It’s pithy, but in the way of word play. Energy, colloquially, means useful energy. The question collides the conventional and technical definitions to create the illusion of profundity.
Pithy != profound. The intent was to get people to think about the fact that the word "energy" means different things in different contexts, and that the thing that actually has value is not energy but the absense of entropy.
> intent was to get people to think about the fact that the word "energy" means different things
But the question posed is weaker at prompting that than the sequence of questions posed by the video. It's a strange response that doesn't add to the discussion.
> But the question posed is weaker at prompting that than the sequence of questions posed by the video.
You really think "what do we get from the sun" is a better prompt? I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree about that.
We get all kinds of things from the sun. Tides. Light. Tans. But there is only one correct answer to why we worry about "energy production" and "energy shortages" when energy is supposedly conserved.
"What do we get from the sun?" has a lot of correct but off-point answers, which makes it IMHO more a prompt for the questioner to exhibit their superior knowledge than a well-designed Socratic question.