sphere, which destroys the biosphere, to a mature techno sphere, which respects the the biosphere. And if we succeed, we can live for a million years or ten million years. Right? But this is like where we are. We are like in a science fiction book, you know, where, you know, they describe these things where civilizations, planetary civilizations collapse unless they solve this survival issue, which I think is exactly where we are.