How do we come to terms with a finite existence when we lack the understanding of what makes us human?
Author: Victoria Popoola
This question is at the forefront of Ridley Scott’s 1982 Blade Runner, a film revered for its exploration of the perils of human apathy in pursuit of technological advancement. The film follows Rick Deckard, a disenchanted ex-policeman charged with a special mission to ‘exterminate’ a quad of rogue androids, Replicants. Deckard’s mission, however, grows increasingly complex as he begins to probe the interplay of identity and utility, a journey spurred by his romantic relationship with an android prototype, Rachael.
As typical of science-fiction, the film depicts the giving of a world on the basis of what in reality we may perceive as an extemporial concept. These are fringe developments that we trivalise and confine to the peripheries of concern because from an outside perspective (which the average person often has to technological innovations) the gravity of such cannot be truly comprehended. Blade Runner realises the existences that stem from these innovations and then examines the ramifications of such, and how these can lead to the failure of the creation, or humanity itself[1]. Within this perilous balance lies the warning of self-destruction.
One could take the stance that the unbridled progression of technology and artificial intelligence is entangled with the derogation of humanity. In fact, parallels can be found between the Industrial Revolution and the intergalactic themes in the film. The popular transition from coal-mining to oil was driven in part by social reasons: coal mining required a huge labour force who had then become synonymous with protest and revolution[2]. In comparison, oil extraction requires less workers and a more geographically dispersed one, reducing the potential power of this workforce to be as successful in protest, and thus maintaining capitalist dominance. Space exploration and the desire to colonise new worlds operate in a similar vein.
Essentially, distance creates indifference, and whether physical or philosophical, the purpose of that distance is to impede solidarity and veil human rights violations. Replicants live for a maximum of four years, but because they are tasked with off-Earth missions, the cruelty in their brief lifespan is not felt. One of the replicants, Roy, makes ‘one of the most profound and beautiful soliloquies in film history’[3] as he dies.
“I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe… All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.”
Replicants are denied personhood and integration so their existence is confined to administrative boundaries. The discovery of their humanity is why Deckard struggles with his mission. He sees the genuine distress Rachael emotes upon finding out she’s a Replicant, and he empathises with her. The rigidity of the Voight-Kampff makes the mistake of viewing humanity as something that can be manufactured and commodified[4]. Essentially, Blade Runner probes how the law is used to deprive people of their human rights because their origin and characteristics are deemed undesirable, and as falling outside the norm. The extermination of Replicants can be likened to the ethnic cleansing of Tigrayan civilians in Western Tigray. These groups have value that can be exploited under capitalism, and once that value has been extracted – through free/low cost labour – they are deemed disposable because of their vulnerable social position. The perception of human life as a resource fosters an apathy that is translated in technology when the pursuit of progress is gear-lined for efficiency. Efficiency does not lend to inclusivity, and Blade Runner signals the potential future of society if we fail to take notice of this.
The Final Cut of the film (one of numerous versions) presents the idea of Deckard as a Replicant and this raises the existential question of purpose once the distinction is blurred between human and machine. When society is driven by a capitalist need for efficiency and efficient control, then what is to become of those of us who are deemed not to align with this goal?
Scott’s Blade Runner purposefully does not provide an answer, but are we to accept uncertainty as an endemic feature of the future, or confront the real legal problems posed by the advancement of technology in capitalist society? To do the former would be an acquiescence of humanity, and subsequently, human right protections.
[1] Shulamit Almog, ‘When a Robot Can Love – Blade Runner as a Cautionary Tale on Law and Technology’ (2013). Human Law And Computer Law: Comparative Perspectives <https://ssrn.com/abstract=2524945 > accessed 2 December 2023
[2] Amitav Ghosh, The Nutmeg’s Curse (John Murray Press 2021) 102
[3] James Guild, ‘Why Blade Runner is a Masterpiece’ (Cinema & Sambal, 24 November 2021) <https://jamesjguild.com/blog/2020/11/12/why-blade-runner-is-a-masterpiece#:~:text=Blade%20Runner%20did%20dare%20to,beautiful%20soliloquies%20in%20film%20history> accessed 28 November 2023
[4] Scott Bukatman, Blade Runner (2nd edn, BFI Publishing 2012)
