It wasn't science fiction, just silly childish fun. Invoking it was stupid vs. having some intelligent commentary on the subject but apparently/person saying anything with "dinosaurs" is now newsworthy.
Ooooh! DINOS! Movies! That's clickbait for retards.
I really want to understand the deliberate suckification of Slashdot. The "quality" of so many threads is bad enough to be considered sabotage and far from usefully techy.
How was Jurassic Park not science fiction? It was based on a science that does not exist, and one day will. The ability to manipulate DNA in arbitrary ways and grow whatever you want in an egg will definitely happen eventually.
It was science fiction in the sense that Asimov's books were science fiction - the tech existed to build robots vis-a-vis dinosaurs, just not in a way that was at that time feasible. Now both Asimov's books and Crichton's book is technically possible to execute and it's become more clear that it's at least not impossible as many thought for decades after the books were written.
It's technically feasible to build a dinosaur today, hell, we now know we actually HAVE dinosaurs still in existence (some shark and crocodilian species as well as a host of insects and bacteria presumably haven't evolved (much) in millions of years). The question is whether whatever results from these genetic modifications will be feasible, and whether producing a bunch of animals that aren't feasible to live properly, presumably for fun, is ethical. Because in the end, they won't be exact replica's of dinosaurs, they will be imitation dinosaurs and thus have no scientific value on the history of dinosaurs so the scientific value except for the production of designer species is close to nil.
Jurassic Park was silly as intended. (Score:3, Interesting)
It wasn't science fiction, just silly childish fun. Invoking it was stupid vs. having some intelligent commentary on the subject but apparently /person saying anything with "dinosaurs" is now newsworthy.
Ooooh! DINOS! Movies! That's clickbait for retards.
I really want to understand the deliberate suckification of Slashdot. The "quality" of so many threads is bad enough to be considered sabotage and far from usefully techy.
Re: (Score:0)
Re:Jurassic Park was silly as intended. (Score:0)
It was science fiction in the sense that Asimov's books were science fiction - the tech existed to build robots vis-a-vis dinosaurs, just not in a way that was at that time feasible. Now both Asimov's books and Crichton's book is technically possible to execute and it's become more clear that it's at least not impossible as many thought for decades after the books were written.
It's technically feasible to build a dinosaur today, hell, we now know we actually HAVE dinosaurs still in existence (some shark and crocodilian species as well as a host of insects and bacteria presumably haven't evolved (much) in millions of years). The question is whether whatever results from these genetic modifications will be feasible, and whether producing a bunch of animals that aren't feasible to live properly, presumably for fun, is ethical. Because in the end, they won't be exact replica's of dinosaurs, they will be imitation dinosaurs and thus have no scientific value on the history of dinosaurs so the scientific value except for the production of designer species is close to nil.