Hi Julio! If you are referring to #5, I am not talking about externalitIES but externality as stated in the text and eloquently explained in the Daedalus article about Biophilic Markets (https://www.amacad.org/publication/biophilic-markets). The idea here, as I explain is exactly what you say in your third sentence, namely that nature is seen as something separate, a separate entity. This is often also referred to as separation or (human-nature) dualism, when in fact, we humans, the economy, is deeply entangled with nature.
However externality is a specific term, which I explained on my comment, and using it as something else will only add confusion to those illiterate to environmental economics.
Saying that nature is an externality is an incorrect use of the concept of externality.
One of the best posts I have read lately. Thank you!
Thanks a lot Irene
That's not what externality means. Externalities are costs imposed to someone/something else that aren't perceived (paid) by the one causing them.
Nature is the recipient of externalities, i.e. damages from economic activities. It isn't an externality because it's separated from economy.
Curious about where that misconception came from.
Hi Julio! If you are referring to #5, I am not talking about externalitIES but externality as stated in the text and eloquently explained in the Daedalus article about Biophilic Markets (https://www.amacad.org/publication/biophilic-markets). The idea here, as I explain is exactly what you say in your third sentence, namely that nature is seen as something separate, a separate entity. This is often also referred to as separation or (human-nature) dualism, when in fact, we humans, the economy, is deeply entangled with nature.
Yes, for economics nature is an external system.
However externality is a specific term, which I explained on my comment, and using it as something else will only add confusion to those illiterate to environmental economics.
Saying that nature is an externality is an incorrect use of the concept of externality.