Park
'Nature won't be stopped .......or blamed for what happens'(Ian Malcolm ,
Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton). Jurassic Park mystifies its critique even as it makes it; or rather, to be more precise, it offers us contradictory messages about whom to blame for what goes wrong. Science finally takes the blame. Near the end of the book, while the humans are fighting off the velociraptors, Malcolm (the mathematician) delivers a long and didactic speech about how science is to blame for messing up the world because it has no morality; science tells us how to do things, not what things are worth doing and why. Malcolm talks about how the inventions of science, like Jurassic Park, are fated to exceed our control, just as his chaos theory predicts. According to
Malcolm, chaos theory was developed in response to problems like predicting the weather, and the theory says it simply can't be predicted beyond the space of a few days, because the forces involved are too complex and unstable. If everything in a popular narrative like Jurassic Park really means something else, then so too does chaos theory. The basic plot of Jurassic Park is fairly simple. A Palo Alto corporation called International Genetics Technologies, Inc. (InGen) has become able -- through an entrepreneurial combination of audacity, technology, human ingenuity, and fantastic outlays of capital (mostly funded by Japanese investors, who are the only ones willing to wait years for uncertain results) -- to clone dinosaurs from the bits of their DNA recovered from dinosaur blood inside the bodies of insects that once bit the now-extinct animals and were then trapped and preserved in amber for millions of years. (This is, by the way, theoretically possible.) The project is the dream of John Hammond, a billionaire capitalist with a passionate interest in dinosaurs, who comes across in the novel as a bizarre combination of Ross Perot and Ronald Reagan -- part authoritarian martinet, part dissociated and childish old man. With the resources of his wealth and power, Hammond buys a rugged island a hundred or so miles off the coast of Costa Rica and turns it into Jurassic Park, 'the most advanced amusement park in the world,' with attractions 'so astonishing they would capture the imagination of the entire world': a population of living, breathing actual dinosaurs. With the park just a year away from opening to the public (those rich enough to pay, that is), the nervous investors insist on sending a team to the island to determine whether or not the park is as safe and under control as
Hammond continually insists. It isn't, of course, and most of the novel tells the story of everything getting completely out of control, most especially the incredibly fast, vicious and intelligent dinosaurs known as 'velociraptors,' which are six-foot tall, bipedal and socially-organized pack hunters with teeth that can chew through steel bars, and whose only response to their human creators and captors is to attack and kill them. Velociraptors are the most dangerous dinosaurs because they are pack hunters -- they know how to work together. We also learn that in addition to their collectivism, they are characterized by bad attitudes and a talent for breaking out of their confinement (making them, I suppose, the bad subjects of the dinosaur population). The team of experts includes Alan Grant, a famous paleontologist known for his theories about dinosaur infant-rearing behavior, and his paleobotanist graduate student assistant, Ellie Sattler; and also John Malcolm, a brilliant and idiosyncratic mathematician whose field of expertise is chaos theory, which deals with turbulence and unpredictability -- complex 'real world' conditions that can only be described through non-linear equations. Malcolm, of course, predicts that the park is inherently unstable and its security precautions must inevitably break down. There are also Hammond's grandchildren, whose parents are getting a divorce: an eleven-year old boy, Tim, and his seven-year old, ceaselessly obnoxious sister Lex (if only the tyrannosaur had killed her halfway through, when it had the chance!). Hammond invites them for a 'fun weekend,' and to demonstrate the safety of his park. There are other characters, of course, but these are the principals, all of them our heroes except for the perversely blind and stupid Hammond, who, like all of the bad guys, eventually gets what he deserves. Much of the story is detail, and I won't give away any more of it than
I need to in case you haven't read it and want to. It's enough to say that the park's control systems fail, the dinosaurs menace the humans, and some velociraptors almost make it to the mainland as stowaways on a supply ship. At the end, the Costa Rican government bombs the island's dinosaurs back into extinction... except for the ones that have somehow already escaped. But for the purposes of our analysis, the movements of the plot matter less than the role played by the dinosaurs themselves. In Crichton's novel the dinosaurs are literally a class of beings created in order to serve people. They are genetically-engineered, their DNA sequences altered just enough to make them patentable and thus private property; then they are held in captivity, where they must perform the labor of acting out their dinosaur identities for the benefit of wealthy tourists. Moreover, they are altered so that they are completely dependent upon their owners, the island's literal ruling class: they have been deprived of the ability to manufacture a particular amino acid and must receive it regularly in their food.
'These animals are genetically engineered to be unable to survive in the real world,' the dinosaurs' designer tells the visitors. 'They can only live here in
Jurassic Park. They are not free at all. They are essentially our prisoners.' To the extent that we feel sympathy for the dinosaurs, we wish that they could be set free to pursue their innate dinosaur identities and societies, free from human domination and exploitation. But the problem with this noble sentiment, as Jurassic Park repeatedly reminds us, is that the dinosaurs aren't really dinosaurs any more -- they are artificial reconstructions of dinosaurs, close copies or images of the originals. In order to reconstruct dinosaur DNA, the scientists had to paste in equivalent segments of DNA from other, later
(more developed or evolved) species. This is what allows Hammond to 'own' the animals: it was his capital that brought them into being. There's still a lot of
'real dinosaur' to them, but they are the creations of their exploiters: they are definitely not authentic, but still live and breath just like real animals and as primitive vicious animals they can't be blamed for what happened.
You May Also Find These Documents Helpful
-
With the largest 3-day opening in history, Jurassic World has shattered expectations. But why did Jurassic World have such an enormous opening gross? Did the marketing have anything to do with its success, or was it able to cash in on audience's memories and nostalgia?…
- 502 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
The advances in medicine, technology, and biology all are said to affect our moral assessment. I believe this to be true, as science rapidly expands and makes many advances through time, it will only change what is acceptable and what isn't. The moral value of some things will decrease significantly because of science. It is possible that we look at all material, even humanity, as "plastic" to be used and we are able change, shape, and mold anything, according to Daniele Callahan. Culture is said to be created by humans stressing freedom, spirit, responsibility, and creativity making what we do okay because we are in all made in the image of God, therefore Human Genetic Manippulation is okay. Although we are made in the image of God I don't believe we have any right to toy with what he has in store for what is to…
- 697 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
There is certainly room for debate when building the definitive list of US museums for dinosaur lovers. Diversity of species, number of specimens, presentation, architecture, accessibility and interactivity are all factors in the museum experience. Fortunately, the United States offers a rich diversity of dinosaur museums sure to please everyone from the most casual dinosaur fan to the hardened paleontologist.…
- 1215 Words
- 5 Pages
Good Essays -
I leave this letter today to you in hope that you will find it when you have become big enough to learn about your world. Today I have an important revelation to make, the world you grow up in might not be the same as what I had. You know me as your granddad but to the world, I am a scientist who gave the world the most destructive weapon ever to exist. What will change your world is science. Science is something objective, it comes with a goal. But its application is numerous and sometimes unethical, what happened yesterday proved the latter.…
- 643 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
“Morality and values depend on the existence of conscious minds—and specifically on the fact that such minds can experience various forms of well-being and suffering in this universe. Conscious minds and their states are natural phenomena, of course, fully constrained by the laws of Nature (whatever these turn out to be in the end). Therefore, there must be right and wrong answers to questions of morality and values that potentially fall within the purview of science. On this view, some people and cultures will be right (to a greater or lesser degree), and some will be wrong, with respect to what they deem important in life.” (Harris, 2011) This is Sam Harris’s thesis in his book The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values. This proposition purports science can answer questions about morality.…
- 557 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
In the shudder test people quickly “hit the moralization button and look for villains rather than bug fixes.” People all too often confuse “practical problems as moral crusades.” He notes that experts say our initial repugnance “may be the only voice left that speaks up to defend the central core of our humanity.” These experts advise us to “go with our gut” on such controversies like human cloning or other biomedical technologies. Pinker, however, argues that this would be cause faulty reasoning, because there are many “good reasons to regulate human cloning” that we simply disregard on account of our moral senses. He brings up a valid point that “People have shuddered at all kind of morally irrelevant violations of purity in their culture…and if our ancestors’ repugnance had carried the day, we never would have had autopsies, vaccinations, blood transfusions, artificial insemination, organ transplants, and in viro fertilization, all of which were denounced as immoral when they were new.” So, many of our medical advances would have never occurred because moral rationalizations would have gotten in the way. Steven Pinker rationalizes that “Our habit of moralizing problems, merging them with intuitions of purity and contamination, and resting content when we feel the right feelings, can get in the way of doing the right thing.” He proposes…
- 487 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
For over 150 million years, dinosaurs dominated Earth. They were incredibly successful-so successful in fact that all of the other animal groups had no choice but to play a secondary role in nature. 65 million years ago, however, every species of dinosaur went extinct as well mosasaurs, plesiosaurs, pterosaurs, ammonites, and many families of brachiopods and sea sponges. Also, many shark species as well as most vegetation did not survive(“Dinosaur Extinction”). What could have possibly killed off the dominant animal group of the time? The answer to this question is still unclear but there are many hypotheses that attempt to explain this extinction event. To find out exactly how this happened, evidence must be gathered not only from fossils…
- 376 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
Palmer, A.R., Giessman, J., and Rieboldt, S. (2002). The Jurassic Period: 206 to 144 Million Years Ago. Accessed on 25 Jan 2010 from: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mesozoic/jurassic/jurassintro.html.…
- 3629 Words
- 15 Pages
Best Essays -
Have you ever had a favorite dog - a pet you would keep for the rest of your life if you could? Well, now you can. Researchers in Seoul, South Korea are betting that consumers will pay big bucks to have their pet brought back to life, at least genetically speaking. RNL Bio announced in mid-February that they are offering commercial pet cloning services to the public. Offering cloned dogs at a price of $150,000, services are marketed to wealthy pet owners. The company 's first order is from an American woman requesting that her dead dog, a pit bull terrier, be cloned. RNL Bio will extract the DNA from ear tissue, which the pet owner preserved with a biotec company a year before the dog 's death. The odds of creating a successful clone are only 25%, but the lab insists it will not give up until her pit bull is recreated as a clone. The average pet owner will not be faced with whether to duplicate their beloved canine or even feline for that matter. The cost of the procedure coupled with the cost of "banking" the DNA sample, not including yearly maintenance on the storage of the sample, will allow only the most wealthy to participate. With all the obvious advances being made in animal cloning, can we expect human clones to be next? With these discoveries coming at such a fast pace, morality issues and ethical questions are continually fueled into the new debates about the future of cloning. The average consumer will not be faced with a personal decision on the morality of cloning but will have to look at it with an outsider 's viewpoint.…
- 2064 Words
- 9 Pages
Better Essays -
The field of bioethics has addressed a broad swathe of human inquiry, ranging from debates over the boundaries of life, surrogacy, the allocation of scarce health care resources to the right to refuse medical care for religious or cultural reasons. Bioethicists often disagree among themselves over the precise limits of their discipline, debating whether the field should concern itself with the ethical evaluation of all questions involving biology and medicine, or only a subset of these questions. Some bioethicists would narrow ethical evaluation only to the morality of medical treatments or technological innovations, and the timing of medical treatment of humans. Others would broaden the scope of ethical evaluation to include the morality of all actions that might help or harm organisms capable of feeling fear.…
- 433 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
Douglas J. Futuyma on the limits of science: [[S]cience seeks to explain only objective knowledge], [knowledge that can be acquired independently by different investigators if they follow a prescribed course of observation or experiment]. [Many human experiences and concerns are not objective] and (so) [do not fall within the realm of science]. (As a result), **[science has nothing to say about aesthetics or morality]**….[The functioning of human society, then, clearly requires principles that stem from some source other than science.]…
- 636 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
“Science contributes moral as well as material blessings to the world. Its great moral contribution is objective, or the scientific point of view. The means doubting everything except facts; it means hewing to the facts, lets the chips fall where they may.” (163)…
- 506 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
Society is facing many important decisions about the use of science and technology. These decisions affect the environment, human health, society and international policy. To resolve these issues, and develop principles to help us make decisions we need to involve anthropology, sociology, biology, medicine, religion, psychology, philosophy, and economics; we must combine the scientific rigour of biological data, with the values of religion and philosophy to develop a world-view. Bioethics is therefore challenged to be a multi-sided and thoughtful approach to decision-making so that it may be relevant to all aspects of human life.…
- 561 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
Science defines human life as a characteristic that exhibit a process with organization, growth, adaptation, etc.; however, ancient sages told people human life is extremely valuable and sacred, as a religious doctrine in the Ten Commandments: “Thou shalt not kill.” Moreover, when people talk about ethics, they will think about rules to differentiate right and wrong. It might be wise maxims of Confucius or religious beliefs. The most general way to define “ethics” is that “moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior” (American English in Oxford Dictionary). Bioethics is a pretty young interdisciplinary study, which is considered with ethical questions related to the relationships among human beings, animals, and environments in the late twentieth century. Based on this, bioethics derived three main subdisciplines, which are medical ethics, animal ethics, and environmental ethics. Although each sub-discipline has particular study area in bioethics, there still are overlaps of ethical considerations and approaches. This makes it difficult to easily discuss ethics questions such as stem cell research, xenotransplantation, the ethical status of animals and the ethical status of the environment. Further discussion about the vital issue of moral status solutions is necessary at the same time.…
- 2318 Words
- 7 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Judgements in ethics are relative and closely related to cultural norms. However, I believe that universally accepted ethical codes are necessary. Ethics imposes boundaries to the natural science methods in order to avoid immorality. However, ethically limiting the methods affects the progress of gaining knowledge in the natural science.…
- 788 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays