Taking what I initially assumed to be the point of the clip first: although I am far from being a 'philosopher' in a narrow sense, my response is based on the fact that from a philosophical point of view evolutionary psychology does not add very much to our understanding of the wider questions of epistemology, ethics or aesthetics, although engaging with both it and the claims of philosophers who disagree with my view does provide for a clarification of the space between philosophy and science, and sharpens awareness of the ontological status of differing claims. Here I tend to the early Wittgenstein's critiques of social sciences' containing implicit logical errors at the core of their proj...

Taking what I initially assumed to be the point of the clip first: although I am far from being a 'philosopher' in a narrow sense, my response is based on the fact that from a philosophical point of view evolutionary psychology does not add very much to our understanding of the wider questions of epistemology, ethics or aesthetics, although engaging with both it and the claims of philosophers who disagree with my view does provide for a clarification of the space between philosophy and science, and sharpens awareness of the ontological status of differing claims. Here I tend to the early Wittgenstein's critiques of social sciences' containing implicit logical errors at the core of their project.
Secondly, and peripherally to the focused issue above, it is clearly the case that within public, largely journalistic, discourse, some extraordinarily large hopes, desires, phantasies and so on are framed by bricolage of scientific data in a way that metonymic fragments are crudely assembled into holding metaphors that are what is technically known as catachrestic, that is to say, kindly, illegitimate, or less kindly, absurd and 'savage'.
My third point is that Huxley was more concerned fictionally with my second point rather than any prediction of a particular technology's course: backed as he was by 'the perennial philosophy', it is likely that his concern was for highlighting the gross distinction between the level of existential concerns/ timeless philosophical problems and the cultural-ideological platonic myths that obfuscate these with crude constructions of perspicuous totality.
Finally, I find evolutionary psychology, cognitve psychology and neuropsychology to be areas of fruitful contribution to my understanding of the feeling self, my biological self. And not at all relevant to much more wonderful, mysterious and ineffable levels (or non-levels) of being.

I was referring more in terms of Huxley's take on personal enjoyment being the highest good, motivations involved in such pursuits, and the restructuring of society that diminishes the value of individuality.

However, you said a mouthful and the best that I can tell
(or comprehend) of your comment, it does not appear you hold credence in the potential of negative implications resulting from what can be apprehended in the pursuit of evolutionary psychology, through mostly subjective means. Namely - "an awful lot about not very much, and almost nothing about an awful lot."

As far as it goes, however, I welcome the investigation and am not opposed on ideological grounds. My point is that the...

I was referring more in terms of Huxley's take on personal enjoyment being the highest good, motivations involved in such pursuits, and the restructuring of society that diminishes the value of individuality.

However, you said a mouthful and the best that I can tell
(or comprehend) of your comment, it does not appear you hold credence in the potential of negative implications resulting from what can be apprehended in the pursuit of evolutionary psychology, through mostly subjective means. Namely - "an awful lot about not very much, and almost nothing about an awful lot."

As far as it goes, however, I welcome the investigation and am not opposed on ideological grounds. My point is that the Brave New World does not embrace idealism. To reduce things to the material inherently rejects the opposite. To that I am opposed.