422
19. Reflections on the Parts and the Whol e
supe rsede the cultural traditions of a particular nation? And lastly, how can
a global populace be convinced not only of the benefits of marine systems
they will likely never see, but also of the need to curtail some particular behavior in favor of conserving those systems?
Scientists can make valuable contributions to finding answers to these
qu estions. Ideally, decisions on how to add ress conservation issues are
based on the best available science. But there are many reasons scientific
input to decision making is, and should be , only one of many bases on
which decisions must rest. Typically, science itself does not take place in a
value-neutral setting. Value judgments may result, for example, from different social, cultural, educational and political backgrounds of the scientists.
The role that such value judgments place in the scientific endeavor is particularly critical for the science of conservation, which needs to deal with
complexities that are difficult, if not impossible, to redu ce. The choice of
perspective , the approach to dealing with uncertainties in data, the application of a specific method, the selection of alternative assumptions: all crucially influence the conclusions.
But there are other, equall y fundamental reasons scientific input into decision making is, and should be , only one of many factors on which to base
conservation efforts. Other factors include the values that society holds of
the natural environment. Those values are difficult to elicit and quantify ,
and they are easily changed in the light of new information . In many ways,
the values societies place on biodiversity evolve with society's understanding of itself, its relationship to the natural wo rd, and newly emerging
knowledge abo ut that interrelationship.
Quantifying natural processes in their interrelationship with human decisions, and representing those processes in the setting of a dynamic model ,
can go a long way in documenting current understanding and gaps in
knowledge. But recognize that, by choosing the route of quantifying and
modeling, one valuable piece in the argument for conservation is often relegated to the sidelines- the deep moral, ethical, religious, and emotional
affections that underlie many people 's value systems. The fact that those
very personal motivators for conservation are very personal and nonquantifiable does not mean that they are of less relevance. Rather, it means
that, in order to generate successful societal dialog on conservation issues,
we need to provide a forum in which quantified information , models, and
values can be freely exchanged, and consensus on actions be generated on
the basis of that exchange.
While the list of human impacts on the ocean may be long, the list of
concrete options for dealing with those impacts is growin g rapidly. One
vital tool for both the preservation of biological diversity and for the management of exploited species is the marine protected area (MPA). As
ment ioned throu ghout this book , the rationales for the designation of MPAs
vary widely, from conservation of biological diversity, to management of
fishing activity, preservation of marine wilderness, and protection of cul-
19. Reflections on the Parts and the Whol e
supe rsede the cultural traditions of a particular nation? And lastly, how can
a global populace be convinced not only of the benefits of marine systems
they will likely never see, but also of the need to curtail some particular behavior in favor of conserving those systems?
Scientists can make valuable contributions to finding answers to these
qu estions. Ideally, decisions on how to add ress conservation issues are
based on the best available science. But there are many reasons scientific
input to decision making is, and should be , only one of many bases on
which decisions must rest. Typically, science itself does not take place in a
value-neutral setting. Value judgments may result, for example, from different social, cultural, educational and political backgrounds of the scientists.
The role that such value judgments place in the scientific endeavor is particularly critical for the science of conservation, which needs to deal with
complexities that are difficult, if not impossible, to redu ce. The choice of
perspective , the approach to dealing with uncertainties in data, the application of a specific method, the selection of alternative assumptions: all crucially influence the conclusions.
But there are other, equall y fundamental reasons scientific input into decision making is, and should be , only one of many factors on which to base
conservation efforts. Other factors include the values that society holds of
the natural environment. Those values are difficult to elicit and quantify ,
and they are easily changed in the light of new information . In many ways,
the values societies place on biodiversity evolve with society's understanding of itself, its relationship to the natural wo rd, and newly emerging
knowledge abo ut that interrelationship.
Quantifying natural processes in their interrelationship with human decisions, and representing those processes in the setting of a dynamic model ,
can go a long way in documenting current understanding and gaps in
knowledge. But recognize that, by choosing the route of quantifying and
modeling, one valuable piece in the argument for conservation is often relegated to the sidelines- the deep moral, ethical, religious, and emotional
affections that underlie many people 's value systems. The fact that those
very personal motivators for conservation are very personal and nonquantifiable does not mean that they are of less relevance. Rather, it means
that, in order to generate successful societal dialog on conservation issues,
we need to provide a forum in which quantified information , models, and
values can be freely exchanged, and consensus on actions be generated on
the basis of that exchange.
While the list of human impacts on the ocean may be long, the list of
concrete options for dealing with those impacts is growin g rapidly. One
vital tool for both the preservation of biological diversity and for the management of exploited species is the marine protected area (MPA). As
ment ioned throu ghout this book , the rationales for the designation of MPAs
vary widely, from conservation of biological diversity, to management of
fishing activity, preservation of marine wilderness, and protection of cul-