Musing on my favourite film...

It's slightly convuluted, but it turned into an A grade essay...

Replicants, being biologically human, prove to be the superiors of regular humans in many ways. They are our physical superiors because they are better skilled and better suited to their skills. They are inherently more trainable. They are shown to be our mental superiors by dint of their specialization to assigned tasks. Many of their jobs demand tactical intelligence, which cannot be pre-programmed. They are even portrayed to be (arguably) our emotional superiors. Replicants are, in an ideal sense just what Tyrell claims in his slogan: “More human than human.”

Dominion, which is to say control of things, is a base tendency of the human condition. It is established and maintained through subversion and violence (or the threat thereof). It can be interpreted that the replicants do not seek dominion over anything except themselves*. To this end, replicants are more emotionally evolved than we are.

The question of whether we have dominion over our creations must be rephrased in the very special circumstances Ridley Scott’s reality. In our reality, there is no creation yet that can be said to be our superiors in the same way as replicants. What must be examined in Scott’s paradigm (and possibly soon enough in our world), is whether we are capable of establishing and maintaining dominion over our creations and if so, whether we should or not.

Clearly, controls can be built right in such creations. Incept dates are an example of these measures. More relevant to the issue is the very powerful psychological control created by inserting memories in a replicant’s mind. This mechanism is imperfect, though. The further pursuit of Tyrell’s solution turns into a vicious circle. The original problem of replicants developing emotion is buffered by giving them memories that establish an emotional safety net. To develop this, Tyrell would eventually have to better simulate experience and emotion. Eventually his creations would have full emotion, which was the problem to begin with. Dominion cannot be maintained this way.

Beyond being a deeply ingrained human trait, there is good reason to dominate such a creation. Obviously, a group of beings that are faster, stronger and smarter than their creators pose the logical risk of overrunning their creators. The original, weaker, group might in turn face enslavement or annihilation at the hands of the superior group, should the superiors turn their minds that way. The fear of this should be enough to motivate the weaker, creator group to consolidate their power over their creations. This fear must be tempered with a wariness that the common (and justified) reaction to such dominance is backlash in a measure to match the severity of the control endured. At this point one is forced to consider whether dominance should be considered or not. Fortunately, Scott hints at the answer.

There is a strong resemblance here to the classic conundrum of ‘the prisoner’s dilemma.’ – The prisoner’s Dilemma: Two parties are accused of a crime for which there is not enough evidence to make a full conviction. Both parties are separated and told that if they supply evidence against the other party (i.e. defect), they will be set free while the other party faces full conviction (to illustrate the point, let us say fifteen years in prison). If parties do not supply evidence (i.e. co-operate), the party is still going to be convicted, although for a much reduced term (let us say merely three years). By these standards and without being able to know what the other parties intentions are, the rational mind will always defect, as it is always in their best interests.

The rule ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you,’ is a standard that humanity holds dear. Because of this golden rule, slavery is repugnant to the moral majority. Humanity as a species has spent hundreds of years trying to wipe out slavery. It would be hypocritical of us to about-face on the issue. Clearly, this rule stands in opposition to the rational mind coping with the prisoner’s dilemma.

The key to resolving these discrepancies lies in the interaction between the characters of Rick Deckard and Roy Batty, because it is there that one gleans the true intentions of differing parties considered from the ‘prisoners’ viewpoint.

These two key characters do not actually meet until late in the film. Deckard has already ‘retired’ Zora, Leon and Pris. He has also faced the fact that he cares for Rachel, who is herself a replicant. Until he met Rachel, ‘retirement’ of replicants did not bother him at all, as indicated by his statement “replicants are like any other machine, they’re either a benefit or a hazard; if they’re a benefit they’re not my problem.” Deckard has reason to contemplate how human he is when Rachel asks if he has ever taken the void-comp test himself. As his feelings for Rachel grow, however, he operates with less certainty except when focused by a life or death situation
.
Batty has watched the systematic killing of all his compatriots. He has also killed. He is operating under the influence of fear, frustration and the knowledge of his impending death. Batty does, however, have a very clear understanding of exactly what he is and what he’s about. By the time he meets up with Deckard, Batty is absolutely aware of certain events that are going to happen (this knowledge does not necessarily affect the dynamics of the prisoner model), namely that Deckard will not be capable of retiring Batty.

As one of the ‘prisoner’ parties, Deckard does not ‘co-operate’ but instead tries first to kill Batty, then simply to escape him. Batty, on the other hand, makes multiple attempts to establish co-operation. The first is when he breaks Deckard’s fingers so that Deckard cannot shoot straight. It was easy enough for Batty to kill the blade runner who had slaughtered his friends, but instead he took away the blade runner’s capacity to kill again. He then offers Deckard the chance to escape or literally walk away from the problems by counting to ten, like a child in a round of hide and seek. By this point, Batty is merely playing a game.

As Deckard continues to play the rational gambit from the ‘prisoner’s dilemma,’ he occasions to smash Batty about with a length of pipe. (Batty’s comment “That’s the spirit” is reflective of their common ground at this point, both refusing to give up when staring death in the face). Having had the pipe removed from his person, Deckard runs again. He is immediately confronted by a grinning Batty who proclaims “that wasn’t rational – not to mention unsportsmanlike.” This statement can be taken as a direct challenge to Deckard to learn to co-operate.

On the rooftop, as Deckard clings helplessly to an I-beam, Batty must decide between letting Deckard fall, making him fall or saving him from a fall. Here is the ultimate test of whether we can trust the machine. Scott’s direction has already suggested strongly that the need to dominate our creations is invalid, but at this point he turns hints into statement by portraying Batty as a Christfigure, a saviour. Batty is not vengeful and he is not ambitious.

The concept of dominion proves to be ineffective, outdated and overall destructive to our species when dealing with our own equals or superiors. By extrapolation, if our superiors can treat us with this kind of respect, there is no reason for us not to extend it to our inferiors. This would also be called compassion. The notion of slavery should be taken as even more offensive now than previously because humanity has supposedly learned better. There are clearly established moral and ethical reasons to avoid slavery.

Endnote: In recent times, Ridley Scott has decided to answer the ongoing debate of whether Deckard was himself a replicant, which is relevant to this discourse. According to Scott, Deckard is a replicant. It should be pointed out that this affects the argument presented here only on a deeper philosophic level. We must remember that Deckard cannot be aware that he is a replicant until he comes across the origami unicorn in his hall at the end of the film. Batty also has no means for knowing Deckard is a replicant. It is not for us to judge whether it was a stupid and over-reaching thing for Scott to do in making this statement, but it will change the nature of some debates over themes in the film. It is regrettable that the duality of human/replicant is removed from this character, as it limits the scope of contemplation.

*Although one may argue that the murder of Tyrell is an attempt to establish dominion over his creator, Roy Batty was actually acting out of frustration and fear for the loss of his life, not as a form of retribution. The slaughter of others, bears the same emotional hallmarks with a purely teleological intent. An honest look at humans shows that they kill for much less.