Replicants In The Blade Runner

The Blade Runner by Ridley Scott is a neo-noir science fiction film which discusses the roles of genetically engineered replicants, nearly indistinguishable from humans, in a near dystopian future. The film follows an ex-blade runner, a man tasked with killing rogue replicants, who reluctantly agrees to take on one last assignment to hunt down and ‘retire’ a group of recently escaped replicants. However, when one watches the movie they may come to ask themselves “Is killing replicants wrong?”, an issue that goes somewhat unaddressed throughout the movie, and perhaps this was done deliberately. When one closely analyzes the emotions the replicants convey, the few differences between the two parties, and what really defines a human being, one

can easily come to the conclusion that killing a replicant is nearly just as or equally immoral as killing their human counterparts.

Time and time again, replicants convey emotions that reinforce just how similar they are to humans. For example, Rachael, who throughout the duration of the film conveyed many human emotions, did not even know she was a replicant up until a test was taken to find out if someone is a replicant or not. This in itself proves some of the many similarities between humans and replicants, and the way Rachael reacted when she learned about this, further backs up this point. She was confused, sad and scared; how could she have lived her whole life without knowing she was a replicant? Of course their are many possible answers to this, the most obvious of which is her programming, but really, if you think about it, humans are basically programmed aswell, though i’d like to touch on this more in a future paragraph. Another example of this emotional integrity is with the Nexus-6 models, who rise against their human creators due to the realisation of their short lifespan. They’re worried for their own life, a specific drive that all living creatures have in common, as simple as it may be. The monologue of the film, which I will be constantly going over throughout this essay, is in itself enough proof for my entire thesis. During that scene, Roy Batty, explains through his memories the many things that he has experienced through his life, and that these final lines, truly showed that Batty wanted to make a mark on existence, and despite being a machine - showing Deckard what a real man is truly made of. Replicants, they look, talk, act and even feel like humans, so what really makes them any different?

Replicants and their human counter parts have nearly nothing that set them apart.

When one looks at some of the replicants subtle actions such as Zhora, one of the Nexus-6 model replicants working at a strip club, who clearly, in one scene, has the opportunity to kill Deckard decides not to, is that not itself a key example of humanity, sparing someone's life even though you know they’re trying to kill you? This act of selflessness is a trait only really shared by humans, i’m not saying that this act is enough to make someone human, but it definitely makes them pretty damn close to one in that sense. And this isn’t the first time that happens, even during the breathtaking end scene of the film, Roy Batty, the replicant set-up to be the main antagonist of the film, saves the life of the man who was trying to kill him, and for what reason? Simply out of the goodness of his “heart”. This final scene has many literal and metaphorical meanings to it, both of which can be utilized to backup this point. Roy drives a nail into his hand to truly feel his last moments of life, he desperately tries to cling on to the various sensations of life, even if it means enduring excruciating pain. Roy then delivers in his final moments his breathtaking “Tears of Rain” soliloquy, which extols some of the many wonders of life, and despite its complexity, how utterly fleeting and transitory life truly is, because all of those precious moments “will be lost in time, like tears in the

rain”.

By this point in the essay, one might be asking themselves, if these artificial beings are so similar to us, then what truly defines a human being? This movie challenges the traditional definition of mere physicality and intelligence as replicants are clearly conscious, breathing, living things, capable of complex thoughts and emotions. So what really makes them any different than us despite being a machine? There is an interesting problem that this relates to; lets say a man is injured and a part of him is swapped for a part of a machine, is he still human? Let’s say it happens again and another piece is swapped out, at what point does he stop being human? Humans themselves are basically programmed, and many other fields of philosophy deal with this such as free will versus determinism, and whether you want to believe it or not, it’s true to an extent. Humans can be predictable, just as machinery can. There are by definition, nearly no differences between replicants and humans, so aren’t they basically the same?

In conclusion, because of the vast similarities between both humans and replicants, the emotions they convey, and the few differences between them, one can come the conclusion that replicants and humans should be looked at nearly equally when it comes to the trigger on a gun.