I don't understand this article as being about changing to a socialist system. AFAIU, it is about better taking Life & Nature into account in our current economic system & models. We do to some extent, but they are massively undervalued, and economy & ecology aren't current aligned (otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion in first place), hence our current economy is unsustainable.
I think of it as finding the "fair price" for having X many trees, X many wild animals, pure air, pure water, etc. on our planet and consuming some to produce goods, food, etc. ; i.e. a fairer price between the immediate gain, and the longer term consequences. A metaphor: what's the "fair price" for the "goose that laid the golden eggs" and the profit/loss for killing it?
If the price is determined by anything other than the market, that's socialism/collectivism/statism.
The idea that someone could do a better job of pricing than the market (with whatever definition of "better" appeals to you) has been disproved again and again. A person doesn't become an expert in what's "better" just because they work for the government. Thinking that it would amounts to worship of the state as an entity.
I think of it as finding the "fair price" for having X many trees, X many wild animals, pure air, pure water, etc. on our planet and consuming some to produce goods, food, etc. ; i.e. a fairer price between the immediate gain, and the longer term consequences. A metaphor: what's the "fair price" for the "goose that laid the golden eggs" and the profit/loss for killing it?