• TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    8 months ago

    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!!

    • Something Burger 🍔
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      What’s wrong with the science in Jurassic Park? All of the problems in the park originate from underfunding security.

      • TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        8 months ago

        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.

          • Something Burger 🍔
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            8 months ago

            Also, aren’t they all female? I know life, huh, finds a way, but this doesn’t seem plausible.

            • three@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              Yeah they were all bred female. The catch was they used frog DNA as a base. They explained that frogs could spontaneously change sex based on their environment. Thus an all female population caused some of the dinos to switch.

          • synae[he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            8 months ago

            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

    • _NoName_@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      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.