James L’Angelle
University of Nevada, Reno
Dr. C. Chaput
04 October 2020
Genetics, Ethics, Natural Selection and Extinction
The genre of modern day dinosaurs in film is nothing new. What was new in the Michael Crichton novel, “The Lost World,” adapted for the big screen by Steven Spielberg and produced as “Jurassic Park,” (1993) was the concept of genetic engineering to recreate the extinct creatures from millennia past. The billionaire John Hammond (Richard Attenborough) invites three scientists to his island showcase for a safety check where the newly hatched and fully grown dinosaurs serve to function as a theme park. The outcome is anything but a success and it is prefaced in a particular scene of the film where the scientists debate with Hammond on the ethics and dangers of the enterprise. The scene has come to be known as “The Lunch Debate.”
In that scene, the first to criticize Hammond is Dr. Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum), a rather cynical mathematician who raises the specter of ethics in a forensic attack on the role of the scientists involved in developing the dinosaurs. Critical of genetic engineering, but also the part played by nature in condemning dinosaurs to extinction, Malcolm unravels Hammond’s plans to promote his island sanctuary as a tourist mecca in a scathing frontal assault; “Don't you see the danger, John, inherent in what you're doing here? Genetic power is the most awesome force ever seen on this planet. But you wield it like a kid who's found his dad's gun.”
Hammond makes an attempt to defend himself by comparing what he is doing to, in effect, saving some endangered species from extinction, like the condors. Malcolm again takes the offense;
“Hold on - - this is no species that was obliterated by deforestation or the building of a dam. Dinosaurs had their shot. Nature selected them for extinction.”
Combining factual evidence with history, Malcolm has made a substantial forensic statement using the past, natural selection and recent events, deforestation and land reclamation, to prove his argument. Hammond turns to Dr. Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) hoping to defend his position. Sattler is a paleobotanist and bases her analysis on epideixis;
“The question is - - how much can you know about an extinct ecosystem, and therefore, how could you assume you can control it? You have plants right here in this building, for example, that are poisonous. You picked them because they look pretty, but these are aggressive living things that have no idea what century they're living in…”
Once again, the role of rhetoric takes center stage in the lunch debate but this time in the present, what is known as the “here and now.” Without referring to the dinosaurs, Sattler illustrates yet another erroneous assumption made by Hammond and his genetic engineers, which characterized in Malcolm’s words, “your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.” Bewildered by the barrage of reason, Hammond finally turns to the de facto leader of the safety commission, Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neill), the paleontologist. Having exhausted two out of three rhetorical roles, Grant takes the deliberative approach;
“Dinosaurs and man - - two species separated by 65 million years of evolution - - have just been suddenly thrown back into the mix together. How can we have the faintest idea of what to expect?”
The past, present and future arguments from the scientists anticipate the failure of Hammond’s dream as the dinosaurs eventually run wild all over the island, feasting on whichever human was made available.
Certainly a more formal method might have been used to analyze the scene but the three Aristotelian components of forensic, epideictic and deliberative proved the best match. Each scientist used a different technique to challenge Hammond’s assertion, his defense of unethical methods for the sake of financial gain. Malcolm, Sattler and Grant exhibited, as well, ethos, pathos and logos in their challenges. Malcolm saw an ethical question, Sattler appealed to Hammond’s pathos and Grant’s citing evolution made a convincing logical extrapolation into what was on the horizon. Are their arguments convincing?
From the standpoint of their rhetoric, genetic engineering is dangerous, whether used for purely esoteric purposes or incorporated into a living, breathing theme park environment. If the view can hold that it is dangerous for the latter, it may well pose a threat for the former. Using modern Frankenstein techniques to bring back to life what nature has condemned to extinction has moral and evolutionary challenges that need to be addressed before the fact, not after. The lunch debate addressed those concerns in no uncertain terms that could be firmly established through rhetorical discourse.
Cited
Jurassic Park, (1970) “The Lunch Debate,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldD_4Puw6RM
Garver, Eugene. “Aristotle on the Kinds of Rhetoric.” Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric, vol. 27, no. 1, 2009, pp. 1–18. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/rh.2009.27.1.1. Accessed 4 Oct. 2020.
WRÓBEL, SZYMON. “‘Logos, Ethos, Pathos’. Classical Rhetoric Revisited.” Polish Sociological Review, no. 191, 2015, pp. 401–421., www.jstor.org/stable/44113896. Accessed 4 Oct. 2020.
Hammond makes an attempt to defend himself by comparing what he is doing to, in effect, saving some endangered species from extinction, like the condors. Malcolm again takes the offense;
“Hold on - - this is no species that was obliterated by deforestation or the building of a dam. Dinosaurs had their shot. Nature selected them for extinction.”
Combining factual evidence with history, Malcolm has made a substantial forensic statement using the past, natural selection and recent events, deforestation and land reclamation, to prove his argument. Hammond turns to Dr. Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) hoping to defend his position. Sattler is a paleobotanist and bases her analysis on epideixis;
“The question is - - how much can you know about an extinct ecosystem, and therefore, how could you assume you can control it? You have plants right here in this building, for example, that are poisonous. You picked them because they look pretty, but these are aggressive living things that have no idea what century they're living in…”
Once again, the role of rhetoric takes center stage in the lunch debate but this time in the present, what is known as the “here and now.” Without referring to the dinosaurs, Sattler illustrates yet another erroneous assumption made by Hammond and his genetic engineers, which characterized in Malcolm’s words, “your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.” Bewildered by the barrage of reason, Hammond finally turns to the de facto leader of the safety commission, Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neill), the paleontologist. Having exhausted two out of three rhetorical roles, Grant takes the deliberative approach;
“Dinosaurs and man - - two species separated by 65 million years of evolution - - have just been suddenly thrown back into the mix together. How can we have the faintest idea of what to expect?”
The past, present and future arguments from the scientists anticipate the failure of Hammond’s dream as the dinosaurs eventually run wild all over the island, feasting on whichever human was made available.
Certainly a more formal method might have been used to analyze the scene but the three Aristotelian components of forensic, epideictic and deliberative proved the best match. Each scientist used a different technique to challenge Hammond’s assertion, his defense of unethical methods for the sake of financial gain. Malcolm, Sattler and Grant exhibited, as well, ethos, pathos and logos in their challenges. Malcolm saw an ethical question, Sattler appealed to Hammond’s pathos and Grant’s citing evolution made a convincing logical extrapolation into what was on the horizon. Are their arguments convincing?
From the standpoint of their rhetoric, genetic engineering is dangerous, whether used for purely esoteric purposes or incorporated into a living, breathing theme park environment. If the view can hold that it is dangerous for the latter, it may well pose a threat for the former. Using modern Frankenstein techniques to bring back to life what nature has condemned to extinction has moral and evolutionary challenges that need to be addressed before the fact, not after. The lunch debate addressed those concerns in no uncertain terms that could be firmly established through rhetorical discourse.
Cited
Jurassic Park, (1970) “The Lunch Debate,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldD_4Puw6RM
Garver, Eugene. “Aristotle on the Kinds of Rhetoric.” Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric, vol. 27, no. 1, 2009, pp. 1–18. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/rh.2009.27.1.1. Accessed 4 Oct. 2020.
WRÓBEL, SZYMON. “‘Logos, Ethos, Pathos’. Classical Rhetoric Revisited.” Polish Sociological Review, no. 191, 2015, pp. 401–421., www.jstor.org/stable/44113896. Accessed 4 Oct. 2020.