[Coral-List] Fw: What agency should list corals

Wed Apr 3 16:15:13 EDT 2013

Point well taken, Alina, I completely agree.

Fits well with Francesca's statement that

"Also the task is not really about managing resources or other species but
is about managing human society and ourselves as a species."

The finite resources of the planet are illustrated by the fact that about
50% of all the food produced by all organisms on the planet is eaten by
humans.  Which implies that all the other millions of species, all
together, have only the remaining 50% for them.  And the human population
continues to grow.  We can see it as a slow-motion train wreck happening.
In the long term it is imperative we get population down.  If we don't, it
won't just be nature that suffers, but humans as well, as a result of the
degraded ability of nature to continue to provide ecosystem services of all
kinds.  If we continue as we have, we are shooting ourselves in the foot
(or worse!).

Social sciences can provide information that managers can use in their
decision making, just as the natural sciences like ecology, biology,
geology, and natural history do.  Managers who are informed by both social
science and natural science can make better decisions.  Unfortunately, many
managers (though not all by any means) are not well informed, particularly
about social science.  In the modern world, government needs the
information that both sciences can provide, to make better decisions for
their citizens.  Government officials cannot spend a lifetime studying the
sciences, they have to hire scientists, and they need to listen to them and
then make their own decisions.  But they are under all sorts of political
pressures as well.

Cheers,  Doug

On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 1:17 AM, Szmant, Alina <szmanta at uncw.edu> wrote:

> And sadly, you have hit the proverbial nail on the head, not necessarily
> by intention.
>
> As long as the first priority of our global (or regional, or national, or
> local) social scientists, governments and management agencies is to satisfy
> the "basic needs" of the 'people', then our planet is doomed.  Someone
> wrote in a recent post about managing ecosystems:  it has been stated many
> times over, we don't manage ecosystems, we manage how people interact, use
> or abuse ecosystems.  As long as people (especially poor people) have
> greater right to take that fin off of that shark than the shark has to go
> about merrily using its fin, or as someone brought up at a recent workshop,
> or than some old lady up in the mountains who loves the idea of that shark
> safely out there doing its thing, then social sciences and government is
> failing all of us.  We keep proselytizing around the edges but we are not
> doing anything to control  that big elephant in the room, the impending and
> soon to come 9 billion of us (almost 50 % more people than now live on
> Earth in the next 43 years).  We spend tons more money on how to save and
> prolong every human life and not much on how to prevent so many babies from
> being born and reduce birth rate.  We are hampered by political
> correctness, by religious issues, by our inability to impose limitations on
> the reproductive rights of anyone who wants to have a baby and the
> population bomb keeps ticking. Yes, birth rates in some places are
> decreasing and even below replacement for a few small countries, but not
> enough to slow down or reverse the increase in human population.  And now a
> number of nations are worried about not having enough workers, and who will
> take care of the bulge of us people getting older...and want to incentivize
> women to have more children!!!
>
> I am glad I won't be around to see it.  I fear for what my 24 year old
> daughter will experience in her life time.  I do not think that the social
> scientists of today or the economists get it, and certainly our big
> businesses and government agencies don't.
>
> There are some really dedicated and magnificent people out there who do
> get it, and who are really working hard to get the word out (many of the
> people on this list), but there are not enough of them and their voices are
> like whispers in the wind, trampled by the hordes of developers,  oil
> company magnates, pharmaceutical companies, commercial fishermen,
> recreational fishing clubs, agribusiness corporations, etc etc etc etc etc
> (that is part of the problem...too many etcs).
>
> My apologies to all you optimists out there, but I am still waiting for
> that big sign from above, below or any direction that there is reason for
> hope..  A real sign, not just another postage stamp sized MPA with no armed
> guards to enforce the regulations. All I see is bad, poor and worse actions
> happening all over the place, in spite of the great intentions of a few
> millions of us (drop in the human bucket) who are doing our best to get the
> word out and influence the decision making process.
>
>
>
> *************************************************************************
> Dr. Alina M. Szmant
> Professor of Marine Biology
> Center for Marine Science and Dept of Biology and Marine Biology
> University of North Carolina Wilmington
> 5600 Marvin Moss Ln
> Wilmington NC 28409 USA
> tel:  910-962-2362  fax: 910-962-2410  cell: 910-200-3913
> http://people.uncw.edu/szmanta
> *******************************************************
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov [mailto:
> coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of frahome at yahoo.com
> Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 3:09 AM
> To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> Subject: [Coral-List] Fw: What agency should list corals
>
> What does maximizing social welfare means?
> I think social scientists should focus on the concept of fundamental human
> needs, then work with the society, other scientists etc, on identifying and
> promoting ways to satisfy these fundamental needs, that have a minimal
> impact/ecological footprint. This is the opposite of what is being done
> nowadays by economists for example: fabricating needs and promoting
> resource intensive, dubious, to say the least, satisfiers.
> Social scientists should not forget to multiply by 9 billions (soon to
> come world population) the resources required by any of their identified
> social welfare or perception inclusion proposal to make it meaningful, fair
> and sustainable in the "medium-short term".
>
> Simply "making sure that (current) society's perceptions, preferences,
> attitudes, values etc. are brought into policy-making" sounds a somehow
> limited and static approach compared to the great role social scientists
> could play in finding a solutions to the problems of our days.
> Also the task is not really about managing resources or other species but
> is about managing human society and ourselves as a species.
>
> An attempt to describing "fundamental human needs" that I find
> particularly interesting is the one developed by the economist Manfred
> Max-Neef. You can find a brief description here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_human_needs
> or best in his articles about "Human Scale Development":
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/nlow9x3k7lxuorh/2007-manfred-max-neef-fundamental-human-needs.pdf
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/v107a9kd7zfsi7n/Max-neef_Human_Scale_development.pdf
>
> According to him "Fundamental human needs are constant through all human
> cultures and across historical time periods. What changes over time and
> between cultures is the strategies by which these needs are satisfied".
> I call social scientists to work out better strategies then the one
> advertised nowadays.
>
> Francesca
> PS. I am sorry but I have serious troubles in considering most branches of
> economics an hard science due to its many false assumptions, failed and
> missed predictions, disregard to very important obvious variables and sort
> of implicit agenda.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Forwarded Message -----
> From: Christopher Hawkins <chwkins at yahoo.com>
> To: "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov" <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
> Sent: Monday, April 1, 2013 9:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [Coral-List] What agency should list corals
>
> All-
>
> It is disappointing to see some seemingly very intelligent folks post some
> of these remarks.
>
> I have participated in a number of natural resource social science forums
> as well, so a I am quite confused with the statements made in this string
> of emails.
>
>
> I will re-iterate that whether you are biological scientist or a social
> scientist, you are a *scientist*, and therefore (typically) interested in
> understanding the phenomena in a reliable, valid, representative, and
> generalizable way. As a human dimensions specialist, I am charged with
> making sure that society's perceptions, preferences, attitudes, values etc.
> are brought into policy-making in a rigorous and objective way. I am not
> sure how that all of a sudden becomes me ignoring that there are "very real
> limits to the level at which the natural systems and resources can be
> impacted before the living resource and/or system ceases to function in a
> normal way, if at all.  Of course there are, and every social scientist
> worthy of the title would agree. Throwing that statement  out there
> re-enforces a misguided stereotype and confuses one profession with
> another. For what purpose, I'm not sure.
>
> Managing nature resources is as much a social endeavor as it is an
> ecological one. The goals, objectives, and reasons we manage areas or
> species are derived from society: the last time I looked there was no
> divine stone tablet telling us how these places, animals, plants, and
> habitats should look. Attempting to manage such resources without solid
> social science would be as silly and inadvisable as attempting to manage
> them without solid ecological science.
>
> Best,
> Chris
>
>
> Christopher Hawkins, Ph.D.
> Fisheries Social Scientist
>
> University of Hawaii/NOAA Fisheries Service Honolulu
>
>
> From: Pedro H. Rodríguez phernanrod at yahoo.com
> Sent: Thu Mar 28 14:38:40 EDT 2013
> Subject: Re: [Coral-List] To Dennis Hubbard (What agency should list
> corals under the Endangered)
>
> WE scientists? The social and eonomic scientists dealing with
> natural-resource use apply the same scientific philosophy as you and me,
> Dennis, and their goal is to maximize social welfare under the constraint
> of sustainable resources. I see no conflict of interest.
>
> Pedro
> ________________________________
> From: Quenton <qdokken at gulfmex..org>
> To: "'Szmant, Alina'" <szmanta at uncw.edu>; 'Pedro H. Rodríguez' <
> phernanrod at yahoo.com>; coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 12:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [Coral-List] To Dennis Hubbard (What agency should list
> corals under the Endangered)
>
> Good Day All;
>
> Social and economic practice do not necessarily follow the constructs of
> science and certainly not the realities of the limits of nature.  In
> economic and social science forums, rarely have I heard discussed the fact
> that there are very real limits to the level at which the natural  systems
> and resources can be impacted before the living resource and/or system
> ceases to function in a normal way, if at all.  The belief seems to be that
> natural habitats, wild populations, and the cycles of ecosystem dynamics
> can be compromised infinitely to serve the needs and wants of humans. The
> fact is that nature did not evolve in a manner to be sustainable under the
> variety and quantity of insults and compromises that humans inflict.  Nor
> is nature geared to adapt on a human generational time scale.  Every
> environmental issue we face today can be discussed in terms of lack of
> understanding/acceptance of the fact that nature can only be compromised to
> a limited extent before it fails. Our regulatory system of issuing permits
> is based on the belief that nature can be compromised infinitely.  Yes,
> society must have jobs and business opportunities to exist and flourish.
> Yes, there must be
>  access to natural resources to meet the needs and wants of
> humans/society.  But, at some point planning and permitting must factor the
> limits of nature into the model.  Nature does not take into account an
> individual's or community's culture, history, religion, uniqueness, dreams,
> financial need, property rights, or any other purely human contrivance. In
> and of itself, nature is a perpetual motion machine.  Nature will function
> just fine until something or someone disrupts its cycles to a point that
> the engine stops.. Very clearly we can see the train coming at us and we
> don't seem to be able to get off the track.
>
> Quenton Dokken, Ph.D.
> President/CEO
> Gulf of Mexico Foundation, Inc.
>
> 361-882-3939 office
> 361-442-6064 cell
> qdokken at gulfmex.org
>
> Office:
> 3833 South Staples
> Suite S214
> Corpus Christi,
>  TX 78411
>
> Mail:
> PMB 51
> 5403 Everhart Rd.
> Corpus Christi, TX 78411
>
> www.gulfmex.org
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> [mailto:coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Szmant, Alina
> Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 4:09 PM
> To: Pedro H.. Rodríguez; coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> Subject: Re: [Coral-List] To Dennis Hubbard (What agency should list
> corals under the Endangered)
>
> I think the biggest difference between the natural sciences and the social
> sciences might be in our views of what is sustainable...  Many of us
>  natural scientists think that the terms "sustainable development"  or
> "sustainable exploitation of resources"  are oxymorons!   There is nothing
> sustainable about human development or exploitation as long as human
> population growth is not halted and human population size is greatly
> reduced.
>
> *************************************************************************
> Dr. Alina M. Szmant
> Professor of Marine Biology
> Center for Marine Science and Dept of Biology and Marine Biology
> University of North Carolina Wilmington
> 5600 Marvin Moss Ln
> Wilmington NC 28409 USA
> tel:  910-962-2362  fax: 910-962-2410  cell: 910-200-3913
> http://people.uncw.edu/szmanta
> *******************************************************
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> [mailto:coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Pedro H.
> Rodríguez
> Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 2:39 PM
> To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> Subject: Re: [Coral-List] To Dennis Hubbard (What agency should list
> corals under the Endangered)
>
> WE scientists? The social and eonomic scientists dealing with
> natural-resource use apply the same scientific philosophy as you and me,
> Dennis, and their goal is to maximize social welfare under the constraint
> of sustainable resources. I see no conflict of interest.
>
> Pedro
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing
>  list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>

-- 
PO Box 7390
Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799  USA

The views expressed are those of the author alone.