116
O.T. Solbrig
a minority of cases. Most of our behavior is innate and does not involve the forebrain.
Our behavior towards other species and towards the ecosystem in a world dominated by people is also not deducible from our biological nature or that of other
species, or from knowledge regarding ecosystem function. This will require the
development of new normative and evaluative judgments. Ecology can give us the
pertinent factual understanding, but not the moral rules to determine our behavior
vis-a-vis nature. These will have to be provided by the society at large taking biological constraints and human needs into account.
These rules are still being developed and there is as yet no general consensus as
to what they should be. The guiding principle must be the concept of sustainability
which maintains that we have an obligation to maintain for coming generations the
productive capacity of the planet, including both areas developed for human use as
well as the more natural environments.
Any rules of behavior are ultimately derived from some authority and require
some mechanism of enforcement. The need for new rules relating to behavior vis-avis the environment is very clear but it is not at all certain what these rules should
be, who should develop them, or how they should be enforced. There are a number
of ideas floating around and international agencies such as IUBS through its
Diversitas program or UNESCO's Man and the Biosphere program have formulated some general principles, but undoubtedly much more work is needed in this
area. Although the Rio'92 Environmental Summit addressed a large number of
issues including this one, no consensus has been reached.
7 Summary and Conclusions
Ecology has been concerned - and rightly so in my opinion - with the functioning of ecosystems independent of the activity of humans. This has allowed it to
develop functional models of ecosystems notwithstanding the fact that these models do not take into account the complications brought about by human activities.
Economy, on the other hand, has dealt with nature as a source of materials, but
little else. This in turn has allowed it to develop useful but highly simplified functional models of human societies. Human behavior has also been studied independent of any special context. But the impact of humans on natural systems can no
longer be ignored, neither can it be disregarded that, if abused by human societies,
the capacity of natural systems to deliver natural products can be significantly reduced or even lost, as attested by numerous examples throughout the world.
A science of biodiversity must include all these aspects. It must be firmly anchored in biology. Biology has to provide a solid understanding of ecosystem function, and of human behavior. New economic thinking is needed that takes these
biological constraints into account. Finally, a new morality that includes nature as
well as humans must be adopted. This is, in my opinion, what the science of
biodiversity must include.
O.T. Solbrig
a minority of cases. Most of our behavior is innate and does not involve the forebrain.
Our behavior towards other species and towards the ecosystem in a world dominated by people is also not deducible from our biological nature or that of other
species, or from knowledge regarding ecosystem function. This will require the
development of new normative and evaluative judgments. Ecology can give us the
pertinent factual understanding, but not the moral rules to determine our behavior
vis-a-vis nature. These will have to be provided by the society at large taking biological constraints and human needs into account.
These rules are still being developed and there is as yet no general consensus as
to what they should be. The guiding principle must be the concept of sustainability
which maintains that we have an obligation to maintain for coming generations the
productive capacity of the planet, including both areas developed for human use as
well as the more natural environments.
Any rules of behavior are ultimately derived from some authority and require
some mechanism of enforcement. The need for new rules relating to behavior vis-avis the environment is very clear but it is not at all certain what these rules should
be, who should develop them, or how they should be enforced. There are a number
of ideas floating around and international agencies such as IUBS through its
Diversitas program or UNESCO's Man and the Biosphere program have formulated some general principles, but undoubtedly much more work is needed in this
area. Although the Rio'92 Environmental Summit addressed a large number of
issues including this one, no consensus has been reached.
7 Summary and Conclusions
Ecology has been concerned - and rightly so in my opinion - with the functioning of ecosystems independent of the activity of humans. This has allowed it to
develop functional models of ecosystems notwithstanding the fact that these models do not take into account the complications brought about by human activities.
Economy, on the other hand, has dealt with nature as a source of materials, but
little else. This in turn has allowed it to develop useful but highly simplified functional models of human societies. Human behavior has also been studied independent of any special context. But the impact of humans on natural systems can no
longer be ignored, neither can it be disregarded that, if abused by human societies,
the capacity of natural systems to deliver natural products can be significantly reduced or even lost, as attested by numerous examples throughout the world.
A science of biodiversity must include all these aspects. It must be firmly anchored in biology. Biology has to provide a solid understanding of ecosystem function, and of human behavior. New economic thinking is needed that takes these
biological constraints into account. Finally, a new morality that includes nature as
well as humans must be adopted. This is, in my opinion, what the science of
biodiversity must include.