In his popular book “A Brief History of Time,” the internationally renowned physicist Stephen W. Hawking (1988) forwards a view that is popular among physical scientists: “ … the eventual goal of science is to provide a single theory that describes the whole universe.” This Theory of Everything would obviously benefit the management of human activities, but it is not clear what contribution ecology might make to this theory. In ecology, as in most sciences, increased levels of organization are characterized by decreased scientific precision and increased complexity of arrangement. For example, boundary recognition and spatial arrangement of individual organisms are relatively simple and straightforward; in contrast, ecosystems typically have complex spatial arrangements and boundaries that are difficult to discern. Chris Beckett (1990) responds to Hawking's statement with a relatively pessimistic outlook for science: “And then we get to the levels in which we actually live out our lives: our relationships, our aspirations, politics, … personal choices, moral dilemmas … And at this level (the most important one, after all, from a human perspective) science has no precise answers, no complete descriptions at all.” Clearly, our expectations of science as a source of knowledge must be tempered with an understanding that the natural world will never be completely described. Because prediction typically represents an even greater challenge than description, it is tempting to abandon ecology as a source of practical managerial information.