Ooh, we're deep today, our Edith

When people talk about 'economic' matters versus 'environmental' concerns, they very rarely use those terms in their broadest sense. Worse still, they assume a narrow definition of those terms and hardly ever bother relating that definition back to their broadest, most general definition. 'Economics' is assumed to be a description of money, industry, and wealth; 'environment' is assumed to be biological events and things that are not man-made.

In fact, from Macquarie come these definitions:

economics

// (say ekuh'nomiks), // (say eekuh-)
noun 1. the science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, or the material welfare of humankind; political economy.

environment

// (say en'vuyruhnmuhnt), // (say uhn-)
noun 1. the aggregate of surrounding things, conditions, or influences.

If 'economic' things are simply anything that can be produced, or distributed, or consumed, then they are simply... anything. And if the environment is just everything that is surrounding, then it is just... everything. Seen in that light, 'environmental' concerns versus 'economic' matters seems a bit different. Anything versus everything; everything versus anything. Is this an argument we want to be having? Is it even an argument?

So why would the people who argue about economic and environmental matters never mention this, especially considering many punters would never bother considering the question of definition in the first place - thereby helping to perpetuate the ignorance of those same punters?

Either they want to control the debate. Or they want to control us.