Bioengineering is inherently dangerous with a high likelihood of disrupting Earth’s ecosystems, killing millions of people, etc. if you do something wrong. A key safety step, as they discuss in one of the movies, is making their organisms unable to reproduce so they can’t increase their populations unchecked. Which they failed to do. In real life there are people creating new viruses and there is no amount of security that makes that kind of work completely safe.
They do mention the lysine contingency in the movie as well, thought it’s only a line or two and is likely easily missed by folks who haven’t read the explanation given in the book
It criticises science for profit. They literally invite various scientists who know their stuff and they all tell Hammond he’s a fucking idiot. It’s much clearer in the books, though, where you get to read where they notice all the enclosure mistakes that were made by Hammond’s team.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)
Rules:
Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
No NSFW content.
Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.
Wasn’t that the joke? Iirc Hammond cut a fuck ton of corners.
Noo it’s just a movie about dinosaurs you can’t just point out that it critiques science and capitalism, we love science and capitalism!!
I do rather like science.
What’s wrong with the science in Jurassic Park? All of the problems in the park originate from underfunding security.
Bioengineering is inherently dangerous with a high likelihood of disrupting Earth’s ecosystems, killing millions of people, etc. if you do something wrong. A key safety step, as they discuss in one of the movies, is making their organisms unable to reproduce so they can’t increase their populations unchecked. Which they failed to do. In real life there are people creating new viruses and there is no amount of security that makes that kind of work completely safe.
deleted by creator
Also, aren’t they all female? I know life, huh, finds a way, but this doesn’t seem plausible.
They do mention the lysine contingency in the movie as well, thought it’s only a line or two and is likely easily missed by folks who haven’t read the explanation given in the book
It criticises science for profit. They literally invite various scientists who know their stuff and they all tell Hammond he’s a fucking idiot. It’s much clearer in the books, though, where you get to read where they notice all the enclosure mistakes that were made by Hammond’s team.
So the real monsters were the humans all along. Ugh so cliche. /s
That’s a book thing more than a movie thing, IIRC. Hammond was more of an asshole cheapskate in the book.
Is the book good?
Books always seem to be better than the movie, however, movies can be fun. Books give you more information and lets you hear what people are thinking.
The book is better than the movie, and Jurassic Park is one of my favourite movies.
Hammond definitely works better as an unrepentant asshole in the book.