Daniel Lim: Building liberatory cultures and regenerative wealth (ep313)
What are some of the distinctive qualities of supremacist cultures—as opposed to liberatory ones? And if liberatory cultures do not have an inherent interest in dominating, controlling, and overpowering, would they have what it takes to overtake power-hungry, supremacist societies?
In this episode, we welcome Daniel Lim, a queer, Chinese-Burmese social change-maker and the founder of Daniel Lim Consulting, which is a social justice consulting firm that supports organizations to build regenerative and liberatory cultures. Daniel's practice is informed by the wisdom of living systems and teachings of Black liberation and Indigenous sovereignty movements. His calling in life is to advance collective liberation and heal humanity’s relationship to the living world.
Musical feature: Trust The Sun by Gian Slater
“In the United States, because of how racism has structured our society, a lot of communities of color, communities on the margins, queer communities, worker communities, working-class communities, undocumented communities... are often regenerative and liberatory—not in all aspects, because we do internalize some of the supremacist dynamics that we are enmeshed in. But in many ways, they operate in regenerative and liberatory principles.”
If you feel inspired by this episode, please consider donating a gift of support of any amount today!
Transcript
Note: *The values and opinions of our diverse guests do not necessarily reflect those of Green Dreamer. Our episodes are minimally edited, and we encourage further inquiry, seeing our dialogues as invitations to dive deeper into each topic and perspective. This transcript has been edited for brevity and clarity.
Kamea Chayne: Today, we're speaking with Daniel Lim, a queer Chinese Burmese social changemaker, he founded Daniel Lim Consulting, a social justice consulting firm that supports organizations to build regenerative and liberatory cultures. And his practice is informed by the wisdom of living systems and the teachings of Black liberation and Indigenous sovereignty movements. Daniel's calling in life is to advance collective liberation and heal humanity's relationship to the living world. Thank you so much for joining us on the show, Daniel. It's an honor to have you.
Daniel Lim: I'm really honored to be here.
Kamea Chayne: So, you have a multicultural upbringing that shaped the lenses through which you see the world today and really set up the foundations of your social justice work. So I'd love for you to begin by giving us a glimpse into your background that solidified your interest in collective liberation and healing.
Daniel Lim: Yeah, so I am ethnically Chinese. My family has direct ties to the Taishan region in southeastern China, but my family actually has not been in China for two generations. So my grandparents from both sides, my father's side and my mother's side, moved to Myanmar or Burma during World War Two to basically escape the Japanese invasion. And so my family has been in Burma for three generations now, and I was also born in Burma. And so from there, I have my Chinese ethnic background. And there's a lot of Chinese culture that is alive in my family. But we also internalized a lot of Burmese culture just because that's where we lived.
We grew up in a poor family. We grew up in a very run-down house. And we didn't have a lot of things. We didn't have a refrigerator or we didn't have a TV. We didn't have a lot of basic amenities, but we always had what I now consider to be ecological wealth. We lived in a huge lot. And we had a mango tree, a jackfruit tree, several papaya trees and guava trees, and countless other plants. And we also had lots of different animals. We had snakes. We had lizards, we had owls, we had birds. It was a really biodiverse place that we grew up in. And my sisters and I, we called it a zoo. We called our home a zoo and a garden because biologically it was. And that really shaped my interest in nature. At that time, I didn't really see it as nature. It was just my environment. It's my home. And there was not that boundary of what is human versus what is nature.
And at eight years old, my family and I moved to the United States and we moved to New York City, to Brooklyn. And I am still here to this day. My family is still here to this day and four years after I moved to the United States, my uncles and aunts who have been here earlier—by 20 years, they decided one day to take us on a camping trip. And I just remember loving camping. We went to the Delaware River in New Jersey and I fell in love with trees. I fell in love with the river, and I fell in love with just... The land. It was like being back home in Burma and all those different childhood experiences really solidified my love for nature and my interest in protecting the environment.
And at the same time, I'm acutely aware of injustice, and I've always had this intrinsic propensity for achieving justice and equity. Starting with within my own family, just navigating the dynamics and the privileges that come with being the eldest in a Chinese family. And so these two interests, one in environmental protection and one in social justice, have always been inside me for my entire life. And they started eventually merging into real studies in college where I studied ecology, ecological design, as well as community development, economics and social justice. And I studied urban planning when I went to graduate school. And then I focused on environmental justice work. And so my lifelong interest in those two things started to merge...
Kamea Chayne: Thank you for sharing that. You've written some really insightful articles on Medium on regenerative liberation and racial justice, and specifically, we know that anti-Asian hate and xenophobia have increased within the last year due to the first cases of Covid-19 coming from the region of Wuhan, China. But you contend that anti-Asian hate has a history that goes far beyond the U.S. empire itself. And that it also exists separately from the framework of anti-Blackness, which is often used to explain the roots of all other forms of racism. So how would you deconstruct the origins of this Orientalist prejudice and what questions have you had to grapple with in our modern-day discussions on this social construct of race and racism?
Daniel Lim: Yeah, I'll jump back and forth between the personal and the more analytical. I was born in Burma and for the first eight years of my life, I did not see myself as Asian. No one in my family saw themselves as Asian. We were Chinese and then we were Burmese. And we looked at other people based on their ethnicity. They were Indian, they were Thai, they were Cambodian. And it wasn't until I came to the United States and I started school in third grade and my classmates and my teachers started saying things like, "oh, that Asian kid", or "you're Asian". And it's those interactions early on that made me realize, oh, there's this thing called race and I am of the Asian race, because that's what people tell me. And other people belong to other racial groups. People are Black, people are white. And so that was my earliest experience of being racialized when I came to the United States. And it was my family's experience of being racialized.
And this anti-Asian violence that we're seeing right now is not new. It's actually only the latest manifestation of it. And this idea that Donald Trump sort of promulgated about how the virus is a Chinese virus, it's a Wuhan virus. He's just playing into a stereotype that has long existed. He didn't invent it. He just utilized it to his advantage.
[Anti-Asian violence] is really rooted in Orientalism— which has been in the mindset of Western civilization for thousands of years. It's this idea that the Western civilization is the norm, is the moral center of the universe, and Eastern civilizations, which include India, China, and the Middle East, represent the Oriental— the thing that's not the West, that is morally deviant from the righteous Christian nations of Western civilization.
One of the stereotypes of Orientalism is that Asian people bring diseases to Western societies, and that's the threat that they always pose among various other threats. You can easily see that stereotype playing out again and again in history. This is one of those moments where Donald Trump utilized the existing stereotype that Asian people bring diseases. Whether it's factually true or not is a different conversation, though I think it's an irrelevant conversation because diseases come from somewhere—that doesn't mean that the disease itself has an ethnic identity. The coronavirus is not a "Chinese virus". It doesn't have an ethnic identity. So the practice of associating an ethnic identity with a virus or with the disease agent is really rooted in racist ideology. In this case, it's rooted in Orientalism.
[Orientalism] has shaped the West's imagination about Asia for thousands of years, and not just cultural imagination, but also economic and military practices as well. Asian societies are always seen as a foreign threat, and that really fuels a lot of the U.S.'s military presence in the Asia-Pacific region.
Orientalism is a complex ideology that influences not just this current moment of anti-Asian racism, but also the United States' century-long history of dealing with Asia and having a particular type of foreign policy when it comes to Asian countries.
Kamea Chayne: Orientalism is so deeply rooted. if we think about what we learn in school in terms of geography and maps of the world, we learn about these concepts of continents... which are defined as any of the world's main continuous expanses of land. Technically, Eurasia should be one continent, but it's split into two. So it's the West, which is Europe, and then everything that is Oriental or on the East side, which is considered Asia.
Based on the official definition of a continent, there's no reason why this should be split into two, other than the dominant cartographers at the time—which were Western cartographers—feeling the need to draw this line and distinction to differentiate people from the East, from people of the West.
And you share that “the common misconception is that white supremacy is the motivation itself, as in white people engage in white supremacy because they believe themselves to be superior or they wish to be superior. This is historically inaccurate." If white supremacy is not in itself the motivation and the basis, what do you think underlies that and sets the stage for this logic of supremacy in the first place?
Daniel Lim: We're getting into that area of intellectual theory where different people, when they read the history of all these things, can have different interpretations. So I will be upfront and say this is my particular interpretation, which is really fueled or informed by both Critical Race Theory and Marxist interpretations of history. I'm not a scholar of either of those, but I've read enough to form my own theories. The way I understand it is white supremacy... we often confuse it to be the primary motivation. And by that I mean we believe that Europeans engage in white supremacy because they believe themselves to be superior or wish to be superior. When you look at history, that is not exactly true. White supremacy is a social technology—a logic, a tool, a power structure.
And so what do I think is behind it? I think it's imperialism and colonialism—Europeans constructed this concept of race, the system of racism, the system of white supremacy, as logic to justify their imperialism and colonialism and to carry them out.
This kind of interpretation helps us understand how other imperial societies also create their own technologies, their own logic to justify their particular imperialism and colonialism. I am of Chinese descent, and China or Chinese society has been an imperial force for over four thousand years. They don't use the logic or the technology of white supremacy because that's a recent invention. But they operate by a different supremacy logic—the Han supremacy logic. And so when you think about or when you understand white supremacy as a technology, as a tool, rather than a primary motivation, you can start to see how it really operates.
That's what I mean by white supremacy not being the primary motivation. Imperialism, colonialism, and white supremacy are the primary tools by which those motivations are carried out.
Kamea Chayne: So, of course, prejudice of all forms exists, this sort of othering or seeing the other as less than... This exists in all different forms. But when we're talking about, for example, white supremacy or other forms of supremacy, perhaps that's less rooted in something that is innate or interpersonal and something that is more systemic as a justification for some sort of way of political or social organizing.
Daniel Lim: Once you have white supremacy as the power structure, as the logic that really defines a society, that then sort of feeds itself, perpetuates itself by promulgating a lot of these stereotypes and prejudices and biases. And people that live in a particular supremacist society will internalize those prejudices and keep the system going.
In my work, we talk about four levels of racism: the ideological level, the logic that fuels all this, then the power structures or the structural level, the interpersonal level—where a lot of prejudices. bigotry, and biases come into play in people's interpersonal relationships.
Kamea Chayne: One of your focuses is dismantling supremacy as an ideology. And you do take this beyond white supremacy to see how other supremacist cultures within perhaps more regional contexts parallel that. And you brought up Chinese imperialism as an example. But without equalizing the different forms of supremacist cultures, what are some of the distinctive qualities of supremacist cultures that can help us better understand them in our modern-day society?
Daniel Lim: So all supremacy systems are really motivated by what I consider to be three primary motivations, which are imperialism, colonialism, and hierarchism—the motivation or the desire to organize society around the hierarchy. When we understand that those are the three primary basic motivations behind all types of supremacy systems, you can start to see some of the common characteristics of supremacy systems—they have this desire to otherize and to say those other people are not human, or not fully human, like us. They do not deserve full sovereignty in the way we do.
Once you start to believe that other people do not have the same level of sovereignty or dignity as you do as a human being, then that starts to mentally justify, for you, the mistreatment of those peoples. So within the supremacy system of patriarchy, non-cis-gender straight men—women, transgender people, gender non-binary people—are second-class citizens.
These types of prejudices and logic start to come into play with all types of supremacy systems—this idea of othering and dehumanization of that otherized group.
Kamea Chayne: So it feels that around the globe and throughout the course of history, we have different imperialist societies and colonizers that have exerted their dominance and control over other communities and peoples—who perhaps had no interest in competing for some form of ownership or domination as inherent parts of their culture and purpose.
This means that in any region, it's likely going to be the supremacist cultures that end up being the most dominant, because it's deeply rooted in their imperialist and supremacist ideology. And this, for me, means that the most liberatory and regenerative cultures that we should learn from and uplift that still exist today are going to be the ones that have been the most marginalized and often taken advantage of by those dominant societies.
I have two questions stemming from this stream of consciousness. I'll start with the first one, which is: Contrary to supremacist cultures, what do liberatory and regenerative cultures generally have in common?
Daniel Lim: What a powerful question. Firstly, we want to look at specific manifestations of regenerative and liberatory cultures just to ground the characteristics in specific examples. I think Indigenous cultures around the world are often regenerative and liberatory cultures that coexist with colonial imperialist supremacist societies.
In the United States, because of how racism has structured our society, a lot of communities of color, communities on the margins, queer communities, worker communities, working-class communities, undocumented communities... are often regenerative and liberatory—not in all aspects, because we do internalize some of the supremacist dynamics that we are enmeshed in. But in many ways, they operate in regenerative and liberatory principles.
One of the most ubiquitous characteristics is the tendency for regenerative and liberatory societies and communities to engage in collective behavior—to really lean into the interdependence of all of us and to engage in reciprocity.
This is when my work in social justice and racial equity really starts to draw from the wisdom of living systems. The practice of solidarity, the practice of interdependence, the practice of sharing resources, the practice of decentralized leadership, you see all of those dynamics in what we call natural ecosystems, like forest ecosystems. So we can see those behaviors in human communities that are regenerative and liberatory as well.
For example, a lot of Black and Brown communities, during the pandemic, when they have historically been under-invested by the state, engage in mutual aid. Mutual aid is a type of reciprocity that is not about charity; mutual aid is a human manifestation that you can see in a lot of communities of color and poor communities, that you can also recognize in natural ecosystems.
The other dynamic is a capacity for generative conflict. Living things all have differences, we have different competing interests. In supremacist societies, we're often told to win, right? There can only be one winner, you have to win this competition. You have to win your argument. You have to win the debate and you have to be the one that gets all the resources.
When you live in a liberatory society, you have a much wider capacity to deal with conflict and to approach conflict in a way that is restorative, that actually heals relationships, that restores trust—and it's not so much focused on figuring out who's right, who's wrong, who's the winner, who's the loser.
Interdependence and generative conflict are two ubiquitous characteristics of regenerative and liberatory societies.
Kamea Chayne: And as I mentioned earlier, it has been the case that the groups of people with supremacist and imperialist worldviews and values are likely going to be the ones that strive to obtain power as a goal in of itself to then be used to organize societies of these hierarchies where they can solidify their place at the top. And that's how domination works, is by subjugating others. So I wonder if it's even possible for biocentric and liberatory cultures to even break through and disrupt dominant supremacist cultures if seeking power in of itself is not even a trait of regenerative ways of being and organizing. What are your thoughts on that?
Daniel Lim: I would challenge that because liberatory cultures have a much more nuanced understanding of power than supremacist societies. So it is actually maybe a supremacist colonial belief that liberatory cultures inherently are not as power-sensitive or power-aware. That's one of the stereotypes that we deal with a lot in our work: When we enter an organization that is extremely hierarchical and we say, ‘Can we practice decentralized leadership?’ We bump up against assumptions about what power is and how power manifests.
Supremacist societies, I believe, have a very narrow, rigid idea of power—where it's really only power over—the power to be over someone else, the power to control someone else, the power to dominate other people, other living things. Liberatory cultures, on the other hand, have a much more expansive and nuanced understanding of power, where they practice power with, or in my work, I call it liberatory power.
How do you practice power with people? Not over people. When we talk about fighting for racial equity, when we talk about fighting for social justice, it's not that we're trying to seize power or grab power, as if power is limited and there's a finite amount of it. It's more about, how do we get supremacist cultures and people who are committed to supremacy to give up oppressive power to give up supremacist power and to practice liberatory power with everyone else?
A lot of the racial equity conversations that I'm often in is focused on this idea of making white people give up power. I always like to reframe that conversation—we're not asking white people to give up power. We're asking white people to give up oppressive power, supremacist power, and to instead practice liberatory power with people of color. So it's a very different definition of power. I think that is the way that we're going to escape the tentacles of supremacist societies and really start to dismantle those systems and build more regenerative systems.
Kamea Chayne: So basically, it's really not about people who are currently marginalized, seeking to obtain power in this framework of a linear top-down form of power that currently is practiced within the dominant supremacist culture. But rather, it's about transforming the type of power that we recognize and that those currently in the supremacist culture practices in general. So in other words, it's not just about diversifying the faces of who is in power within this current framework and hierarchy, but about transforming how we even conceptualize power, to begin with.
Daniel Lim: Exactly. And I would say both are happening. There's this tug of war between do you work within the system, or do you work outside the system? And I think you have to do both to get to that final destination. You have to in many ways, in the day-to-day, participate in the system that's already built. And in those systems, you do have to vie for power. People have to run for office. And that's kind of limited power. Once you're in the office, political office, you have power and other people don't have the power. And so some people want to work within the system of that type of power structure. And other people are trying to work outside the system to build more liberatory power structures.
Kamea Chayne: In “Precepts of Regenerative Practice”, you say: "The whole is more abundant than the sum of its parts. True wealth is abundant and grows when shared. Only artificial wealth created by greed is scarce." This statement is imaginative in that it unravels the foundational beliefs of scarcity that underly so much of how we orient and organize our economies and societies today.
And it's a really beautiful sentiment that's rooted in the possibilities of what we can co-create through collaboration over competition. You touched on this earlier, but I would love for you to walk us through your thought process behind this perspective shift that you've made and are encouraging in others.
Daniel Lim: So let's root that first in natural ecosystems. If you look at any natural ecosystem, whether it's a forest system, a marine system, or a desert ecosystem, you see that there are only so many mineral resources and energetic resources to go around. Carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfur, and potassium, and all those nutrients. And despite the limitations, the limited quantities of those mineral nutrients, you have such vibrant, diverse, resilient ecosystems. And the reason for that is because all the living things participating in those systems are really building more than what is actually available. So, you have these trees, insects, microbes, animals, mammals, and birds living amongst each other, and they're just constantly cycling nutrients with each other on a micro-scale and also on a global scale—and on a timescale most humans can't even perceive.
Just by doing that cyclical motion of nutrients sharing, resource sharing, the ecosystem as a whole creates more than what was originally there. That's the idea—the whole is more than the sum of its parts, true wealth is created by people coming together and sharing, rather than hoarding.
And so transfer that to human ecosystems: We talk about economics and what wealth means in terms of economics and human communities. We often think about wealth in terms of money. And in this capitalist society that we live in, we, for some reason, value and look up to wealthy people. We look up to Jeff Bezos, we look up to Elon Musk, and we say those people are smart, they're successful. We don't question how they hoard wealth and how they systematically impoverish the rest of society in order to get the wealth they do. If you look at the whole picture, you realize one person's immense wealth leads to the destabilization of the rest of society.
And so what if we were to practice a more regenerative economy, if we were to practice a more regenerative concept of wealth and money so that everyone has what they need and the money just keeps flowing rather than being hoarded in one person's bank account? What if the money is constantly being cycled through the rest of society so that everyone is nourished by that money, everyone is nourished by that wealth, and everyone is able to get the resources they need to be a thriving community?
When we look at what we mean by "wealth" and "economies", we have to start thinking regeneratively, to make sure that society as a whole is amounting to more than the sum of its parts. One of the ways we do that is by practicing shared wealth or shared communal wealth, where the money and the wealth is constantly being cycled through to lift up all parts of the system. This is a direct mirror to what we observe in natural ecosystems.
Kamea Chayne: So maybe one of the challenges is that communities and relationships have been eroded to the point where it drives people to become more individualistic because there's a lack of trust. [Maybe people can't hold a mindset of abundance, the idea of] allowing things to keep flowing, [and being reassured] that you're going to get that back when you need it most. When people have this fear of scarcity, it might drive people to hoard the resources that they have out of... Insecurity, that if you were to let it go, it's not going to flow back to you when you need it most.
Daniel Lim: I believe that to be true. Trust is so paramount to this type of culture. A lot of indigenous cultures... and [really if you] just come from any non-Western culture, you observe a lot of cultural practices where it's a display of trust, it's a display of faith in the fact that if you give something freely, you trust that it will come back to you.
I come from a Chinese community. I come from a poor family. When we were in Burma, we had a lot of cultural practices where people just gave each other things in times of need. There was no expectation of tit for tat. They were not transactional relationships. People give away things freely, even if they don't have a lot to begin with, because they trust that what you give will ultimately come back to you in your time of need. That type of cultural practice is, I think, missing in our modern, capitalist society, where our relationships are often based on distrust: We don't know each other, I can't trust you. So if there's ever a limited quantity of resources—like toilet paper during a pandemic—my conditioned instinct is to hoard it. And [then] it really comes down to my socioeconomic privilege. Do I have the money to hoard toilet paper? And if I don't, then I'm out of luck.
This idea of trust, leaning into trust, and engaging in mutual aid is really rooted in how ecosystems work. It's also rooted in liberatory practice.
Kamea Chayne: And as you shared your vision of liberatory social organizing and cultures is really informed and inspired by ecology and living systems. And I find it interesting that we often separate the social or cultural from the ecological—as if only human societies are social and have culture—when in reality, we are a part of the greater social and cultural systems of ecology that we've largely just become disassociated with. So I wonder what we've lost by not recognizing ecology as both social and cultural. And on the flip side, what we can learn from the dynamic of regenerative ecology to guide our path from where we are right now, with a lot of destruction and harm going on, into the future that we want to create.
Daniel Lim: We've lost a lot, and I'll focus on two things. We lost a lot of our imagination for what is possible. We lost our imagination of different ways of being and different ways of organizing our society when we lost touch with the rest of the living world. When you look at the rest of the living world, you see that different species have so much creativity in how they live and how they organize themselves.
And humans are not the only social species. For the longest time, scientists thought that sociality extended to other mammals and then slowly to other animals, like birds. Now we're realizing that even trees are social beings—they're just not social in the way humans are. But all living things are social.
And they're not just social within members of their own species; they're also social with other species—they're interspecies-social. Humans are also interspecies-social in many ways, and we continue to be. But we've also stopped being interspecies-social in so many ways. We have internalized this colonial view that nature is just this dead thing that we can extract natural resources from.
What if we were to remember that the rest of the world is our kin and they're living things just like us, and we can form interspecies relationships with them, we can learn from them and we can act in ways that actually help them heal, that can actually help their existence? We have lost so much of that imagination, and so much of that type of communication. We need to revive that.
The other thing we lost, when we lost our connection to the natural world, I think is our capacity to see the unity of all living things. I spoke earlier about this otherization that happens in supremacist societies. One of the ways that we can heal that and start seeing other living things and even other members of the human species as our kin is to rekindle our relationship with the living world.
There's always this schism where we're taught that we have to focus on our human relationships first and then our relationships with our species. It's this human-centric approach, this hierarchy, or list of priorities of which problems to solve first and human problems always come first—like we have to heal our relationships with each other first and then heal our relationship to the land. For me, it's often both at the same time.
We're not going to heal our relationships with each other completely if we don't heal our relationship with the land—both need to happen because both schisms happened simultaneously. I think interspecies unity will really help us see all living things, human and more-than-human, as kin.
Kamea Chayne: Thank you so much for sharing your inspiring vision and words of guidance. We are nearing the end of our conversation, but I'd love to hold space for you to share anything else that's on your mind that I didn't get to ask you about, as well as your calls to action for our listeners.
Daniel Lim: I don't know that I have other thoughts, but my call to action... I would love for humans to just go out there and form a friendship with a tree or a bird, any non-pet living thing. I think it's easy for humans to form a relationship with a houseplant, or a dog, or a cat, that they own and raise. It's very different to have a relationship with a living thing that you don't control, that you don't raise, that you don't own.
Go out to the streets and just start to have a relationship with the tree on your block or with the bird that keeps visiting your window and see what that's like. And who knows what each relationship will look like for each person. But I can almost guarantee you that having that relationship will really change how we relate to each other and change what we believe is possible—politically possible, ecologically possible. Those relationships are so valuable and there's so few of them.
A lot of our relationships these days are human-centric. It's a powerful and also simple practice of forming relationships with those who are more-than-human.
***
Kamea Chayne: Thank you so much. I have three lightning round closing questions for you before we wrap up. What is an uplifting social media account or publication you follow or a book that's been really profound for you?
Daniel Lim: I love Emergence Magazine. It is a free online magazine and it is a publication that really presents writing that's rooted in spiritual ecology, and it is the only magazine that I've read that has really inspired me, because their writing really works at the intersection of ecology and culture and spirituality. That is their tagline, so I would recommend that people check out the magazine.
Kamea Chayne: What do you tell yourself to stay motivated and inspired?
Daniel Lim: These days, I tell myself it's not that serious. Life is a cosmic play and we're all characters in it and we don't have to take life too seriously. Have fun, follow your joy and it's okay for things to be easy. Things don't have to be hard in order for it to be real or meaningful. That's something I'm learning every day. So I'm following my joy, I'm following my ease, and I just treat life as play.
Kamea Chayne: And what makes you most hopeful for our world at the moment?
Daniel Lim: Just seeing all of the local movements and actions that are taking place, we often think that these global, national-level supremacist systems are immutable and they're not. They're constantly changing. And we have the power to change it. And it starts with local action, starting with gardens and get-togethers and people writing. And so witnessing all of that really inspires me.
Kamea Chayne: Well green dreamer, we are coming to a close, but to learn more and stay updated on Daniel's work, you can head to www.dlimconsulting.com and you can also follow him on Instagram at @regenerativeliberation and on Medium at regenerative.medium.com. Daniel, thank you so much for joining us today, it was a pleasure to have you and have this conversation. What final words of wisdom do you have for us as green dreamers?
Daniel Lim: Well, it's been a pleasure speaking with you. Live life to the fullest. It's all you can do. And follow your joy.
