Only watched the first video thus far, but it's sounding more of a jaded rant than a rational and educated analysis.
I like how he says numerous times that "I can only judge a tree by the fruit it bares". And while I understand the intention he's getting at, I
can't help but wonder just how he values a Spruce Tree. Is the value of a tree inherent to just the fruit it produces? Would a tree that produces
sparse and rotten fruit be of absolutely no value? What of it's roots that help prevent erosion? What of it's limbs which provide nesting spots for
birds and other wildlife? What of it's rotten fruit which decays and creates the fertilizer for new growth around it? What of the fruit which is
unappetizing, but can be used to produce alcohol through it's decomposition? Alcohol which can be used both as a fuel, and an intoxicant so valued by
humanity - that some archeologists and sociologists suggest that it was for alcohol production (not food) that started the first agricultural
societies that our civilizations stem from.
How does he value the Navel Orange? Navel Oranges are the most popular oranges on the market due primarily to their lack of seeds. This is the result
of a genetic mutation which caused a second malformed fruit to grow at the base of the main fruit. The mutation also rendered the orange tree that
carried the mutation utterly sterile (seedless). It was discovered in the orchard of a Brazilian Monastery in 1820 - and the navel oranges you eat
today are not the descendants of that tree - but are FROM that tree. It has been kept alive and propagated artificially by man through cutting and
So what is the value of a Navel Orange? Evolutionary value? None. It was a dead end with a fatal mutation which prevented reproduction. The only value
it has, is that it bore fruit in a time when there was a species around capable of assigning value to it - and valued it worthy enough to take an
active hand in ensuring it's continued survival.
I wonder if such a fact has ever come across his mind and given him pause for thought. This, and other statements he makes which imply shallow cursory
understandings of our reality, inspire little confidence that he understands the "Nature of our World".