It is true that longevity is increasing. I think it's gone up 17 years since a hundred years ago, very, very impressive. Ten of those years are at the beginning of life, basically sanitation and vaccination. Our ability to get children through childhood. That's where the great gain is. There are plenty of people living to be in their 80s or 90s in the last century if they could survive those first couple of years. The seven years at the other end is by and large a result of medical intervention. And yes, we have come up with ingenious technologies to treat the people we have second. And the choice we have now, which is to continue to medicalize the chronic disease problem, the food system is creating. We could go down a path where every street corner in the inner city, next to the payday loan store, has a dialysis clinic. But it will bankrupt us. It's very expensive. The way we're treating heart disease, great example. We are prolonging the life and mortality is down, but the underlying incidence of heart disease may not be down at all. There's some dispute about it. But what we've gotten good at is keeping people alive once they have these diseases. So the question you have to answer is, is that the way you want to deal with it? Now, capitalism loves to deal with problems by creating new industries to solve those problems. And there is a very strong economic imperative to go down that path. My argument is that it would be a whole lot more economical and beautiful to focus on changing the diet rather than hooking us all up to more and more effective machines. There was a recent study put out by the Union of Concerned Scientists in America that found that on balance GM in soy had reduced yields. And that in corn under very certain circumstances it increased yield. What GM has done so far is not very helpful to the world's poor to anyone, which is to say it is allowed farmers to expand the size of their holdings. But expanding monocultures is not contributing to our health or our happiness. It's contributing to more processed food and more meat consumption. Most of that grain that's being grown with GM is feeding animals. In 2008, which was a year of supposed food crisis, we grew enough food to feed 11 billion people. Most of it was not eaten by humans as food. However, a great deal of it was fed to animals about half to feed our meat habit. And a great deal, especially in the United States, was fed to automobiles. Because we're driving our cars on food right now. So it is not a question of the yield of the arable land we have so much as to what use we're putting all this food we're growing. In fact, there's a recent review of the literature that found that in industrial areas organic achieves 92% of the yield of industrial. Okay, 8% loss in yield. But you go to the developing world and it produces 182% of current yields. So if the developing world were to adapt organic production, they would have a tremendous increase. Industrial agriculture depends on huge amounts of fossil fuel. To produce this kind of processed food, it takes 10 calories of fossil fuel energy to produce one calorie of food energy. You know, this is a system ostensibly based on photosynthesis. There should be a way to get more energy rather than less when you're producing food. And there is under certain systems. In the same way, we're going to have to learn how to drive an industrial economy without a lot of fossil fuel. We're going to have to learn how to create a lot of food without a lot of fossil fuel. There are the stirrings of a movement. And it's very exciting to see what's happening. You have a tremendous growth in local food economies, in organic food, even in bad economic time. They're tremendous issues around affordability, however. Cheap food is a blessing to the poor, arguably. But in fact, I think what's happened is we've reduced the amount of money we have to spend on food and made food cheap. And that seems like a good thing. But in fact, what's happened is that in America, cheap food has subsidized the decline of wages. So that savings has been captured by employers more than an individual. We are not doing very much to stimulate the growing of the produce or the purchase of the produce. We're doing a lot to subsidize the building blocks of fast food. So the challenge is to figure out how to make food affordable. Not necessarily cheaper, but more affordable. And that may mean giving people more money to buy higher quality food rather than cheapening everything in sight.