Hi Simon, Thanks for your comment. From a conventional economics view Dr Philips is correct and I am not trying to cast any doubts on his motivations for his research. If we continue with business as usual we will indeed see negative impacts on people’s health and life expectancy. What the article is attempting to challenge is the notion that there is only one way to do economics and that is to reward and measure the exchange of goods and services by the exchange of one medium ie money. For all intents and purposes, people will not die because there is no food. They will not die because there are no homes, or healthcare, or social services. They will die because they will not have access to money. When we conflate the economic system with the financial system (which we have been trained to do our whole lives) we allow people to starve, sleep on the streets and die even though we have an abundance of resources. I am not willing to accept that as reasonable economic practice.