Nate Hagens

So for those individuals who

hear you and have that response, can you lay out your best argument for why living system management is also critical for meeting the human needs and wellbeing in our communities, especially I'll re bring it in now as we approach a lower energy and material throughput world.

That was always my view of local currencies is people thought, oh, they poo-pooed it.

This isn't going to run.

People are still going to want their dollars.

And there's approximate and an ultimate.

And the approximate goal is to have local economy and do things more locally.

But the ultimate goal is what you said.

It's to build the social capital.

Irrespective of what future arrives and what better place and way to do it on your soils and the flora and fauna in your community and the fields and the meadows and the other species, that is something that you all experience and share.

And if you use that as the crucible where people come together and talk about these things, you don't need to have a checklist of all the things we do.

You just start talking and communing.

Dare I ask if you have some vision and plan on how that might be accomplished, either in Colorado or in the United States or in communities around the world?

So what you're suggesting is that we, well, first of all, we look at forests as dollar signs for the most part.

The Vanguard is looking at them as carbon and the ability to sequester carbon.

But you're saying an even wider boundary is looking at them as part of your living systems management.

You probably maybe watched the podcast I did with Anastasia Makareva on the biotic pump and how she...

pretty compellingly to me argued that trees are not only important for storing carbon, but for also the managing the water cycle, as you've just mentioned.

So can we, like, is this actually a conversation that's happening in the state of Colorado that has a lot of trees?

How can sustainable forestry support this idea of managing for water rather than just carbon?