Nowhere does his post condemn the satisfying of emotional needs. In fact, given that emotions are primary action catalysts, his post asserts Quanta is doing very important cultural work.
This is such a bizarre way to totally miss the point.
Let me respond to the left turn you just took. There are genetic and social differences between our prehistoric ancestors and modern humans. Where exactly we draw the line of who is a "caveman" and who is not, is ancillary to the point:
You're evaluating the statement, a "then" statement, without considering the antecedents from its parent comment.
He uses "laypeople" to describe a group of people who are not truly interested, who are not seeking understanding, and who use pop-sci literature to abate basal emotions like anger.
> In fact, given that emotions are primary action catalysts, his post asserts Quanta is doing very important cultural work.
By that logic, every magazine for people who are not truly interested and don't seek understanding is potentially culturally important if it can connect with emotions. I don't buy it.
Cave people is such a nebulous term that I probably shouldn't have responded to that part of your post :\
He says the layperson isn't seeking understanding, yes. To conflate that, and curiosity, wonder, and anger, with being -not truly interested-, baffles me. Maybe you disagree that interest manifests in ways besides seeking understanding?
Thanks for clarification, it was precisely my point: layman won't understand true detail but they won't care, because the sense of interest in those articles comes from other 'rewards' (more emotional).
Nowhere does his post condemn the satisfying of emotional needs. In fact, given that emotions are primary action catalysts, his post asserts Quanta is doing very important cultural work.