So I guess, where are you finding that you can start kind of doing this work with governments that maybe are a little bit more You know, a little less regulation to get the process started and hopefully the latecomers will see the value of the work being done and it might lead to faster regulation or, you know, less regulation when you do the next project.

So if you want to do very large projects, so like 100,000 hectares, a million hectares and beyond, then you almost cannot help but intersect with some of these governmental bodies, and you will need to work through that level of paperwork.

Though I think as people can see on the other side of this, like how much the landscape health function, you know, that natural infrastructure is improved by these sort of interventions on the landscape, then I think it should get easier over time because most of those regulations were created to prevent people from damaging the landscape.

right? So if you basically show, yeah, no, actually every project we've done biodiversity is up, total biomass in those ecosystems is up, the function of these natural metabolisms are all working better, then I think we would have met the spirit of the law quite closely, which is let's not accidentally do things that harm the land.

That's where those regulations largely came from.

So I think this can clean out a bit as we have a little bit more repetitions, you know, behind us basically.

But if you're working on a smaller project, so let's say you are a independent landholder in the American West and you have 10 acres to your name or 50 hectares to your name, then yeah, a lot of those folks could just use cheaper tools that are currently being produced to just effectively do it themselves, right? They're private landholder, they have the ability to go and do certain changes in land management to the lands that they own.

So to that end, where do you see your technology, the companies you're working with, their technology being adopted, which areas, which countries are actually using this and being proactive about using the technology to improve the ecology?

[chatter]

Okay.

A little bit on the long side.

The answer is one day.

And here's what it looked like.

So basically, the, the magic piece is the coat hanger.

The coat hanger, I bent it in a s- specific shape, and the top loop goes around your neck, and then the bottom loop rests against your chest.

Learn more at accenture.com/spotify.

And when you meet founders working on 200-year problems, how do you evaluate whether they have the mindset for multi-generational impact versus just wanting to flip a company?

So to be clear, when I say it's going to take two to 500 years, I'm specifically referring to the mission of our firm, which is a big enough mission that I think a lot of people get on board, which is working toward a world where humanity can become a net positive to nature.

Because in that world, nature is healthier every year that humans are around because we're around.

And right now we're not really in that world yet.

We're, you know, in several ways the opposite of that world.

But we will need to go reach that state at some point in human history because anything that is actually fall short of that... then you have a big problem.

You have a death date to civilization.

And if you could go back in time when you started Antoine Ventures, what is the one thing you would have focused on or done anything differently?

But if that's true, why has it been so hard to make the case that being green and profitable aren't in conflict?

Yes, ninety percent are in aligned with, uh, uh, between economy and ecology, and just to go and, and make that a little bit more concrete.

If you look at the cost structure of basically every physical business, then the three categories that drive ninety percent of the cost are the feedstock cost, which is the cost of the atoms that you're going to be working with in your physical business.

The processing cost, which is the cost of transforming those atoms, uh, you know, using energy and labor, uh, in order to go make it into the new format that you are hoping it, uh, for it to be in.

And then the transport logistic cost, which is the cost of getting those atoms to you in the first place and getting the end products away from you.

Now, all three of those categories are well aligned between the ecological and economic goal.

If you could use less energy for the same amount of product, then you're asking less of the grid and you are saving money.If you are, you know, able to go produce stuff with a fraction of the feedstock, then less extraction from the planet to go make your product or service and, and also saving a lot of money.

How do we reforest our collective attention?

He suggests a new way to think about our place on this planet, challenges what he views as the false trade-offs between economic growth and ecological health, and shows how innovation can become a force for restoration rather than extraction.

So over the last decade, I've been working on resolving a profound paradox, and simply stated, it's that if you go and talk with any person, actually you could go grab 100 random people off the street, and you were to go ask them, you know, how do they feel about nature, you're gonna end up with extremely positive answers ranging from, you know, it, nature's inspiring, you know, nature, you know, is, is the most beautiful thing that, that exists.

They... and you'll see it everywhere.

They'll put it as the, the backdrop of their desktop and their phones, like, like every little thing [laughs] absolutely.

Um, every single person you ask, you're gonna get like a, a, a pretty positive response.

And even though if you ask all these individuals how they feel about nature, they're really positive about it, somehow as a collective civilization, we've come together and we are, uh, destroying nature at a planetary scale.

And therein lies the paradox.

[laughs]