Sorkin vs. Harding - Extinction or Survival?
Just thought I'd pose the question - would you rather allow the dinosaurs to survive on the island, free of the lysine-dependency but with the small chance of something getting off the island, or destory the island and kill all the dinosaurs, thus halting the evolution of a species wiped from the planet long ago but sending species extinct forever. Or would you take the dinosaurs off the island and onto the mainland?
It's your choice, but I have to say destroy the dinosaurs. They aren't on the planet anymore, and they aren't ready for our world. They are a different species, a whole new class of animals. How could we, seperated by them by millions of years of evolution, possibly know what to expect? One of many possiblities is that they could bring a new disease and change the planet. Or they could spread far more rapidly than even turtles. Not a clutch of 200 eggs - a clutch of, say, 1000. And those 1000 would lay 1000 more. 1000000 that fast. It just goes on...(sorry if I sound a bit paranoid, I'm very opinionated). The theroy is dinosaurs are like birds. But that's just a theroy. And anyway, I don't believe in most theroys - after all, they are just a guess. And who's to say the dinosaurs are what we guess them to be? (Naturally, I won't end up working as a scientist).
To sum it up, in the words of Jack Forman from Micheal Crichton's book Prey, "They didn't understand what they were doing.
I'm afraid that will be on the tombstone of the human race.
I hope it's not.
We might get lucky."
So what are your thoughs? Save or destroy?
Oh, and please don't start a really heated debate. This is just for fun. (Although I guess that I did make it seem really serious)
It's your choice, but I have to say destroy the dinosaurs. They aren't on the planet anymore, and they aren't ready for our world. They are a different species, a whole new class of animals. How could we, seperated by them by millions of years of evolution, possibly know what to expect? One of many possiblities is that they could bring a new disease and change the planet. Or they could spread far more rapidly than even turtles. Not a clutch of 200 eggs - a clutch of, say, 1000. And those 1000 would lay 1000 more. 1000000 that fast. It just goes on...(sorry if I sound a bit paranoid, I'm very opinionated). The theroy is dinosaurs are like birds. But that's just a theroy. And anyway, I don't believe in most theroys - after all, they are just a guess. And who's to say the dinosaurs are what we guess them to be? (Naturally, I won't end up working as a scientist).
To sum it up, in the words of Jack Forman from Micheal Crichton's book Prey, "They didn't understand what they were doing.
I'm afraid that will be on the tombstone of the human race.
I hope it's not.
We might get lucky."
So what are your thoughs? Save or destroy?
Oh, and please don't start a really heated debate. This is just for fun. (Although I guess that I did make it seem really serious)
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
What exactly is a theroy?
sp*
I'd have to say carpet bombing is a little excessive. I'd use toxic gas.
Then attempt to re-build and re-stock the island with new security, all the fences would be separate from the security grid. In fact it would be a manual process. I think being that's what I'd do if I were Peter Ludlow.
The mainland idea is a terrible, terrible idea....Whoever decided "let's make Jurassic Park on the mainland in a populated area, in a small amphitheatre"
It's THE worst design EVER. Plus the mainland didn't have the right temperature or plant/animal life.
Escape is not likely. A Mosasaur? It would be spotted very quickly. Many animals may die, but let's just completely eliminate that option of even breeding one. Ptereanadons I doubt would migrate anywhere. They live close enough to the equator. Do you expect a velociraptor to swim 120 miles? I doubt it.
I saw keep the island alive, or don't bring it back at all. What's the point of raising something you've worked so hard on, you decided this to be your life, then within 2 months, it's gone.
I believe Dr. Sorkin would back me up on this. ^-^
well in Jp2 and i assume 3 InGen owns both isla sorna and isla nublar even though both facilities are destroyed. and hammond monitored sorna regularly after hurricane clarissa, i think nublar would have done fine untouched but i wouldnt mind seeing a film about the park succeding....they just need to use common sense...a petting zoo full of protoceratops would be fine by me....
Common sense like not hiring a computer programmer with a financial grudge against you, fully automating most essential park systems, or having a hippy environmentalist on your staff?
why would you create something that dangerous, if they were smarter than the velociraptors, and she would have known they would of gotten out, why not of exterminated them before they had a chance of breaking out of the fences in the first place, a lttle bit more research before they cloned them would have been a good idea
Research on animals that haven't existed before? Also, the Troodons were supposed to be euthanized. Sorkin didn't want to do that so she hid them.
well dr. sorkin is really stupid for doing that, and risked a lot of lives
You might not believe but WE and MOST VERTEBRATES are Lysine-dependent!! We eat plants and flesh to get Lysine. Crichton clearly didn't perform enough research on that part. In Operation Genesis they replaced the lysine-dependency with a Lethal-gene. I wish they also used that in Jurassic Park: The Game. The whole scene about putting Lysine in the water etc. looks all so stupid to me.
Why not?
Many times when I tell people that scientists are trying to recreate mammoths, dinosaurs dodo's etc they ask "what is the purpose of recreating them?" Then I have a surprise: there has never existed anything that has a purpose. We say that something has purpose when there are enough fools that care for it.
Look at extinction. In not a single mythology a species comes extinct. When extinction was discovered in the 19th century most people didn't liked and opposed the idea of extinction. Why? Many think because most people then where christian and the bible never mentioned extinction. I think it is deeper: extinction is ugly. People first didn't believed in extinction and later didn't liked it because it isn't nice to live in a Universe where a magnificent group of animals can be put into oblivion like it never existed.
As soon as science emerged people started to change things in their surroundings. Stories like Jurassic Park, Frankenstein and the Island of Dr. Moreau wanted to show that it isn't good to interfere with nature. In the stories the main characters DO interfere and disaster follows. But it ALL stories the disasters are the results of the stupidity of the scientists themselves, not their creations.
So, interference with nature itself won't cause more disasters than other actions. Should we just accept nature as it is, and treat it like some kind of 'godess'. Must we leave the dinosaurs dead because Mother Nature wanted it like that?
If a new meteorite is coming to earth, ready to destroy 90% of all species, should mankind just sit there and let it happen? I think we would all do anything to blow the stone back into space. Then why should we just accept that it did destroy dinosaurs in the past?
But will dinosaurs destroy mankind? Is a park full of dinosaurs gonna be sustainable? As I said the fall of Jurassic Park is the fault of Nedry and the extremely bad emergency response team of the park. Thousands of dangerous animals live in zoos of the western world, species that were separeted by millions of years of evolution. And did they broke out and destroyed mankind???
Dinosaurs did not reproduce that fast. They were not insects. Theories are no guesses, paranoid. And we could design them to reproduce slower.
Contagious diseases are caused by germs. we recreate dinosaurs, not their germs. And even when we accidentely do, microbes or virusses are species-specific. You can't get a cold from your dog. So, we can be pretty sure we can't be sick by dinosaur virusses.
But on the mainland they are treat to the existing ecosystems right?
Well, take the book that inspired Jurassic Park: The Lost World by Conan Doyle. His dinosaurs also live in isolation from the rest of the world, but not on an island, on a plateau. High cliffs isolate the creatures, IF one create jumps from it, it is dead.
Especially in jungle warfare where its all nice and dark good for the troodons never to get spotted and make short work of any enemy soldier,oh yes it could be quite a profitable business,perhaps replacing the need of soldiers.
Its also nice they dispose of the enemy bodies and use them as nests for their young,quite a cost effective and productive method.
The raptors on the other hand is a matter of how much they can learn and progress and evolve..both dinosaurs have their special perks.
i agree too.
Dr. Sorkin would be proud of us.