You’re just being deliberately obtuse and wasting my time. Of course math is impenetrable because it’s a language you have to learn. Thus, math is as impenetrable to speakers of natural language as is German to an English speaker.

Your defense of capitalism consists of red herrings. Of course modernity in general is the nearer total cause of our accelerating clash with the biosphere. But that hardly means capitalism isn’t a main driver of that clash. Socialism or communism isn’t likely to make much of an impact on the environment because that kind of society isn’t sustainable. China and Russia incorporate capitalism now, by the way, so those aren’t counterexamples. (Those economies are state capitalist.) And the fact that capitalist societies are highly innovative and thus may in the end save us from our environmental impact doesn’t mean capitalism wasn’t a major cause of that impact in the first place.

But this is the kneejerk defense of capitalism we can expect from an orthodox economist, isn’t it? Thus, you’ll need the impenetrable math to cloak the weakness of your tenets. Spell them out in plain language and the economist’s endeavour looks like rank propaganda, as I’ve been arguing all along.