The emphasis on the preservation of biodiversity as the objective of conservation (“Global biodiversity conservation priorities,” T. M. Brooks et al., Review, 7 July, p. 58) has three distressing faults. First, species contain ecotypes that are unique to their locales. As the range of the species is restricted, ecotypes are lost and the functional integrity of the natural communities in that region suffers. Although the ecotypes may be reproducible over many generations from a population residual in a protected “hot spot,” the reproduction is not guaranteed and is certain to be slow. Second, the very best efforts in preserving species in parks will be defeated if we allow the environment to erode out from under them. The issues are not simply climatic disruption, but also include physical, chemical, and biotic disruption. Finally, the focus on biodiversity by well-financed and obviously influential scientists appears to be an authoritative statement that the needs of conservation are finite and can be met adequately by establishing parks to preserve species in hot spots. The fact is that these objectives are appropriate but completely inadequate and, presented without elaborated conditions, become distracting to the point of being misleading. The objective of conservation is the preservation of a fully functional biosphere as the only human habitat. That entails preservation of the full range of genetic potential in species, the species in all of its intrinsic diversity. This argument presents a far more aggressive mission for conservation, one much closer to the objective recognized, at least nominally, by Brazil in preserving by law a high fraction of each land holding in forested regions as intact forest and by New York State's Adirondack Park, which embraces villages, towns, and businesses operating under special rules governing forested land over 6 million acres. Success also entails immediate implementation of the Framework Convention on Climate Change to stabilize the heat-trapping gas content of the atmosphere at levels safe for nature and for people. Conservation as a whole demands a new design on how to manage the world, not one based on parks alone, which are bound to fail.