That is ultimately pretty scathing review. Is the book really just another iteration of the noble savage idea?
I do wonder why this landed on the frontpage, is it because the attractiveness of the basic idea, or because the dialogue here presented some new insight (that I might have missed)?
I do wonder why this landed on the frontpage, is it because the attractiveness of the basic idea, or because the dialogue here presented some new insight (that I might have missed)?