Lectures of the same philosophy?

Mr. Sapolsky's specialization perspective is in primatology, including man, and by that generality, a specialization into neuroendocrinology; he is also a self-described atheist.

Ms. Thunberg's behavior, when treated by Dr. Sapolsky's metier and in his perspective, is that of a worried primate.

So, until Ms. Thunberg develops an academic or even a more personal, originary philosophy, either emotive and aphoristic, as early Nietzsche, or perhaps more logical as Kant, would suggest that Mr. Sapolsky's "philosophy"--which is, in reality, a worldview, not a "philosophy" as academicians measure "philosophy"--is that of reductive and by implication elimitivist materialism...and Ms. Thunberg's worldview is that of a very concerned climate change advocate (and, possibly, simply, godless primate?).

In the sense of less philosophy, more primatology (Sapolsky) and more do-something, it's an emergency (Thunberg), the two are similar at the level of apple and orange--both fruit, but at a more specific level, neither are vegetables (Nietzsche, Kant, Kierkegaard, et al.).

In your question, you devise a parallelism between Dr. Sapolsky's book (not simply a lecture), "Behave:  The Biology of Humans at Our Best" and some, by parallelist inference, a Thunberg "lecture" titled "The Environment of Humans in an Emergency."  Are you able to provide a url to this alleged "lecture," or is your presentation of this "lecture" a fabrication of a work that does not presently exist?  If the latter, an interesting case of reification of a whole "philosophy/lecture"ness, and obviously neither a parallelism nor a logical nor a factual argument.

p.s.  So, by your seemingly irrational reaction Updates and ad hominem falsity, it may be assumed that you were under false color attempting to give Ms. Thunberg some "Lecture Status"?  Sad; however, important to note that your question's premise is false. and apparently deliberately so; perhaps typical of your general psychologism to arrogate power and importance unto yourself?

p.p.s.  Mr. Sapolsky states he rejected God ("all forms of religion") in his teens, and describes himself as an "atheist" (not an agnostic):  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WwAQqWUkpI

Would additionally reiterate that there is apparently a false representation of Ms. Thunberg's "Lecture"ness by yourself, and while it was politely and indirectly pointed out that a) Sapolsky's scientism lies perhaps in elimitivist and reductionist philosophies, his work is not "Philosophy"; but neuroendocrinology apple and Ms. Thunberg's fictitious lecture as orange, whereas even elimitivism and reductionism are philosophies (albeit both being somewhat flawed) aka veggies.  So, while trying to find a "Philosophy" question, it became apparent and abundantly clear that your question deliberately involved a falsification (of Thunberg) and a misrepresentation of Dr. Sapolsky's neuroendocrinological perspective on primate stress issues.  To point out yet another falsification or outright lie, Dr. Sapolsky's work was certainly not "attacked" by me (and Ms. Thunberg's "work" is simply non-existent--one reason for asking where her "Lecture" is, so not much to "attack"; in point of fact, you seem to .be the one doing all the attacking).  Imho, a glimmer of "Philosophy" was well-described as Dr. Sapolsky describing worried primates, and Ms. Thunberg by that metric as a worried primate.  Not much philosophy per se, but imho you're simply promoting a hobby-horse environmentalism based on your own personalisms/psychologisms.  Would suggest you look for guidance into genuine academic treatments of environmental concerns (e.g., Oxford and Cambridge), rather than continuing to promote your present arrogance, which does seem rather similar to that of a "worried primate" mode, a la that of Ms. Thunberg, per Dr. Sapolsky....Would note that ad hominems do resemble some kinds of primate behavior, but such are not "Philosophy."  You apparently have even gone so far as to misrepresent Thunberg's opinion as a "Lecture" (Title of your Question), and then reflexively presume that the answer given was an attack on your blessed hobby-horse; not so:  am personally concerned about several aspects of environmental care.  However, it would help if you were more truthful in your framing of questions, which are seemingly to control a particular agenda (not exactly open-minded philosophical behavior; would note in passing that each ad hominem you spew forth seems to reflect your own problem, e.g. "close-minded" as non-Philosophy), and to present yourself as some lordly, name-calling, and manipulative arbiter of philosophies (and now theologies? lol), etc.  What truly seems "odd" in this kerfuffle imho is your seeming inability to change for the better, after presumably rational discussion of such issues...a kind of basic or first level qualification for doing philosophies, which perhaps at some future time-space you will develop...the world needs more genuine "philosophers," and fewer ad hominem irrationalities which do not tolerate any discussion apart from one's hobby-horse or would-be caviler position.

Am content to wait for your honest admission that you misrepresented (made up) Thunberg's "Lecture" as a parallel to Dr. Sapolsky's primate stress work...when in fact her speeches are not at the level of serious environmentalist academic work, let alone raising "Philosophic Questions."  "I'm Too Young To Do This" is one of her best Lectures, oops speeches, right up there with her sage assessment of adults worldwide:  "You're Acting Like Spoiled, Irresponsible Children," and her magisterial "You Can't Simply Make up Your Own Facts," which does have a whiff of Philosophy about it, and that you might learn from.  However, would caution that she seemingly does not understand the difficulty of falsifying a negative prediction based on modeling, in her Lecture oops speech titled "Prove Me Wrong," given in her Lecture, oops speech, at Davos in 2019, in which she memorably albeit falsely states "And the truth is we are basically not doing anything."  Nice example of falsely reasoned first order logic, but even more wrong is her presumption of "basically" as if there were an axiomized base line.  "Chicken Little" may be right, but it is well to have a rational even if somewhat biased discussion of the philosophy premising such axioms, in the genuinely professional Oxford-Cambridge mode, no?

Usually I do not attempt ad hominem or misrepresentation, etc., but when I give a sincere assessment, and someone responds with such vitriol as you have continued to do, I will answer measure for measure, even to individuals with such seemingly fragile ego-structures as you present--primarily in defense of the truth as I perceive it, but also to teach you or whomever a lesson:  libel or chatty slander is a waste of time, and one does better to put forth rational, reasoned discussion without mere and imho very false and misrepresentative name-calling.