A World out of Balance: Introducing Doughnut 3.0 w/ Andrew Fanning

Hey, everyone. Robbie here with some pretty unfortunate and honestly somewhat shocking news. So if you donate to upstream through the platform Flip Cause, not Patreon, but Flip Cause. So this has nothing to do with you if you are a Patreon subscriber. But the Flip Cause platform that we use and have been using for a few years now that's associated with our fiscal sponsor independent arts and media, that platform has stopped dispersing donation funds basically to a significant number of organizations that it is working with. So they're receiving your donations but they're keeping them. It seems like we're not quite sure what's happening with the funding, but it's not reaching us or our fiscal sponsor. So we are going to be canceling your recurring donations at the end of the month manually on our end. And we invite you to please continue your support on a different platform. You can either subscribe to be a Patreon subscriber, which is a really great way to not only support the podcast, but get access to bonus episodes every other week we release great content on Patreon. And it'll also give you access to our entire back catalog of Patreon episodes, a community forum where we always make sure to respond to comments and anti-capitalists stickers are you don't hate Mondays you hate capitalism stickers and bumper stickers which we provide at certain subscription tiers. So also if you're not interested in Patreon you can also check out our new platform that is basically just a way to throw us some money. I know some people aren't interested in Patreon. So that platform is Maslow and we're going to throw the link for that in the show notes along with our Patreon link where you can become a Patreon subscriber. So thank you so much for all of that. Flipkaz's withholding of our funds is a huge loss of income to the show. And so if you're not yet a supporter and you want to support us please consider joining Patreon or making a tax deductible donation through Maslow. Thank you. That's it. Just wanted to update you all on what was going on and so if you're a Flipkaz donor this is most relevant to you. If you're a Patreon subscriber already please disregard this message. Okay thank you. The capitalist economic system is not actually aiming it doesn't have a goal to meet everyone's basic needs and nor does it particularly care about destroying our living planet because it's feeds off both of those things because its purpose is of course to provide accumulation and profit and additional capital to those who wield it. You're listening to Upstream. Upstream. Upstream. A show about political economy and society that invites you to unlearn everything you thought you knew about the world around you. I'm Robert Raymond and I'm Dela Duncan. Global capitalism is leading us into significant ecological overshoot and extreme social deprivation. We know this for many reasons. One of which is the excellent framework of donor economics developed by renegade economist Kate Rayworth which measures how our global economy is doing and meeting human needs and stay within our planetary boundaries. Andrew Fanon along with Kate Rayworth have recently released the Donut 3.0 outlining data from the last 20 plus years that support the conclusion that capitalism is still leaving billions of people in deprivation while pushing Earth beyond its safe limits. Andrew Fanon is the data analysis and research lead at the Donut Economics Action Lab and a visiting research fellow in the Sustainability Research Institute. He's also the co-author with Kate Rayworth of Donut of Social and Planetary Boundaries monitors a world out of balance published in Nature in October 2025. And now here's Dela in conversation with Andrew Fanon. Welcome Andrew to Upstream. So happy to be in conversation with you. Thank you. We usually start with having our guests introduce themselves. So if you wouldn't mind, please introduce yourself and also share how you got involved with donut economics. So I was actually I have a background trained in mainstream or conventional economics but also quite involved really during my undergrad and increasing into my master's in international development studies which is a kind of quite critical social science whereas for those I'm sure your listeners are where mainstream or conventional economics is not so much of a critical social science. So when I was going through my studies essentially I was in my sixth year of my formal economics training when I discovered the field of ecological economics. This would have been sometime around 2010 and this field I will never forget. I wanted to take a course in environmental economics which was a field of the more conventional economics that was not even being offered at the graduate level in my department just to give an indication of how important environmental issues were seemed to be. And I looked around and I found this course being offered by the faculty of management called resource and environmental economics or management or something like that. And basically it was this course in ecological economics and it was an epiphany for me because there were these concepts which had been around for decades that were criticizing the dominant neoclassical model and all of that stuff that I had had no awareness of whatsoever. And I remember of course a lot of the critique in ecological economics is focused on this big question of scale like how big can the economy be with respect to the finite earth system within which we're embedded. And so this was a question that I had never really considered very much in a conventional economics background and I'll never forget all this students in the course who came from more natural sciences and more engineering type backgrounds who were just sort of nodding their heads along. I was the only kind of mainstream economist and of course it makes sense if you haven't been trained in economics that you can't have infinite growth on a finite planet forever like well that's just not even possible. And so I started doing I recognize that this was a field that really answered a lot of the questions that I was having trouble with in international development studies and economics which is that it grounded the analysis in you know in the real world which is actually what was starting to to really get me interested. And so fast forward several years I was able to start a PhD in 2013 at the University of Cadi in Spain which is where I'm currently located but I found a co-supervisor with Dan O'Neal at the University of Leeds and we got interested in how could we create indicators that track the sustainability of resource use and human well-being and their relations and right around this time you know Kate Rayworth's first Oxfam discussion paper came out in 2012 which put together these core concepts that had a huge influence on me on the planetary boundaries framework on the ones hand as well as how can we meet social needs on the other. So we started working on a study in 2015 that looked at whether any countries are meeting the basic needs of their residents at a level of resource use that could be sustainably extended to all people using this donut framework. So that was really kind of my entry to it from an academic level that study ended up being published a couple years later and I remember one of our co-authors Will Lam he was the one who actually developed the national donut visualizations and he did it using an online visualization tool called D3.js it's a JavaScript library to work online and I remember emailing him and saying this is amazing that you can do this and that it's interactive and we can select countries and that you you know it wasn't quite ready to be released for public consumption but if we put in that work we can make these results widely accessible and that you should really do this and I remember him being like that's a huge task and I'm actually fully employed and so Dan and I applied for some funding which ended up hiring me to develop this web page idea which I didn't know any web development at the time so a huge shout out to Coursera the massive open online courses that those platforms that are available which taught me web development to make it work well enough at least and I guess my very very fond memory is I recall running across the University of Leeds campus at one point to meet Kate Rayworth for the very first time in order for me to show her a draft version of our interactive web page that we had been developing based on these results so I guess that's my that's my entry point to the donor economics movement if you want to call it that or at least the movement within a much broader movement pushing for this change thank you and I love how you have been you know develop your relationship further in your relationship with Kate and you recently published an article in the journal Nature titled Donut of Social and Planetary Boundaries monitors a world out of balance. And this is Donut 3.0 and it's really going to be the focus of today because we have actually had Kate Rayworth on our show as well as her husband Roman. And so we have we have focused on the economics, but I'm so happy to have this conversation about taking it into the now and what's the latest and the updates. So thank you for sharing that story and also about how you came from a mainstream economist background to being a fellow renegade economist, which I love. So I know you lightly mentioned Donut economics in your intro, but let's let's slow it down and please introduce Donut economics as if it were to someone very unfamiliar with the idea because there may be folks who need a refresher or who really don't know much about it. So let's introduce Donut economics. Yeah, I mean, this is this is a great question that a challenge that I faced off and if I'm in more social gatherings and my partner will just be like, what are you talking about? But it's always a challenging question, but for me, I guess Donut economics, it's really about aiming for a world in the 21st century that meets the needs of all people within the means of the living planet. It's very consciously focused on a goal. And then asking what kind of economics thinking would be in service to that goal? So of course, the core concepts were laid out in a book that Kate wrote that you spoke with her just before around when it was published back in 2017. And that book is called Donut economics seven ways to think like a 21st century economist, which I, of course, highly recommend to all of your listeners. And so if I had to choose, I would say there are two great contributions from the book. So first, it brings together insights from many, many heterodox traditions in economics. There's ecological economics, feminist economics, complexity economics, institutional economics, and others, which have, of course, decades of critique against the dominant neoclassical school that has become hegemonic all across the world's universities and business schools. So Donut economics diagnosis these seven core ways that neoclassical economic thinking that we've inherited from the 20th century, like I won't go through all of them now. But examples are like we tend to see the economy as a self-contained perpetual motion machine or that humans are innately selfish or competitive. And Donut economics then uses this array of plural and heterodox insights to propose alternatives that are fit for the 21st century challenges that we face. You know, in a world where we're living, where far too many people are falling short of meeting their essential needs, while humanity is simultaneously destabilizing our delicately balanced planetary home. So we know ecological economists have long emphasized that perpetual motion is physically impossible, that markets cannot be self-contained because nothing just keeps moving around and around in circle all by itself. And then we know complexity economics gives us tools to see the economy as a system which is embedded within a society which is in turn part of and fully dependent upon our beautiful and living planet. And yes, people can be selfish and competitive, but we know also that they can be highly cooperative, they can be altruistic and care deeply for one another. As feminist economists have especially shown well emphasizing the power dynamics that get erased when we imagine that a person acts without any dependence on others or the rest of the living world. So that's one part of Donut economics that I think is very, very powerful and useful, but apart from the great storytelling and the synthesis, the second big contribution that has had a huge impact on me is to highlight the important role of visualizations and images in shaping how we think about the economy. So for each of those seven ways, Kate unearths the story and the power behind a core diagram that neoclassical economics essentially summarizes and slips some assumed ways of thinking about how the economy works into our visual cortex, into the back of our brain, in a way that words and equations cannot land in quite the same way. Now an example is of course the familiar ex of supply and demand that anyone who has taken an introductory economics course will likely have seen, but of course this seemingly innocuous image masks a whole lot of assumptions about how the economy relates to one another, what it is. So for example, it puts the market right up at the front, it puts price as the center, the idea that there is an equilibrium, all of these things are assumptions about how an economy works that are kind of glossed over. So I found this focus on images and diagrams particularly and how they affect our thinking to be a fascinating area of learning and questions and experimentation into the art and the science of data visualization that I was kind of already on that journey. And then yeah, I guess the stars kind of aligned around the end of 2019 as Kate had just co-founded Donut Economics Action Lab and I just finished a post doc which led to a dream role that it currently holds at Donut Economics Action Lab leading research and co-creating metrics that make the concepts of Donut Economics visible in data. Thank you, thank you for that. Yeah, I'll just, yeah, I'll put a few things you're saying. So you know, what is Donut Economics? It is a global movement and like you said, it's a community and it's largely on this Donut Economics Action Lab but it's really actualized in many different communities around and we'll touch on that. And it is also this really methodological interrogation and challenging of mainstream economic thinking. Like you said, what are the seven ways we can think like a 21st century economist and the ways that we need to unlearn what mainstream economics has told us about how an economy works, our relationship with the more than human world and human nature and more, right? It's also a very high leverage point in systems change. It's changing the goal of the system as you mentioned. So it's really saying what is the goal of our current, you know, neoliberal, capitalist, growth, industrial economy and then what ought to be the goal, right? And the goal ought to be human and planetary health or well-being, right? So it's really changing that goal there. So it's all of these things and I love that you brought in the major contributions of Donut Economics and you're absolutely right. The image component is one of them. And so let's go into the classic image, the Donut, as it would be called. So I'd love for you to introduce what is the Donut? What does that mean when we say that? This is a podcast so we don't have the visualization so please paint it for us. And then walk us through Donut 1.0, 2.0 and now Donut 3.0 that you and Kate have just recently released in this article. Sure. Thank you. So the Donut, the Donut of social and planetary boundaries is its full name, often commonly referred to as the Donut, is a visual framework. As the name suggests, it happens to look like a Donut, but we always make the joke that this is the only one that happens to be healthy for you because really it's about changing the way that we see the world. So it sets out two core concepts and it uses two concentric rings in order to do so. So the first concept is that we should aim to avoid critical human deprivation. And that's shown by if we imagine an inner ring of a Donut, and a social foundation within which nobody should fall below. And then the second core concept is that we should avoid critical planetary degradation. And that you could imagine the further concentric ring on the outside which can be thought of as an ecological ceiling. And the Donut ends up becoming defining essentially the minimal conditions of a socially just and ecologically safe space just by conceptually putting those things together. So by definition, if you're falling short of the social foundation, then we have critical human deprivation, which is not what we want. And if we are overshooting the ecological ceiling, then we have critical planetary degradation which also we of course do not want. So together, the Donut illustrates this goal that I mentioned at the beginning that we want to meet the needs of all, have no critical human deprivation within the means of the living planet or not causing any planetary degradation. So that is the core conceptual framework. Donut 1.0 is the very first iteration of this framework which Kate published as an Oxfam discussion paper in 2012. And it was in the run up to the Sustainable Development Goals Reo+20 conference which was essentially where countries were coming together to propose what should go into these sustainable development goals which are being negotiated at the time. And Donut 1.0, the social foundation Kate actually worked out methodologically, she looked at these country submissions of what different countries were saying were important. And she actually took all of the terms that were broad dimensions, that were mentioned more than in more than 50% of the country submissions. That was her method that she approached and she ended up setting out these core dimensions of the social foundation based on that, which of course included things like food, water, education, sanitation, and equality, and gender equality and political voice, and others. And for the ecological ceiling, that was informed fully by the Planetary Boundaries Framework. The very first version, which was published by John Rockstrom, led by John Rockstrom, and other leading Earth System researchers in 2009. And they identified these nine critical Earth System processes that govern the stability of the incredibly warm and accommodating state of our planet that we've enjoyed for the past 11,000 years in the policy. So Kate put those two things together and published a discussion paper, which essentially was "Donut 1.0." For each of the dimensions, she was able to attach to the best extent possible available data, showing what the degrees of shortfall were socially, and of course the Planetary Boundaries Framework provides the level of overshoot. "Donut 2.0" fast-forward was published in 2017, and it essentially accompanied Kate's book, which served as a good point to update the work because the sustainable development goals had actually been agreed upon, and we're now entered into force. And so Kate actually has a wonderful story that we've heard that apparently the donut was on the table during those negotiations of the sustainable development goals. And then of course in the second version of the donut, those goals then informed much more explicitly. So instead of having to rely on a 50% stated type of approach she did in "Donut 1.0," she could just actively use the explicitly agreed upon goals of the social priorities of the sustainable development goals. And also the Planetary Boundaries Framework had been updated also in 2015, so it was a good time to take stock and to update, which I think is a core principle of the donut itself in the sense that it's accepting of the notion that boundaries and our understanding of them can actually evolve over time. And the donut, I think it's really important for me in that it is accepting of that evolution. And that can occur of course both socially as norms change or as data becomes more available, as well as in the Planetary Boundaries Framework as better, you know, planetary science and understanding improves. So donut 3.0 had a very similar ambition in the sense that time had passed. It took Kate and I considerably longer to do this update than we actually thought that it would take us. So we published it in October of 2025, but we actually started the analysis in September of 2022, so it took us almost three years, which surprises me and her and I think everybody. But it's maybe also a reflection that we were aiming to really increase not so much the core concepts, but the underlying data that was under the hood, if you will. So we were aiming to make that into a process that we could transform it to just an annual snapshot in a single year. There was an ambition to make it a much more, much more of a monitor so that we could actually monitor trends over the 21st century. And so we were looking for indicators that went back in time, ideally from at least 2000. And another piece was that we also wanted to publish this in the scientific peer-reviewed literature because we felt that there were some advances that we could make. Once again, building on top of a recent update to the planetary boundary science, which occurred in 2023, but also building on advances in social monitoring and increasingly on methods of downscaling the donut in a way that takes into account cross-country differences and other work that I've been involved in. And so that essentially is what the broad picture of donut 1.0 in 2012, donut 2.0 in 2017, and now donut 3.0 in 2025, which we aim to now update annually moving forward so that we don't have to go through these long processes so that it can stay kind of a real-time monitor or as real-time as we can make it monitoring the social and ecological trends that we see. Thank you. And my friend and colleague Indi Rishi Singh, he says, the donut is a kind of a health checkup, right? And it's a way of sensing into our planet, into Gaia or the world, how are we doing, right? How are we doing in terms of social needs being met in terms of human thriving, right? Or deprivation? And then how are we doing in our more than human world? And our ecosystems, our watersheds, our bio-regions, how is the health of our planet as a whole? And so it's this checkup, right? And really can indicate, and we can feel into it, right? Even without knowing the data that we have so much social deprivation and that we are really, in a lot of overshoot, we are really pushing on the capacity of our more than human world, our ecological systems. And yet this really just reveals how it is that we are really doing on these key indicators. And so, you know, you mentioned that donut 3.0 and this article really helps us understand what's happened over time. So please share, you know, from 2000 to 2002, which is when you started this process, what did you find about the trends of social deprivation globally? What has happened? Tell us the story. Yeah, sure, sure. And I guess I should also mention, given that your listeners can't actually see the donut, but hopefully they can somewhat picture it in their mind, and that really that impact of combining the social and ecological, I think the visual impact of that diagram has had, as you were saying, about your colleague Indy and on many others we've heard that the holistic framing of combining the two in a single image is kind of where a lot of the power lies. So for donut 3.0, revealing the global trends from the social aspect, sure, we looked at trends across 20 social indicators with available time series data. And we find generally that humanity as a whole has made progress towards achieving the donut social foundation, though this improvement has been modest, given that we're actually measuring, you know, critical human deprivation, that we don't want any red or any shortfall in the whole of the donut. But we do see some improvements, which is cause for it could be worse, because the largest social improvements are for internet connectivity, health services, coverage, and child survival, safe sanitation, and clean indoor fuels with something like 24 to 56% of humanity, like a quarter to half of all humanity escaping shortfall in these areas over the 22 year period that we looked at. And those are some big advances. At the same time, there are other indicators that show little improvement over the period, such as for undernourishment, for youth employment, unsafe drinking water, social support, and especially perceptions of corruption, which haven't moved much well, food security, and population living under autocratic regimes have worsened over the period. So that's certainly not good news. For all our meeting results, they suggest an improving trend in the social side from around 47% of humanity falling short in 2000 to 35% in 2022. But of course, current trends would need to accelerate fivefold we find in order to eliminate critical human deprivation by 2030, which is of course the target year for the sustainable development goals. So some improvement, but much, much more, could be done. And what about ecological overshoot? How are we doing there? Here, the news is a bit more concerning, to be honest. So we looked at 10 planetary boundary indicators with available times here's data, and it may not be surprising to your listeners, as you mentioned, you can kind of feel the deprivations and the shortfalls of our current system, and that we're not operating within boundaries. But we found that humanity's collective burden on the planet has generally worsened since the early 2000s. And actually, I have to say, if you read the scientific paper that we publish this in, we publish in the journal Nature, it may come across the writing as quite distant and matter of fact. But I actually have to say that writing up these global ecological results almost had a kind of overview effect for me that it was the first analysis I've been involved in that was taking this global perspective and looking at trends over time, that I found it really, really hard to get through. Like it can feel very overwhelming to see how far we are off course here, and just completely moving in the wrong direction. With the notable exception of ozone layer depletion, which is roughly stable over the period as far as we find. But none of the other indicators were moving in the right direction. Most of them were increasing their extent of overshoot by up to 150 percent further beyond the ecological ceiling, since 2000, that includes the indicators for climate change or chemical pollution, nutrient pollution, and others. The ocean is in the water. vacation indicator, we found in our study it was still below its boundary in 2022, but more than three-quarters of the gap below the boundary in 2000 was closed over the period that we analyzed, leaving just five percent of its safe space remaining with respect to the Holocene baseline and closing quickly. And actually the week before we published our analysis, the Planetary Health Check Initiative to update the Planetary Boundary Science on an annual basis now, they announced that the world had officially crossed the ocean acidification boundary. So it's now seven of the nine Planetary Boundaries have been transgressed. So overall our medium results find these fairly rapid rates of degradation, especially when we think of the geological timescale of the Earth system. And these would need to halt immediately a reverse course towards ecological regeneration, nearly twice as fast as the rates that we've been seeing for degradation in order to get back with the Planetary Boundaries by 2050, which is of course the target year for many net zero climate targets and there's a broad push to achieve climate targets at least by that date. Thank you and I appreciate that you bring in the grief or that even though it can feel very cold or calculated or academic, this is our home and this is our planet and these are real people and other than human beings who are really suffering and so to really feel into what does this data actually mean is really important. And yeah, so just to say what I'm hearing, we've made very modest improvements in terms of the social deprivation or the meeting of human needs in some ways. And then we've really transgressed or really we're really pushing on or overshooting the bounds of our ecological systems and our particular, their global ecological system. And one point that you make in the article, which is so important is that the donut that we're talking about is really an amalgamation or a summary of all human and all ecology. It's at that the largest scale that we can offer. And yet there is not one single experience of humanity, right? And we know this particularly who is most impacted by let's say climate change and human deprivation and legacies of colonialism and imperialism, all of that. And so one real offering in this paper is breaking down the donut by the poorest countries, the poorest 40% of countries, the middle 40% and the richest 20%. So talk to us about why did you do that because I see the importance, but really tell us why that was a critical component of this article and what did you find when you broke it down? Yeah, this is really, really important, this was an important piece to add to the analysis because I mean, we know that these global aggregate measures, they mask huge inequalities across, well, both within countries as well as between them. And so ideally we had wanted to address the disparities of the entire population so that we could talk about the whole population that was falling short versus the top 1% of the global population versus the poorest 40%. But that data was just simply not available in a manner that we could fit within the scope of this article. So that's future work very much needed. But what we were able to do was break apart by the, as you said, the poorest 40% of countries, the middle 40% of countries and the richest 20% of countries. Now this is a way of taking into account cross-country inequalities, of course, but it misses, I just really need to emphasize that it misses huge amounts of disparities of inequalities within countries. But even still, it allowed us to very, very clearly demonstrate that the contribution to global ecological overshoot is overwhelmingly disproportionately being supplied by the richest and the suffering of social shortfalls are overwhelmingly disproportionately being felt by the poorest. And vice versa, when it comes to those who are responsible for ecological overshoot, of course, are not the poorest and those who are not falling short are the richest. So what this analysis allowed to show essentially those two sides of the coin, which is what the donut kind of allows us to do. And I mean, to look at the numbers, we find our median results show that the richest 20% are home to actually less than 15% of the global population. And yet they are responsible for more than 40% of the median levels of overshoot across the indicators that we looked at. Some of them were as high as 75%, especially climate change, I think, was around 50 and biodiversity footprints were up to more than 50% at least. And similarly, in the poorest 40% of countries, we found that they held actually a similar share of the population. I think it's around 42% of the global population. And yet, they're suffering at a median level is more than 60%. And some of those indicators were up to 99%. The poorest are the only ones experiencing social shortfall based on the access to electricity metric that we used, for example, that's just, or internet connectivity, there's just tiny slivers in the richest, whereas all of the shortfall being felt in the poorest. And those findings, I think, are just really, really important. And it gets back to what I mentioned at the beginning, that these aren't necessarily new results, but being able to visualize them and show them side by side. I think it's an important contribution of the paper, I think. Absolutely. And so just to paint that picture for those who want to imagine this, and we will link to the article, of course, that people can actually see them. But in the poorest 40%, we have a lot of red in the social elements. We have a lot of social deprivation and very little ecological overshoot, very little of the poorest 40% pushing on the planetary boundaries. The middle 40%, we have some red in the middle and some red on the outside. But it's the highest 20%, the richest 20%, countries that we have very little social deprivation and dramatic ecological overshoot. And so just to kind of give folks a visualization of what that looks like. And then an element of this is the word poorest richest, and I know that there's so many great conversations from international economics and ecological economics and Marxist economics that would really say, it's really the overexploited, not the poorest. It's like the overexploited, the extracted, the global majority, and then the imperial core, really, is the richest 20%. So there's something about the diagrams that we can't show, which is the relationship between them, that the ecological overshoot, and also the meeting of the human needs for the wealthiest or the imperial core, is coming at the expense of those who are the global majority or the periphery, as it is also called. So talk to us a little bit about how do we reconcile, or how can we also add to this analysis, the dynamic between the countries of what's happening in the donut? Yeah, that's a great question. And it's one of our best attempts to visualize those disparities, unfortunately, because of the nature of data availability. Right now, we've still shown donuts for separate nations. We effectively treat each country as its own little unit of analysis, which we do take into account what are called consumption-based environmental footprints, so that we do take into account that the environmental burdens of consumption in one country could be actually felt in another, if that makes any sense. So these metrics essentially correct for offshoring of environmental burdens to other countries. We have those for the environmental footprint, like the carbon footprints, like the nitrogen phosphorus, and so on. All of the ecological footprint indicators of those country clusters actually take into account that relationship, which is a step towards taking into account that those who are consuming goods and services actually should be responsible for the environmental burdens that are incurred from them, no matter where in the world, those should take place. And that, in my view, is a fundamental part, and it has to be included in these metrics in my view. That being said, it still doesn't take into account, of course, the levels of appropriation, the whole huge literature around unequal exchange, unequal ecological exchange, the relationships between countries and how that's determined, colonial legacies, as you already mentioned. So what we end up doing, we have this diagram that effectively puts as many donuts as you can imagine on a chart for separate nations. And I think it's useful to think of how these broad trajectories can arise across core groups, where essentially as shown by the poorest 40 percent, the middle 40 percent, and the richest 20 percent. And we could imagine those in the poorest 40 percent, if our aim is to get into the donut, then how could they rise up and into that space following a trajectory that has never been followed before, right? Because all previous nations have tended to rise up as their levels of income and associated resources tend to increase, but then they end up swooshing right past. And similarly for the middle 40 percent or the middle income countries, how could they then reorient their economies? They tend, as you mentioned, they tend to be falling short by less, overshooting by less, so it's less of an extreme, but also facing a double whiammy of having to achieve both at the same time. But how could they reorient and get into the donut? Once again, it's a trajectory that hasn't been followed before. And then critically the core, the richest 20 percent, how can these countries just radically reduce their levels of resource use, taking into account how they're off-shoring from others in order to get into the donut without undermining or ideally improving levels of social well-being at the same time. So I tend to think of these three broad trajectories within countries, but then critically, I imagine another arrow just linking all three groups and rebalancing where you're calling for rebalancing of the global system, which takes into account, you know, just, you've already mentioned the history's colonial legacies that there could be many, many ways to rebalance the global system from return of stolen land to reparations for slavery and for appropriation of the atmosphere, of course, changing unequal global trade and finance rules, which reinforced that unequal exchange that we were talking about earlier, how do we take into account the impacts of climate change, which are overwhelmingly scheduled to be, well, which are hitting and are likely to continue hitting hardest and first those who are marginalized or those who are forced both within and across countries, across marginalized communities. So we're not able yet to show the inequalities inherent within the extractive system that we have at a global scale, but we can certainly use these diagrams and these frameworks to gesture towards the importance of those issues, which to me is kind of the importance of using data to make visible the concepts that we know are important, even if we don't yet have the perfect data that can do it. We're listening to an upstream conversation with Andrew Fanning, we'll be right back. [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] That was Green in the Valley by Nicole Lawrence, now back to our conversation with Andrew Fanning. Thank you for that. Yes, and especially that list of the ways that we could help the most exploited or most extracted from countries. Meet social needs and stay within the ecological boundaries. You had a great list there. I'll add, you know, debt, Jubilee or debt forgiveness, because that's a real huge component of this. And then for the richest 20%, and I know you know this, but I'll just add it that's where our recent conversation with Timothy Perique and Jason Hickel's work would really offer how to bring down the ecological pressure of an economy while meeting those human needs. And all of that, one way to describe this is democratically planned economies. That would be a way, in any case, to be able to do this work. And the Donets help reveal how we're doing and can give us over time the monitoring of how we're doing in this. I'll also add one contribution of Donet Economics is not just the snapshot in time of how an economy is doing, but these reflective questions that also come with the Donet, which are not only how is our economy doing at meeting our human needs and how is our economy doing at respecting our ecological boundaries, but then it also asks in Donet Economics, how can this place help the people of all the planet thrive? And how can this place help the ecological systems of our entire planet thrive? That's so important, right? And as I work on, for example, a San Francisco Donet, a California Donet, and a San Jose Donet, which are three that I'm personally involved with, we have to ask that. Because, as Kate says, 21st century economics is planetary home management. Our systems are so interconnected. So how we meet our needs in San Francisco or California or San Jose is so connected to the meeting of the human needs and the respect of the ecological bounds of places and people around the world. So they are very connected, we must consider that. And speaking of interconnections, I'm wondering, did you identify in your research any indicators that point to best opportunities for multi-solving, meaning if we all focused on one, because the indicators are also connected. So was there anything if we all focused on one or key leverage points within the Donet that would really turn things around? Did you find anything like that in your research? So in this latest research, we didn't actually look at the type of leverage points. And this was for almost, well, not an ethical. More of the philosophical grounding within the Donet is that we kind of argue that all of the different dimensions should be seen as plural and non-substitutable. And so also within the scope of the analysis, we just didn't actually look at the types of, you know, if we implement this one, then it looks like it could have the greatest gains. An earlier study that I was involved in, led by my colleague, Dan O'Neil, was published in 2018 looking at about 150 national donuts. And in that study, we actually did look at the relationship between each social and biophysical, social ecological indicator pair. And that means that we were actually interested in saying, "Okay, here we can see a very strong relationship or not such a strong relationship in terms of social outcomes of education or sanitation with respect to resources like carbon emissions." or nitrogen footprint and so on. And that actually did allow us to see which indicators based on this cross-country analysis appear to have more of a relationship than others. But that was essentially as far as my own research at this big global scale has been able to look at. - So I want to go into what is the meaning of Donut 3.0 and this article? And here's Jason Hickel's take on what Donut 3.0 tells us. He says it shows once again that capitalism is an extremely inefficient system characterized by high levels of aggregate production to the point of driving ecological breakdown even while masses of humanity remain deprived of basic needs. So yeah, this sense that, like you said, there's been modest improvements. And I mean, I think about all the people, I'm like a right livelihood coach and I'm connected with all these people who are part of movements around the world to support ecological and social. And so to hear, we've only made these modest improvements. People have dedicated their lives in so much time and attention towards addressing these issues. And we have to celebrate those wins, but we're doing it in this nonprofit industrial complex and we're doing this in this current economy that is just, it's really harming us and the planet and that we're really pushing on the ecological breakdown. So this really does reveal something about capitalism. Maybe it's not new to us, but it's very, very clear for that. I think it also reveals something about GDP. So I'd like to ask you about that. What does this tell us about GDP growth and kind of another attack on GDP as our metric or indicator of success? So tell us, yes, what is the meaning of Donut 3.0? Your main finding here, what does it mean? And how are people responding to it? Yeah, great question. So I mean, with respect to the quote from Jason, I think that it's bang on that's what we're effectively looking at are, of course, these very, very giant global trends. And given that we live in this giant global capitalist economic system, that we shouldn't be surprised to see these results coming out. For all the reasons that he articulates much better than me in terms of the capitalist economic system is not actually aiming. It doesn't have a goal to meet everyone's basic needs. And nor does it particularly care about destroying our living planet because it feeds off both of those things, because its purpose is, of course, to provide accumulation and profit and additional capital to those who wield it. And so I fully agree with that. I would say that how are people responding to this is essentially along with very, very similar reaction to me, I feel. That it's sort of like we are witnessing these very, very rapid rates of degradation, this modest improvements in social performance. And critically, where we tied very clearly into the paper is that all of this is taking place alongside, if you look at global rates of GDP growth, that the economy, the global economy, has actually more than doubled over this period. And yet, we are still falling far, far short. Even though we have more productive capacity than we have ever had before in order to meet people's needs, it's still very, very slowly happening while ecological breakdown occurs even faster. So we painted that picture within the paper. And I feel like it's generally resonated quite a lot with people. I haven't heard much criticism yet in terms of the core findings, which we, of course, aim to make them as robust and as transparent and as widely accessible as possible. So a part of me is actually hoping that somebody kind of has something substantive to find. Because then, of course, we can learn from it and move on and improve. But to date, the couple of critiques that I have seen have not been particularly serious. Well, there you go. An invitation for folks to read the article and get back to Andrew with any questions and critiques about the findings. So you mentioned GDP. So GDP over the past, you said, 2000 to 2022, has doubled. OK, and then we also talked about what the donut has shown. And I know that in this movement that we're both a part of called the post-growth movement, it's also post-capitalist movement, one of the deepest intentions or aspirations is to rid ourselves as GDP. We all are very well aware that GDP, as an indicator or metric of success, is not helpful. It's actually toxic because it's not measuring what's truly important to us. And very harmful things can actually increase GDP, such as an oil spill or war, for example, genocide. So where are we at with this work really contributing, really pushing to rid countries and global institutions of using GDP as the metric? Are we there? Are people abandoning GDP? Do you see movement there? Or what are the most effective ways to get that national and supernational action to rid ourselves of this indicator? And to replace it with indicators that actually demonstrate how an economy is doing at providing the social needs and staying within our ecological bounds? So in the paper, we outline these three broad changes that we believe need to take place, that the donut supports in terms of moving to a post-growth world. That's in terms of the conception that the donut makes visually apparent the goal, right? That we should be aiming to meet the needs of all within the means of the living planet. So as a concept, as a goal, that provides some directionality. It also helps in terms of the metrics, as you mentioned. So I mean, or as you're asking, that what types of indicators should we include? Well, I would argue that we should be tracking metrics that actively aim to track our performance with respect to where we want to go. So many, many indicators do not do that. They will be a metric that tends to just move over time if it's a monitor, but it lacks that desired state or a comparison of where we want to be in many cases. And what ends up filling that gap is we end up comparing ourselves to the best. And this is where our Nordic countries always tend to come bubbling up to the top, because they're very, very good social performance. And they've been relatively successful in decoupling levels of resource use and carbon emissions and so on. But if you actually compare those levels of decoupling to what's absolutely required in order to get back within planetary boundaries, then those countries come out among some of the worst in terms of ecological overshoot. Not saying that the social gains that have been achieved in many of the society in Norway, Sweden, Finland are not something to strive for, but it's just that the levels of resource use associated with those social outcomes could not be extended to all people. And so they're not role models in that sense. So I think having metrics that make that visible and clear is important. And finally, the directionality so that we can actually see which way are we moving towards and those types of numbers that I briefly mentioned where we need to accelerate fivefold our levels of improvement in order to actually avoid critical human deprivation. So I think the donut helps in that respect, but it does so as part of a much broader movement, the post growth movement, as you say. So just going back to one of the comments you had at the beginning, we actually have a principle of working at Donut Economic Section Lab that's don't be the movement, join the movement. So we're not aiming to be a donut movement alongside many, many others. We're actually aiming to be a part of the broader post growth movement, which is working in many, many different ways. As you mentioned, the growth, for example, that framing I think is really, really important and relevant, especially when you're starting from a wealthy, high-income country starting point, which is where I'm currently sitting in Spain, you're sitting in the United States. That's where we are starting from. But the donut aims to have a more universal appeal. So we want to be able to speak to low-income, middle-income, high-income. Yeah, so I would say that that's a little bit of a difference between the different approaches. But I think that it's just really important to all be working together in this broad system because to answer your question, I still feel that GDP as an economic indicator of success at the national scale is still highly dominant. There's a big movement, though, that I take some hope from some in that the publication of our study was actually accompanied by a remarkable editorial by nature, the editors of nature, who have an article called NGDP Mania. And within it, they really reference our results quite a lot. But they critically tie it to this UN high-level expert group on Beyond GDP, which is currently convening and putting together guidelines and a framework within the UN system for what Beyond GDP Mania is doing. matrix could look like. And the editors of Nature actually encourage researchers. You can find the editorial, they link to the UN, the UN Group's website, which is actively calling for researchers to engage with this process. And so for any ecological economist or post-growth researchers who are out there and want to get organized to throw in some insights, that might be an approach to make sure that this way of thinking, this paradigm, becomes more relevant in their discussions, because other parts of the beyond GDP debate, I feel are less confrontational to the question of growth. There's more about GDP, technically, as you were saying. It's counting oil spills when it shouldn't and it's, but it doesn't really get to the core growth mentality that's inherent in the kind of extractive and capitalist system. For example, that I know, I know you've explored with many, many, many others. So I think we need to be on guard within that process to advocate for these concepts and ideas as well. So you mentioned downscaling the donut. And so, donut 3.0, as you mentioned, is this global scale. How are we doing this health check-up of our global scale, all humans, all humanity, and also our global ecological systems? But there is this movement to downscale the donut, to really bring it to local levels. And there are country level donuts, as you mentioned, there's also even city level donuts. And I mentioned that I'm connected with a few of them, a donut for San Jose, a donut for San Francisco, and a donut for California. Really grateful to be a part of teams who are really leading that and offering that. And so, you know, this question is, how do we leverage donut 3.0 to increase the action or the systems change at the local, the community, the municipal level? And even donut economics can bring come into the enterprises, the businesses, the nonprofits, because what we didn't mention is you have the snapshot of the donut. And then there's this question of how do we get within the donut, right? How do we get within the safe and just space for humanity? And that is regenerative and circular and solidarity economics. And that really comes to enterprises, organizations, you know, businesses, institutions, efforts, etc. So tell us a little bit about the proliferation of the local level of donuts that you're seeing. What are you celebrating? Because this literally changes each week. If I looked last week to this week, there's several more donut initiatives than there were last week. So tell us about once you're familiar with, you're excited about, and also, how do we leverage donut 3.0 at the local level to create this change we're seeking? And this is an area that gives me a lot of energy, actually. So one of the reasons why my role is such a privilege is because one part of it is to be these kind of global research and creating metrics. And I would say just to respond to the first question about leveraging donut 3.0 results, my first got reaction is we aimed to, by publishing this in one of the most high impact journals that we could publish in. We were aiming to give some legitimacy to the donut economics concepts themselves, but also the broader post growth movement that we are a part of. So that, I feel, is an important piece of the analysis in terms of publishing it in nature that is worth recognizing. So I think just leveraging it in that sense is difficult, well, more difficult to discount or to kind of throw away or poshtosh or, you know, that's not real science. That's just a visualization tool type of thing. But when it comes to downscaling stuff, another part of my role is really to offer technical support and serve as a kind of strategic friend who can be called upon by initiatives worldwide that are picking up the data led tools that we offer at donut economics action lab. And so there's been a lot of interest at city scale. And this was really kicked off by the city of Amsterdam, who published the very first public version of what we call the Amsterdam city portrait. And it's a city portrait or the donut portrait methodology. And it's a little bit, this methodology, it's a bit different from the kind of cross-country donut comparisons that we show in donut 3.0, for example. And it's for two reasons that you kind of spoke to a second ago. So first, a donut portrait, it aims to be as locally relevant as possible when you're selecting indicators and targets because it's meant to serve as a tool to inform discussion or deliberation on really how can we find entry points for action in a place. So it gives up comparability across places so that you can no longer compare porous 40% to richest 20% or whatever, but it does so in order to zoom in on these locally relevant issues and indicators. And the other reason that I find it quite useful, if you want to use it as a tool for action, is that it takes a more holistic ambition to downscaling the donut by recognizing that there's more to creating a thriving place than just meeting the basic needs of residents at a level of resource use that respects planetary boundaries. Like, you know, planetary boundaries are kind of this abstract concept that aren't well connected to our places. So locally, we know it's not just about meeting the basic needs of residents, but it's also about working with and within the natural cycles of our local ecosystems within which our places are embedded. And lots of the big national scale or country cluster scale analyses are not able to take into account those local ecosystem characteristics. So that's a core part that we emphasize with the portrait methodology. And globally, as you were already mentioned, it's not only about consuming a level of resources that could be extended to all people without destabilizing Earth systems. It's also crucially about respecting thinking about who are the people who are picking the food and assembling the goods and shipping them and carrying them to our doors and how are the workers and the communities who are we are connected to how are they doing and are we respecting their health and their well-being. So those are what the portrait methodology aims to bring out that Amsterdam child in 2020. And I think it's just such a demonstration of the power of peer-to-peer inspiration that within months, neighboring European cities got in touch with Donut Economic Section, that Brussels capital region, Copenhagen filed a motion. I think it's just a core example of how the importance of precedent and just those first movers allow others who are like you, who like that person, to say, "Oh, well, if they can do it, I can do it." And we immediately had interest from Brussels, from Copenhagen, Barcelona got started Glasgow, as you were mentioning it, then very, very quickly spiraled into, there's now more than 100, there's 50 local governments that are publicly engaging with the strategies and concepts of Donut Economics in their policies and so on. And another 50-odd who are actively exploring the concepts, if not, even if we can't publicly say that it's integrated into this policy or so on. So I think there's lots and lots and lots going on. I was quite involved with the California Donut snapshot, which I really, really enjoyed. It was led by Alites Aritsa and Julian Kraus Polk, who are the ones that I'm mostly engaged with. And again, my role is essentially if I can support with some common challenges that I've come across or that I've seen others come across, that we can support in your process of selecting indicators and targets, there's a little bit of ensuring that the concepts of Donut Economics are correctly kind of communicated and so on. But really, it's just been, it's a pleasure to engage with, with really, really inspired and active folks who are working just all around the world, so I've just really, really enjoyed that aspect of my work. And there are now more than 30 places that have picked up the data that tools and actively created these portrait type of approaches in various ways. Just last week, we published a Donut Data Portraits Indicator Library, which this is one of these things, it's an ongoing tension, right? Because how can you aim to have a tool that's locally relevant that people can use? So we don't want to prescribe specific indicators, even if we, you know, we prescribe the broadset, we all know the food and health and education and these are important dimensions, but the ways that we track progress within those, you know, the world of food is a, it's a whole massive, massive system, same with health, same with energy, same with, so what indicators do you use to track that? In the portrait, we argue that the indicators that would be most relevant, which would be those that most resonate with the possibility to generate meaningful action. And so that's just a really, really inspiring part of our work, but I'm not able to kind of say, oh, you should pick up this indicator that's available in your municipality because I don't have access to all the municipalities in the world. So it's just a really interesting part of people in their places looking for those locally relevant sources, but at the same time, this indicated library tool that I just mentioned, it aims to make much more visible the choices that other initiatives have taken by show. What are the indicators? What are the targets across these even if they're not locally relevant for your place? It can be relevant to see well Barcelona did that and Seattle did this and Vermont did that and Amsterdam did and so that's kind of the spirit of the tool which so far We've been hearing has been really really useful because the counter side if we don't provide something is that every place essentially has to kind of Re-invent the wheel or reach out to everyone on a one-by-one type of approach, which is not as effective given how Strap lots of people are in terms of time and resources and so on Yeah, what you know one thing I've noticed about downscaling the donut is there's diversity and unity Right, there's unity in that it's all the donut portraits similar questions, and that's the same Roughly the same image although there are really cool variations in the image as well and also how to offer it, right? There's the Regen Melbourne has a very cool interactive component and actually includes stories which I really love that piece of it But yeah, so there's unity and then there's also diversity and yeah, just to give folks a sense this this process of creating a snapshot or a portrait at a local level It it's a really beautiful process because it also it asks, you know, what does it mean for us to have the people of this place thrive? and What does it mean to have this need met and you also have to get into enoughness, right? Like what is enoughness, right? Is are we okay with some homelessness or do we need like a hundred percent of people having access to safe and supportive housing and and so you ask these questions and then you're also right that you get into Placed-based and culture-based ways of looking at this too. What does it mean for San Francisco to have a thriving ecosystem? And so it's these really beautiful questions and thank you for all those tools So you know as we come to the end of our conversation and we think about our invitations for listeners going forward So one of them is you know this donut economics action lab website really want to uplift deal.org is a really wonderful place to just You know join it's free, but you you create a profile to just be Inconnected with all these conversations. You can access these tools. There's tools for businesses There's these indicator tools. There's these ways to meet up with people who are looking at policy and and beyond GDP and your even local community So joining that live community is a really beautiful invitation Also to see if anyone's already looking at creating a donut for your area, right? Because it's possible a group is already convening on this and if not Might you be someone to bring this and I also want to add there's different pathways to adopting the donut You mentioned governmental adoption of the donuts such as an Amsterdam But then there's also as we're doing in California more grassroots level more community-based Approaches to bringing the donut to life or letting the donut rise So I want to add that as an invitation another invitation is you mentioned That you worked with the California donut economics coalition and thank you for your help on that So I'll just I'll we will link to our snapshot for California and the different community groups that we're offering in case anyone wants to get involved there And then you also mentioned you know read the article this donut 3.0 article again It's titled donut of social and planetary boundaries monitors a world out of balance and Read it and engage with Andrew and the deal team about any criticisms critiques right? It's alive. It's it's an ongoing investigation So what what words or what ideas or what themes might they consider in future iterations? What questions might be really important from where you are in the world and I would particularly add share it with Someone who may be pro-capitalist or pro GDP because that's really a gift of this work is that it's it's understandable and like you said A scientific rigorous way that capitalism is not serving us, right? And that over this time things are not getting better in tech things are getting worse and they're not improving at the way that we need them to improve So this is a useful talking point or starting point with someone who may be pro-capitalist or pro-GDP And then I'll also just add wow research opportunities if you are an academic or a researcher or you know Any of this like there's so much even that you just said Andrew that we can continue so many inquiries that we can dive deeper in and we can You know continue to contribute to this body of work and then that research can really contribute to the systems change So those are some invitations that I will add coming from what you said Andrew, but I'd love to hear your closing invitations for the listeners and also Will add are there any leading inquiries that you have or even tensions because I love thinking about what's what's not working well or what are You still trying to figure out or what's the rub or the critique that maybe you're you're working to solve for you or for the Community so anything you'd like to say by way of invitations questions or tensions and any closing words for our listeners Sure, thanks. Thanks. So I guess if we think from just a more conventional Researchy type hatch where we can say, you know, what's a what's a question that we could have that we could explore in greater detail or make visible or or that type a big One that keeps coming up that we still haven't found Really a way to crack yet is the question of whether and how to include the more than human world Within the social foundation of the doughnut. So I mean we're it's the goal that the doughnut visualizes is how can we meet the needs of all people Within the means of the living planet, but of course what are people right like all the indicators that we show are Related to human beings, but if we think of people with a broader sense that don't necessarily just have to be human beings Then what are the types of indicators that can make that come alive? Just really quick. I think about the health of pollinators or the health of the soil or the health of our waters just to give you the eye examples right Right, so not to see that So much as a as a boundary that human beings must stay within otherwise we will you know trigger or collapse of our civilization Which is you know not cool, but at the same time like how do we recognize the needs of non-human more than human species within that that concept of shortfall not just overshoot if that makes sense So that's that's a big open one for me that I just love Talking to people about or trying to get our heads around well at the same time a core challenge for for all of these When it comes to the doughnut is that it is a visual framework So how do we balance the additional complexity of bringing in potentially bringing in new concepts in? Into the framework while keeping it visually intuitive and appealing and just recognizing you know, I'm constantly recognizing at what point is Should we just have a different tool like maybe the doughnut is not the right tool for this task? We should Invent a different tool or something like that question of how Whether you start pulling something too far outside of of what it's meant to do I guess that's a concern particularly for the the visual aspect because Anyone who's played around with visuals you can very very quickly Add some element that you think displays this concept, but actually nobody gets it like it just loses the The intuitiveness which of course is is very very important I also really want to Similarly think about how to visualize those interconnections that we were talking about interconnections and inter inequalities within and between nations. So that scatter plot chart I was mentioning earlier where we're just showing Countries as as isolated entities on a chart. How can we start layering in the the interconnections within them? I could see something, but again, how do we do that without it becoming just a spaghetti plot of confusion and chaos? Which it is, but that's not what we want to show And I guess other final invitations for your listener. So you really covered a huge amount of of the things that I was going to mention I guess I would invite your listeners to take action If you're interested in donut economics as you mentioned donut economics action lab We exist to essentially support people who are inspired by the concepts and want to put them into practice And so we create tools that are all available in the comments Please pick them up, use them, adapt them, critically share about your stories so that they can inspire others We know that's hopefully coming back to that peer-to-peer inspiration that to me is Is possibly one of the only forces that might be like strong enough to actually Change the trajectory of this massive mega system that we're living within as well as If you're not so much interested in donut economics, then really it's just to take action in some way And I know that many many people do and the definition of action can be for me is incredibly broad It can be about convening spaces it could be about talking to your neighbors it could be about You know doing an analysis or making a chart or Of course going on the street and protesting and like the many many different ways that people can take action I think everyone is needed right now And I would invite listeners to be aware of the you know the pernicious positive effect of growth framing that's all around us I've found and actually I think it was Jorgos Calis who who shared this maybe in a writings or something I can't even remember anymore it's been so long I've been doing it but I've taken it as a habit to whenever I see the word growth as related to the economy and so on I just transform that word in my mind to engulf everything the words engulf everything or it's derivative so it actually leads to some quite ridiculous translations when you think of a newspaper article that's like the economy engulfed everything by 2% this year or like it's just a way for me to avoid that sense that growth is something to be normalized that it's actually not and that we need to as you were saying have the sense of enoughness when it comes to the economy whenever whenever we're talking about it what's it for who's it for and why those types of questions you've been listening to an upstream conversation Andrew Fanny data analysis and research lead at donut economics action lab and a visiting research fellow in the sustainability research institute he's also the co-author along with Kate Rayworth of donut of social and planetary boundaries monitors the world out of balance published in nature in October 2025 please check the show notes for links to any of their resources mentioned in this episode thank you to Nicole Lawrence for the intermission music upstream theme music was composed by me Robby upstream is entirely listener fund no ads no promotions no grants just patreon subscriptions and listener donations we couldn't keep this project going without your support subscribe to our patreon for biweekly bonus episodes access to our entire back catalog of patreon episodes and for stickers and bumper stickers at certain subscription tiers through your support you'll be helping keep upstream sustainable and helping to keep this whole project going socialist political education podcasts are not easy to find so thank you in advance for the crucial support and for more from us please visit upstreampodcast.org and follow us on social media for updates and post capitalist memes at upstream podcast you can also subscribe to us on Spotify apple podcasts or wherever you listen to your favorite podcasts and if you like what you hear please give us a five star rating this really really helps upstream getting front of more eyes and into more years thank you [MUSIC]