The incentives for progress in a career in astronomy/geology are to specialize, which is to extend the attitude that analysis of smaller and smaller fields will lead (and does lead) to more cash. Thus, if stellar metamorphosis by its very nature is to synthesize (the combining of seemingly unrelated fields), then it goes against the very incentives that the fields push. It increases the supply of deep knowledge, by combining many seemingly detached specializations. For instance, studying the deep Earth is studying the remains of a star's evolutionary history. It is the most advanced type of astrophysics!
In other words, it pays more to analyze, because it becomes more specific (you can charge more for the services rendered). Specialization rests on the economic principle of supply and demand, make sure the supply is very low, so you can keep demand artificially inflated to the extreme. If everybody can't become a high knowledge astronomer/astrophysicist, then the astronomer/astrophysicist becomes more valuable.
It does not pay to synthesize, because it becomes more general (less cash, as there will be more people who understand it, thus you cannot charge more money for services rendered). You can't charge more for information that everybody knows. So in essence, the whole process of getting this idea out there, where astronomy and geology are synthesized, goes against the profit incentives of academics.
In short, if the academics are not special, then they can't justify their huge paychecks. Their incentives are to make themselves as special as possible, so that they can get more money. What this means is that the incentives provided by academia for career progression are not designed to synthesize ideas, because it undermines the bottom line. It makes people less special, thus they cannot earn as much money as they used to.
Combining seemingly unrelated fields increases the supply of highly specialized information from seemingly detached fields of study. This is what stellar metamorphosis does. Thus since the supply increases, the demand will naturally fall, thus less money will be made. No wonder academics are so tribe-like, they have to defend their turf now at all costs, as the internet age is ruining their ability to corner the market of knowledge. They try to force people to play by their rules by publication in huge journals, and they make systems to force people play the credibility game, which is a completely unchecked, leaderless environment.
The best thing to do then is to ignore them. The very act of publication in mainstream journals is outdated. The transfer of knowledge is happening with or without them, this is no longer the 1900's.