What is the value of perspectives on the environment that don't try to be objective?
Subquestions that might inform your discussion: How should we think about the value of amateur science, remembering that most amateur science never reaches the level of importance as what we read about this week, and never contributes much to formal scientific projects? Are amateur scientists doing important work, even if it's not scientifically 'rigorous', and is hardly ever of interest to 'real' scientists? On what basis do we make decisions about the fate of species? Aesthetic, philosophical, human-centered, etc? How do we incorporate our feelings, desires, and ethical commitments with a scientific worldview that privileges objectivity?