Jurassic Park is far less a critique of capitalism than engineering (and civilization). Wu is very clear that he's not an inquirer or discoverer, he's an engineer. Arnold and Nedry are engineers. Malcolm critiques science and civ explicitly, but his first enemy is engineering.
The only *scientists* in Jurassic Park are Grant, Sattler, and Malcolm. They're brought in to examine the failures of those who engineered the creatures and the park.

And while the profit motive helps spur the park, the specific failures it had are from *engineering* hubris.
Everyone remembers the one scene of criticism they allowed Malcolm in the film's version where he complains about the rapid commodification of nature, but this was a rewriting of his critique into a very different form people were used to. And it's promptly undermined by Hammond.
In the butchered version of Jurassic Park that made it to film Hammond isn't even a capitalist. He bypasses & avoids pure profit. Nedry is, but he's held up as exception & external to the structure of the park.

So in neither the novel nor the film is capitalism the Park's sin.
In the film the problem is the creatures "you made dinosaurs but forgot they eat people, and then some asshole let them loose"

In the novel the problem is the park "this attempt to set up modernist systems of surveillance and control over the world are inherently doomed"
Like there's a REASON the ending of Jurassic Park is the surviving humans coexisting with the animals, it's because they're not the problem, The Park is the problem.

But an ending scene like them going into the raptor nest and NOT killing one another could never work in the film
Like Jurassic Park is so not a critique of capitalism & the profit motive but a critique of engineering, modernist control, & civilization that it could EASILY have been altered to have been a product of the USSR or Cuba (Jurassic Park takes place BEFORE the Soviet Union fell).

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with William Gillis 🏴

William Gillis 🏴 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @rechelon

7 Oct
So Trump has almost certainly been pressuring the FBI to focus on investigating antifascists for years now, via replacing leadership, DOJ edicts, etc. No doubt there are at least a dozen open deep investigations of various groups. And Trump wants a public show before Nov 3rd.
I have been assuming for four years now that mass raids to enable public show declarations about the horrible "criminal" antifa menace will come this month.

On the other hand the FBI rank n file are going to object "but we don't have much, we need to keep surveilling"
The FBI obviously wants to destroy the anarchist movement, they're not honorable or progressives, they'll happily lie and use clearly absurd overreaches of power against us. However. They're educated and long-term about it. They see themselves as apolitical re elections.
Read 26 tweets
6 Oct
I admit I called this wrong.

The Crime Nerd thought Sarah could win, and I simply didn't expect ANY Ted voters in the primary to flip to Sarah. I expected 35% Sarah, 60-65% Ted, 1-5% Teressa.

I must now update my priors & prepare to pay out a bet.
For Ted to collapse from ~50% of the vote in the primary to 30% is very surprising to me. I expected more class consciousness from middle class liberals, I probably assumed too much political awareness. I thought Ted was so toxic by the primary his remaining base was unswayable.
In trying to correct for the fact that I'm embedded in left circles I tend to take pamplin, nextdoor, and reddit as representative of huge chunks of portland. And everything I saw indicated the city's normie middle classes HATE Sarah (and Chloe).
Read 4 tweets
5 Oct
I think this is a clearheaded evaluation from Gelderloos. Although his aside against antifa is eyeroll-inducing, and there's no real discussion of eg RWDS door-to-door extermination campaigns.
"The framework of antifascism" is not "pan leftist unity" that papers over the danger from auth leftists and the managerial organizer class it's vigilant and unpopular conflict with much of the left. Long term antifascists HATE tankies and protest managers.
And while Gelderloos emphasizes the success of antifascists at holding the streets contra fascist attacks, I think there's a chance we'll enter a space that looks nothing like what antifa has succeeded against so far. RWDS shit requires different mobilization/organization.
Read 4 tweets
4 Oct
The break around, "but what if inaccurate models make me happy?!" I think highlights the difference between "anarchy as instrumental value" and "anarchy as terminal value."

I'm not an anarchist to make people happy, but to increase freedom (which will make many unhappy).
There are a number of people who identify as anarchists because they believe anarchist struggle or modes of society will achieve some sort of OTHER more ultimate goal, like saving the environment or increasing happiness.

This makes them *contingent* anarchists.
I often find these values to come in a vague cluster with contradictory & conflictual relations. This is, after all, the default state of humans. We often treat desires as random happenstance emergence in chaotic conflict, so why not continue to leave deeper values in such state?
Read 14 tweets
4 Oct
Models of the universe can be more or less accurate. Accuracy is necessary for informed consent and agency. Self-delusions can be momentarily advantageous in limited contexts but in the long-run they're impediments to freedom.
Yes, religion isn't *just* a set of ontological claims or models. But the other things the lumpy concept historically comprises: community, identity, ritual, tradition... are ultimately bad too. They infringe upon and impede fully active individual agency.
We are all -- as limited creatures -- forced into pragmatically engaging with some level of reactionary bullshit, but that shouldn't blind us from our ultimate goal of unshackling ourselves from such and becoming more aware, reflective, rational, or agential.
Read 6 tweets
14 Sep
"Saying a slur isn't as bad as other bad things in the world, so I'm gonna do it" is a perennially favorite whataboutism, but it's worth engaging with the damage of the act.

There are a few good reasons we don't ever tolerate slurs in anarchist or leftist spaces...
1) Obviously slurs like microaggressions et al directly impact some oppressed people in terms of broad psychological overhead, etc. But there's also the issue of signaling who's at home in certain spaces.
This is quite obviously why certain dipshits love throwing around slurs -- they want to aggressively vice signal that "only those with thick skins who don't care" are welcome, their crowd. And it only takes a few getting away with it to make that the default.
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!