Simply put the failing was not to only clone herbivores as the overall scale of the project, the pace of the project and its growth, and the complexity and unknowns of the project would demand any prudent and responsible person would have taken much greater care and realistically things should have been on a much smaller scale Over a much longer timeline.
There is also the fact that near as we can tell almost no other precautions were taken or serious thought given to how dangerous some of these animals were. So I mean…
Hubris. Even if you think that herbivores would have solved the problem- cloning carnivores was hubris by Hammond and team.

The timeline puts the cloning of dinosaurs and site B at less than 10 years before the events of the first Jurassic park.
Hammond started construction of the park in the late 80’s (88?) and Grant and Ellie are invited to tour in 93. That’s 5 years from starting construction to completion. 1986 was Injens first cloning of a dinosaur. 7 years before. It was an “ambitious” project would be an understatement.
Beyond that the “dinosaurs” were not truly such, instead using other DNA to “fill in gaps” and through the in universe works we see numerous often extreme ways that this results in unpredictability and unforeseen results.

The premise of Jurassic park would be like if instead of sending up a satellite or a dog into orbit we created the first exo atmospheric rocket and decided to try and send an entire 3rd grade school class to Mars with it. The non subtle message of the whole work is hubris- not necessarily anti science or advancement- but Hammond over reached his grasp. His “playing god” wasn’t because he “made life,” he was “playing god” because he thought he was infallible. “Nothing can possibly go wrong…” He wanted his park so he rushed and cut corners and took on a MONUMENTAL and complex task that should take a lifetime or more to get to where they were at the start of the first film- and he did it in a few years more or less.

Had they brought back small herbivores and studied them for years or decades, and slowly added more types of dinosaur over years and decades to allow them to understand the behaviors and capabilities of the creatures, potential dangers and challenges, they could have prepared much better and been in a better position to manage the risks. Of course the parks systems were laughably poorly designed, overly centralized and without proper safe guards and fail safes, without proper redundancies and hard locks or overides. Management was terrible and staffing was atrocious. Think of the ethical malfeasance- they cloned a huge variety of animals in great numbers that they didn’t even have the proper knowledge to provide veterans care for, enrichment and fulfillment.

The underlying lie is that relationships “complete us” vs. Relationships can enhance us. A good relationship is a wonderful thing. It is whatever works between those involved that allows them to be happy and betters their lives. Of course we can say that many things might enhance life. Owning a boat, traveling to a far off country etc. that said, those who do not or cannot are not necessarily at a great disadvantage in life and for many people those things wouldn’t appreciably make life any better. So do you. Take life as it comes and learn to accept reality as it is. We spend a lot of time building things up and hyping them up that objectively aren’t such a big deal, but that’s life. You usually have to work much harder at things than they are objectively worth.

Changes in the modern world mitigate many of the factors that underpin the need for relationships. They still have a social component and can be treated as status symbols- “virgin” “spinster” “forever alone” these sorts of things are classic and modern insults and pervasive in society. Concepts that purpose comes from relationships and reproduction, that being without them implies someone is fundamentally lacking- you’re undesirable or irresponsible etc. That other peoples appreciation of our partners validates us or our ability to find a “quality” partner is a reflection of our value. these stigmas can drive us as much as the concepts that we are missing out on life or could be having more fun by being in a relationship. The true irony has always been that if you aren’t ok alone you probably shouldn’t be in a relationship. If you don’t enjoy your own company and can’t make life work by yourself- adding someone won’t fix that, it may just mask it.

Bonus:
11. ONE OF US is losing our job and if you don’t do what I ask it’s going to be you.

It is a bit sexist to compare a man and woman fighting to abuse though.

some pain etc- but proportionality. So in a fight “to the death” with no rules- whoever wants to live should give their best regardless of who may have advantage. In a mock or play fight or practice etc. there are other things to observe and generally your goal is NOT to kill or badly hurt them. Some people can’t respect a partner that can’t stand equal to them in their passions- and that includes fighting. I’ve known plenty of female fighters who wouldn’t date a guy who they could easily beat up, and plenty who didn’t care if you could fight but maybe did care about your lifestyle and wether it matched theirs as far as some physical activity and health etc. so it’s a mixed bag.

In the real world men and women or partners etc. - especially trained/experienced fighters and athletes can and do spar, play fight, or even compete against each other. It’s about the details and informed consent. Take fender out of it. In almost all disciplines or even just “playground rules” when two people spar or play fight they are generally not trying to draw blood or hurt each other. You might feel some pain inherent to fighting, but just that- not intentional injuries or such. Who wins a fight is not always who appears to have advantage on paper, and people, especially fighters often like to test themselves. So regardless of gender if two seemingly mismatched fighters both understand the stakes and want to engage, that is what it is. Conversely you can often or generally tell when you are completely outmatching someone. In such cases you might prudently be expected not to… kill them? Cripple them? Beat than savagely? Beat them perhaps, and that beating might inherently bring

Older cars or cars that don’t appreciably deform (in a controlled fashion) tend to be more dangerous the the occupants in the event of a crash because since the car hasn’t absorbed the force. The force has to go somewhere so a lot of it goes to the passengers.

.. a similar benefit while also mitigating contact with hard objects inside the car. Regardless of the help these systems offer the physics are what they are, force from the impact/sudden change in speed (delta really) will be transferred in part to the occupants. Picture dropping a box of eggs- just because the box is what hits the ground doesn’t mean the eggs don’t break.
Modern cars have several design features that are either less advanced, uncommon, or not found on older cars. Most modern cars frames are designed to offer a path for force that takes more of the force and acts to “guide it” away from occupants. They also feature lord of body panels and structures beneath the body which act to break and thusly help dissipate force. Like bubble wrap- the bubbles might pop but generally you want to keep what is inside the wrap safe and wether the wrap can be reused is a secondary concern if at all.

*it s*its on the joke and it makes me sad that I have to add this- but the preceding comment was satire in the style of the original post and is not an earnest opinion. To be clear it is making fun of an attitude that people shouldn’t be offended by things and that it is ok to say whatever you like as long as you at least say it is a joke. If we want to speak on “you used to be able to…” you used to be able to say things that were so extreme no one would take them seriously and would understand they were satire or hyperbole, but extremists have ruined that.

Hence the practicality and consensus of fact. If we approach every interaction from a point that hypothetically nothing is real and all perception is opinion or subjective- that what we see may not be real- then how can we do or think anything? We could sit here all day refuting each others stances and it will always circle around to one of us saying that is the opinion of the other. At some point practicality demands we place a stake in what is reality, and usually that is done through applying certain apparently consistent metrics and finding some majority consensus to reinforce our belief. Thusly gravity is real, the moon exists even if no one we know has ever touched it or seen it up close in person, etc.

“Elites and special interests” almost always is being pushed or even ran by elites and special interests who simple galvanize the masses to act as their private force magnifier. There aren’t seats at the table of power for everyone in the “people’s revolution” you see, and when the revolution settles, they will be looking for the next group to skewer since the problems will still be there and the promise is so rarely delivered. “People’s revolution” is almost always followed by genocide and targeted mass murder. It turns out on the whole.. people are pretty shitty and not very bright. It turns out that pointing out what is wrong is usually MUCH easier than coming up with a solution for it. It turns out… if you had a solution that actually worked for the people you wouldn’t need a revolution. You’d merely need to show people your way and they’d follow it if it actually works for them.

The fact that our nation has grown to be so unrecognizable to them, that our technology and society are so far beyond what their generation could hope to fathom or accept is a sign of moving towards the promise of America. If a human being doesn’t have difficulty understanding or navigating a society a hundred years or more past their time, that society has failed to advance and failed to better itself. I do believe they’d be disappointed in the divisions between us, they’d be disappointed in all the ways we have failed and continue to fail to deliver the promises like freedom and equality to all. They’d likely be disappointed in how we continue to devalue certain lives and face some of the same problems they faced and haven’t worked past them. They’d be disappointed in the number of people who fail to accept or understand the American dream and try to rebrand it and use it as a weapon against those they hate.