Anyway, I'm probably making his point for him, but Taleb's anti-expert bias can drive me up the wall.
Indeed, that is why I couldn't make it past the second chapter of Antifragile. His insistence on citationless, just-so stories to explain everything (in his world everything has a snarky one-liner explanation) make his writing a huge turn-off to me. I'm surprised about his popularity in the HN crowd since I would expect engineers to insist on statements being backed up by evidence.
However, this article contains some good insights. Although it was permeated with matter-of-fact insults to practically every group of people, the insults were less vicious than those of many of his other works.
Anti-(established)-expert bias and reducing complex problems and their solutions to clever (and often, though not always, snarky) one-liners are kind of bread-and-butter of the startup world.
Reading part 1, I thought "Oh God, ____ is right, the man is an idiot." I realised, though, that he simply wasn't all that good a writer, which is not the same thing. I also got the impression that he was indulging in stylistic experiments, which detracted from the book. Anyway, one or two good ideas in there, and a nice discussion of Hempel's Raven Paradox (even better than Gardner's, so score one for him). But mostly part 1 was a matter of slogging through a lot of text for little reward.
Part 2 got a bit more interesting, though here ____'s second claim of "the good parts aren't original and the original parts aren't good" was sadly borne out. Some decent material, but mostly stuff I'd read in lots of other places, pulled together into (to be fair) a pretty coherent narrative.
Part 3, surprisingly enough, got a lot more interesting. I'm not sure what the difference was, but it did seem that he was genuinely offering insights of his own, rather than regurgitating other people's. He did also seem to have some genuinely valuable stuff to say. At any rate, I found myself reading the rest of the book with a lot more engagement and a lot less feeling of having to slog through it.
On the whole, I think he does have a few genuine, and genuinely insightful points to make, shadowed by his rather clunky writing style and by the fact that he's rather full of himself. I think I will reread the book a chapter at a time, to make sure I get his point.
They're cultivated in the sense that their seeds are propagated and they're cared for. Concerns about artificial selection used for tens of thousands of years might be dismissed as a naturalistic fallacy, and more surgical genetic engineering methods only introduced last century are difficult to distinguish in a meaningful way. However, example disasters from introducing species to ecosystems suggest that the conservative biases that partly make up the naturalistic fallacy would have sometimes lead to safer outcomes.
In spite of these disasters though, it seems that the planet would not have a carrying capacity of 8 billion people without the inorganic advances of the green revolution. Nor, perhaps even conditions where probably half a billion of those people have a higher quality of life than the most fortunate 100 thousand people living two hundred years ago.