General Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom News Thread V.2

Spinosaur4.4 wrote:

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Troyal1 wrote:

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

I'm sorry, but hasn't the whole theme of the franchise since the first film been that "You can't control nature"?

JP: Man creates dinosaurs, man tries to control dinosaurs, dinosaurs break free and f*ck sh*t up.

TLW: Man tries to again control dinosaurs, dinosaurs again f*ck sh*t up as a result.

JW: Man creates hybrid dinosaur, man tries to control hybrid dinosaur, hybrid dinosaur f*cks sh*t up.

I'm sensing a thematic pattern here xD

I mean yeah. But that's the thing that always bugged me about the JP franchise and the Malcolm character in particular. Sure we can't control nature. But is what happened in JP any more uncontrollable than what we already try to do with science and technology? I personally don't think so. 

 The disasters that happened in JP, TLW and JW are all because of human error. Not because life finds away and the animals are "uncontrollable". They aren't anymore uncontrollable than the animals you see in a zoo today really. I would say more control is allowed, since the scientists can fiddle with the DNA.  They would operate perfectly as zoo's (like JW did) but the plot demands there be chaos. And that the leadership be woefully stupid or corrupt. And it demands the park be extremely easy for a disaster and have rather pathetic defensive measures. 

I understand the theme of it. That we should be humble and always question what we are doing. Like the Frog DNA allowing the animals to become female. Huge oversight. But that didn't necessarily cause a massive problem. But Malcolm has this attitude that nature finding a way was the source of all the problems, which I heavily disagree with. 

Like let's assume Nedry never shut the fences off... what would the problem of bringing the animals to life be? As long as they were treated with respect. 

So I do see how some people might find his character a bit preachy tbh and I agree with Spino 4.4 to some extent.  

A science debate scene between the two of them would be perfect. Where they both bring good points to the table but not a clear winner.

And, bringing it back to Malcolm for a minute, my favorite quote of his is this.

"What's so great about discovery? It a violent, penetrative act that scars what it explores. What you call discovery, I call the rape of the natural world."

And it brings to the forefront the question "What is so great about discovery?" At it's core, discovery is the the act of carrying out mankinds selfish desire for answers. And yes, often times, whether intentionally or not, mankinds need to "discover" things and make "scientific progress" can be very harmful.

Is fulfilling our selfish need for answers enough to justify the potential harm to the natural world that could come of it?

OMG this is so anti-science...Asking questions and wanting answers is not wrong. It's actually a quality of our species, it shows the desire for knowledge, and knowledge is the MOST valuable thing you have, bc nobody can steal it from you. Knowledge is valuable and should be valuable. But our society laughs at it. People that ask too much questions are hated and called annoying. That's why not everyone can be a scientist. And guess what? They are the people that change the world, not the people that laugh at them. Asking questions is one of the things I most admire in a person. It shows that the person is humble enough to admit he/she doesn't know everything and want to absorve more knowledge.  Being selfish is when you think we know enough and should stop trying to discover new things and get static.

We are here  using internet, eletricity and computer because someone asked questions and wanted to know. We are here because some people discovered things. It's so disrespectful to call discoveries a "rape" to the natural world. I would tell Malcolm to live in a fucking cave then. Spitting in a plate and confortable life. We are here because we stand on the shoulder of giants. People that spent all their lifes to answer questions and help humanity, only to be called selfish.  We need to understand where we are, how we are here and wonder how many stuff await to be discovered. Great things that you can't even imagine with your mind. Just writing this make me shiver to imagine how big our Universe is and how people only live in a little futile world. The more you get to know, the more you know you know so little. It's a paradox, but makes you humble. It makes you pop out of the bubble of daily life and see how small we are, and how incredible everything around us is. 

To quote one of my favorite lines:

"I don't want to belive. I want to know."

And also another brillant one from Carl Sagan:

"We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology"


This alone kills everything.

Thank you for labeling me as "anti-science" for simply bringing up one side of the debate...The side that the franchise itself has trumpeted repeatedly. It's certainly not like there's a middle ground that can be reached or anything.

Done with you.

Spinosaur4.4 wrote:

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Troyal1 wrote:

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

I'm sorry, but hasn't the whole theme of the franchise since the first film been that "You can't control nature"?

JP: Man creates dinosaurs, man tries to control dinosaurs, dinosaurs break free and f*ck sh*t up.

TLW: Man tries to again control dinosaurs, dinosaurs again f*ck sh*t up as a result.

JW: Man creates hybrid dinosaur, man tries to control hybrid dinosaur, hybrid dinosaur f*cks sh*t up.

I'm sensing a thematic pattern here xD

I mean yeah. But that's the thing that always bugged me about the JP franchise and the Malcolm character in particular. Sure we can't control nature. But is what happened in JP any more uncontrollable than what we already try to do with science and technology? I personally don't think so. 

 The disasters that happened in JP, TLW and JW are all because of human error. Not because life finds away and the animals are "uncontrollable". They aren't anymore uncontrollable than the animals you see in a zoo today really. I would say more control is allowed, since the scientists can fiddle with the DNA.  They would operate perfectly as zoo's (like JW did) but the plot demands there be chaos. And that the leadership be woefully stupid or corrupt. And it demands the park be extremely easy for a disaster and have rather pathetic defensive measures. 

I understand the theme of it. That we should be humble and always question what we are doing. Like the Frog DNA allowing the animals to become female. Huge oversight. But that didn't necessarily cause a massive problem. But Malcolm has this attitude that nature finding a way was the source of all the problems, which I heavily disagree with. 

Like let's assume Nedry never shut the fences off... what would the problem of bringing the animals to life be? As long as they were treated with respect. 

So I do see how some people might find his character a bit preachy tbh and I agree with Spino 4.4 to some extent.  

A science debate scene between the two of them would be perfect. Where they both bring good points to the table but not a clear winner.

And, bringing it back to Malcolm for a minute, my favorite quote of his is this.

"What's so great about discovery? It a violent, penetrative act that scars what it explores. What you call discovery, I call the rape of the natural world."

And it brings to the forefront the question "What is so great about discovery?" At it's core, discovery is the the act of carrying out mankinds selfish desire for answers. And yes, often times, whether intentionally or not, mankinds need to "discover" things and make "scientific progress" can be very harmful.

Is fulfilling our selfish need for answers enough to justify the potential harm to the natural world that could come of it?

OMG this is so anti-science...Asking questions and wanting answers is not wrong. It's actually a quality of our species, it shows the desire for knowledge, and knowledge is the MOST valuable thing you have, bc nobody can steal it from you. Knowledge is valuable and should be valuable. But our society laughs at it. People that ask too much questions are hated and called annoying. That's why not everyone can be a scientist. And guess what? They are the people that change the world, not the people that laugh at them. Asking questions is one of the things I most admire in a person. It shows that the person is humble enough to admit he/she doesn't know everything and want to absorve more knowledge. It shows the person is self aware of everything around. Being selfish is when you think we know enough and should stop trying to discover new things and get static.

We are here  using internet, eletricity and computer because someone asked questions and wanted to know. We are here because some people discovered things. It's so disrespectful to call discoveries a "rape" to the natural world. I would tell Malcolm to live in a fucking cave then. Spitting in a plate and confortable life. We are here because we stand on the shoulder of giants. People that spent all their lifes to answer questions and help humanity, only to be called selfish.  We need to understand where we are, how we are here and wonder how many stuff await to be discovered. Great things that you can't even imagine with your mind. Just writing this make me shiver to imagine how big our Universe is and how people only live in a little futile world. The more you get to know, the more you know you know so little. It's a paradox, but makes you humble. It makes you pop out of the bubble of daily life and see how small we are, and how incredible everything around us is. 

To quote one of my favorite lines:

"I don't want to belive. I want to know."

And also another brillant one from Carl Sagan:

"We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology"


This alone kills everything.



If discovery is a violation, so it is the adoration of ignorance while using science in a daily life. That's why I came to hate this line from Malcolm.

This is also why I dislike the line. But to play devils advocate for Malcolm, I think he may have been talking about discovery in the context in which they were in. I don't think Malcolm is ever talking in 100% absolutes. I think he himself was playing devils advocate when he said that line. 

Because as we know some discoveries have led to some dark paths. Or atleast paths that are debated heavily on.

Also @TyrantLizard

I hope you know I'm not saying you're anti science. I'm solely talking about a character in a film.

Spinosaur4.4 wrote:

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Troyal1 wrote:

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

I'm sorry, but hasn't the whole theme of the franchise since the first film been that "You can't control nature"?

JP: Man creates dinosaurs, man tries to control dinosaurs, dinosaurs break free and f*ck sh*t up.

TLW: Man tries to again control dinosaurs, dinosaurs again f*ck sh*t up as a result.

JW: Man creates hybrid dinosaur, man tries to control hybrid dinosaur, hybrid dinosaur f*cks sh*t up.

I'm sensing a thematic pattern here xD

I mean yeah. But that's the thing that always bugged me about the JP franchise and the Malcolm character in particular. Sure we can't control nature. But is what happened in JP any more uncontrollable than what we already try to do with science and technology? I personally don't think so. 

 The disasters that happened in JP, TLW and JW are all because of human error. Not because life finds away and the animals are "uncontrollable". They aren't anymore uncontrollable than the animals you see in a zoo today really. I would say more control is allowed, since the scientists can fiddle with the DNA.  They would operate perfectly as zoo's (like JW did) but the plot demands there be chaos. And that the leadership be woefully stupid or corrupt. And it demands the park be extremely easy for a disaster and have rather pathetic defensive measures. 

I understand the theme of it. That we should be humble and always question what we are doing. Like the Frog DNA allowing the animals to become female. Huge oversight. But that didn't necessarily cause a massive problem. But Malcolm has this attitude that nature finding a way was the source of all the problems, which I heavily disagree with. 

Like let's assume Nedry never shut the fences off... what would the problem of bringing the animals to life be? As long as they were treated with respect. 

So I do see how some people might find his character a bit preachy tbh and I agree with Spino 4.4 to some extent.  

A science debate scene between the two of them would be perfect. Where they both bring good points to the table but not a clear winner.

And, bringing it back to Malcolm for a minute, my favorite quote of his is this.

"What's so great about discovery? It a violent, penetrative act that scars what it explores. What you call discovery, I call the rape of the natural world."

And it brings to the forefront the question "What is so great about discovery?" At it's core, discovery is the the act of carrying out mankinds selfish desire for answers. And yes, often times, whether intentionally or not, mankinds need to "discover" things and make "scientific progress" can be very harmful.

Is fulfilling our selfish need for answers enough to justify the potential harm to the natural world that could come of it?

OMG this is so anti-science...Asking questions and wanting answers is not wrong. It's actually a quality of our species, it shows the desire for knowledge, and knowledge is the MOST valuable thing you have, bc nobody can steal it from you. Knowledge is valuable and should be valuable. But our society laughs at it. People that ask too much questions are hated and called annoying. That's why not everyone can be a scientist. And guess what? They are the people that change the world, not the people that laugh at them. Asking questions is one of the things I most admire in a person. It shows that the person is humble enough to admit he/she doesn't know everything and want to absorve more knowledge.  Being selfish is when you think we know enough and should stop trying to discover new things and get static.

We are here  using internet, eletricity and computer because someone asked questions and wanted to know. We are here because some people discovered things. It's so disrespectful to call discoveries a "rape" to the natural world. I would tell Malcolm to live in a fucking cave then. Spitting in a plate and confortable life. We are here because we stand on the shoulder of giants. People that spent all their lifes to answer questions and help humanity, only to be called selfish.  We need to understand where we are, how we are here and wonder how many stuff await to be discovered. Great things that you can't even imagine with your mind. Just writing this make me shiver to imagine how big our Universe is and how people only live in a little futile world. The more you get to know, the more you know you know so little. It's a paradox, but makes you humble. It makes you pop out of the bubble of daily life and see how small we are, and how incredible everything around us is. 

To quote one of my favorite lines:

"I don't want to belive. I want to know."

And also another brillant one from Carl Sagan:

"We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology"


This alone kills everything.

Here's the problem with all that. You are assuming that mankind is always/mostly rational and reasonable. That is not the case. You've heard of the Stellars Sea Cow. When it was discovered in Russia in the early 1700's. It only took 25-30 years for it to be hunted to extinction. Also, look at how greed for ivory has devastated the elephant and rhino populations in Africa. And let's not forget all those big game poachers either. In other words, what the point of discovering something when man's greedy and destructive tendencies might destroy it? Given how you're somewhat of a misanthrope, surely you understand how much people can suck, right?

I'm not against discovering new things, but not at the cost of destroying other things in the process.

Troyal1 wrote:

I'm really trying to hold faith that Bayona can bring that to the table. If any movie should far has the potential to do this I feel like this is the one to get it started.

It's certainly something that should be brought to the table, and would be a pretty bold way of doing things as well. A franchise that actually questions the very same point it brought to the forefront in the first place. It would make for some compelling ethical debates, and might actually go a ways towards challenging and intellectually stimulating the viewers.

It would be nice to to see the debate addressed in a way that isn't simply one sided, and doesn't stoop to the level of labeling one side "anti science" or the other side "anti life".

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Spinosaur4.4 wrote:

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Troyal1 wrote:

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

I'm sorry, but hasn't the whole theme of the franchise since the first film been that "You can't control nature"?

JP: Man creates dinosaurs, man tries to control dinosaurs, dinosaurs break free and f*ck sh*t up.

TLW: Man tries to again control dinosaurs, dinosaurs again f*ck sh*t up as a result.

JW: Man creates hybrid dinosaur, man tries to control hybrid dinosaur, hybrid dinosaur f*cks sh*t up.

I'm sensing a thematic pattern here xD

I mean yeah. But that's the thing that always bugged me about the JP franchise and the Malcolm character in particular. Sure we can't control nature. But is what happened in JP any more uncontrollable than what we already try to do with science and technology? I personally don't think so. 

 The disasters that happened in JP, TLW and JW are all because of human error. Not because life finds away and the animals are "uncontrollable". They aren't anymore uncontrollable than the animals you see in a zoo today really. I would say more control is allowed, since the scientists can fiddle with the DNA.  They would operate perfectly as zoo's (like JW did) but the plot demands there be chaos. And that the leadership be woefully stupid or corrupt. And it demands the park be extremely easy for a disaster and have rather pathetic defensive measures. 

I understand the theme of it. That we should be humble and always question what we are doing. Like the Frog DNA allowing the animals to become female. Huge oversight. But that didn't necessarily cause a massive problem. But Malcolm has this attitude that nature finding a way was the source of all the problems, which I heavily disagree with. 

Like let's assume Nedry never shut the fences off... what would the problem of bringing the animals to life be? As long as they were treated with respect. 

So I do see how some people might find his character a bit preachy tbh and I agree with Spino 4.4 to some extent.  

A science debate scene between the two of them would be perfect. Where they both bring good points to the table but not a clear winner.

And, bringing it back to Malcolm for a minute, my favorite quote of his is this.

"What's so great about discovery? It a violent, penetrative act that scars what it explores. What you call discovery, I call the rape of the natural world."

And it brings to the forefront the question "What is so great about discovery?" At it's core, discovery is the the act of carrying out mankinds selfish desire for answers. And yes, often times, whether intentionally or not, mankinds need to "discover" things and make "scientific progress" can be very harmful.

Is fulfilling our selfish need for answers enough to justify the potential harm to the natural world that could come of it?

OMG this is so anti-science...Asking questions and wanting answers is not wrong. It's actually a quality of our species, it shows the desire for knowledge, and knowledge is the MOST valuable thing you have, bc nobody can steal it from you. Knowledge is valuable and should be valuable. But our society laughs at it. People that ask too much questions are hated and called annoying. That's why not everyone can be a scientist. And guess what? They are the people that change the world, not the people that laugh at them. Asking questions is one of the things I most admire in a person. It shows that the person is humble enough to admit he/she doesn't know everything and want to absorve more knowledge.  Being selfish is when you think we know enough and should stop trying to discover new things and get static.

We are here  using internet, eletricity and computer because someone asked questions and wanted to know. We are here because some people discovered things. It's so disrespectful to call discoveries a "rape" to the natural world. I would tell Malcolm to live in a fucking cave then. Spitting in a plate and confortable life. We are here because we stand on the shoulder of giants. People that spent all their lifes to answer questions and help humanity, only to be called selfish.  We need to understand where we are, how we are here and wonder how many stuff await to be discovered. Great things that you can't even imagine with your mind. Just writing this make me shiver to imagine how big our Universe is and how people only live in a little futile world. The more you get to know, the more you know you know so little. It's a paradox, but makes you humble. It makes you pop out of the bubble of daily life and see how small we are, and how incredible everything around us is. 

To quote one of my favorite lines:

"I don't want to belive. I want to know."

And also another brillant one from Carl Sagan:

"We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology"


This alone kills everything.

Thank you for labeling me as "anti-science" for simply bringing up one side of the debate...The side that the franchise itself has trumpeted repeatedly. It's certainly not like there's a middle ground that can be reached or anything.

Done with you.

I was actually calling Malcolm's line anti science, not you. I even wrote bellow and edited the post to make that more clear.

I don't like that Malcolm's line exactly because of that, it leads to anti-science at some point.

I don't get why you are so angry with me just because I made a big text about my point of view. I didn't mean to disrespect you neither am I angry.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Spinosaur4.4 wrote:

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Troyal1 wrote:

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

I'm sorry, but hasn't the whole theme of the franchise since the first film been that "You can't control nature"?

JP: Man creates dinosaurs, man tries to control dinosaurs, dinosaurs break free and f*ck sh*t up.

TLW: Man tries to again control dinosaurs, dinosaurs again f*ck sh*t up as a result.

JW: Man creates hybrid dinosaur, man tries to control hybrid dinosaur, hybrid dinosaur f*cks sh*t up.

I'm sensing a thematic pattern here xD

I mean yeah. But that's the thing that always bugged me about the JP franchise and the Malcolm character in particular. Sure we can't control nature. But is what happened in JP any more uncontrollable than what we already try to do with science and technology? I personally don't think so. 

 The disasters that happened in JP, TLW and JW are all because of human error. Not because life finds away and the animals are "uncontrollable". They aren't anymore uncontrollable than the animals you see in a zoo today really. I would say more control is allowed, since the scientists can fiddle with the DNA.  They would operate perfectly as zoo's (like JW did) but the plot demands there be chaos. And that the leadership be woefully stupid or corrupt. And it demands the park be extremely easy for a disaster and have rather pathetic defensive measures. 

I understand the theme of it. That we should be humble and always question what we are doing. Like the Frog DNA allowing the animals to become female. Huge oversight. But that didn't necessarily cause a massive problem. But Malcolm has this attitude that nature finding a way was the source of all the problems, which I heavily disagree with. 

Like let's assume Nedry never shut the fences off... what would the problem of bringing the animals to life be? As long as they were treated with respect. 

So I do see how some people might find his character a bit preachy tbh and I agree with Spino 4.4 to some extent.  

A science debate scene between the two of them would be perfect. Where they both bring good points to the table but not a clear winner.

And, bringing it back to Malcolm for a minute, my favorite quote of his is this.

"What's so great about discovery? It a violent, penetrative act that scars what it explores. What you call discovery, I call the rape of the natural world."

And it brings to the forefront the question "What is so great about discovery?" At it's core, discovery is the the act of carrying out mankinds selfish desire for answers. And yes, often times, whether intentionally or not, mankinds need to "discover" things and make "scientific progress" can be very harmful.

Is fulfilling our selfish need for answers enough to justify the potential harm to the natural world that could come of it?

OMG this is so anti-science...Asking questions and wanting answers is not wrong. It's actually a quality of our species, it shows the desire for knowledge, and knowledge is the MOST valuable thing you have, bc nobody can steal it from you. Knowledge is valuable and should be valuable. But our society laughs at it. People that ask too much questions are hated and called annoying. That's why not everyone can be a scientist. And guess what? They are the people that change the world, not the people that laugh at them. Asking questions is one of the things I most admire in a person. It shows that the person is humble enough to admit he/she doesn't know everything and want to absorve more knowledge.  Being selfish is when you think we know enough and should stop trying to discover new things and get static.

We are here  using internet, eletricity and computer because someone asked questions and wanted to know. We are here because some people discovered things. It's so disrespectful to call discoveries a "rape" to the natural world. I would tell Malcolm to live in a fucking cave then. Spitting in a plate and confortable life. We are here because we stand on the shoulder of giants. People that spent all their lifes to answer questions and help humanity, only to be called selfish.  We need to understand where we are, how we are here and wonder how many stuff await to be discovered. Great things that you can't even imagine with your mind. Just writing this make me shiver to imagine how big our Universe is and how people only live in a little futile world. The more you get to know, the more you know you know so little. It's a paradox, but makes you humble. It makes you pop out of the bubble of daily life and see how small we are, and how incredible everything around us is. 

To quote one of my favorite lines:

"I don't want to belive. I want to know."

And also another brillant one from Carl Sagan:

"We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology"


This alone kills everything.

Here's the problem with all that. You are assuming that mankind is always/mostly rational and reasonable. That is not the case. You've heard of the Stellars Sea Cow. When it was discovered in Russia in the early 1700's. It only took 25-30 years for it to be hunted to extinction. Also, look at how greed for ivory has devastated the elephant and rhino populations in Africa. And let's not forget all those big game poachers either. In other words, what the point of discovering something when man's greedy and destructive tendencies might destroy it? Given how you're somewhat of a misanthrope, surely you understand how much people can suck, right?

I'm not against discovering new things, but not at the cost of destroying other things in the process.

You know that we are destroying wildlife that we don't even know they exist in our planet, and the only way to stop that is knowledge and studying them, right? We need scientists to discover them. Collect some specimens, study them, the biogeography of the animal, ecology and so on. I was about to write about this type of work and bring a cool curiosity about it, but I guess people are understanding my posts as agressive when I didn't want to.

Too bad, because the talk was great. This just shows how bad I am at expressing myself. Seriously, I keep digging the hole. Maybe I should just give up. I just wanted to debate. I hardly do that with someone.

Spinosaur4.4 wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Spinosaur4.4 wrote:

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Troyal1 wrote:

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

I'm sorry, but hasn't the whole theme of the franchise since the first film been that "You can't control nature"?

JP: Man creates dinosaurs, man tries to control dinosaurs, dinosaurs break free and f*ck sh*t up.

TLW: Man tries to again control dinosaurs, dinosaurs again f*ck sh*t up as a result.

JW: Man creates hybrid dinosaur, man tries to control hybrid dinosaur, hybrid dinosaur f*cks sh*t up.

I'm sensing a thematic pattern here xD

I mean yeah. But that's the thing that always bugged me about the JP franchise and the Malcolm character in particular. Sure we can't control nature. But is what happened in JP any more uncontrollable than what we already try to do with science and technology? I personally don't think so. 

 The disasters that happened in JP, TLW and JW are all because of human error. Not because life finds away and the animals are "uncontrollable". They aren't anymore uncontrollable than the animals you see in a zoo today really. I would say more control is allowed, since the scientists can fiddle with the DNA.  They would operate perfectly as zoo's (like JW did) but the plot demands there be chaos. And that the leadership be woefully stupid or corrupt. And it demands the park be extremely easy for a disaster and have rather pathetic defensive measures. 

I understand the theme of it. That we should be humble and always question what we are doing. Like the Frog DNA allowing the animals to become female. Huge oversight. But that didn't necessarily cause a massive problem. But Malcolm has this attitude that nature finding a way was the source of all the problems, which I heavily disagree with. 

Like let's assume Nedry never shut the fences off... what would the problem of bringing the animals to life be? As long as they were treated with respect. 

So I do see how some people might find his character a bit preachy tbh and I agree with Spino 4.4 to some extent.  

A science debate scene between the two of them would be perfect. Where they both bring good points to the table but not a clear winner.

And, bringing it back to Malcolm for a minute, my favorite quote of his is this.

"What's so great about discovery? It a violent, penetrative act that scars what it explores. What you call discovery, I call the rape of the natural world."

And it brings to the forefront the question "What is so great about discovery?" At it's core, discovery is the the act of carrying out mankinds selfish desire for answers. And yes, often times, whether intentionally or not, mankinds need to "discover" things and make "scientific progress" can be very harmful.

Is fulfilling our selfish need for answers enough to justify the potential harm to the natural world that could come of it?

OMG this is so anti-science...Asking questions and wanting answers is not wrong. It's actually a quality of our species, it shows the desire for knowledge, and knowledge is the MOST valuable thing you have, bc nobody can steal it from you. Knowledge is valuable and should be valuable. But our society laughs at it. People that ask too much questions are hated and called annoying. That's why not everyone can be a scientist. And guess what? They are the people that change the world, not the people that laugh at them. Asking questions is one of the things I most admire in a person. It shows that the person is humble enough to admit he/she doesn't know everything and want to absorve more knowledge.  Being selfish is when you think we know enough and should stop trying to discover new things and get static.

We are here  using internet, eletricity and computer because someone asked questions and wanted to know. We are here because some people discovered things. It's so disrespectful to call discoveries a "rape" to the natural world. I would tell Malcolm to live in a fucking cave then. Spitting in a plate and confortable life. We are here because we stand on the shoulder of giants. People that spent all their lifes to answer questions and help humanity, only to be called selfish.  We need to understand where we are, how we are here and wonder how many stuff await to be discovered. Great things that you can't even imagine with your mind. Just writing this make me shiver to imagine how big our Universe is and how people only live in a little futile world. The more you get to know, the more you know you know so little. It's a paradox, but makes you humble. It makes you pop out of the bubble of daily life and see how small we are, and how incredible everything around us is. 

To quote one of my favorite lines:

"I don't want to belive. I want to know."

And also another brillant one from Carl Sagan:

"We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology"


This alone kills everything.

Here's the problem with all that. You are assuming that mankind is always/mostly rational and reasonable. That is not the case. You've heard of the Stellars Sea Cow. When it was discovered in Russia in the early 1700's. It only took 25-30 years for it to be hunted to extinction. Also, look at how greed for ivory has devastated the elephant and rhino populations in Africa. And let's not forget all those big game poachers either. In other words, what the point of discovering something when man's greedy and destructive tendencies might destroy it? Given how you're somewhat of a misanthrope, surely you understand how much people can suck, right?

I'm not against discovering new things, but not at the cost of destroying other things in the process.

You know that we are destroying wildlife that we don't even know they exist in our planet, and the only way to stop that is knowledge and studying them, right? We need scientists to discover them. Collect some specimens, study them, the biogeography of the animal, ecology and so on. I was about to write about this type of work and bring a cool curiosity about it, but I guess people are understanding my posts as agressive when I didn't want to.

Doing all this is one thing. At least with that, it's part of a necessary evil to save stuff and done by people who care. I'm talking about that people who just don't care AFTER all that is done.

Also, I've noticed something about you. For somebody who hates man, you have a lot of faith in scientists and smart people. That's quite a big juxtaposition.

Spinosaur4.4 wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Spinosaur4.4 wrote:

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Troyal1 wrote:

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

I'm sorry, but hasn't the whole theme of the franchise since the first film been that "You can't control nature"?

JP: Man creates dinosaurs, man tries to control dinosaurs, dinosaurs break free and f*ck sh*t up.

TLW: Man tries to again control dinosaurs, dinosaurs again f*ck sh*t up as a result.

JW: Man creates hybrid dinosaur, man tries to control hybrid dinosaur, hybrid dinosaur f*cks sh*t up.

I'm sensing a thematic pattern here xD

I mean yeah. But that's the thing that always bugged me about the JP franchise and the Malcolm character in particular. Sure we can't control nature. But is what happened in JP any more uncontrollable than what we already try to do with science and technology? I personally don't think so. 

 The disasters that happened in JP, TLW and JW are all because of human error. Not because life finds away and the animals are "uncontrollable". They aren't anymore uncontrollable than the animals you see in a zoo today really. I would say more control is allowed, since the scientists can fiddle with the DNA.  They would operate perfectly as zoo's (like JW did) but the plot demands there be chaos. And that the leadership be woefully stupid or corrupt. And it demands the park be extremely easy for a disaster and have rather pathetic defensive measures. 

I understand the theme of it. That we should be humble and always question what we are doing. Like the Frog DNA allowing the animals to become female. Huge oversight. But that didn't necessarily cause a massive problem. But Malcolm has this attitude that nature finding a way was the source of all the problems, which I heavily disagree with. 

Like let's assume Nedry never shut the fences off... what would the problem of bringing the animals to life be? As long as they were treated with respect. 

So I do see how some people might find his character a bit preachy tbh and I agree with Spino 4.4 to some extent.  

A science debate scene between the two of them would be perfect. Where they both bring good points to the table but not a clear winner.

And, bringing it back to Malcolm for a minute, my favorite quote of his is this.

"What's so great about discovery? It a violent, penetrative act that scars what it explores. What you call discovery, I call the rape of the natural world."

And it brings to the forefront the question "What is so great about discovery?" At it's core, discovery is the the act of carrying out mankinds selfish desire for answers. And yes, often times, whether intentionally or not, mankinds need to "discover" things and make "scientific progress" can be very harmful.

Is fulfilling our selfish need for answers enough to justify the potential harm to the natural world that could come of it?

OMG this is so anti-science...Asking questions and wanting answers is not wrong. It's actually a quality of our species, it shows the desire for knowledge, and knowledge is the MOST valuable thing you have, bc nobody can steal it from you. Knowledge is valuable and should be valuable. But our society laughs at it. People that ask too much questions are hated and called annoying. That's why not everyone can be a scientist. And guess what? They are the people that change the world, not the people that laugh at them. Asking questions is one of the things I most admire in a person. It shows that the person is humble enough to admit he/she doesn't know everything and want to absorve more knowledge.  Being selfish is when you think we know enough and should stop trying to discover new things and get static.

We are here  using internet, eletricity and computer because someone asked questions and wanted to know. We are here because some people discovered things. It's so disrespectful to call discoveries a "rape" to the natural world. I would tell Malcolm to live in a fucking cave then. Spitting in a plate and confortable life. We are here because we stand on the shoulder of giants. People that spent all their lifes to answer questions and help humanity, only to be called selfish.  We need to understand where we are, how we are here and wonder how many stuff await to be discovered. Great things that you can't even imagine with your mind. Just writing this make me shiver to imagine how big our Universe is and how people only live in a little futile world. The more you get to know, the more you know you know so little. It's a paradox, but makes you humble. It makes you pop out of the bubble of daily life and see how small we are, and how incredible everything around us is. 

To quote one of my favorite lines:

"I don't want to belive. I want to know."

And also another brillant one from Carl Sagan:

"We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology"


This alone kills everything.

Here's the problem with all that. You are assuming that mankind is always/mostly rational and reasonable. That is not the case. You've heard of the Stellars Sea Cow. When it was discovered in Russia in the early 1700's. It only took 25-30 years for it to be hunted to extinction. Also, look at how greed for ivory has devastated the elephant and rhino populations in Africa. And let's not forget all those big game poachers either. In other words, what the point of discovering something when man's greedy and destructive tendencies might destroy it? Given how you're somewhat of a misanthrope, surely you understand how much people can suck, right?

I'm not against discovering new things, but not at the cost of destroying other things in the process.

You know that we are destroying wildlife that we don't even know they exist in our planet, and the only way to stop that is knowledge and studying them, right? We need scientists to discover them. Collect some specimens, study them, the biogeography of the animal, ecology and so on. I was about to write about this type of work and bring a cool curiosity about it, but I guess people are understanding my posts as agressive when I didn't want to.

Too bad, because the talk was great.

There you go again, labeling in absolutes.

Is it too much to simply concede that, in some instances, the ends simply don't justify the means?

Nobody is suggesting that science is "evil", or that the concept of discovery and scientific progress is a bad thing. Merely that sometimes our scientific curiosity can get the best of us, and, by extension, be harmful to the natural world.

Humankind is not some perfect, all knowing species. We're fallible. We're greedy. We're irresponsible. And yes, the power we have over the world around us, in conjunction with our shortcomings as a species can be a very dangerous thing. It's up to us, as a species, to put significant thought into how we use the power we wield, and decide whether or not we're A) morally justified, and B) responsible enough to act on it.

Yeah, not all ends justify the means. It depends.

IMO it's more interesting to say that in the wrong hands science can be used as a tool of destruction. Because that's what it is, a tool. It's amoral. Not good or evil. It just depends how you use it.

I know humanity is not perfect, we have qualities and problems. The worse IMO is the ego and arrogance, and yet this is kinda common in some science fields, unfotunatelly. I think I'll learn to deal with this. We are invasive species since the beggining, and our impact in nature and the biodiversity is very long.

The context is important as well.

Within the context of the franchise, none of the "scientific advancements" that have been made have been morally justifiable. It's all been about toying with long extinct life, with little no no regard for the lives of these animals, for the sole purpose of profits.

But that, more than anything, has been the moral of the franchise imo. Scientific power in and of itself isn't a bad thing. However, we, as a species, tend to misuse the power we have. It's not an issue with the power itself, but with those who hold it, which is I think what Malcolm's character is really trumpeting.

And I'd agree with that.

However. in order to properly explore both sides of the debate, an in-context example of the genetic power that has been displayed thus far needs to be introduced, and it has to be morally justifiable.

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

The context is important as well.

Within the context of the franchise, none of the "scientific advancements" that have been made have been morally justifiable. It's all been about toying with long extinct life, with little no no regard for the lives of these animals, for the sole purpose of profits.

But that, more than anything, has been the moral of the franchise imo. Scientific power in and of itself isn't a bad thing. However, we, as a species, tend to misuse the power we have. It's not an issue with the power itself, but with those who hold it, which is I think what Malcolm's character is really trumpeting.

And I'd agree with that.

However. in order to properly explore both sides of the debate, an in-context example of the genetic power that has been displayed thus far needs to be introduced, and it has to be morally justifiable.

But is it really immoral to want to bring Dinosaurs back to have a park? Is it necessary? No. But as long as the animals got treated well is it immoral? Maybe I'm a terrible person but in my eyes I don't think so. Unless the animals were miserable I would see it as neutral.... rather than good or bad. It would be a dream come true for me. 

(Note: I do think certain characters in the films have had extremely immoral intentions. I was just speaking in terms of if we really had a park). 

I agree that we do need to see something new though in that regard. I wanna see Dinosaur technology being integrated into the healthcare system somehow.

Anything in particular you think they could do that would be cool to see?

Troyal1 wrote:

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

The context is important as well.

Within the context of the franchise, none of the "scientific advancements" that have been made have been morally justifiable. It's all been about toying with long extinct life, with little no no regard for the lives of these animals, for the sole purpose of profits.

But that, more than anything, has been the moral of the franchise imo. Scientific power in and of itself isn't a bad thing. However, we, as a species, tend to misuse the power we have. It's not an issue with the power itself, but with those who hold it, which is I think what Malcolm's character is really trumpeting.

And I'd agree with that.

However. in order to properly explore both sides of the debate, an in-context example of the genetic power that has been displayed thus far needs to be introduced, and it has to be morally justifiable.

But is it really immoral to want to bring Dinosaurs back to have a park? Is it necessary? No. But as long as the animals got treated well is it immoral? Maybe I'm a terrible person but in my eyes I don't think so. Unless the animals were miserable I would see it as neutral.... rather than good or bad. It would be a dream come true for me. 

(Note: I do think certain characters in the films have had extremely immoral intentions. I was just speaking in terms of if we really had a park). 

I agree that we do need to see something new though in that regard. I wanna see Dinosaur technology being integrated into the healthcare system somehow.

Anything in particular you think they could do that would be cool to see?

Well, I personally think that the idea of "zoos" in 2017 in and of itself is due to be reexamined. The idea of toying with life simply to bring animals that have been extinct for 65 million years into a world that would be completely alien to them simply to be confined to cages/behind fences and be gawked at by people is pretty questionable from a moral standpoint. Sure, my own selfish wants might supersede the morality of it in my mind, but, looking at it from a completely neutral perspective, it certainly doesn't hit me as right.

To your second point, the idea of a long extinct disease or bacteria being introduced has been brought up already. Maybe something to do with that? I dunno.

Frankly, this franchise has always been vehemently "anti-science" in some way or another. The closest we got to anything different was in JP3 when Grant finally sees Hammond's point of view when watching the dinosaurs grazing.

Spinosaur4.4, if you're going after JW2 for having these undertones, you ought to be disgusted with the first JP. Malcolm's argument was given false validation in the form of frog DNA and Nedry screwing them over. If it weren't for those clearly-preventable things, there is no reason that any of Malcolm's worries should come to fruition-- the "next time" that Hammond was supposedly so foolish to believe in.
The novel on the other hand does a much better job of explaining chaos theory and why the park is doomed to fail.

Jurassic World was much less "anti-science" than the original. The conceit was that we actually can live in harmony with dinosaurs if we respect them, rather than mutating their DNA to make weapons. The tiny lagoon used for the Mosasaurus was our visual to communicate that such respect was lacking.

But here's the truth: even if he's called out for being smarmy and preachy (JP3 water truck scene), Malcolm is absolutely going to be portrayed with the logical one-up. But to bemoan that, here and now? Where have you been?

I'll end it with this: instead of getting upset about him being the moral authority, be happy if he isn't. The screenplay has been biased in his favor since day one.

BoulderFaceplant wrote:

The novel on the other hand does a much better job of explaining chaos theory and why the park is doomed to fail.

I forget the details, but isn't one example when Ian describes that the Stegosaurs are experiencing the equivalent of 10,000 ft altitude sickness? Could you name a few others please?

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Troyal1 wrote:

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

The context is important as well.

Within the context of the franchise, none of the "scientific advancements" that have been made have been morally justifiable. It's all been about toying with long extinct life, with little no no regard for the lives of these animals, for the sole purpose of profits.

But that, more than anything, has been the moral of the franchise imo. Scientific power in and of itself isn't a bad thing. However, we, as a species, tend to misuse the power we have. It's not an issue with the power itself, but with those who hold it, which is I think what Malcolm's character is really trumpeting.

And I'd agree with that.

However. in order to properly explore both sides of the debate, an in-context example of the genetic power that has been displayed thus far needs to be introduced, and it has to be morally justifiable.

But is it really immoral to want to bring Dinosaurs back to have a park? Is it necessary? No. But as long as the animals got treated well is it immoral? Maybe I'm a terrible person but in my eyes I don't think so. Unless the animals were miserable I would see it as neutral.... rather than good or bad. It would be a dream come true for me. 

(Note: I do think certain characters in the films have had extremely immoral intentions. I was just speaking in terms of if we really had a park). 

I agree that we do need to see something new though in that regard. I wanna see Dinosaur technology being integrated into the healthcare system somehow.

Anything in particular you think they could do that would be cool to see?

Well, I personally think that the idea of "zoos" in 2017 in and of itself is due to be reexamined. The idea of toying with life simply to bring animals that have been extinct for 65 million years into a world that would be completely alien to them simply to be confined to cages/behind fences and be gawked at by people is pretty questionable from a moral standpoint. Sure, my own selfish wants might supersede the morality of it in my mind, but, looking at it from a completely neutral perspective, it certainly doesn't hit me as right.

To your second point, the idea of a long extinct disease or bacteria being introduced has been brought up already. Maybe something to do with that? I dunno.

Can you elaborate a little on what you mean by diseases being introduced? I thought we were talking positives to the science part 

Troyal1 wrote:

Can you elaborate a little on what you mean by diseases being introduced? I thought we were talking positives to the science part 

I obviously can't get into any real specifics, but I imagine that research into the immune systems of dinosaurs could result in an antidote of sorts being created to fight off said disease....

I'm just spitballing at this point.

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Troyal1 wrote:

Can you elaborate a little on what you mean by diseases being introduced? I thought we were talking positives to the science part 

I obviously can't get into any real specifics, but I imagine that research into the immune systems of dinosaurs could result in an antidote of sorts being created to fight off said disease....

I'm just spitballing at this point.

Funny you mention this. In JP:OG. The game deals with dinosaurs and modern diseases, and how one has too immunize them or give them antidotes if you don't immunize them. That would be another problem with bringing back dinosaurs via trying to find out with modern diseases they are immune to in any form-total, mostly, or partial-or not.

Interesting.

To be perfectly honest, it's difficult to think of any real benefit of it. Once you get past the "Ooooh...Ahhh" factor, you're really not left with a whole lot of practical or morally justifiable ground imo.

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Interesting.

To be perfectly honest, it's difficult to think of any real benefit of it. Once you get past the "Ooooh...Ahhh" factor, you're really not left with a whole lot of practical or morally justifiable ground imo.

The only thing possible is to find new cures for diseases, but that's the only thing that's practical.

BoulderFaceplant wrote:

Frankly, this franchise has always been vehemently "anti-science" in some way or another. The closest we got to anything different was in JP3 when Grant finally sees Hammond's point of view when watching the dinosaurs grazing.

Spinosaur4.4, if you're going after JW2 for having these undertones, you ought to be disgusted with the first JP. Malcolm's argument was given false validation in the form of frog DNA and Nedry screwing them over. If it weren't for those clearly-preventable things, there is no reason that any of Malcolm's worries should come to fruition-- the "next time" that Hammond was supposedly so foolish to believe in.
The novel on the other hand does a much better job of explaining chaos theory and why the park is doomed to fail.

Jurassic World was much less "anti-science" than the original. The conceit was that we actually can live in harmony with dinosaurs if we respect them, rather than mutating their DNA to make weapons. The tiny lagoon used for the Mosasaurus was our visual to communicate that such respect was lacking.

But here's the truth: even if he's called out for being smarmy and preachy (JP3 water truck scene), Malcolm is absolutely going to be portrayed with the logical one-up. But to bemoan that, here and now? Where have you been?

I'll end it with this: instead of getting upset about him being the moral authority, be happy if he isn't. The screenplay has been biased in his favor since day one.

So you're telling me to deal with this injustice of the movie being biased? Never.

I know JP had some anti-science stuff (the movie of course, novel is amazing at explaining stuff) and Malcolm is the voice of it, that's why I said I hate some of his lines and he'll never be always right, no matter how the fans love and adore his character. I know how to separate things. And I'm really tired of movies making scientists as evil people or putting science in the edge. Yet, those people are all hipocrites in trying to do that, because as I said, we live and we are living the way we live thanks to science. So I'll never ever deal with it, even if they make Malcolm the winner in the movie, I know it's not that way and science will win in the end, no matter what the screenwriters do. So I don't think I'm getting far in being upset because of this.

The reality shows us that, or do you really think they'll stop scientists to clonning mammonths or another animal. 

And I'll keep exposing this injustice, because people need to learn and accept more how science works. 

I always throught Malcolm had some anti-science lines, I'm just saying that now because I see people won't jump over me for saying that or want my head in a plate to call out a fan favorite character. As I grew up and read the novels, I  started to like another character more. I still like Malcolm, but that won't stop me for calling out he's flawed.


And clonning dinosaurs back is okay, you guys can't even imagine how many questions we could answer with it, paleontologists from all the world would freak their minds and want to know more about the dinosaurs, how they behaved, interacted, how they looked like...I disagree that clonning them was just to "toy around" with life. The fact that the movie doesn't adress this clearly doesn't mean JP Universe paleontologists didn't progress in studying those amazing animals. A lot of progress would be made.

I would sell my kidneys to have an opportunity to see those animals alive and study them.

Spinosaur4.4 wrote:

BoulderFaceplant wrote:

Frankly, this franchise has always been vehemently "anti-science" in some way or another. The closest we got to anything different was in JP3 when Grant finally sees Hammond's point of view when watching the dinosaurs grazing.

Spinosaur4.4, if you're going after JW2 for having these undertones, you ought to be disgusted with the first JP. Malcolm's argument was given false validation in the form of frog DNA and Nedry screwing them over. If it weren't for those clearly-preventable things, there is no reason that any of Malcolm's worries should come to fruition-- the "next time" that Hammond was supposedly so foolish to believe in.
The novel on the other hand does a much better job of explaining chaos theory and why the park is doomed to fail.

Jurassic World was much less "anti-science" than the original. The conceit was that we actually can live in harmony with dinosaurs if we respect them, rather than mutating their DNA to make weapons. The tiny lagoon used for the Mosasaurus was our visual to communicate that such respect was lacking.

But here's the truth: even if he's called out for being smarmy and preachy (JP3 water truck scene), Malcolm is absolutely going to be portrayed with the logical one-up. But to bemoan that, here and now? Where have you been?

I'll end it with this: instead of getting upset about him being the moral authority, be happy if he isn't. The screenplay has been biased in his favor since day one.

So you're telling me to deal with this injustice of the movie being biased? Never.

I know JP had some anti-science stuff (the movie of course, novel is amazing at explaining stuff) and Malcolm is the voice of it, that's why I said I hate some of his lines and he'll never be always right, no matter how the fans love and adore his character. I know how to separate things. And I'm really tired of movies making scientists as evil people or putting science in the edge. Yet, those people are all hipocrites in trying to do that, because as I said, we live and we are living the way we live thanks to science. So I'll never ever deal with it, even if they make Malcolm the winner in the movie, I know it's not that way and science will win in the end, no matter what the screenwriters do. So I don't think I'm getting far in being upset because of this.

The reality shows us that, or do you really think they'll stop scientists to clonning mammonths or another animal. 

And I'll keep exposing this injustice, because people need to learn and accept more how science works. 

I always throught Malcolm had some anti-science lines, I'm just saying that now because I see people won't jump over me for saying that or want my head in a plate to call out a fan favorite character. As I grew up and read the novels, I started to like another character more. I still like Malcolm, but that won't stop me for calling out he's flawed.


And clonning dinosaurs back is okay, you guys can't even imagine how many questions we could answer with it, paleontologists from all the world would freak their minds and want to know more about the dinosaurs, how they behaved, interacted, how they looked like...I disagree that clonning them was just to "toy around" with life. The fact that the movie doesn't adress this clearly doesn't mean JP Universe paleontologists didn't progress in studying those amazing animals. A lot of progress would be made.

I would sell my kidneys to have an opportunity to see those animals alive and study them.

It's not so much of being anti-science as so much as it's about the over-reliance, if not the unconscious worship of it, turning it into some sort of de facto religion. That is a VERY dangerous thing since it can lead to very dangerous things. A society that puts science over morality is a society that is doomed. Look at how science-based Nazi Germany was via their research into rockets, jets, and other exotic weapons. And yet, they sacrificed a lot of their basic morals by have slave labor work on all those things.

Besides, human society is simply too complex for science to solve all the problems that life has.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Spinosaur4.4 wrote:

BoulderFaceplant wrote:

Frankly, this franchise has always been vehemently "anti-science" in some way or another. The closest we got to anything different was in JP3 when Grant finally sees Hammond's point of view when watching the dinosaurs grazing.

Spinosaur4.4, if you're going after JW2 for having these undertones, you ought to be disgusted with the first JP. Malcolm's argument was given false validation in the form of frog DNA and Nedry screwing them over. If it weren't for those clearly-preventable things, there is no reason that any of Malcolm's worries should come to fruition-- the "next time" that Hammond was supposedly so foolish to believe in.
The novel on the other hand does a much better job of explaining chaos theory and why the park is doomed to fail.

Jurassic World was much less "anti-science" than the original. The conceit was that we actually can live in harmony with dinosaurs if we respect them, rather than mutating their DNA to make weapons. The tiny lagoon used for the Mosasaurus was our visual to communicate that such respect was lacking.

But here's the truth: even if he's called out for being smarmy and preachy (JP3 water truck scene), Malcolm is absolutely going to be portrayed with the logical one-up. But to bemoan that, here and now? Where have you been?

I'll end it with this: instead of getting upset about him being the moral authority, be happy if he isn't. The screenplay has been biased in his favor since day one.

So you're telling me to deal with this injustice of the movie being biased? Never.

I know JP had some anti-science stuff (the movie of course, novel is amazing at explaining stuff) and Malcolm is the voice of it, that's why I said I hate some of his lines and he'll never be always right, no matter how the fans love and adore his character. I know how to separate things. And I'm really tired of movies making scientists as evil people or putting science in the edge. Yet, those people are all hipocrites in trying to do that, because as I said, we live and we are living the way we live thanks to science. So I'll never ever deal with it, even if they make Malcolm the winner in the movie, I know it's not that way and science will win in the end, no matter what the screenwriters do. So I don't think I'm getting far in being upset because of this.

The reality shows us that, or do you really think they'll stop scientists to clonning mammonths or another animal. 

And I'll keep exposing this injustice, because people need to learn and accept more how science works. 

I always throught Malcolm had some anti-science lines, I'm just saying that now because I see people won't jump over me for saying that or want my head in a plate to call out a fan favorite character. As I grew up and read the novels, I started to like another character more. I still like Malcolm, but that won't stop me for calling out he's flawed.


And clonning dinosaurs back is okay, you guys can't even imagine how many questions we could answer with it, paleontologists from all the world would freak their minds and want to know more about the dinosaurs, how they behaved, interacted, how they looked like...I disagree that clonning them was just to "toy around" with life. The fact that the movie doesn't adress this clearly doesn't mean JP Universe paleontologists didn't progress in studying those amazing animals. A lot of progress would be made.

I would sell my kidneys to have an opportunity to see those animals alive and study them.

It's not so much of being anti-science as so much as it's about the over-reliance, if not the unconscious worship of it, turning it into some sort of de facto religion. That is a VERY dangerous thing since it can lead to very dangerous things. A society that puts science over morality is a society that is doomed. Look at how science-based Nazi Germany was via their research into rockets, jets, and other exotic weapons. And yet, they sacrificed a lot of their basic morals by have slave labor work on all those things.

Besides, human society is simply too complex for science to solve all the problems that life has.

Just because it's too complex it doesn't mean science can't try to solve some problems or minimize the effect. If we were to be left for natural selection, I wouldn't even be here. Most people actually wouldn't survive. 

And science can't be a religion because it isn't dogmatic.  Science is always correcting itself and even answers that are accepted as truth can be questioned in a scientific way of course.

I'm not telling that we should take morality and throw it under the bus, but we can't do the same with science.

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Troyal1 wrote:

Can you elaborate a little on what you mean by diseases being introduced? I thought we were talking positives to the science part 

I obviously can't get into any real specifics, but I imagine that research into the immune systems of dinosaurs could result in an antidote of sorts being created to fight off said disease....

I'm just spitballing at this point.

Ohhhh I see... I thought you meant Dinosaurs were going to carry some disease that infected and killed huge amounts of humans lol. I was like, that doesn't sound too positive 

Side note:

The term "anti-science" is really bugging me. I'm pretty damn sure that nobody on this board is "anti-science". In this context, using the term "anti-science" only serves as a blanket term to try and undermine the other side of the debate without actually providing an argument, and instead relating the other sides POV to the dogma that the hyper-religious far right types tend to spew.

In essence, it's an ad hominem.

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Side note:

The term "anti-science" is really bugging me. I'm pretty damn sure that nobody on this board is "anti-science". In this context, using the term "anti-science" only serves as a blanket term to try and undermine the other side of the debate without actually providing an argument, and instead relating the other sides POV to the dogma that the hyper-religious far right types tend to spew.

In essence, it's an ad hominem.

But I'm not calling anyone anti-science here. I said Malcolm's line sometimes are. There's no ad hominem in this, as I put a lot of arguments to prove WHY it's anti-science.

Spinosaur4.4 wrote:

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Side note:

The term "anti-science" is really bugging me. I'm pretty damn sure that nobody on this board is "anti-science". In this context, using the term "anti-science" only serves as a blanket term to try and undermine the other side of the debate without actually providing an argument, and instead relating the other sides POV to the dogma that the hyper-religious far right types tend to spew.

In essence, it's an ad hominem.

But I'm not calling anyone anti-science here. I said Malcolm's line sometimes are. There's no ad hominem in this, as I put a lot of arguments to prove WHY it's anti-science.

Literally the only thing I would have changed about any of Malcolm's dialogue is adding the word "can" to his line about discovery being a "violent, penatrative act".

Other than that, I don't think any of his dialogue can simply be brushed aside and labeled as "anti-science".

You yourself stated that science is neutral, which I would agree with, and I'm sure Malcolm would agree with as well. The people that wield this power? Different story.

"Genetic power is the most awesome force the planet has ever seen, but you wield it like a kid that's found his dad's gun."

Certainly doesn't sound like "anti-science" to me. More so, it sounds like a man that simply doesn't have enough faith in mankind as a species to wield that power responsibly, to which I would agree with.

Spinosaur4.4 wrote:

BoulderFaceplant wrote:

Frankly, this franchise has always been vehemently "anti-science" in some way or another. The closest we got to anything different was in JP3 when Grant finally sees Hammond's point of view when watching the dinosaurs grazing.

Spinosaur4.4, if you're going after JW2 for having these undertones, you ought to be disgusted with the first JP. Malcolm's argument was given false validation in the form of frog DNA and Nedry screwing them over. If it weren't for those clearly-preventable things, there is no reason that any of Malcolm's worries should come to fruition-- the "next time" that Hammond was supposedly so foolish to believe in.
The novel on the other hand does a much better job of explaining chaos theory and why the park is doomed to fail.

Jurassic World was much less "anti-science" than the original. The conceit was that we actually can live in harmony with dinosaurs if we respect them, rather than mutating their DNA to make weapons. The tiny lagoon used for the Mosasaurus was our visual to communicate that such respect was lacking.

But here's the truth: even if he's called out for being smarmy and preachy (JP3 water truck scene), Malcolm is absolutely going to be portrayed with the logical one-up. But to bemoan that, here and now? Where have you been?

I'll end it with this: instead of getting upset about him being the moral authority, be happy if he isn't. The screenplay has been biased in his favor since day one.

So you're telling me to deal with this injustice of the movie being biased? Never.

I know JP had some anti-science stuff (the movie of course, novel is amazing at explaining stuff) and Malcolm is the voice of it, that's why I said I hate some of his lines and he'll never be always right, no matter how the fans love and adore his character. I know how to separate things. And I'm really tired of movies making scientists as evil people or putting science in the edge. Yet, those people are all hipocrites in trying to do that, because as I said, we live and we are living the way we live thanks to science. So I'll never ever deal with it, even if they make Malcolm the winner in the movie, I know it's not that way and science will win in the end, no matter what the screenwriters do. So I don't think I'm getting far in being upset because of this.

The reality shows us that, or do you really think they'll stop scientists to clonning mammonths or another animal. 

And I'll keep exposing this injustice, because people need to learn and accept more how science works. 

I always throught Malcolm had some anti-science lines, I'm just saying that now because I see people won't jump over me for saying that or want my head in a plate to call out a fan favorite character. As I grew up and read the novels, I  started to like another character more. I still like Malcolm, but that won't stop me for calling out he's flawed.


And clonning dinosaurs back is okay, you guys can't even imagine how many questions we could answer with it, paleontologists from all the world would freak their minds and want to know more about the dinosaurs, how they behaved, interacted, how they looked like...I disagree that clonning them was just to "toy around" with life. The fact that the movie doesn't adress this clearly doesn't mean JP Universe paleontologists didn't progress in studying those amazing animals. A lot of progress would be made.

I would sell my kidneys to have an opportunity to see those animals alive and study them.

My point is this: you're a fan of Jurassic Park in general now, right? In spite of the message you hate so much? Why are you able to look past it in JP if you're so bent out of shape about it now?

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Spinosaur4.4 wrote:

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Side note:

The term "anti-science" is really bugging me. I'm pretty damn sure that nobody on this board is "anti-science". In this context, using the term "anti-science" only serves as a blanket term to try and undermine the other side of the debate without actually providing an argument, and instead relating the other sides POV to the dogma that the hyper-religious far right types tend to spew.

In essence, it's an ad hominem.

But I'm not calling anyone anti-science here. I said Malcolm's line sometimes are. There's no ad hominem in this, as I put a lot of arguments to prove WHY it's anti-science.

Literally the only thing I would have changed about any of Malcolm's dialogue is adding the word "can" to his line about discovery being a "violent, penatrative act".

Other than that, I don't think any of his dialogue can simply be brushed aside and labeled as "anti-science".

You yourself stated that science is neutral, which I would agree with, and I'm sure Malcolm would agree with as well. The people that wield this power? Different story.

"Genetic power is the most awesome force the planet has ever seen, but you wield it like a kid that's found his dad's gun."

Certainly doesn't sound like "anti-science" to me. More so, it sounds like a man that simply doesn't have enough faith in mankind as a species to wield that power responsibly, to which I would agree with.

Well, that line about genetic power and the dad's gun isn't anti-science. I agree with it, because as I said science in the wrong hands turn out into a disaster. Yeah, science is neutral. It's amoral.

I think that and Ellie's lines about the "power of this place" in the ice cream scene are pretty much right into the point. It's too much power, it's amazing, but it can also own your mind.

But the "discovery" line still sounds too far IMO. Compare discovery as a whole (because if he didn't mean that, he would say "This discovery" or something like that) to rape is absurd. I can only imagine him saying that to the greatest genius people that existed in all humanity story...In this line he's basically comparing the entire goal of the scientific process ( comparing all of science itself)  to one of the most heinous crimes possible: rape. He wanted to paint science as something negative here.

BoulderFaceplant wrote:

Spinosaur4.4 wrote:

BoulderFaceplant wrote:

Frankly, this franchise has always been vehemently "anti-science" in some way or another. The closest we got to anything different was in JP3 when Grant finally sees Hammond's point of view when watching the dinosaurs grazing.

Spinosaur4.4, if you're going after JW2 for having these undertones, you ought to be disgusted with the first JP. Malcolm's argument was given false validation in the form of frog DNA and Nedry screwing them over. If it weren't for those clearly-preventable things, there is no reason that any of Malcolm's worries should come to fruition-- the "next time" that Hammond was supposedly so foolish to believe in.
The novel on the other hand does a much better job of explaining chaos theory and why the park is doomed to fail.

Jurassic World was much less "anti-science" than the original. The conceit was that we actually can live in harmony with dinosaurs if we respect them, rather than mutating their DNA to make weapons. The tiny lagoon used for the Mosasaurus was our visual to communicate that such respect was lacking.

But here's the truth: even if he's called out for being smarmy and preachy (JP3 water truck scene), Malcolm is absolutely going to be portrayed with the logical one-up. But to bemoan that, here and now? Where have you been?

I'll end it with this: instead of getting upset about him being the moral authority, be happy if he isn't. The screenplay has been biased in his favor since day one.

So you're telling me to deal with this injustice of the movie being biased? Never.

I know JP had some anti-science stuff (the movie of course, novel is amazing at explaining stuff) and Malcolm is the voice of it, that's why I said I hate some of his lines and he'll never be always right, no matter how the fans love and adore his character. I know how to separate things. And I'm really tired of movies making scientists as evil people or putting science in the edge. Yet, those people are all hipocrites in trying to do that, because as I said, we live and we are living the way we live thanks to science. So I'll never ever deal with it, even if they make Malcolm the winner in the movie, I know it's not that way and science will win in the end, no matter what the screenwriters do. So I don't think I'm getting far in being upset because of this.

The reality shows us that, or do you really think they'll stop scientists to clonning mammonths or another animal. 

And I'll keep exposing this injustice, because people need to learn and accept more how science works. 

I always throught Malcolm had some anti-science lines, I'm just saying that now because I see people won't jump over me for saying that or want my head in a plate to call out a fan favorite character. As I grew up and read the novels, I  started to like another character more. I still like Malcolm, but that won't stop me for calling out he's flawed.


And clonning dinosaurs back is okay, you guys can't even imagine how many questions we could answer with it, paleontologists from all the world would freak their minds and want to know more about the dinosaurs, how they behaved, interacted, how they looked like...I disagree that clonning them was just to "toy around" with life. The fact that the movie doesn't adress this clearly doesn't mean JP Universe paleontologists didn't progress in studying those amazing animals. A lot of progress would be made.

I would sell my kidneys to have an opportunity to see those animals alive and study them.

My point is this: you're a fan of Jurassic Park in general now, right? In spite of the message you hate so much? Why are you able to look past it in JP if you're so bent out of shape about it now?

JP message is: Be careful with science because sometimes it can go in the wrong hands and be dangerous, not "Science is evil and a rape to the natural world, scientists are demons".

Well, in the novel, Malcolm is the voice of Crichton, and in the movie Malcolm is the voice of this message too that science can be dangerous in the wrong hands, yes. BUT, there are a lot of ways that Malcolm can say that without labelying science and discovery as "rape" or something so negative  like that line. Just because I don't agree with that line or the WAY he says it doesn't mean I'm not a JP fan and I don't understand the message.

And I'll say something here that most people don't like to admit: Malcolm is arrogant. The way he says his lines like everyone else are just "dumb" kids is an evidence of that. Just because he's right doesn't mean he can be a prick or arrogant. There's a lot of cool ways he can lecture and pass the message down without being so agressive towards science in general. I like his character, but I also see he's flawed and not the owner of universal truth.

So basically what I'm trying to say is: Saying Malcolm went a little too far and tends to be obnoxious  =/= saying I don't like the entire message of the franchise.


PS: Sorry the double post, I forgot how I do multiple quotes.

Spinosaur4.4 wrote:

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Spinosaur4.4 wrote:

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Side note:

The term "anti-science" is really bugging me. I'm pretty damn sure that nobody on this board is "anti-science". In this context, using the term "anti-science" only serves as a blanket term to try and undermine the other side of the debate without actually providing an argument, and instead relating the other sides POV to the dogma that the hyper-religious far right types tend to spew.

In essence, it's an ad hominem.

But I'm not calling anyone anti-science here. I said Malcolm's line sometimes are. There's no ad hominem in this, as I put a lot of arguments to prove WHY it's anti-science.

Literally the only thing I would have changed about any of Malcolm's dialogue is adding the word "can" to his line about discovery being a "violent, penatrative act".

Other than that, I don't think any of his dialogue can simply be brushed aside and labeled as "anti-science".

You yourself stated that science is neutral, which I would agree with, and I'm sure Malcolm would agree with as well. The people that wield this power? Different story.

"Genetic power is the most awesome force the planet has ever seen, but you wield it like a kid that's found his dad's gun."

Certainly doesn't sound like "anti-science" to me. More so, it sounds like a man that simply doesn't have enough faith in mankind as a species to wield that power responsibly, to which I would agree with.

Well, that line about genetic power and the dad's gun isn't anti-science. I agree with it, because as I said science in the wrong hands turn out into a disaster. Yeah, science is neutral. It's amoral.

I think that and Ellie's lines about the "power of this place" in the ice cream scene are pretty much right into the point. It's too much power, it's amazing, but it can also own your mind.

But the "discovery" line still sounds too far IMO. Compare discovery as a whole (because if he didn't mean that, he would say "This discovery" or something like that) to rape is absurd. I can only imagine him saying that to the greatest genius people that existed in all humanity story...In this line he's basically comparing the entire goal of the scientific process ( comparing all of science itself)  to one of the most heinous crimes possible: rape. He wanted to paint science as something negative here.

I think it was assumed that he meant within the context of the situation.

Seems to simply be an issue of semantics.