You're invited to read my post again, and if you are able, demonstrate comprehension of the points and terms presented. I really cannot fathom what point you're trying to make here, except some type of self imposed obligatory defense of your own ideals by rewording some snippets of what I said in a slightly different way, and then through some implied redefinition of words according to your own whims, hope that it sounds officious enough to stand in for a rebuttal.
How much is a color spectrum worth? How much is a range of 1 mile to 100 miles worth? How much does acceleration from 1mph to 10mph worth? Biodiversity is a diversity of bio organisms. It doesn't say what kind of organisms, how they are related, or anything like that. It's a descriptive concept, not a thing. I know you are trying to pin a value on the ecosystem, or something like that, but that's also not something that is quantifiable. It's waaaaay tooooo vaaaaague. 5,000 salmon are worth something. Clean water to sustain them is worth something. Food to feed them is worth something. One lifeform containing data is worth something. A nebulous square meter of space with some living things in it are not worth anything. Not until we calculate the sum of their individual parts, anyway.
Besides, if your entire point is "Don't focus on profits, because you'll ignore and thus destroy the environment," that point is moot. If people want a clean and vibrant "biodiversity," that is exactly what they will pay for, whatever it may be, because "wealth" is not accumulation of green papers or bitcoins,
wealth is accumulation of what people want. A lot of people on the socialist side, with bad images of fat cats in top hats, tend to miss that point.