I can't let this go by. The first premise here can easily be a false one, that it is ok to make lots more money than people who are also involved in an enterprise, and ultimately we are all involved. It can also easily involve the premise of an infinite amount of resources, that one can exploit a particular resource, making a lot of money, destroying the resource, but that this is ok, we will then find something else. I have not read the Economist, but it seems very likely that these fundamental problems are ignored in it's pages, if it's focus is making money. That the ecology professor ignores them too is just a sign of the times, professors make quite a bit of money compared to the rest of the population and tend to have a conflict of interest on the matter.
People can be quite talented at seeing what they want to see and ignoring the rest.
As far as people saying anything they want about ideology, this is also false. You can say anything you want, but if it isn't backed up with reality, you will lose in the end. Once again we are dealing with time frames, some problems can take a long time to develop, and ignoring developing problems can be quite profitable to individuals over the short term. Over the long term this can turn out to be a fatal way of figuring how to act. Thanks again for the link.