Let's talk about the best movie ever made: Jurassic Park.
I don't mean "best" in the sense of most artistic or any other quality, but a harmony of every quality a movie is going for. This ranges from popularity as entertainment, to extremely well integrated commentary on both the future of the human race and cinema itself. If you want more, ask me. The belt-buckling scene alone.
I want to talk about what Jurassic Park is about.
Stephen Spielberg is probably not a luddite about genetic experiments. And the movie was a metaphor for CGI, a trend he has been supportive of. Spielberg's role in CGI is basically John Hammond. So what he thinks of the substance of the idea of the movie is probably not that creating dinosaurs is playing God that will inevitably backfire on us.
And objectively speaking, that is probably not what cloning dinosaurs would end up like. (For one, why are you putting so much effort into cloning large predators that are such a risk you have to isolate them and spend triple on containment, before you have even launched the park. Surely starting with protoceratops and therapods is enough while still working out the kinks.)
But. What is the movie about?
The movie is about how creating dinosaurs is playing God that will inevitably backfire on us. That is what is on the goddamn screen. At the end the island has been conquered, and the few survivors are fleeing having learned a costly lesson about hubris. You can be contrarian and come up with other layers underneath or on top of that interpretation, but there's no denying "fleeing your mistake in horror" is what is going on.
The only way to make it starker would be to call it "the Scientists of Jurassic Park" or "The Scientists Who Fucked Up Jurassic Park."
Let's talk about "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas." Everyone has their post about what the story truly means. Of what TOWWAfO is really about. Ursula K Leguin, the author herself, says she was inspired by the question of why can't we accept a perfect utopia, and how a single horrible detail suddenly makes it more engaging. Maybe that really is the path that started her on the story.
People talk about how foolish we would be to give up that utopia for an individual price, or how we should free the child, or dozens of interpretations. And I do believe they genuinely thought this in response to the prompt the story presents us.
The story ends with a few people walking away from the city. The title of the story is The One Who Walk Away. The story presents a corrupt bargain, people who accept it, and the implication that destroying it would also be compromise of a sort. The solution the story presents, because that is what people do and it is described positively, is to just be someone who is untouched by the child or the utopia.
These people are described in a certain register. Not as smart or as righteous. They're described somewhat enigmatically and and calmly. This is a positive register in this form of media at that time. Overly smart people are assholes, and righteous people are dangerous, in genre lit. If the story was about these cowards shirking their duty, it would have used different words. Instead it portrays them as the best type of character that genre media valorizes: someone who prizes moral purity and is confident enough to not need to explain it. Someone who's answer to the trolley problem is to just walk away.
I honestly can't think of any character in genre media described that way, who is a villain or negatively portrayed.
This is what the entire concluding section of the story is about. The title is not referring to the city or the utopia, but to the ones who walk away. And I honestly don't see how those ones are at all connected to a theme of "we don't believe in a utopia where no one gets hurt." It's a theme of enigmatically smug moral superiority.
Which is like, fine. It's a classic, beloved story for a reason. But that is what actually happens in the story. It is not about revolution, or the nature of real utopia, or a dozen other clever ideas. It is a story about walking away.