You're on a roll and I just want to interject one thing before we go on to the next point, which is we were talking about payment-free ecosystem services, but that's really part of a broader discussion that's going on in the development community about conditional cash transfers and unconditional cash transfers. And there's interesting literature about this. Part of this debate is because, you know, there are international aid agencies that distribute funds to Africa and Asia, Latin America, and people of As well. It's just really the best way to help people who are in poverty or to help countries develop. And because also in those kinds of projects involved, paying expatriates to live overseas, buying expensive vehicles, doing things for communities sometimes that may or may not seem to lead the development. So people of As a question, well, what if we just took that money? Sorry, this is long. No, no, that's great. But if we just took that money and instead of, you know, investing it in vehicles and plane tickets and, you know, housing for people living outside their home countries, what if we just give it to people, like literally give people several hundred dollars a year or a month or something. And the results of that research are kind of interesting because it turns out if you give a conditional cash transfer to somebody, typically someone in poverty and not a lot of money if you hundred dollars, that you find that you can have them have their children attend school more and that they can have better nutrition if you ask that to be one of the conditions of the cash transfer. And so that's maybe not entirely unexpected. You can have somebody be willing to do something to get cash. But the more unusual thing is if you make it an unconditional cash transfer and you just give a family a small stipend for no, with no strings attached whatsoever, then you still find that their children tend to go farther in school and be better nourished, completely independent of asking people or telling people that that's what you want the cash to lead to. So there are some interesting outcomes that can come out of cash transfers. And so one of the questions with payment for ecosystem services is that so that would be the, in the category of a conditional cash transfer because you put a condition on it, you're doing something for the environment in regard to the cash transfer. But I just wanted to interject that because we talked a little about this morning when we weren't here about trying to link development initiatives and achieve conservation outcomes. And this is certainly one of the discussions that's going on in the literature now largely in the wake of not very successful efforts to do this in ICDPs and other projects. Great point. And that follows with, yeah, I'll come to a figure out in a minute. It comes to the lies of fair approach, right, which is that people know best what to do with money, right. And we've seen different strategies being deployed and with different outcomes, but this research certainly looks quite promising. The key question I would have is that how do you make sure that doesn't lead to a dependency relationship? It's a great. Okay, maybe I'm confused or I know with a conditional payment to people. Wouldn't that somehow create a shift to new areas to be exploited? Like you're paying them to protect, to conserve a forest, but if they shift the pressure to a low productive area or if they start exploiting a new area, then aren't we just shifting the pressure? Right, well then. I'm getting so much exercise. This is great. Yeah, that's a very good question because I think that comes back to the question of linkage. So I was just kind of relating what's been seen in some of the development literature, but if you look at Paul Ferrara's work as we talked about this morning, a little bit of trying to link specific conservation actions or outcomes to specific programs, then you might well ask of these programs. People can do anything they want with the money. That may have beneficial personal or developmental outcomes, but if you're trying to achieve a conservation goal, you might want to find that in fact you're just pushing pressure somewhere else and think there's a right answer to that, but that's a very good one. And all of this is coming to the issue we have at hand, which is that if you thought conservation was complex before, it's actually way more complex, which again has to come back to the fact that we need to expand our theoretical and methodological toolkits to understand this level of complexity. What do I personally think works best? I don't know. I think it is completely dependent upon local histories, local complexities that adequate consideration of both complex ecologies as well as complex social environments. You cannot do one without the other, which is an argument for in my point of view, and I'm sure people will disagree, and I welcome that, is to incorporate more social sciences into conservation training, which is one of the things we're trying to do in this course. So one of the ways is that people are often very, very, they don't want to move forward with new conservation initiatives unless they have aired their historical grievances and they've worked on this. The second one is to move beyond the nature of culture behind the tree, because I think that's put us in a lot of problems in the first place. Inhancing communication, like I said, it's not just about translation, but it is about an understanding, right? And sometimes we tend to rely primarily on voice or text as the main way of communicating and I think we need to go beyond that. There are subtleties in communication that we need to understand. Again, I'll make a ploy for long term and continued place-based learning and research. It's not until you've started been in these places for a long period of time that you tend to understand these complexities. This one is one that has been used a lot, which is engage communities and research in research, but what exactly do we mean by engage? Do you have members of local communities employed simply as research assistants so that they understand what the research is about or the importance of conservation? One argument I can do here, which is quite dominant within the literature, is this idea of citizen science, which is you take citizens, whether they're from the local area or from abroad and engage them as part of the learning experience. Now, not research, but the learning experience as a whole. There are things we can learn from them about their encounters as much as their stuff that they can learn from us as experts or scholars in the field. Now this is only one part of the cycle, which is to actually go back and present your research back to communities. I think this is super important because we might think that we've gone to a place, we've done research for 18 months, oh, I know everything there is to know now. Then you take your science and your results and you go and present it to the local communities and they go, well, that's not what we meant. That's a critical part of research that I think we need to continue to deploy and then finally to merge social complexity with ecological complexity. And I'll stop there. Thank you.