I would say that the absence of any overarching anthropological, epistemological or philosophical basis for these questions is the fundamental observation that

I would say that the absence of any overarching anthropological, epistemological or philosophical basis for these questions is the fundamental observation that needs to be made. "Big social impact" is hardly a defined category, let alone necessarily representative of desirable outcome. As we move from a multiplicity of disparate cultures to a single common denominating quagmire of internet-unified global capitalism, how do we ensure that alternative perspectives on nature, society and purpose continue to exist and are granted reasonable space and resources to self-sustain? Alternatively stated: how can homo sapiens as a group reliably value things such as the commons (nature, intellectual heritage, freedom of choice, individual dignity, etc.) that exist outside of conventional private ownership and economic rationalism without politically centralizing objective value thereby capitulating the great strengths known to be associated with heterogeneity?