Malcolm holds the belief that complex systems can, and often will, suddenly unravel in a
potentially catastrophic way. As they mentioned earlier in the book, this effect occurred in the
simulations Malcolm was hired to run in order to assess Jurassic Park, but the conflict comes
from Hammond not taking the warnings seriously. Arnold seems as though he has been a
believer in the park from the beginning and is proud of the work he has put into it to get it to its
current state. Like Hammond, he believes in his own ability to control the system he built in spite
of how complex and untested it is. So far, Hammond and Arnold seem to be in the right, but
there is still plenty of work to be done before the park is restored to order.
​
Maybe it is because I have a general idea of how the story is going to turn out, but I find
myself siding with Malcolm. According to Hammond, Jurassic Park is a zoo that just happens to
have some extremely exotic animals. While this might be true in principle, it is a gross
oversimplification and neglects the immense number of unknowns that come with genetically
cloning dinosaurs and trying to keep them in captivity on such a large plot of land. Since a
project of this scale had never been attempted before, none of the park’s engineers could have
possibly had enough experience to cover all loose ends, and the park is vulnerable to collapse as
a result. I also agree with Malcolm that the animals themselves add a number of unknown
variables that compound the danger, as if running a completely electrified compound on an
undeveloped island in the ocean wasn’t difficult enough. Since they lived over 66 million years
ago, every aspect of dinosaur biology is different from today, all the way down to the proteins. It
is likely that they possessed some abilities that can no longer be found in living organisms. In the
book, an example of this is the dinosaurs changing sex in order to fill an ecological need.
Malcolm argues that these abilities make the dinosaurs ungovernable, and I believe he is right.
​
Regarding Malcolm’s conversation with Dr. Sattler, I disagree with his view that science
has not made any advancements since the 1930s. He argues that the average person spent the
same amount of time doing household chores in the 90s as in the 30s, but this is not evidence of
a lack of scientific progress. In fact, rapid advancements in transportation, such as the invention
of airliners, have made travelling the world easier than ever, and Norman Borlaug’s discoveries
in plant genetics and crossbreeding saved billions of lives all over the world. Never in human
history have people been able to enjoy many of the technologies we take for granted today, and
they are all the products of science and engineering. On the other hand, I am more in agreement
with his point about science being dominated by profit margins and “thintelligent” people, like
John Hammond. The priority of raising stakeholder value is a product of our modern economies
and does not necessarily align itself well with the pursuit for knowledge, but that does not mean
that there are not scientific advancements being made.