I haven't watch it in a while but the arguments made by some of the characters definitely felt that way
shareNah. Crichton isn't anti-science. He's anti-reckless science.
---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .
I think there's a hidden message in this movie that everyone seems to overlook.
Don't *beep* with something you don't fully understand.
this movies example being genetic engineering
Good advice, but when has humankind ever kept their hands off the forbidden? So yes, you're right, not only the film conveys the cost of playing with matches, but it also shows that it's a moot point, because there will always be someone else to pick up the matches. And the sequels stayed true to this theme.
Possibly one of the reasons why that committee of brainiacs placed emerging technologies as one of the potential means of hitting midnight on the doomsday clock.
Ian Malcolm said it was wrong to clone dinosaurs because they'd had their chance and nature dediced they were not good enough.
Which is a really bad point seeing how dinosaurs probably died from a natural disaster like a meteor impact or volcanoes. That's just rotten luck and not evolution.
Which is a really bad point seeing how dinosaurs probably died from a natural disaster like a meteor impact or volcanoes. That's just rotten luck and not evolution.Well um yea, I never heard of a species that "evolved its way to extinction." There's always a reason a species goes extinct, and no reasons that I know of where evolution was to blame. share
Luck is a part of evolution.
---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .
But from his logic we shouldn't cure cancer or aids unless our body naturally does it.
shareI'm laughing at this whole concept.
The plague wiped out 60% of humanity? Nature decided. No need to wash your hands or sterilize your water or cook your food thoroughly. Nature decides!
LMAO
Well, if the dinosaurs had wanted to survive they should've started washing their hands...
After the plague we didn't start cloning people. We simply started to thrive again, so we earned our place on the planet.
[deleted]
That's not at all what his logic is. His point is that the dinosaurs have been gone for a long time. Species dying off is just something that happens, there's no need for US to bring them back if we weren't even responsible for their extinction.
shareYeah. The thing is though it does bring in a good point that Dinosaurs are dangerous to people. It is a very dumb idea to clone dinosaurs. Then again, if you are going to clone them you should just stick with the plant eating ones. There really was not a good reason to clone velocirapters or diloposaurs. I'd never even heard of either one before seeing this movie and I do not think most people had. Still it is a fun movie. At least it didn't have the depressing ending of the book where the island is blown to smitherines by the Coastarican Airforce and where all the survivors including the kids Lex and Tim have to stay in Coast Arica because the government doesn't want anyone else to know about the Island full of cloned dinosaurs.
shareIt's more anti-hubris.
shareYes, it is. This is one of the most anti-intellectual/anti-science movies of all time. It's why I hate it so much. Anti-intellectualism and anti-science is a core component of Spielberg movies. He is the anti-Kubrick.
shareWell, both Spielberg and Crichton are self-admitted luddites: https://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/11/science/in-new-spielberg-film-a-dim-view-of-science.html
In Crichton's case, most of his books are about how new science/technology is dangerous, and that tendency becomes bizarre in his novel State of Fear, about a scientist who discovers that the scientific work on climate change is all a fraud.
I think it's more against money being the driving force behind scientific discovery, as opposed to the betterment and advancement of human life. When money is the driving force behind something, then people will take short cuts to cut cost, or rush the process without fully understanding the consequences of what they created or how to properly control it.
Not saying people can't make money off their innovations. Of course they can and many have, but it can't be the main reason for doing so.
No, the Film is Anti-Playing God with science
Ian Malcolm sums it up best
"I’ll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you’re using here: it didn’t require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn’t earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don’t take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could and before you even knew what you had you patented it and packaged it and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now you’re selling it, you want to sell it."