Is it possible to develop a useful environmental philosophy when considering only one perspective?

Question

can a philosophy or strategy be truly useful if it doesn't consider other points of view? or will it be cast into the landfill among the heaps of good intentions?

make it better: HOW could your own environmental philosophy be adjusted (and remain effective and useful to you) to better consider other views?

Answer 1

If someone always talked about other ideas and never did anything, would that help them..

Answer 2

Well the dirty hippies need to stop being dirty hippies so the conservative hobbits will listen.  The conservative hobbits need to stop smoking crack...

Answer 3

Provided that you are fairly selective in who you talk to and the sources of information that you use, there are some very good people who are skeptical of the concept of Global Warming caused by human activity and who can make a significant contribution to the discussion.

It is important to keep the discussion based on peer reviewed scientific literature and not the exaggeration and hyperbole that appears in  the popular media.

If you do that you can have a very productive discussion.

Otherwise, if you permit material that is in the popular media to intrude, you are just wasting your time.

.

Answer 4

It's possible. Although every point of view must be considered. We don't all think the same way, but we still can have the very same purpose for the same goal. Good intentions don't do much work... followed by the actions are the way.

Answer 5

Yes and No. Yes, because the environment is so inter-related, there are some strategies that will have a wider positive effect than you know. For example, if you decide to plant your garden only with plants that are native in your locale, you will find that you need a lot less pesticides. Pesticides, of course, are not only prime pollutants of the water system but their production also involves a lot of CO-2.

No, because the environment is so interrelated, you might do unintentional harm because of unanticipated side effects.

Answer 6

Any useful environmental philosophy is going to consider multiple points of view.  Only by including all stakeholders into a dialogue can progress be made in identifying issues and developing solutions.

Your 2nd question:  I think it's to ones advantage to remain flexible and be ready to consider all serious arguments, even if they go against everything you believe.  These arguments tend to make you reexamine your own opinions and beliefs and can serve to strengthen them in the long run. You might even find yourself backing down or having to adjust your philosophy, which can be a good thing now and then.

Answer 7

I start from a location: the nearest perspective which best fits my own values and beliefs. I then look outward to check whatever new information comes my way. This is learning. I adjust my thoughts, beliefs and actions in accordance with the new learning, if it is something I value. If not, then yes the idea is discarded.

Sometimes though I have to go back and relearn what I previously learned and forgot. Or what I discarded as it was not 'useful' to me that time.

I am adjusting my views all the time in light of new learning. So I am ready to look at new arguments and information. Or look again at old arguments. Reviewing is equally important too.  

I am human, I like to feel that I make well considered choices and judgments. Sometimes I don't, which is why it is so important to review what I have already learned/done/said before looking at 'new' information. When I get it wrong I can then adjust my course taking into account other's views and opinions. So no it is not possible to develop useful environmental philosophy when only considering one perspective.