>>11743566>>11743601I don't know what the answer is for anything in this world. I suppose what nags at me most is the great and still growing danger of conditioning an entire generation to see it as normal and reasonable to uptake information this way. I feel like it promotes a sort of "blindsight", it's just a barrage of superficial so-called "facts" completely apart from any kind of structure, it's seeing without seeing, seeing without even knowing what you're actually seeing. There is also a failure to communicate any sense of purpose, direction, or higher meaning. There is a great danger in a "look it up" non-critical culture.
For example in the intro, the beauty of nature is contrasted with a writing mass of crabs. And I can't get my point across concisely, but what is "beauty"? What is it to be repulsed. What is it to be *afraid*. These matters are no longer even referenced subtly, or tangentially. You have a certain relatively small spectrum of experiences which are put forward as self evident, like disgust over a pit of snakes or having waves of crabs gliding over you, burying you in the depths... and then that's it. It never goes anywhere.
It's all just far too nebulous, too much filler. To understand these ideas about order, levels of organization, and the ways of nature, you'd be better off skimming through a page or two with pictures of animals and their environment and some facts. Eventually filler will be seen as substance. Entertainment will be seen as education. I remember an episode of Star Trek about beauty, and they referenced the ancient Greek notions of that which is beautiful being seen that which is good and right. Another episode dealt with a species which divided in two, one lived in the clouds, the other remained primitive. Ultimately, the surface of the planet had a gas which suppressed brain activity. Those who reached the clouds were simply more resistant. Veiled politics were smarter.
EH. Whatever. Never mind.
