Orlov in his 2013 essay proceeded to write one of the most passionate and eloquent paragraphs of his long career:
Even when viewed from this rather bizarre perspective that treats our one and only living planet as a storehouse of commodities to be plundered, it turns out that most of our economic “wealth” is made possible by “ecosystem services” which are provided free of charge.
These include water clean enough to drink, air clean enough to breathe, a temperature-controlled environment that is neither too cold nor too hot for human survival across much of the planet, forests that purify and humidify the air and moderate surface temperatures, ocean currents that moderate climate extremes making it possible to practice agriculture, oceans (formerly) full of fish, predators that keep pest populations from exploding and so on.
If we were forced to provide these same services on a commercial basis, we’d be instantly bankrupt, and then, in short order, extinct.
The big problem with us living on other planets is not that it’s physically impossible — though it may be — it’s that there is no way we could afford it.
If we take natural wealth into account when looking at economic activity, it turns out that we consistently destroy much more wealth than we create: the economy is mostly a negative-sum game [and]… we don’t really understand how these “ecosystem services” are maintained, beyond realizing that it’s all very complicated and highly interconnected in surprising and unexpected ways.
Democracy & Good Governance 