1.

The view of the natural world as a resource implies that non-human creatures exist
solely for human consumption. This viewpoint results in the total alienation of humans
from nature
David Orton, coordinator of the Green Web environmental research group, 2000 [January, Earth
First Journal, Marine Protected Areas: A Human-centric concept] <murray>
The Oceans Act uses the word "resource" to cover non-human creatures living in the oceans. The
automatic assumption that nature is a resource for corporate and human use is an indication of our total
alienation from the natural world. It implies a human- centered, utilitarian world view and that humans
are somehow the pinnacle of evolution
2. The affirmatives view of marine biodiversity solely from the perspective of its value to
humans is anthropocentric because it refuses to recognize that organisms have intrinsic
value for their own sake
Donald K. Anton Director of Policy and International Law @ University of Melbourn, Columbia
Journal of Transnational Law, 1997
In order to appreciate the need for new international law to provide greater protection to marine
biological diversity beyond the continental shelf and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), it is necessary
to appreciate the value of such diversity, why we care about conserving it. and why threats to it are a
matter of concern. From some ethical points of view all forms of life, and the habitats that support
them, can be considered as intrinsically valuable for their own sake. Under this premise, it follows
that protection and preservation ought to follow as a matter of course. However, excepting certain
philosophical, religious or cultural [*347] systems, the value of biological diversity overwhelmingly
has been viewed from the narrow position of economic worth to humans.
Of course, this presents problems for the protection of biological diversity, because it has
recognized value that cannot be calculated in dollar terms. Further, under current accounting systems,
the cost of losing biodiversity is ordinarily shifted to society rather than internalized by
7 7
private actors responsible for the loss. The problem is even more acute in the case of marine
biodiversity found beyond national jurisdiction because of its commons nature. Consequently, systems
for valuing biodiversity need to use monetary valuation as one tool among many.
The debates surrounding the C.B.D. have suffered from this myopic economic view of the value of
biodiveristy. Instead of focusing on the widespread protection and conservation of ecosystems, species,
and genetic variability, the debates have primarily involved access to biological diversity and rights to
profits generated through the exploitation of genetic material.