## Could We? Should We? If there is a single question that anchors *Films from the Future*, it is this: just because we can develop a technology, does that mean we should? It surfaces in nearly every chapter, taking different forms with each film, but always circling back to the gap between capability and wisdom. The question is deceptively simple. In practice, it opens onto a landscape of competing values, uncertain consequences, and uncomfortable tradeoffs. And it is a question that becomes more urgent as our technological capabilities accelerate beyond our collective ability to anticipate where they will lead. ### The Folly of Entrepreneurial Arrogance Jurassic Park provides the book's most vivid illustration of this tension. John Hammond's dream of resurrecting dinosaurs through genetic engineering is driven by ambition and showmanship. He assembles brilliant scientists, builds elaborate safety systems, and convinces himself that he has everything under control. Ian Malcolm's objections, rooted in chaos theory, are brushed aside as academic hand-wringing. What makes Jurassic Park such a powerful starting point is not just that things go spectacularly wrong, but *why* they go wrong. Hammond's failure is not primarily technical. It is a failure of imagination and humility. He never seriously entertains the possibility that his safeguards might not be enough, that the systems he has created might behave in ways he cannot predict. The book uses this as a launching pad for exploring how real-world de-extinction science raises the same fundamental questions about the limits of human foresight. ### The Quiet Horror of Acceptance Never Let Me Go approaches the question from the opposite direction. Where Jurassic Park dramatizes the moment of reckless creation, Never Let Me Go shows what happens long after a morally questionable technology has been accepted. In the film's alternate England, human cloning for organ harvesting has become normalized. Society has answered the "should we?" question with a collective shrug, and the consequences are devastating. The film's power lies in how ordinary everything feels. The clones attend school, form friendships, fall in love. The technology that will kill them operates not through dramatic catastrophe but through quiet, bureaucratic inevitability. The book draws on this to explore how easily societies accommodate technologies that serve the majority at terrible cost to a few, as long as the cost is borne by people who can be defined as somehow less than fully human. ### The Seduction of Enhancement Limitless adds another dimension to the question. The film's protagonist discovers a drug that unlocks the full potential of his brain, and the results are intoxicating. Unlike the clearly dangerous technologies in other films, NZT-48 appears, at least initially, to be genuinely beneficial. The question is not whether the technology works, but what it means to use it. The book uses Limitless to explore the growing real-world market for cognitive enhancers and the assumptions embedded in our culture about intelligence and success. If a pill can make you smarter, faster, more capable, why would you refuse it? And if you do refuse, what happens when everyone around you does not? The "should we?" question here is not about preventing catastrophe but about navigating a world where the pressure to enhance is relentless and the line between choice and coercion blurs. ### When the Ends Seem to Justify the Means Inferno pushes the question to its most extreme. Bertrand Zobrist, the film's antagonist, is convinced that overpopulation will destroy humanity. His solution is a genetically engineered virus designed to sterilize a significant portion of the global population. In his mind, the math is clear: short-term suffering prevents long-term extinction. The book takes Zobrist's logic seriously, not because it endorses it, but because it illustrates the danger of certainty combined with capability. Zobrist has both the conviction that he is right and the resources to act on that conviction. The gap between "could" and "should" collapses entirely when a single individual decides that their moral calculus overrides everyone else's right to choose. ### Questions Worth Sitting With Across these four films, the book reveals that "could we? should we?" is never a single question. It fractures into many: - Who gets to decide what technologies are developed, and on what basis? - What happens when our capability to create outpaces our wisdom to govern? - How do we distinguish genuine benefit from technological vanity or hubris? - When a technology offers clear advantages to some at the expense of others, how do we weigh those competing interests? - Is there a meaningful difference between choosing not to develop a technology and choosing to accept the status quo? These are not questions with clean answers. But the book argues persuasively that failing to ask them, or leaving them to be answered only by those with the power and resources to build, is itself a choice with consequences. For the specific technologies that raise these questions, see [De-Extinction](/est_de_extinction.html), [Cloning](/est_cloning.html), [Smart Drugs and Cognitive Enhancement](/est_smart_drugs.html), and [Gain-of-Function Research](/est_gain_of_function.html). For how this tension connects to who bears the consequences, see [Power, Privilege, and Access](/rei_power_privilege_access.html) and [Intergenerational Responsibility](/rei_intergenerational_responsibility.html). ## Further Reading - [What can sci-fi movies teach us about technology ethics?](https://www.futureofbeinghuman.com/p/want-to-get-smart-about-technology-ethics-these-sci-fi-movies-can-help-3cebedf29c9c) — Andrew Maynard explores how science fiction films serve as accessible entry points for thinking through the ethical dimensions of emerging technologies. The piece makes the case that movies like those in *Films from the Future* offer a uniquely powerful way to engage with the "could we, should we" question. - [Jurassic Park — Moviegoer's Guide to the Future (Episode 2)](https://www.futureofbeinghuman.com/p/jurassic-park-moviegoers-guide-to-the-future) — In this podcast episode, Andrew Maynard dives into how Jurassic Park dramatizes the tension between scientific capability and the wisdom to use it responsibly. The discussion connects the film's themes of hubris and unintended consequences to real-world debates about de-extinction and genetic engineering. - [Innovating responsibly in a culture of entrepreneurship](https://www.futureofbeinghuman.com/p/responsible-innovation) — This piece examines how the drive to innovate can outpace our ability to foresee consequences, particularly in entrepreneurial cultures that reward speed over caution. Maynard explores what it means to embed responsibility into the innovation process itself. - [The Precautionary Principle — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/precautionary-principle/) — A thorough philosophical treatment of when and how we should exercise caution in the face of uncertain but potentially serious technological risks. The entry examines competing formulations of the principle and their implications for science policy and innovation governance.