It's an interesting question, and I'm not sure the answer is a simple one. It's true that there's been sort of a spate of these sorts of books, which are often combinations of natural history and cultural history, and often they seem to be about our dependence on natural resources we are in the process of depleting. I don't think anyone has mentioned the _Cod_ book yet, and there was a recent one on water (_The Big Thirst_, although it is much less history than in most of the others we're talking about). I do not think, in general, that it's a bad thing at all. But why they are hot right now . . . In a lot of ways, I suspect the books complicate our understanding of the main subject, in part because it turns out to be connected to so many other things in ways that may not be immediately obvious.
As for Shag's initial question about the pop philosophy books, I have to admit to not having read a single article from any of the "_____ and philosophy" books, not even The Big Lebwowkski volume. I know some people who like Alain de Botton, and I've watched some of his series on philosophers and thought it was pretty good, given what it was doing.
Honestly, I think the biggest problem with the ____ and philosophy books as classroom books is less the philosophy part than the ______ part. That is to say, take "The Simpsons and Philosophy." If I wanted to use that in class, I'd need students who were fairly familiar with the Simpsons. I'm teaching a class on Daoism this semester, and I want them to read The Tao of Pooh as an example of the western processing/appropriation of Daoism. I'll give them a snippet, but the hardest part will not be their understanding of Daoism but the fact that kids often don't know Winnie the Pooh any more. Of course, there's a new movie out this summer, but I haven't seen it and doubt that many of my first-years will have.
Generally, in class, I'd rather they grapple directly with Plato. Everything else seems to be cheating them of something. Seems like to me.
j