The more I think about the concept of "economy", the fuzzier it seems. We have never had an actual "trickle-down economy" - it appears that what we've been presented with is a trickle-down economic illusion. When people are given enough power, they are inclined to impose their worldview on others. Misrepresentation of imaginary benefits from "economic activity" leads people to believe that the world works in certain ways. Much of what gets described as "economic activity" consists of converting aspects of nature into all sorts of human infrastructure. In the time scale of natural processes, humanity has expanded extremely rapidly from small tribes cutting down trees for dug-out canoes, to spreading megacities populated by tens of millions of bustling people with voracious desires. There wasn't much GDP back in the dug-out days - and relatively little disruption of what we call nature. In other words, not many "jobs" were available.

The phrase, "Jobs versus the Environment", represents many people's understanding of economic "reality". This shorthand summary surfaces during protests over projects that are seen to pose threats to the environment, and of course "jobs" almost always prevail. There are many reasons for this, not least that the "economy" is believed to run more smoothly when people are kept busy, both making and spending their money. Now that there are so many people, it is ever more complicated to keep things running smoothly. Many interests and agendas conflict. Perhaps people sense this increasing complexity subconsciously, and the discomfort this generates inclines them to seek simplistic answers to whatever problems confront them. Also, not many people are happy with their jobs, and this broad dissatisfaction may add to the general distemper.

So...lots of humans, lots of conflicting desires, lots of linguistic shenanigans, and a shrinking natural world to prosper in. On top of that we have the current popular movement to disregard science and evidence-based reasoning. In such a reality dominated by some form of the language of "economics", nature is deceptively offered at a discount. It's as if the advertisement were: "Nature - lowest prices, free delivery." But the accounting applied is incomplete wishful thinking.

While all this is going on, there are places where it is now possible to get a medical prescription for free outings and experiences in natural settings. For mental and physical health benefits, it is possible to be referred by a doctor for time spent in a nature preserve. Would that be an "economic" benefit of nature, or would it be a benefit of nature that is "economical"? For the person benefiting, it might seem to have nothing to do with "economics", and only to do with "well-being". From the perspective of the current state of natural spaces, viewed globally, "well-being" could be thought to be "uneconomical".

To say that the ability of many people to appreciate nature is limited by "economic" obstacles, while "true" enough, barely scratches the surface of a very complicated topic. Words like "economic" - and of course "nature" - are far from straightforward. In written and verbal discussion, people usually default to a very simple understanding of such words. It seems blatantly obvious that people's options are limited by "economics". On the other hand, some of the most economically impoverished people I've ever met have spent long stretches of time as recluses, isolated and immersed in remote natural settings. That's not to claim this could provide any sort of a general model of existence.

One problem with a simplistic use of the word "economics" - stripped of all complexity - is that any reasoning based on its use gets similarly truncated. Such words can become linguistic "sacred cows" that are never investigated. If you lift the lid on the word "economic", it becomes apparent that there's a lot going on underneath. For example, we have become accustomed to the implicit assertion that whatever is "economical" must be "good". (Or at least good enough for enough of the right people.)

Very broadly, something is said to be "economical" if it is "worth doing", or "profitable". (*To whom* is often unclear.) What that boils down to is that money can be gained by certain activities - but not by others. Activities that cannot produce a profit are classed as "uneconomical", and generally not "worth doing". And then, many activities that damage nature and human health are believed to be very "economical" by many people.

Should we "improve" the definition of the word "economical"? That might not be the best question. The current use of the word represents one level of understanding of societal interactions, and provides potential insight. Rather than focusing on improving any particular definition, it might be better to focus on our general acceptance of the oversimplification of numerous terms in numerous domains. "Economic" obstacles are certainly real, but they seem far more complicated than commonly recognised. While they can keep poor people from experiencing the remaining natural spaces, they also keep the wealthy from preserving such spaces for the future - or even really understanding their significance. Some terms that we accept uncritically seem to short circuit our reasoning processes.

Last week I mentioned some of the ways our many technologies - most prominently represented in urban settings - frame and structure our perceptions of nature, and limit our mental and physical interactions with it. Previously I've considered the overuse of natural spaces like National Parks, where quota systems or lotteries have been introduced to limit the degradation of ecosystems - and even the "guest experience" itself. People's prior "training" results in a very wide range of awareness and expectations that people bring along when "visiting nature". While people who are accustomed to an urban environment might be pleased to experience "taking a break" in some natural setting, they will inevitably have elements of "infrastructure barrier" between themselves and any natural setting. Our habitual surroundings condition us to experience nature in particular ways.

I also noted that some people now seem to feel relatively contented living insulated from nature. Those who don't feel contented, are encouraged to seek out "therapeutic" benefits in natural settings. There is an extensive industry of professionals offering to "reconnect" people with nature through various "natural products", treatments, and therapies. The entire Province of British Columbia was once advertised to potential tourists as "Super Natural", which might be construed as being extra therapeutic. Setting all the hype aside, there are clearly very real positive effects that many people experience through various engagements with relatively natural places - or even through hobbies like bird-watching.

I think this suggests questions about what sorts of relationships urban residents enter into with nature. Maybe an analogy with the different reasons why people choose organic food might apply. Some consumers seek out organic food, despite a higher price, because it generally tastes better and has low pesticide residues. Beyond that, some people additionally value the fact that organic agriculture is generally better for the health of soil, water, workers, and the broader environment. It is also obvious that many people cannot afford such choices, and at the same time would find it very difficult to grow their own organic food.

Similarly, many people value healthy populations of wildlife and scenic forests, and may have favourite animals or trees. Beyond that, some people know enough to understand the importance of biodiversity more broadly. The more people know about reality, the better they are equipped to appreciate more complex inter-relationships. They are often limited in this regard by "economic" obstacles.

There are many fine "nature" videos available that can provide people with interesting, informative views of the natural world. Of course, the number of nature videos pales in comparison with all the big-budget productions featuring car chases, explosions, sporting contests, animated talking insects, and so on. Nature isn't generally seen as much of a spectator sport. There are also many fine nature photographs and wildlife paintings. Of course, there are many more celebrity and "people" photographs.

Even nature videos and photographs are consumer items, yet nature is incompatible with consumerism. In the context of a city, even a park with some natural elements becomes a consumer item. Not only does modern technology limit and channel our ways to experience natural processes, it is now possible for some people to feel relatively contented living essentially insulated from nature. Well, yes, there are always the dandelions and the ants...

People living in cities and suburban areas are surrounded by many manufactured objects that require attention. Even travel from a city to a more natural environment will involve automobiles or other forms of insulating infrastructure - all of which shape our minds. The city tends to come along on the ride. Humans are obviously the only species that has evolved to consciously alter the global environment, although other species have done and still do so unwittingly. On the other hand, it is arguably unclear how "conscious" humans have really been about their impacts on natural processes.

In exchange for food, clothing, and perhaps shelter, millions of people, over time, contribute to the erection of cities. No individual or group will have designed more than small fractions of each, and many current inhabitants will view them with resignation. Nevertheless, cities proliferate and expand. While from time to time people can make small changes - more "green space", better highway access - it is difficult to recognise, let alone counteract the artificial assumptions urbanisation builds into our minds each day.

We are trained to think that at least some of us can "control" our environment, and to some extent our actions can give that illusion - manipulating manufactured elements within an environment could be misconstrued as "controlling" that environment. But actually, our environment shapes us: we must continually adjust our actions in accordance with its present construction. Maybe the point of understanding this is to better consider where to find those spaces where we are shaped in ways we approve of.

Children grow up with soft, cuddly stuffed animals, and it is perhaps not so surprising that, as adults, they might try to take a selfie with a wild animal in a National Park. Not many children grow up with stuffed spiders or giant cockroaches, but there are people who study spiders and like them - a lot. Or at least, they respect and appreciate them. Creatures come in many, many amazing shapes and sizes, and all are important for ecosystems in some way. People might have learned to fear or hate their "looks", but such sentiments are dangerous at multiple levels.

People who have learned to fear and hate bugs, spiders, wasps, ants, cockroaches, and hundreds of other smaller and larger organisms have become divorced from nature. At the most personal level, that means they have become cut off from a vast source of potential enjoyment and understanding. Their overwhelming negative emotional reaction to these elements of the environment can restrict and diminish their lives. (And no, this is not to suggest they should open the doors and invite all the bugs into their houses, or embrace their inner mosquito.)

An emotionally-based lack of awareness and understanding can also have much wider consequences. Nature - natural processes - can be understood to consist of countless interactions between all sorts of amazing organisms and their environment. The less a person understands about such interactions, the more likely they are to have their decisions and actions shaped by overly-simplified emotional impulses developed since childhood. When large numbers of people behave this way in concert, the earth's ecosystems are likely to be degraded. The climate emergency becomes ever more unavoidable. Denial becomes dogma.

While it might seem totally insignificant that people hate "creepy crawlies", or slimy slugs, or "dirty" ants, the demonstrated lack of understanding may have much broader ramifications. We live in a natural world full of many small interactions contributing to much larger events.