I find this very true, and at the same time missing a crucial aspect: the democratization of access to information has forced stories to be more dumbed down to

I find this very true, and at the same time missing a crucial aspect: the democratization of access to information has forced stories to be more dumbed down to win. Comparing "The origin of species" with "Sapiens" probably means the author only read the later. Darwin's writing is not just good storytelling because of the quality of the prose. It's convincing because it conveys how he thought about the implications of evolution more deeply than anyone before him. Nobody had spent more time on finches and barnacles than Darwin! Reading "The origin of species" requires a patient and thoughtful audience. Best story still wins, but the definition of what this is has changed over time, just like how engineering best practices are putting less and less trust in the developer to implement his own solution -- a huge growth in audience almost always means a lower level of effort you can expect from the average audience member.