Calls for global action on environmental issues have been popular since the 1970s and public interest in them has been raised by rallying people to the notion that we all share one world. One need look no further than the COVID-19 pandemic to realize that sharing a world does not mean an equally felt impact or equally shared burden among all people when that world is threatened. Despite the initial good intentions of this ‘one world’ voice, when applied to the oceans the term ‘one’ risks reflecting only the more privileged sectors of society and their worldviews, rather than the diverse circumstances and values underpinning the complexity of human–ocean relationships. While we support the authors' sentiments of unity, their recognition of the oceans' roles in our interconnectedness, and the lack of a planet (or ocean) ‘B’, we also want to stress that humanity is not all in the same boat, people do not have the same destination in mind and we set out into the ocean future from very different home ports. Even within a region or nation, different people in society are poised to benefit differently from the future ocean economy and environment, depending on how ocean governance is developed, and on the conservation actions that support its sustainability. Thus, while the paper by Laffoley et al. makes the important point that the biophysical properties of the ocean play a significant role in every society and every Earth system, we must question ‘the first, simple step of dropping the “s”, recognizing the ocean as a single entity, and referring to the ocean in the singular’ (Laffoley et al., 2020, p. 13) with regard to three risks associated with that seemingly ‘modest proposal’.

The first risk is that calls for ‘one ocean’ can undermine the notion of and action for ocean or blue justice. Although air, water, soil and oceans are all interconnected global biophysical systems, their degradation is often felt most acutely at local levels, and by poor and historically marginalized peoples. Thus, while the ‘one ocean’ narrative plays well in global, high-level discussions, it underplays the historical experiences of fighting environmental injustice. The environmental justice movement is rooted in local people's resistance to the actions of governments and corporations who located their most polluting industries and processes in proximity to the poorest people, thereby reducing their health and quality of life much more than that of wealthier people located further away (Bullard, 1990). Managing diverse local impacts in equitable ways requires different actions along different pathways. Each of these calls for different actors, knowledge, policies, objectives, financing, institutions and organizations. The diversity and local specificity of the required responses are not well served by global homogenization.

The second risk is that appealing to the biophysical fluidity implicit in ‘one ocean’ panders to a view that ocean economic benefits will also mix, flow – or trickle down – to all. The reality is that the ocean ‘estate’ is unequally resource-endowed and inequitably claimed and allocated, and there are structural barriers to economic fluidity. Taking fisheries as an example, those making economic profit from the ocean – industrial fisheries and retailers – and those taken advantage of by those sectors – fish workers and artisanal fisheries – do not share the same ocean from an economic perspective. Inequities and barriers to ocean economic fluidity extend to all sectors of the ocean economy – who gets to live by the ocean, derive cultural identity from it or get nutrient rich food from it (Cisneros-Montemayor et al., 2016). All of these inequities are hidden by the idea of ‘one ocean’.

Third, ‘one ocean’ thinking risks undermining certain kinds of knowledge about the ocean: knowledge that is local and/or Indigenous, practical or ‘phronetic’ (Allison et al., 2020). In designing policies to be implemented, context and diverse values need to be considered throughout decision-making processes and assessments of effectiveness. The holistic nature of the ‘One Health’ framing espoused by Laffoley et al. (2020) provides a more diverse and inclusive knowledge base beyond the ocean governance model of science-based regulations of economic development. In this current world that is increasingly demanding diversity, equity and inclusion, we must focus on governance models built on solidarity borne from the recognition of this diversity, not through another top-down call for unity.

Finding and building the way for such solidarity is critical in times of disasters. When the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami struck Japan's northern coasts, English fisher friends approached Ota, eager to send money in support for the affected communities. They reasoned that they all shared the oceans. They cared for the heritage and the ways of life in Japan's coastal communities – heritage and ways of life that are not of their own – and wanted to contribute to their survival. We recognize that Laffoley and colleagues share this same spirit in proposing ‘one ocean’ and that they prioritize the heritages and lives of coastal peoples no less than biodiversity. Yet the ‘one ocean’ narrative risks concealing the localized costs of and responses to environmental degradation, downplaying the ways in which benefits from the ocean are inequitably distributed and minimizing diverse knowledge contributions.

自 1970 年代以来，呼吁就环境问题采取全球行动一直很受欢迎，并且通过将人们团结在我们共享一个世界的观念中来提高公众对这些问题的兴趣。只需看看 COVID-19 大流行病就可以意识到，共享一个世界并不意味着当这个世界受到威胁时，所有人都能平等感受到影响或平等分担负担。尽管这个“一个世界”的声音最初是善意的，但当应用于海洋时，“一个”这个词有可能只反映社会中更有特权的部分及其世界观，而不是支撑人类-海洋复杂性的多样化环境和价值观关系。虽然我们支持作者的团结情绪，他们承认海洋在我们相互联系中的作用，以及缺乏行星（或海洋）“B”，我们还想强调，人类并非都在同一条船上，人们心中没有相同的目的地，我们从截然不同的母港出发进入海洋未来。即使在一个地区或国家内，社会中不同的人也准备好从未来的海洋经济和环境中受益，这取决于海洋治理的发展方式以及支持其可持续性的保护行动。因此，虽然拉佛利等人的论文。海洋的生物物理特性在每个社会和每个地球系统中都发挥着重要作用，这一点很重要，我们必须质疑“删除“s”的第一步，简单的步骤，认识到海洋是一个单一的实体，并指海洋中的单数”（Laffoley 等人，人们心中没有相同的目的地，我们从截然不同的母港出发进入海洋的未来。即使在一个地区或国家内，社会中不同的人也准备好从未来的海洋经济和环境中受益，这取决于海洋治理的发展方式以及支持其可持续性的保护行动。因此，虽然拉佛利等人的论文。海洋的生物物理特性在每个社会和每个地球系统中都发挥着重要作用，这一点很重要，我们必须质疑“删除“s”的第一步，简单的步骤，认识到海洋是一个单一的实体，并指海洋中的单数”（Laffoley 等人，人们心中没有相同的目的地，我们从截然不同的母港出发进入海洋的未来。即使在一个地区或国家内，社会中不同的人也准备好从未来的海洋经济和环境中受益，这取决于海洋治理的发展方式以及支持其可持续性的保护行动。因此，虽然拉佛利等人的论文。海洋的生物物理特性在每个社会和每个地球系统中都发挥着重要作用，这一点很重要，我们必须质疑“删除“s”的第一步，简单的步骤，认识到海洋是一个单一的实体，并指海洋中的单数”（Laffoley 等人，社会中不同的人准备从未来的海洋经济和环境中受益，这取决于海洋治理的发展方式以及支持其可持续性的保护行动。因此，虽然拉佛利等人的论文。海洋的生物物理特性在每个社会和每个地球系统中都发挥着重要作用，这一点很重要，我们必须质疑“删除“s”的第一步，简单的步骤，认识到海洋是一个单一的实体，并指海洋中的单数”（Laffoley 等人，社会中不同的人准备从未来的海洋经济和环境中受益，这取决于海洋治理的发展方式以及支持其可持续性的保护行动。因此，虽然拉佛利等人的论文。海洋的生物物理特性在每个社会和每个地球系统中都发挥着重要作用，这一点很重要，我们必须质疑“删除“s”的第一步，简单的步骤，认识到海洋是一个单一的实体，并指海洋中的单数”（Laffoley 等人， 2020 年，第。13) 关于与这个看似“温和的提议”相关的三个风险。

第一个风险是“一个海洋”的呼吁会破坏海洋或蓝色正义的概念和行动。尽管空气、水、土壤和海洋都是相互关联的全球生物物理系统，但它们的退化在地方层面以及贫穷和历史上被边缘化的人民往往最为严重。因此，虽然“一个海洋”的叙述在全球高级别讨论中表现良好，但它低估了与环境不公正作斗争的历史经验。环境正义运动植根于当地人民对政府和公司的行动的抵制，这些政府和公司将污染最严重的行业和流程靠近最贫穷的人，从而比距离更远的富人更严重地降低了他们的健康和生活质量（布拉德，  1990）。以公平的方式管理不同的地方影响需要沿着不同的途径采取不同的行动。每一个都需要不同的参与者、知识、政策、目标、资金、机构和组织。全球同质化并不能很好地满足所需响应的多样性和局部特异性。

第二个风险是，诉诸“一个海洋”中隐含的生物物理流动性会迎合一种观点，即海洋经济利益也将混合、流动或涓滴流向所有人。现实情况是，海洋“地产”的资源分配不均，要求和分配不公平，经济流动性存在结构性障碍。以渔业为例，从海洋中获利的工业渔业和零售商以及被这些部门利用的渔业工人和手工渔业从经济角度来看并不共享同一片海洋。海洋经济流动性的不平等和障碍扩展到海洋经济的所有部门——谁靠海生活，从中获得文化认同或从中获得营养丰富的食物（Cisneros-Montemayor 等人，  2016 年））。所有这些不平等都被“一个海洋”的想法所掩盖。

第三，“一个海洋”思维可能会破坏有关海洋的某些类型的知识：本地和/或土著、实用或“语音”知识（Allison 等人，  2020 年）。在设计要实施的政策时，需要在整个决策过程和有效性评估中考虑背景和不同的价值观。Laffoley 等人所支持的“一个健康”框架的整体性质。( 2020) 提供了一个更加多样化和包容性的知识库，超越了以科学为基础的经济发展法规的海洋治理模型。在当今这个对多样性、公平性和包容性要求越来越高的世界中，我们必须专注于建立在因承认这种多样性而产生的团结基础上的治理模式，而不是通过另一个自上而下的团结呼吁。

在灾难发生时，寻找和建立这种团结的道路至关重要。当 2011 年东北地震和海啸袭击日本北部海岸时，英国渔民朋友找到了大田，渴望为受灾社区提供支持。他们推断他们都共享海洋。他们关心日本沿海社区的遗产和生活方式——不属于他们自己的遗产和生活方式——并希望为他们的生存做出贡献。我们认识到，Laffoley 及其同事在提出“一个海洋”时有着同样的精神，他们将沿海人民的遗产和生活放在首位，不亚于生物多样性。然而，“一个海洋”的叙述有可能掩盖环境退化的本地化成本和应对措施，