Excellent review of both the movie (which I hated for the reasons you discuss), and the article in the daily mail, which made my stomach turn.

It would not surprise me if the oil debacle is being artificially created by those in power positions who are worshiping the god of this world

Explain to me what you think is happening…are the major oil producers (Saudis, Russians, Venezuelans, Nigerians, Iranians, etc.) getting together to limit the supply in order to help the cause of Al Gore? Or perhaps you think some people are secretly buying up the oil and storing it somewhere? I don’t quite understand your theory.

You are correct that it is a bit of a puzzle why oil prices have risen so sharply so fast. I just have a hard time understanding how it could be some sort of environmentalist or socialist conspiracy. It seems more likely to have to do with rising demand coupled with a desire by those that own the oil to get as much money for it as possible.

I have heard estimates that the world’s oil preserves are enough to serve all energy needs for decades, yet we are seeing today the effects of shortages in supply. Why?

If the reserves (not preserves) were really going to run out in decades, doesn’t it make sense that the price should start rising NOW, so that the oil doesn’t just suddenly run out all at once one day in the future.

Tell me, how would YOU determine what the correct price of oil should be? Remember that at each point in time, supply must equal demand in the market.

It is truly disappointing and shows how unhinged some on the right have gotten that they cannot accept the message of a beautiful movie like this for what it is. It seems that it has touched a raw nerve, and people like Bryce ought to think why.

Mr. Andrew Stanton (who wrote WALL-E) is no newcomer to messages in his film. Take Finding Nemo, which fairly strongly makes a message against fishing. Where is the outrage there? The outrage against WALL-E is that those like Bryce, have been fighting against changing our lifestyles to protect the planet we live on and would prefer to be on the Axiom. So it touches a raw nerve. It is too bad that you let such a message get to you, Bryce. It is a mere gentle reminder. It doesn’t whack you over the head like a sledgehammer. Just chalk it off as a nice rebuke to our over-consuming society and move on.

I don’t like messages in films. Period. Didn’t like the anti-fishing message in Nemo, didn’t like the old-time American message in Cars. And I don’t need Pixar to preach to me about the environment. I watch movies for entertainment, not sociopolitical messages.

The movie is anti-rampant-consumerism, but I don’t know how you got from Wall-E to people having abortions to save the planet.

Why are you still watching Pixar movies Tossman? They’ve all had messages, it seems like you would have given up by now.

Don’t forget Toy Story and its message. Save the Toys!!!

Tossman,

What is your favorite film?

Thank you for your thought provoking post Bryce,
What my kids got from WALL-E was, “Don’t be a lazy bum all day!” (exact quote from daughter #1 ten years old) We had discussions about what too much TV, junk food, lying around (while a robot i.e. your Mom waits on you), and making a big mess is not good for our bodies, our minds or our world. Active living (like gardening), cleaning up your junk, and not having too much junk (food and stuff) and taking resposibility for yourself is better for your life and the world.

Thanks, Bryce.

I was turned off by the message. I think it would have been possible to make a movie like this without the environmental evangelism that pervades it.

Nice action, good animation; but the “humans are destroying the earth and corporations aren’t helping” did not please me.

I believe the reason why people are so upset with environmentalism is because it is taking the shape of a sort of totalitarian, intolerant, and irrational movement. Any movement that causes such incredible ideas as abortions to the save the planet must be addressed and about which one must be very wary.

I find it interesting that such indoctrination takes place, especially towards kids, without any protest, but anything with a Christian or conservative message to kids is usually derided and condemned.

We have a mandate to care for the earth, indeed, but in ways that magnify our potential and the potential of the earth.

You know Dan, it is freaking me out that I actually agree with you

Wow. I thought that rejection of materialism and stewardship of the earth were messages taught in the Doctrine and Covenants and by the prophets.

Thanks for correcting my misunderstanding.

This is a joke, right? Suggesting that abortion is somehow a cornerstone of environmentalism is ludicrous. Picking extreme examples of behavior to define a movement is just poor reasoning. Your utter disregard for very real and serious issues facing our planet is sad.

JA Benson,

I’m not an extremist. We will probably agree on many things. Just not some, er, more hot topics.

First, I believe that God is in control. All of these discussions about environmentalism and saving the planet seem to completely ignore Him who made the earth. Yes, we can damage it, but He is not impotent.

Second, various people have begun attributing to a seemingly all-powerful entity (Climate Change, pollution, whatnot) what are properly the doings and power of God (weather, earthquakes, etc.). We “blame” such things on AGC rather than consider Him who has done these.

This ignoring of God is a very serious matter. This is but one way to elevate humanity and obscure God.

Third, various environmentalists and anti-materialists ignore why materialism and pollution can be bad. The prophets and apostles are very clear as to why these are bad: materialism is bad because it is the love of money rather than the love of God. It is a form of idolatry. Pollution is bad because it spoils the gift God gave us, which is the earth. But because some have transformed materialism and pollution into evil per se, the other issues behind them suffer. Being industrious helps people achieve a higher standard of living and equip people with the ability to help those around them better and more.

Notice that it is not money that is the root of all evil but rather the love of money that is.

By stifling trade, industry, innovation, and other forces of materialism and capitalism, we stifle the progress of humanity. The progress of humanity means more tools to spread the Gospel and build up Zion.

I think an excellent exposition of these issues is Approaching Zion by Br. Nibley.

The reason we bring up “abortion to save the planet” is because it reveals a widespread and pernicious mindset. They elevate the planet above humanity. They pervert the purposes and institutions of God to serve Gaia. To use somewhat religious terminology (which is apropos to this issue): they fetishize the planet. It becomes a god to them, and environmentalism becomes a religion. These are spiritual perils which we must be very wary of.

We must never forget why the earth was created to begin with: it was created for us, for humans, for the children of God.

So you actually believe that persons who abort their babies in the name of “going green” define the larger environmentalist movement? And that the creators of WALL-E, because they communicate an eco-friendly message in their film, are linked to these women who abort their children?

Muslihoon, if you think Hugh Nibley advocated unrestrained capitalism, you might want to try reading him a little closer.

By stifling trade, industry, innovation, and other forces of materialism and capitalism, we stifle the progress of humanity.

Atrocities have been committed under the guise of “progress.”

Muslihoon, if you think Hugh Nibley advocated unrestrained capitalism, you might want to try reading him a little closer.

What I meant is that Br. Nibley criticized capitalism and materialism for the right reasons, putting them into perspective and context. We should follow his reasoning and exhortations rather than the world’s, because the world’s reasoning and perspective are false.

Atrocities have been committed under the guise of “progress.”

Absolutely. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. And all opposed to trade, innovation, materialism, and capitalism.

So you actually believe that persons who abort their babies in the name of “going green” define the larger environmentalist movement? And that the creators of WALL-E, because they communicate an eco-friendly message in their film, are linked to these women who abort their children?

Do women who abort their babies betray the fact they place the planet above humanity? Yes.

Do many other environmentalists put planet above humanity? Yes.

Are women who abort for the planet the norm? No. But this shows how far such reasoning can go, as well as betraying in a more clear way just how much planet is placed above humanity.

Atrocities have been committed under the guise of “progress.”

Absolutely. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. And all opposed to trade, innovation, materialism, and capitalism.

I was thinking more along the lines of Jefferson, Jackson, and Van Buren, as well as Reagan and the Bushes.

All of whom, of course, were/are devoted to trade, innovation, materialism, and capitalism.

Bryce, you are the one who is overly sensitive to message.

The story tellers here took normal environmental concerns and inflated them in order to tell a story. B&N the only store? Sky scrapers of garbage? These are obvious exaggerations in order to propel a story and provide some context and humor. Do you honestly believe the film makers see this as the future of earth? If anything I think they were tweaking the environmentalists.

I would say you missed the message of the movie because you were caught up in your own militant anti-environmentalism.

You missed the message of the movie because you were caught up in your own militant anti-environmentalism.

A friendly note from the UK: the Daily Mail is a national joke, well known for taking extreme examples (an environmentalist had an abortion) and whipping people up into a frenzy (the environmentalists want abortions!).

Muslihoon,

Second, various people have begun attributing to a seemingly all-powerful entity (Climate Change, pollution, whatnot) what are properly the doings and power of God (weather, earthquakes, etc.). We “blame” such things on AGC rather than consider Him who has done these.

This paragraph of yours got me thinking. I’ve often wondered how the events of the last days wouldn’t be obvious for everyone to see and correctly interpret as the signs of the times. But if secular society has something else to blame all extreme natural disasters on (Global Warming) then they will have an excuse to continue to disbelieve.

***

Going back to the main thread topic… Whether you dislike the message behind this movie in particular or not, it’s a good reminder that creators of entertainment do have the ability to interject their own personal beliefs into their movies or books, giving them a powerful voice that they would not otherwise have. So consider carefully who you give money to, remember that you are helping build their soapbox. Support those who will share positive messages to society.

Bryce, ignore the nay-sayers. Your post is right on.

I will add, however, that I didn’t have any problem with some messages in the movie. Our consumerist society is problematic. We are growing fatter and lazier as a people (just watch the average body type in a 1930s movie and compare to today — it’s just like that scene in Wall-E when you see a thin first captain, and the captains get fatter and more useless over time).

I also liked the fact that it is the humans who have to go back to Earth to re-create their planet — there are messages of optimism there.

But, having said all that, the environmentalist extremist message in Wall-E was repellant. Anybody who has spent any time around environmental extremists knows there are many of them who are also against child-bearing in general (the world has too many people already, according to them). It seems obvious to me that for many people environmentalism IS a false religion with its own themes of the coming apocalypse, Messiahs and saviors and sin and redemption.

So, overall, Bryce, good, timely post.

Left-leaning orthodoxy is kind of a given in filmmaking nowadays–and as frustrating as it is, if the film is good overall, in spite of whatever socio-political message it may tout, it will live beyond that “message.” Think of something like “Bambi.” While it pegs man as the enemy of the forest, the story is about much more than that–and will live for generations to come because of it’s beautiful treatment of the more timeless elements of love, life, coming of age, and so forth.

For those who doubt a direct link between environmental extremism and population control, including abortion (especially the snarky Julie M. Smith who linked to this article with an inaccurate title at T&S), I recommend some reading:

http://www.alternet.org/environment/62157/

http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/Ecoterrorism.htm

http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/press/phoenix2.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1819809/posts

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/articles/a0000302.shtml

If all else fails, people who still doubt a link between environmental extremism may want to visit China, which still has a one-child policy and still justifies forced sterilization and abortion as part of its effort to “save the environment.”

WALLE is not environmentalist propaganda as much as both sides of the
debate want it to be! It is an apocalyptic science fiction story made
in our time. Certainly it is telling that the apocalypse our culture
most identifies with is an ecological one, but it does not affect the
message of the movie! The main social message, if you feel compelled
to look for one, is that consumerism and self-centered technological
fantasy worlds are destroying our social structure and taking away our
humanity. The ecological apocalypse is not even the main apocalypse of
the movie. It is merely the vehicle that gets us to the more
disastrous social one. The fact that the passengers of the Axiom get
excited about farming and taking care of the Earth again in the end of
the movie is significant in that they are taking responsibility for
anything instead of existing in their monotonous, unnoticing worlds
and barely propaganda for some great church of environmentalism. This
is a film about humanity and the joy of life that is influenced - as
are all films - by some common sensibilities of its day. That is all.

Please do not be distracted by the environmental influences. WALLE’s message is much better and more important than simple propaganda. It is a reminder to not get distracted from the things that make us human and therefore make life worth living - like love, wonder, responsibility.

Dan,
I know that you are not an extremist. I am.

Bryce,

My wife and I loved your post. You are a great writer, no matter what subject you are treating. I have been very disappointed with some of the commenters here. I want to tell them to just wake up and stop being deceived so easily. This brings to mind Eph 4:14:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

This is the reason we have modern prophets and the Church–to help us not to be deceived.
Some have blown out of proportion the great point you made about people (in this case a woman) who take these ideologies too far–to the point that that woman had an abortion to “save the planet.” This is no exaggeration. I have met people that sincerely believe that they are doing the world a favor by having no children. This “extreme” idea is not a rarity these days. “Zero population” has been an influential and persuasive argument among these people for decades. It is amusing to me that people think they will be helping the world by having no children–but they are saving it for whom if there will be no children to inherit it? I can understand making the world a better place for future generations, but the idea that having no children will help anything is certainly inspired by Satan.
Although we haven’t yet seen Wall-E, it is clear that it is just another page in this same book. I have noticed, as well, that more and more Disney (and others) movies are going this direction. Happy Feet is a good example.
To conclude, I just wanted to share a prophecy attributed to Joseph Smith, saying that “the time would come when none but the women of the Latter-day Saints would be willing to bear children” (Young Woman’s Journal, Nov. 1890, 81).
Again, we need to wake up and pay attention to what it is we are believing in.
Thanks again, Bryce!
David

Luke, you make a good point (the same point I was trying to make above, but you make it more convincingly), but the environmental extremism is there also.

Luke,
That was lovely.

Reigning with “blood and horror on this earth” always seemed a more obvious stab at Exxon Mobile, Haliburton, and the like rather than Greenpeace.

Environmentalism = abortions?

Are you freaking nuts?

Seth R. Thanks for proving my point.

Geoff, China’s “One-Child” policy was not even remotely about “saving the environment.”

It was about preventing an out of control population explosion from destabilizing the POLITICAL order and throwing Chairman Mao out of power. Saying Red China was a “bunch of environmentalists” is giving them entirely too much credit.

And yes, I know that there are ideologues out there that have linked population control, abortion, environment, and heaven knows what else. That doesn’t make abortion the “cornerstone” of modern environmentalism. Nor does it make Bryce’s post any less cartoonish.

It was also rather classy how he remarks in the post at 11:41 AM that the polarization he stirred up evidences people choosing “mamon over God.”

Can you tell me something Geoff? What exactly distinguishes that kind of comment from the nonsense Gary Lawrence just wrote for Meridian Magazine? Obviously, according to Bryce, if we support environmental agendas, we’re a bunch of pro-abortion folk who love mamon more than God. Really?

No wonder people in Utah get so pissed-off anytime someone suggests draining Lake Powell or closing off ATV access. They think they’re a “baby murderer.” Fascinating and pathetic statement on how conservative Mormons have managed to polarize affairs and demonize those who disagree with them.

Who’s ruling with “blood and horror” here?

I agree so far as to say that environmental issues are politicized by extreme groups (on both sides). However, your claim that Wall-E is part of a scheme “to reign with blood and horror” is just another example of extremity. Do you also suggest that we retract “For the Beauty of the Earth” from the hymnbook?

While Latter-day Prophets have not said “go green or perish,” they have frequently exhorted us to be good Earth stewards. The Church is practicing what it preaches….the City Creek Development in SLC is a “green” development. THE LDS CHURCH IS GREEN! Don’t believe me? Check out this press releasefrom the Church. Don’t forget to listen to the audio clips.

Why no mention of the clear biblical parallels in this movie?
The main female is named EVE, for heaven’s sake!
They bring back a plant (an olive branch?) to show that the earth is once more habitable!
It just seems funny that people are so anti-environmental that all they see is the environmental message…and they miss everything else.
Also, those of you who don’t like the movie…how do you like Bambi? Just curious.

Bryce, if there are two environmental movements: one Godly one (as you mention in your 3:37 pm comment), and one Satanic one (pro-abortion, etc), then couldn’t Wall-E just as easily be associated with the Godly one as the Satanic one? It’s not really clear why, of those two options that even you concede exist, you chose to put Wall-E in with the dark side.

Wall-E doesn’t explicitly promote abortion, I think we can agree on that! And I don’t think Wall-E promotes the idea that human presence on the Earth is an unqualified bad thing for the environment either. The movie clearly says that humans returning to the Earth (as wise stewards this time) is a good thing.

One reason why I don’t participate on online discussion boards anymore is the complete and total lack of logic and reason exhibited by people who ought to know better. I detest the “sky is falling” Chicken Little-ism of the modern hypochondriac environmentalist movement, where man is the parasite rather than the paragon of the environment. I am hoping rather for a return to the more moderate environmentalism of Muir and Bartram.

Bryce’s reasonings are consistent, well thought out, and appropriate.

Environmentalism is being turned into a god of its own. After all, Al Gore has already been called a “prophet” by people whose hearts get all a-flitter when he speaks. Um, yeah.

Yes, the scriptures counsel us to be good stewards. The scriptures also say that there is “enough and to spare” when it comes to both room for humans and food and natural resources.

And I think it is wise and intellectually healthy to question the motives of those that compete for our time and attention.

Bryce’s original post is one of the most extreme and irrational reactions to Wall-E I’ve read anywhere. Here’s a funny, clever and imaginative family movie (how many movies has anyone seen that can entertain so well with no dialog for 40 minutes?), yet he finds hidden, sinister motivations behind it.

The only post more ridiculous was Geoff’s suggesting that the Chinese one-child policy was based on “environmental extremism.” Beyond the factual error, would Geoff prefer having three billion people in China today? Historically, populations have been kept in check through famine and war. Is that preferable to limiting families to one child? It’s a little myopic for someone in the U.S. to complain about how the Chinese deal with their unique problems.

This tendency to seek for (and infer) evil motivations behind even the uplifting and joyful aspects of modern culture is one aspect of LDS culture that is both unbecoming and off-putting to outsiders. If you think Wall-E is a negative commentary on humanity, you haven’t read much of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and the other early prophets–or even Spencer W. Kimball–all of whom expressed much harsher criticism of the human impact on the environment and the foolishness and short-sightedness of materialism.

It’s a travesty that LDS aren’t leading the environmental movement. Had we done so–and no other religion has canonized reverence for the Earth that compares with ours–we wouldn’t have a handful of prominent environmentalists who do advocate a steady-state or declining human population (a tenet of deep ecology, btw). But instead, we LDS have largely rejected environmentalism, conservation, and preservation in favor of rabid consumerism. Bryce gives a weak nod to “dominion” and “stewardship” as if to appear balanced, but where is the harm in showing an ultimate outcome of our society’s focus on materialism and consumerism?

If anything, Wall-E teaches reverence for life and deep appreciation for the Earth as home for humanity. It’s a wonderful family movie that can be ruined only by twisted interpretations that reflect the interpreter’s mindset, not the filmmakers’ objectives.

Reading these comments has ruined my day. Troubling, very troubling. “All we like sheep, have gone astray…”

I have to say that I totally disagree. I don’t think the message was heavy handed or even an environmental one. It was a love story, and a story about an individual spirit (albeit a robot one) The move makers needed to get the humans off the planet, and an overabundance of trash was a great way to do it.

It reminds me of the time I wrote about a short story about an underground candy rebellion in a elementary school, and some people decided that it was an allegory for the legalization of drugs. No, it was just about candy.

Dave,

Click your heels together three times and repeat “there’s no place like home.”

With therapy, you may come to forgive us one day.

David,
I think it’s awesome that a cartoon can offend you so much and that a few comments defending anti-consumerism/anti-pollution on a blog can ruin your day. And thank you for making my day just that much better.

Bryce,
Your nod to “stewardship” was indeed weak, especially when followed up by “Satan loves to take things that are good and turn them bad.” It’s like saying “I’m sorry that you got offended” is an apology. Please tell us your environmental stance and what you personally are doing to make sure that we don’t flippantly overrun, overpollute and care less for this inferior earth. I’m sincerely interested in your answer.

And FWIW, LDSus is exactly right about the Church moving toward a sustainable future. With different subsidiaries (ranches, businesses, etc.) they are putting into place measures that eliminate pollution, waste and that which degrades the earth. I don’t think they are doing it “to save the earth” per se, I think it’s more about becoming self-sustainable, but the end result is the same. Hey, different strokes for different folks, but it makes me wonder why we can’t all hold hands and agree that pollution and waste is bad, let’s do everything we can to eliminate it rather than associating abortionists with those who want to recycle.

David sweetie, go see the movie please! You need to have a dog in the hunt before you condemn us all as having gone astray!

Seth R. I agree with you about China. Having been to China (like many of you) and I can testify that the air and water are so polluted you can smell it. The water is a danger to drink. We were told to brush your teeth with bottled water; and while in the shower to keep your mouth and eyes closed. It it laughable that China would have a environmental concern for anything.
They have done nothing but rape and pillage the land for last 60 or so years.
As a mama to one of the victims of the one-child policy. The policy was ordered by Deng Xaioping. It was all about government control and resources because of the environmental catastrophes under Mao.

William F. Buckley observed that that conservative people are sometimes their own worst enemies and inflict more damage on their own cause than anybody else, simply because they make such poor arguments in the worst possible ways. The circular firing squad appears to be fully operational here as well.

Since when does being conservative mean we need to have giant chips on our shoulders and imitate Kos in our methods? The desire to score points and gratuitously offend, and the apparent compulsion to reach for the most extreme examples to buttress an already poor arguments are the worst parts of political discourse today, and this post could serve as exhibit A.

Back on the space shuttle the humans, we find out, have degenerated into obese, brainless, boneless, fast food slurping, bedridden, entertainment obsessed, insociable, instantly gratified, indolent, endlessly pampered, sterile, computer-controlled drones.

I think we weren’t meant to see the humans as gluttonous slobs, but as babies. They all wore onesies, all their food was pureéd, their proportions were closer to that of babies than cartoonishly fat people, they couldn’t walk, and every time they showed the state of the adults they showed a group of actual infants to compare with (note that they never showed children or the elderly except in advertisements). Also all of the humans were lovable sympathetic characters, each one was curious, friendly, genial- really their only flaw was their (understandable) boredom and helplessness. I don’t think this movie was misanthropic at all.

That dominion means that we have a vital stewardship to take care of the animals and all living things upon the face of the earth. It does not mean that we flippantly overrun, overpollute, and care less for an inferior earth.

I would say that this movie showed what happens when we disregard our stewardship and flippantly overrun, over-pollute, and fail to care for the earth.

I saw the movie recently too, and I thought the satire of undisciplined, self-gratifying people was worthwhile. We do need to consume and waste and pollute less.

I didn’t get alarmed about environmentalism from this movie like you did. I was more distracted by how dumb the storytelling was in many aspects, how unconvincing the world-making was and how internally inconsistent and illogical the story was compared to real Pixar successes like the two Toy Stories, Invincibles, and Finding Nemo. I don’t get why everyone likes this obnoxious, unsatisfying movie so much, even though I do admit it LOOKS great.

The movie aside, I do think that environmentalism becomes a replacement for true religion for the secular world, in a similar way as I think gay rights is becoming a counterfeit moral crusade for that same crowd. Neither one will end well for our civilization.

Interesting to note the large amount of ad hominems but the extremely small amount of actual factual, logical arguments. A lot of scoffing took place about the environmental movement’s link to population control — my response was to provide actual evidence that it is taking place. The scoffers responded with more scorn but no actual facts. Yes, by their fruits ye shall know them.

Whether by deliberate distortion or perhaps, more charitably, by a simple lack of understanding, several people mentioned my discussion of China’s one-child policy. My words were the following:

“If all else fails, people who still doubt a link between environmental extremism may want to visit China, which still has a one-child policy and still justifies forced sterilization and abortion as part of its effort to “save the environment.” ”

Note the word “still.” China’s policy is decades old and indeed was instituted for different reasons. But if you go to China today, you will note that it is justified today by the corrupt leadership as part of China’s attempt to “protect the environment” by preventing overpopulation. This despite the fact that demographic trends show China’s population will begin to decrease in the next few decades. Yes, it’s easy to justify the abortions and forced sterilizations that have taken place in China — if you are a fascist leader. But those of us with an understanding of the gospel should recognize the people in China have just as much right as we do to come to Earth and receive a body — and the parents should have just as much right to have children. It’s a sad commentary when people justify fratricide.

Bryce has good reason for concern. It is not a leap of logic to consider that out-of-control environmentalism and abortion are closely linked. The article Bryce quoted clearly shows that.

Here’s how the so-called “leap of logic” goes:

“The earth is being destroyed by human beings.”

ergo

“Fewer people on the earth will result in a decline in the destruction of the earth.”

There, that wasn’t such a large leap, right?

Well, at least not in the minds of people who are taking their cause over the top.

Look, there are definite signs that the environmentalist movement of today is following the same path that Hitler followed. Hitler used as his excuse for killing millions of Jews the “fact” that they were harming civilization by being alive. But he didn’t just wake up one morning and say “Let’s kill six million Jews.” It first started with the idea that society wasn’t progressing because of the mentally retarded, defective children, the elderly, and the handicapped. Subtract that element of society and you will have a healthy, productive, and