One of the most entertaining parts of building the Preventable Cases Series is that I have had no formal legal training whatsoever.

No law degree.

No legal conversion course.

No years spent memorising statutes.

No institution formally authorising me to understand what the legal system claims to exist for.

And yet I can still look at the results of the system, compare them with the function it publicly claims to serve, identify the discrepancy, trace the responsibility chain, locate the missing prevention, develop the class architecture and propose remedies that many people who have spent years inside legal education have still not produced.

That is funny to me.

Not because legal training has no value.

It does.

But because legal institutions often behave as though understanding law belongs exclusively to those who have been trained to speak its language, even when the people speaking that language have become so immersed in procedure that they can no longer clearly see the purpose the procedure was supposed to serve.

I do not need to memorise every piece of legislation before I can recognise that a foundational public function has failed.

I can begin with the result.

Was the water clean?

Was the sewage treated?

Was the child protected?

Was the home insurable?

Was the public service delivered?

Was the preventable harm prevented?

Did the institution act when the risk first became foreseeable?

Did the person paying for the system receive what the system claimed to provide?

From there, the legal question can be intellectually reverse-engineered.

Was there a law intended to prevent this?

If there was, why did it fail?

If there was no law, why was the harm not prioritised?

If legislation existed but enforcement did not, who knew?

If enforcement existed but arrived only after scale, what happened to prevention?

If the law obstructed beneficial conduct while permitting greater harm, what triage produced that imbalance?

You do not need to begin inside the legislation to recognise systemic failure.

Sometimes you begin with the body lying on the floor and ask why every alarm in the building either failed, was ignored or had been designed to monitor the wrong room.

The Legal System Can Know Every Rule and Still Misunderstand Its Own Function

A person can master legal knowledge and still fail to understand legal responsibility.

That distinction matters.

Knowledge tells you what has already been written.

Discernment asks whether what has been written is sufficient, coherent, properly ordered and connected to the reality it governs.

A legal professional may know the exact threshold for a breach.

But do they ask why the system waited for the threshold?

They may know which regulator has jurisdiction.

But do they ask why responsibility was divided across so many bodies that none of them could see the whole?

They may know the available remedy.

But do they ask whether the remedy restores the person who carried the harm, or merely closes the regulator’s file?

They may know that a company complied with a permit.

But do they ask whether the permit itself represented a failure of public protection?

They may know what is enforceable.

But do they know what is important?

This is the distinction between learning a legal system and comprehending what a legal system is for.

The law claims to protect order, rights, safety, fairness, property, life, public welfare and institutional reliability.

Once you understand those claims, you can compare them with reality.

You can look at rivers filled with sewage, children raised inside commercial behavioural experiments, homes becoming uninsurable, public infrastructure deteriorating, taxpayers financing services they do not receive and governments funding technologies that remove job accessibility while weakening human accountability.

Then you ask a simple question:

If this is what the system was meant to prevent, why is the system repeatedly arriving after it?

That question does not require permission from a university.

It requires the willingness to look.

The Frustration Was Never Really About My Lack of Training

Last year, during my interactions with legal bodies, employees within those systems openly expressed frustration that I had no legal training.

That was not speculation.

It was said.

And what makes that reaction interesting is that my lack of training should have made me easier to dismiss.

Instead, it made the work more uncomfortable.

Because the issue was not that I had misunderstood everything.

The issue was that I was able to understand enough without passing through the institution that was supposed to own the understanding.

I was able to see the architecture from outside it.

That creates a different kind of pressure.

A formally trained person may be expected to reproduce the categories of the system.

An outsider is more likely to ask why those categories exist, why they are separated, what falls between them and who benefits from the gaps.

The frustration is not simply:

“You have not studied law.”

The deeper frustration is:

“You were not supposed to see this much without us.”

But I did.

And because I did not begin with loyalty to the categories, I could begin with loyalty to the function.

That is how the Preventable Cases Series became possible.

These Are Not Separate Cases

The sewage case is not merely about water.

The digital-childhood case is not merely about social media.

The microplastics case is not merely about packaging.

The public-infrastructure case is not merely about privatisation.

The climate-insurance case is not merely about premiums.

The cases connect because the same institutional defect appears beneath them.

Foreseeable harm is allowed to grow.

Responsibility is fragmented.

Prevention is underfunded.

Basic needs are treated as one policy area among many instead of as the foundation beneath all policy.

The public pays before the failure.

The public carries the failure.

The public finances the repair.

The responsible actors then point towards one another until the consequence becomes too distributed for any one institution to feel fully accountable.

That is the pattern.

The cases are therefore not independent publications.

They are evidence.

Each post documents a different surface expression of the same foundational legal problem: the absence of coherent triage.

All of them will feed back into the original class action against government and the wider institutional architecture that repeatedly failed to foresee, prioritise or act upon preventable harm.

The series is a public record.

It is also an evidentiary map.

The Missing Function Is Triage

The legal system often knows how to categorise.

It knows how to separate water law from environmental law, consumer law from public law, employment law from technology regulation, housing from health, education from commercial conduct and criminal punishment from social prevention.

But it does not consistently know how to rank.

That is the missing function.

Triage asks what must be protected first.

It asks what affects the most people.

What threatens life.

What threatens shelter.

What threatens water.

What threatens food.

What threatens health.

What threatens the developmental conditions of children.

What harm becomes irreversible with delay.

What can still be prevented.

Where institutional power is greatest.

Where responsibility is being offloaded.

Where intervention would reduce the most suffering.

Instead, public money is spread thin across competing demands without a stable hierarchy of human necessity.

Basic needs become departments.

They should be foundations.

Housing, food, healthcare, water, safety, education, energy, employment access and justice should carry more weight than almost everything built above them, because when those systems weaken, every other political ambition becomes theatre performed over instability.

A government can announce innovation while people cannot afford housing.

It can celebrate international influence while its rivers remain polluted.

It can fund advanced technologies while children lose educational capacity.

It can automate public administration while citizens become less able to reach a human being.

It can speak about growth while the foundation beneath ordinary life continues contracting.

This is what happens when activity replaces triage.

The People Inside the System Cannot Pretend They Saw Nothing

The Preventable Cases Series also raises a difficult question for those working inside public and legal institutions.

What happens to people who occupied roles of responsibility while these conditions were visible?

What happens to those who saw declining performance, repeated warnings, failing infrastructure, foreseeable harm and regulatory gaps but did not raise the flag?

Not every employee controls the whole system.

Responsibility must remain proportionate to authority, knowledge and capacity.

But employment inside an institution does not automatically erase individual responsibility.

There are people who knew.

There are people who saw the reports.

There are people who processed the complaints.

There are people who attended the meetings.

There are people who approved the contracts.

There are people who recognised that the system was failing and still decided that silence was professionally safer.

That silence becomes especially serious where the person materially benefited from not challenging the architecture.

Salary.

Position.

Promotion.

Access.

Reputation.

Institutional belonging.

The absence of resistance may not always be malicious.

Sometimes it is fear.

Sometimes dependency.

Sometimes exhaustion.

Sometimes the belief that one person cannot change anything.

But when enough people use that explanation, institutional failure becomes self-protecting.

Everyone is waiting for someone else to become responsible.

Then, when the class action arrives, some of those people may find themselves caught in the crossfire because they never clarified where they stood while the harm was unfolding.

That is why alignment matters before litigation.

Not after.

What Do We Do When Governance Benefits From Harm?

This returns to the question I have already raised elsewhere:

What do we do when governance benefits from harm?

Criminal justice provides one of the clearest examples.

More crime produces more cases.

More cases justify more budgets.

More budgets sustain more institutions.

More institutions sustain more careers.

The system may publicly oppose harm while structurally depending on the continuation of the conditions that produce it.

There would be fewer people entering criminal systems if more people worked effectively inside prevention.

If housing were stable.

If childhood development were protected.

If education cultivated discernment.

If addiction were addressed before criminalisation.

If communities had access to care.

If employment remained accessible.

If public environments did not constantly reproduce instability.

But prevention threatens the volume on which reactive institutions are built.

That is the uncomfortable conflict.

A system may claim that it wants fewer harms while rewarding itself for processing more consequences.

This is why prevention teams should be larger than punishment teams.

The greatest number of people should be working before the harm.

Not after it.

The legal system should be most powerful where it can stop the damage, not merely where it can name the defendant once the damage has become expensive.

The Sewage Case Is Never Only About Sewage

Most people examine a problem through the compartment that most resembles their existing concern.

Someone interested in public health may look at sewage and ask whether it contaminates drinking water.

An environmental activist may ask what happens to fish, plant life and river ecosystems.

A swimmer may ask whether the water is safe to enter.

An angler may ask what happened to the fish population.

A farmer may ask whether contaminated water or sludge enters soil and crops.

A local business may ask whether pollution damages tourism and trade.

A parent may ask whether children can safely use the river.

A taxpayer may ask why they are paying for treatment and then paying again for clean-up.

A legal professional may ask which permit was breached.

A regulator may ask which company failed.

Every question matters.

But the real architecture is the connection between all of them.

Sewage does not remain in the category of sewage.

It enters water.

Water enters ecosystems.

Ecosystems support food.

Food enters bodies.

Bodies produce waste.

Waste returns to the same system.

When the system fails, decay moves through the cycle and returns in another form.

The public may eat crops grown within contaminated environments, consume water processed through burdened systems and produce further waste that re-enters infrastructure already unable to manage what it receives.

The failure circulates.

This is what many people miss when they look only at the object directly in front of them.

They see the river.

They do not see the cycle.

My Greatest Superpower Is Scope

My greatest superpower is not merely that I notice problems.

It is that I can widen the scope around them.

I do not only see what is in front of me.

I see what sits behind it, beneath it, beside it, before it and after it.

I see the chain of dependency.

The transferred cost.

The emotional consequence.

The environmental consequence.

The financial consequence.

The developmental consequence.

The political incentive.

The legal gap.

The future claimant.

The remedy.

The way one institutional choice migrates into five other systems.

Many people now use their minds in the same way that the eyes naturally see through a window.

They see only the visible frame.

From my window, I can see part of a tree.

If I had never left the room, I might believe that the visible branches were the whole tree.

I would not know the width of the trunk.

I would not know how far the roots spread.

I would not know what stands behind the branches.

I might not even know the colour of the building from which I was looking.

But because I have been outside, stood beneath the tree and looked back at the house, I carry more information than the window alone provides.

That is how thinking should work.

You do not deny what is visible.

You refuse to confuse visibility with wholeness.

Most systems are governed by people staring through one window and legislating as though they have seen the entire landscape.

Education Teaches Knowledge. It Does Not Necessarily Teach Thought.

The fact that I can produce this work without legal education does not mean people should not study.

It means education is not the end of intelligence.

School can give knowledge.

It can give structure.

It can give language.

It can give access to established thinking.

But it does not automatically teach discernment.

It does not always teach someone how to compare what an institution says with what it produces.

It does not necessarily teach someone how to widen scope, question categories, recognise incentives, connect disciplines or reverse-engineer a system from its consequences.

Often, it teaches people how to think within a subject.

It does not teach them how the subject connects to the whole.

Critical thinking can allow a person to match, and sometimes exceed, what formal education provides because critical thinking does not stop at information.

It tests the information.

It asks what is missing.

It asks what the information protects.

It asks who benefits from the frame.

It asks whether the conclusion survives when the scope becomes wider.

Discernment builds sight.

Curiosity builds range.

Practice builds speed.

The more often someone learns, integrates, questions and creates, the faster the mind becomes at organising new information.

That is not magic.

It is trained intellectual movement.

The Old Social Formula No Longer Guarantees the Old Result

Society handed generations a formula:

Go to school.

Get a degree.

Find a job.

Build a career.

Buy a home.

Marry.

Have children.

Live the respectable life.

That formula was never universally accessible, but it was more reliable in previous eras than it is now.

Fifty years ago, formal education may have offered a stronger competitive advantage because fewer people possessed the same credentials and labour markets were structured differently.

Today, many sectors are saturated.

Degrees are widespread.

Entry routes are narrowing.

Housing is less accessible.

Public services are strained.

Automation is expanding.

AI is capable of absorbing parts of the very work students are borrowing money to learn.

Many graduates do not work in the industries they studied for.

Others enter those industries and still struggle to establish secure lives.

This does not make education worthless.

It means education without strategy is no longer enough.

A person entering law, medicine, technology or any other crowded profession now needs to ask:

What separates me?

What can I see that others cannot?

What responsibility am I willing to carry that others avoid?

What problem can I solve beyond repeating the existing role?

A lawyer who is willing to hold systems accountable may distinguish themselves more than a lawyer who merely understands the rules of the same failing architecture.

But the deeper truth is that a person does not need to become a lawyer before beginning to build the case.

They can investigate.

Document.

Compare.

Construct the chronology.

Identify the class.

Map the responsibility.

Develop the remedies.

A lawyer may later be required to advocate within particular court processes.

But the thinking can begin before legal representation.

Authority does not have to begin with professional permission.

AI Will Expose the Difference Between Knowledge and Intelligence

This distinction becomes even more urgent as AI expands.

AI can hold enormous quantities of information.

It can retrieve legal language.

Compare documents.

Summarise cases.

Generate arguments.

Organise evidence.

But information-holding is not the same as consciousness.

Pattern recognition is not the same as responsibility.

Output is not the same as judgement.

If people have been trained only to reproduce knowledge, AI may appear to surpass them.

If education teaches people to memorise, classify and repeat, then a machine that memorises, classifies and repeats at greater speed will displace them.

The human competitive edge is not merely knowing more.

It is discerning more.

Understanding context.

Recognising consequence.

Holding moral responsibility.

Seeing the whole architecture.

Knowing when the category is wrong.

Knowing when the system’s answer is internally coherent but humanly absurd.

If people surrender those capacities, AI may become the highest operational authority despite having no consciousness, no lived consequence and no capacity to carry responsibility for what it produces.

That is the trap.

The authority moves upward.

The accountability disappears downward.

What Kind of System Are People Bringing Children Into?

This question cannot be separated from future generations.

Bringing a child into the world is not only a private desire.

It is also an introduction into an existing system.

What does that system provide?

Will the child have stable housing?

Clean water?

Accessible healthcare?

Safe education?

Protected development?

Work opportunities?

Environmental security?

A functioning social structure?

Or are parents bringing children into a system that has not yet learned to prevent obvious harm, then hoping they will somehow protect the child from every institutional weakness individually?

For people who wish to have children, repairing the system should become part of preparing for them.

Otherwise, the parent may be creating the conditions in which the child must fight harder for things that should have been foundational.

The parent may struggle to provide because employment is unstable.

The child may enter education systems unable to support concentration.

They may grow inside environments shaped by commercial technology.

They may inherit polluted infrastructure, unaffordable housing, weakened public services and institutions that repeatedly act after harm rather than before it.

The purpose is not to tell people never to have children.

The purpose is to widen the responsibility attached to the decision.

Preparing for a child should also mean preparing the world that receives them.

The Preventable Cases Series Is an Intellectual Audit

The Preventable Cases Series is not only writing.

It is an audit of civilisation.

Each case asks:

What was known?

When was it known?

Who controlled the response?

What was prioritised instead?

Who benefited from delay?

Who carried the harm?

What would prevention have required?

Why was it not done?

What remedy would reach the actual affected population?

What does this case reveal about the architecture beneath the visible failure?

The work is provocative because it refuses to let institutions hide inside the narrowest possible description of the problem.

It is entertaining because the contradictions are sometimes absurd.

The public pays for sewage treatment while rivers receive sewage.

Children are told to regulate themselves inside products engineered to weaken regulation.

Taxpayers finance AI systems that may remove their access to work.

Governments claim to lack resources while funding lower-priority activity.

Regulators punish companies but do not repay the public.

Legal bodies become irritated that someone without legal training can see the legal architecture they have normalised themselves into no longer seeing.

You have to laugh.

Not because the harm is funny.

Because the contradiction is almost theatrical.

An Intellectual Psychedelic Trip

What I am giving people is an intellectual psychedelic trip.

Not because the work requires substances.

Because it challenges the structures people use to keep reality comfortable.

A psychedelic experience can force someone to look at familiar things without their usual categories.

It can expose connections they previously filtered out.

It can destabilise the separation between what they believed and what they actually experienced.

That is what this work does intellectually.

It asks people to look at systems for what they are.

Not what they are called.

Not what their branding says.

Not what their ceremonial role suggests.

Not what people need to believe about them in order to continue participating without discomfort.

What do they produce?

Who do they protect?

What do they repeatedly fail to prevent?

Where does the money go?

Where does the consequence go?

Who is expected to adapt?

Who is allowed to delay?

Who is forgiven through complexity?

Who is punished through immediacy?

Once those questions begin, the rabbit hole opens.

One case leads into another.

Sewage connects to health.

Health connects to housing.

Housing connects to employment.

Employment connects to education.

Education connects to childhood technology.

Technology connects to AI.

AI connects to public authority.

Public authority connects to taxation.

Taxation connects to allocation.

Allocation connects to triage.

Triage connects back to the foundational question:

What is government actually for?

Closing

I did not study law.

I studied consequence.

I studied discrepancy.

I studied the distance between what systems claim to provide and what people actually receive.

I studied the places where responsibility disappears.

I studied what happens when everyone performs their role but the whole still fails.

I studied the difference between a regulation existing and a person being protected.

I studied the window, then walked outside and looked at the building.

That is why the lack of legal training does not weaken the work.

It explains the angle from which I can see it.

I was not trained to accept the architecture before examining whether it functions.

I did not inherit professional loyalty to its compartments.

I began with the foundation:

What should a legal system prevent?

What should a government prioritise?

What does a human being require to live?

Who had the power to act?

Why did they not?

The Preventable Cases Series answers those questions one failure at a time.

But the cases are not separate.

They are pieces of one larger class action.

One cumulative record.

One demonstration that foreseeable harm has repeatedly been allowed to mature because governments and institutions lack coherent triage, distribute responsibility until it disappears and invest more heavily in processing damage than preventing it.

And perhaps that is why the work frustrates people who spent years being taught how to operate the system.

Because I did not need to master every rule to recognise that the result was unacceptable.

I only needed enough discernment to see the whole tree.

And once you can see the whole tree, it becomes very difficult to be intimidated by someone holding a handbook about one branch.

…

The beautiful part of all of this is that my capabilities to understand what I’m doing and what a legal system is about is so advanced to someone that has had no legal training whatsoever. I did not invest any time in, like, taking courses or going to school, education for it whatsoever. I don’t need to because once you understand what the legal system claims to be functional for, then you get to see the discrepancies between what it says it is about and what it actually does. I don’t personally need to master all the legislations available. I just need to look at the results and see, and from there, reverse engineer it, intellectually reverse engineer it to see if there is a law that actually protected that or not. If there wasn’t a law that protected it, then we got to look at what was the triage because there’s laws for things that are actually beneficials and there’s a hindrance on them. But consequently, there’s not appropriate ruling and management and control or whatever you want to put it as for the things that do actually matter. And the thing that I find super funny from all the interactions that I had last year is that majority of the legal bodies, like the actual employees of legal systems, are so frustrated by the fact that I don’t have any legal training, and this was said, so it’s not just speculation. They’re so frustrated by the fact that I don’t have any legal training, and still, with this one class action, because all of these preventable class actions are part of my general class action against the government and all the things that it did not necessarily foresee or acted upon instantly or prioritized. And the biggest thing, the biggest thing is that it lacks triaging. It lacks the utilization of what we already understand to be a basic need. Instead of investing its money in basic needs, it spreads thin the money. But there should be more money in the basic needs than there is in anything else. And these little things do pan out. So all of these preventable class actions are part of the series, they are really and truly evidence to my original class action. And they will all be incorporated into it. That’s why I’m not necessarily just posting it online, but I’m also taking track of all of them, because everything that has been done and not done is liable, is legally liable. And again, the most frustrating thing is that some of them could get caught in the crossfire if they don’t know how to allocate themselves appropriately when that class action starts. Because, well, they’re going to be responsible for the fact that they were in those roles, they were seeing all of these things, but none of them actually raised the flag. Because, well, they benefit from not raising the flag, which brings and links back to the post that I’ve written about what do we do when the governance benefits from harm. Because there would be less people involved in criminal cases if there were more people in the prevention team that can actually work on the prevention to those harms. So all of this links, and I want the post to be super provocative, but also at the same funny, entertaining, engaging, and giving a nice body. Because, yeah, it’s funny that they are frustrated by the fact that someone without education, legal education, can do all of this or think of all of this or even comprehend all of this. Majority of people don’t even think of this, let alone understand it, and let alone are able to think of solutions for it or see what it connects to and what it can actually impact. Because maybe if someone looks up sewage, well, they might only think of the water. Yeah, but what does it do to also, either the water, the water that they drink, if they’re just looking at self-preservation. If they’re more inclined to environmental activism, they might also advocate for the fishes and the nature and the bio profile of the rivers. If they’re more on the, I don’t know, agricultural side, they might complain about the fact that all those chemicals then go into the crops, and then we eat the crops, and then the crops, and then it becomes this vicious cycle where we are keeping on eating decay and then create even more decay that goes into the same things that then go into, you know, it becomes this vicious cycle. But not a lot of people are able to see so many compartments to the one thing, to a one thing. And that is my biggest superpower, is the fact that I’m able to widen my scope, widen my perspective of things, and not just look at what’s in front of me, because that’s the biggest thing that many people do these days. They can only comprehend and see and foresee and act upon what they see in front of them. They cannot see behind even what’s in front of them. Like, it’s like the ways in which we see life with our two eyes is now the ways in which people behave with their minds. Like with our eyes, I can see a tree from the window, but I can’t see the whole tree, right? Now, if I was to depend on that, I don’t know if there’s a trunk, I don’t know how big that tree goes, I don’t know, I could say that I don’t know the color of the building that I’m staying inside of, but I have more information to the window that I’m seeing because I’ve been outside of the house, I’ve looked at the house, I’ve also been in front and under the tree, so I know the tree, I know how big it is. But if I was to only depend on my eyes, I would only be able to see a very little aspect of it. And that’s how many people behave these days. They don’t actually look at what’s the bigger picture, like what’s the wholeness of the picture that we’re looking at? Not just the window, what’s the wholeness? So yeah, it is quite entertaining for myself as well to be able to produce something that many people have spent years and years learning, but have still to this day not produced. It’s quite interesting, isn’t it? But it also shows that education, like public education, isn’t the end and be all. And again, I’m not necessarily telling people, don’t go to school, but I’m saying critical thinking can have you match what education provides. Because critical thinking builds on your discernment, and the more discernment you have, the more you’re able to see. And on top of that, if you’re someone that is curious and wants to learn and wants to develop and has practiced that over time, it also becomes faster to integrate information and understand the information and be able to create from that position as well, from that understanding. But these are foundational things that school don’t necessarily teach you. School teach you knowledge. They don’t teach you how to actually think. They don’t teach you how to actually be. They don’t teach you how to be discerning. They might teach you how to be discerning within a specific industry or topic of discussion, but not the larger perspective. And, but at the same time, because of how much people depend on education, because of how much the propaganda of you need to go to school, school, and then get a job, school, degree, job, white picket fence, marriage, and all of that, children and all of that. Because people are so playing into the narrative that society has ended down to them, that’s how people… Victim to the lux that all of these institutions provide, because these institutions were definitely stronger 50 years ago. 50 years ago, definitely go to school, because going to school will get you a nice career. But now, majority, apart from the fact that every market is saturated, on top of that, there’s AI, now going to school isn’t necessarily the best thing to do, unless you go with a very, very, very grounded understanding of how to even navigate it, because majority of people that I know that have left school, they’re not working in the industry that they’re working in, even the people that I went to school with. They’re either not working in the industry that they studied for, or they’re doing not good in the industries that they studied for. Because, again, everything is saturated. Because so many roles have been put on a pedestal that more people have gone to those roles, so now it’s saturated. How many families have told their children that they should be lawyers or doctors? There’s no scarcity of those things. So their competitive edge should be, how do I separate myself from everyone else? Well, a lawyer that holds a countable system and is confident about it, and is willing to do so, that’s how you separate yourself. But really and truly, you don’t even need to be a lawyer to do so, because anyone can put together a class action. You just have to find a lawyer that can then advocate for it in the actual, like, during an actual trial. But before that, you don’t need a lawyer. You can do the whole process by yourself, you know? But it’s having people actually think like that, think beyond the limitations of societal systems, because, again, we are not in the same day and age as when these things were of such value. Right now, to have a child and bring a child in this system is quite ludicrous, because there’s so many things that need to be fixed before any new child comes in, just because they’ll be bringing those children in a system that doesn’t really value that child. Because it’s a system that has not yet learned how to prevent foreseeable harm. And for those who do want to bring those children in, they should prioritize fixing the system before they do so. Because if not, again, they’re just giving themselves the ability to, they’re just giving themselves the, they’re creating the circumstances for their child to suffer even more during their upbringing. Because, again, either the parents won’t have enough to provide, or they’ll be having to fend for their lives, or the actual circumstances that dictate their well-being are just not as beneficial as they could have been or could be. So all of this to say that if we don’t deal with this properly, you know, if we don’t learn how to think and how to use our intellect, we are never going to be able to hold our sense of authority or autonomy. Because AI will take over the highest authority, but AI is not even conscious. So, yeah, it’s kind of a, it’s kind of a trip, honestly. I feel like I’m delivering, I’m giving people, I’m ushering people into an intellectual psychedelic trip, honestly, because it just, like, the response is of what I put out is just as challenging as when I had my own psychedelic trips, and it just brought me into this intellectual rabbit hole of journey, just looking at things for what they are, not for what we want them to be or how we want to categorize them in order to feel good about them and to be able to still live within them, you know?