Dear Professor, you are writing at more than two pay-grades over my thought level! I would love to repost this for my subscribers (only have about 120), even if it causes some brain cramps and unsubscribing. Also, I would like to see your comments on https://reddmonitor.substack.com regarding the ongoing attempts at finacialization of Nature. As well, your topic meshes nicely with Maja Göpel's book "The Great Mindshift" see https://kathleenmccroskey.substack.com/p/a-review-of-the-great-mindshift Best wishes!
The financialization of Nature is part of what they call Environmental Economics - putting a price on natural resources and services so that (a) they might appear on a balance sheet, and (b) we might consider them valuable. The problem, of course, is that we then revert to the idea that monetary value is the only one with any meaning, and that if you are dying of thirst in the desert, a bottle of water is 'equivalent' to $50 (or whatever price you arrive at).
The practice has short-term potential for having Nature's contributions better respected and participating in the decisions, but it still trashes the fundamental *UNQUANTIFIABLE* living values that drive the natural world, in all its complexity.
As for The Great Mindshift, it is essentially correct. One challenge (as I mentioned to Charles Hugh Smith) ir the problem of the Value Change Conundrum (found in the glossary of my book website. I do have a possible solution to that conundrum. Again - I can't fit everything in the first post!
The aspect of financialization of Nature that I most dislike is that it is a core tenet of neo-liberalism, their notion being that allowing the Market to establish the value of nature results in more “economic freedom” (potential for greed) than thoughtful, science-based government regulation, because government regulation (always) strangles economic freedom and they wish to reduce government to the size you can drown in a bath tub. Abolishing regulations gives a nation a higher ranking on the Fraser Institute’s “World Economic Freedom Index.” As well, pricing Nature is most often a form of Enclosure and neo-colonialism. (Enclosure of the Commons)
This topic is related to https://tsakraklides.com/2025/04/28/finding-meaning-in-an-increasingly-absurd-world
Very true, Kathleen. Thanks for that link and recommendation!
Dear Professor, you are writing at more than two pay-grades over my thought level! I would love to repost this for my subscribers (only have about 120), even if it causes some brain cramps and unsubscribing. Also, I would like to see your comments on https://reddmonitor.substack.com regarding the ongoing attempts at finacialization of Nature. As well, your topic meshes nicely with Maja Göpel's book "The Great Mindshift" see https://kathleenmccroskey.substack.com/p/a-review-of-the-great-mindshift Best wishes!
New post: https://kathleenmccroskey.substack.com/p/introducing-a-new-substack-writer
Guess who?
The financialization of Nature is part of what they call Environmental Economics - putting a price on natural resources and services so that (a) they might appear on a balance sheet, and (b) we might consider them valuable. The problem, of course, is that we then revert to the idea that monetary value is the only one with any meaning, and that if you are dying of thirst in the desert, a bottle of water is 'equivalent' to $50 (or whatever price you arrive at).
The practice has short-term potential for having Nature's contributions better respected and participating in the decisions, but it still trashes the fundamental *UNQUANTIFIABLE* living values that drive the natural world, in all its complexity.
As for The Great Mindshift, it is essentially correct. One challenge (as I mentioned to Charles Hugh Smith) ir the problem of the Value Change Conundrum (found in the glossary of my book website. I do have a possible solution to that conundrum. Again - I can't fit everything in the first post!
The aspect of financialization of Nature that I most dislike is that it is a core tenet of neo-liberalism, their notion being that allowing the Market to establish the value of nature results in more “economic freedom” (potential for greed) than thoughtful, science-based government regulation, because government regulation (always) strangles economic freedom and they wish to reduce government to the size you can drown in a bath tub. Abolishing regulations gives a nation a higher ranking on the Fraser Institute’s “World Economic Freedom Index.” As well, pricing Nature is most often a form of Enclosure and neo-colonialism. (Enclosure of the Commons)
Thank you, Andrew, for this valuable article! It might be the best one I have ever read, and it's your first! Best wishes for creating many more!
See also: https://thebulletin.org/premium/2025-03/fragile-impermanent-things-joseph-tainter-on-what-makes-civilizations-fall/