I’m confused by this paragraph; the standard economics definition for externality is “the cost or benefit that affects a party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit”
This is not the definition I’m using.
I’m interpreting externality here to mean effects that leak out through the boundary to the outside world
This is the definition I’m using.
You don’t need the effects of the feedback loop that leak out of the boundary to be overall positive; it’s enough for the effects that remain within the boundary (which are the ones that you capture) to be overall positive.
The things that happen within the boundary, other than the externalities, are epiphenomenal. They could still be important because e.g. they contain moral patients, and I guess my statement was wrong because of this fact. So I edited the relevant sentence.
Got it. The way you used it in a sentence without specifically defining it first, and after having referenced economics earlier, made it unclear whether it was supposed to be understood in the economics sense or not.
This is not the definition I’m using.
This is the definition I’m using.
The things that happen within the boundary, other than the externalities, are epiphenomenal. They could still be important because e.g. they contain moral patients, and I guess my statement was wrong because of this fact. So I edited the relevant sentence.
Got it. The way you used it in a sentence without specifically defining it first, and after having referenced economics earlier, made it unclear whether it was supposed to be understood in the economics sense or not.