You're viewing a single thread.
I've long found the notion that the lesson of Jurassic Park, if a fictional story like that must be taken to have one, should be something like "science/genetic engineering is bad" or "you can't control nature" to be a bit silly, given that, well, it's a zoo. With pretty big animals, to be sure, but dinosaurs were animals still, not kaiju or dragons or whatever other fantasy monster, and some genetically modified to be somewhat bigger and lack feathers would still be such. It's a story about some people building a zoo badly because they didn't do their due diligence about the animals they had and cheaped out on staff and the systems they had for containing the animals, and somehow people get the take away that "these animals are special and can't be safely contained" rather than "letting rich people cheap out on safety is a bad idea".
Were one to write a broadly similar story where someone cheaps out on a park containing elephants and tigers, and they get out and maul some people, it'd be obvious, but give the tigers scales and make them born in a lab and suddenly it's a monster movie.
Hard agree. My takeaway is the moral of the story is always do quality engineering. There have been like 10 movies and they still don't know how to construct an enclosure.
Why do they always only have one massive entrance to each enclosure? Why is it large enough for the Dinosaur to walk out of? Why don't they have two doors in series, airlock style?
They do it for butterflies at museums...
Well you can't have butterflies escaping into nature. They'll wreak havoc by pollinating everything.
pollinate me uwu
Wasn't the issue with Indominus rex that the dinosaur tricked them into thinking it was gone and they left the door open, like idiots? Definitely some things in those movies are engineering issues, but it mostly was a problem because there were multiple points of failure in the system. This is the point I make about my work. My department catches behavior problems from reports, discussions, interviews, and providing technical assistance. We do tons of work regularly and there are overlapping ways to catch the same problem. When my department is given more work and no new staff, they can't stay on top of everything. They still catch things because the work they are able to do usual catches one of the multiple opportunities. With enough workload added on eventually you end up missing something. When the stakes are life and death, you have multiple layers of protection programmed into the system.
If you put high voltage electric fences around humans they're pretty well contained. The intelligence level of the dinosaurs was never relevant but the movie did kind of try and suggest that somehow the velociraptors were special simply because they were mildly more intelligent than the rest.
They made a big thing about how raptors can open doors, my cats can open doors.
And your cats would eat you if they could. I've had cats gnaw on my fingers and toes, like they were seeing if that would work. Cats are actually worse than dinosaurs, and modern birds, and reptiles, because they usually stop killing when they're full.
I've just realised - Hammond was such a cheapskate that even the seatbelts in the helicopters didn't work properly.
No. It was basically the paleontologist is a Luddite to the extent he did not realize he needed to find the other end, as he had another seats female end as well. He made two females work… which could be a reference to the rest of the movie.
I love this. To quote an expert: “Life, uh, finds a way.”
Sam Neill, the actor who did the scene, has been asked about the scene before and confirmed it is 100% unintentionally foreshadowing.
It was just supposed to confirm that Grant is in fact a Luddite who struggles with tech of all sorts.
That was the thing that always broke the immersion for me. Our ancestors hunted the mammoths with just spears and a hole in the ground. And you're telling me that modern technology can't come up with a way to properly neutralize or contain a dinosaur?
But it’s not a zoo, like even in the slightest. It’s a theme park.
They don’t have a full dinosaur genome so they literally make stuff up. Not only that, but just like with the Colossal Bioscience stuff that’s literally happening right now, there’s no learning for these brought-back-to-life creatures so they will not behave anything like their actual prehistoric counterparts. It is bad science because there’s no reason to be doing the science at all. It won’t replicate anything from the past (for so so so many reasons) and it has so many unethical things to get past before it’s even slightly in -eh- territory.
It is bad science because there’s no reason to be doing the science at all
This just rounds itself back to capitalism being the problem because the science was being done for a reason: to generate profit for Hammond.
Bad science is usually always conducted to suit the ends of someone trying to use the results for manipulative/exploitative purposes.
That’s just a dumb way to act like those scientists don’t have a will of their own. Those scientists have ethics (or a lack thereof). They have their own will. They are not forced to work on the project that has no scientific outcome. They’re either working on it because they’re bad scientists, because they’re evil, or because they think it’s cool. All of which is bad science. It’s not capitalism’s fault. It’s unethical scientists.
It is 100% capitalism's fault. Those scientists are doing a job because we live in a society that necessitates having one to meet our basic needs.
We don't know their individual lives or circumstances that could be forcing them to take on that position, but we do know that those circumstances only exist due to the overarching system, i.e. the capitalist economy, they live under.
Your take is grade-school level simplistic that just assumes they simply have to be bad people instead of understanding the complexities of systemic forces that dictate our society.
Please, for the love of God, learn to look beyond the surface of something and learn why things are the way they are instead of just assuming nonsense.
It is 100% capitalism’s fault. Those scientists are doing a job because we live in a society that necessitates having one to meet our basic needs.
absolutely not...
Your take is grade-school level simplistic that just assumes they simply have to be bad people instead of understanding the complexities of systemic forces that dictate our society.
no. My take is that if you remove capitalism, can the bad science still occur? Is it possible at all for it to occur? Yes. Since the scientists are the ones doing the science. It's not business doing the science, it's not capitalists doing the science. It's the scientists doing the science.
And they don't have to be bad people at all. They just have to not think about the consequences of their actions. Inattentive, ignorant, unable to think more than a few minutes into the future. None of these things make them bad people. But it does make them bad scientists. And it does make the science bad.
Please, for the love of God, learn to look beyond the surface of something and learn why things are the way they are instead of just assuming nonsense.
holy shit, you're the one not looking beyond the surface of something. Capitalism is always the boogie man for people like you. Like for fucks sake dude, scientists can be bad. Science can be bad! We literally have bad scientists in the white house right now claiming all sorts of shit that is going to get people killed! And it has nothing to do with capitalism. RFK Jr literally believes the bullshit he says, and it's because of bad science, not because he's being paid to say it.
Think about Jurassic Park like this: if those scientists were given those tools and told to build a park and told they weren't going to be paid for it, but all the tools they needed would be given to them, could the park be built? Now ask the exact same question but replace scientists with "capitalist": "if capitalists were given science tools and told to build a park and told they weren't going to be paid for it, but all the tools they needed would be given to them, could the park be built."
The answer is incredibly clear. Without the scientists, the park would never be built. It doesn't matter how much money exists on the planet. It doesn't matter if it's capitalism, communism, anarchism, whatever-fucking-system, the park isn't being built without the bad science. It doesn't matter how many other employees you put on that island, the park isn't getting built without the bad science.
I never said science can't be bad, Again, your myopic take is so fucking simplistic and surface level. You even admit to intentionally ignoring systemic reality as if it is inconsequential, which is fucking stupidity at its finest. Like, congratulations for stating the obvious: you need people to perform labor for something to happen. No fucking shit, Sherlock. Now that we have the obvious out of the way, maybe ask yourself why they are performing that labor and what are the system forces that drive thar labor to he performed in the first place?
It isn't about could the park be built, but would it have been built. The answer to that is no, it wouldn't have been built in the first place if not for the driving forces of capitalism (represented by Hammond, the capitalist owner who had controlling authority over the park's production) dictating the actions of those who actually labored in the production of the park. The park also couldn't have been built without the engineers who constructed the subpar infrastructure or an IT tech to create and install the park's faulty security system.
Those engineers built the park the way they did because Hammond didn't want to pay extra for fail-safes as noted in the book (i.e. the capitalist owner was driven by the profit incentive to neglect material conditions of the park) And the IT systems failed because Hammond decided to neglect staff pay, specifically Nedry, in favor of chasing the capitalist profit incentive. This same logic applies to the scientists who only conducted the research they were conducting because they were hired by Hammond to specifically do so.
Again, please fucking learn to look beyond the surface and critically examine things. I know it's difficult but you can do it if you actually try.
And yes, bad science is being spouted from the white house. Did you never stop to think why RFK Jr was put in that position of authority to spout his bullshit from? Did it never occur that some people would be set to benefit from the spreading of misinformation? It's explicitly so they can manipulate people into being okay with dismantling government functions so the oligarchy can pocket the savings from not having to spend government money on welfare.