Fixed Visions and Visionaries

Jaswinder S. Sandhu

• Responses to this Article
• Literature Cited

Published: April 30, 2001

I read with interest the views of Holling (1999), Rogers et al. (2000), and Tyson (2000) on vision. As far as vision is concerned, I think it is an excellent topic that can continue to interest scientists forever. However, the sculpting or carving analogy used to represent vision seems a bit too static to me. A sculpture is an object that is rigid and fixed; it can never change once it has been created. I believe, on the contrary, that vision is something that is, and should be, constantly changing. Regardless of whether you start with only a hazy idea, as Holling did, or a clear view, such as the one that Rogers et al. claim to have had, vision must be dynamic. This is essential in a world where change is a law of nature.

Rogers et al. also make a compelling argument for seeking consensus in terms of vision, i.e., not allowing a single person's vision, or even the most mainstream, to dominate. If we cannot achieve this, then I think we deserve mismanagement of our resources.

Responses to this article are invited. If accepted for publication, your response will be hyperlinked to the article. To submit a comment, follow this link. To read comments already accepted, follow this link.

Holling, C. S. 1999. Visions: a personal essay. Conservation Ecology 3(1): 12. [online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/Journal/vol3/iss1/art12.

Rogers, K., D. Roux, and H. Biggs. 2000. The value of visions and art of visionaries. Response to C. S. (Buzz) Holling (1999). "Visions: a personal essay." Conservation Ecology 4(1): Response 1. [online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/Journal/vol4/iss1/resp1.

Tyson, W. 2000. God, nature, and interpretation. Response to Rogers et al. (2000). "The value of visions and art of visionaries." Conservation Ecology 4(2): Response 3. [online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/Journal/vol4/iss2/resp3.