"Do androids..."; what's so bad about the androids?

[Nikitta]

There's one thing in Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep? which I've been wondering about lately.

The protagonist is a bounty hunter paid to "retire" androids as they're not wanted on earth.

My question: Why?

Yeah, I know that they killed someone to get free, but they were kept as a kind of slaves and they were scentient enough to have a problem with that. Surely, if a human was kept as a slave and killed someone to get free, not many would think him or her directly evil for that - and as I understand it, the androids want to blend in with the humans on earth. That is apparently considered a Bad Thing, but why is that?

I can't help but have some sympathy for the androids, so I can't stop wondering what it is that's so bad about them that someone needs to get paid to "retire" them (Actually "kill" would be more correct, since they're scentient enough to get the concept of it and not wanting it). I don't think I've read about them doing any killing besides what they did to get free and in self defence against bounty hunters, but maybe I've missed something?

Any thoughts?

 

[j d worthington]

Surely, if a human was kept as a slave and killed someone to get free, not many would think him or her directly evil for that

Slaves who killed their masters or overseers to achieve their freedom almost invariably ended up at the end of a rope, unless they made their escape. While they were valuable "property", they couldn't be allowed to kill those over them, as it encourages a revolt in others (just as prisoners who kill their guards are generally executed today). That's one point.

And, once a barrier like that between the "naturals" and the "replicants" has been put in place, they ones beneath are not seen as human -- they are property! Think about the prejudice about miscegenation with slaves. Though the child of such a union was "half" of the "superior" "race", that child was nonetheless almost invariably seen as property, not a person. What makes it even worse with the replicants is that these are created, rather than natural, biological beings; or, more accurately (in their society's view) they would be "biological machines", engineered deliberately. So there'd be a prejudice of blending involving possible offspring with the "defects" (some real, such as short life-span, etc., some only perceived, such as their having had a replicant as parent) biologically inherent in the product of such a union. A new form of race prejudice, but the same old bugbear ... and excusable (from the natural's point of view) because these weren't fellow humans, but specifically created for the tasks they perform.

There are a lot of reasons for this view of the replicants, some rooted in historical causes from our own society's background, some specific to the society he depicts. But, save for the lowest members of the underclass (and even there it's extremely doubtful) and maybe a very few extremely enlightened and liberal upper-class, the replicants being accepted into society as anything other than the roles given woud simply not be tolerated.

 

[Pyan]

('reductio ad absurdam'). Look at the trouble Data had, when only Jean-Luc's intervention, and a ruling by the Starfleet Judge Advocate, stopped Bruce Maddox deactivating him for study on the grounds he was property.(the Measure of a Man)

 

[j d worthington]

Pyan: Fine. Just sum up all my scintillating comments into a single soundbyte. Hmmmph!

 

[Pyan]

Sorry, jd. I suppose it's just this...gift I have!

 

[Dr. Atomic]

Well put, J.D.

Nikitta -- I would add that P.K. Dick wanted you to feel this sympathy for the androids. He wanted you to see them as more than property. The reader becomes a little confused about who to root for, the main character or his prey, and emphasizes the conflict that builds within the main character himself. This in turn sets the stage for the book's ending... (don't want to post spoilers for those who haven't read it, or seen Blade Runner... which can't be too many, come to think of it...)

 

[Nikitta]

Thanks for the good explanations, J.D, pyanfaruk and Dr. Atomic. I can see how that makes sense.

BTW: I like Data! I'm not a huge Star Trek fan, but I've seen a few episodes and think that Data is a very good character

 

[Pyan]

And if you like them on film/TV, there's always Ash, in the Alien films, the Terminator, and, of course, the delectable Rommie in the later episodes of Andromeda.
For real overload, try:

List of fictional robots and androids - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Nikitta]

Good list, pyanfaruk. Thanks! I recognise some personal favourites among them.

 

[Dave]

Just to add that Robots/ Androids/ Simulacrum that look like real people have always been used as an analogy to slavery. Read any Issac Asimov story. Or Capek's original R.U.R. which created meaning of the word "Robot" - Czech for "Worker" or "Drudgery" - but who were actually androids, rather than the mechanical kind of factory machine robot that the word means now.

We are meant to feel a split allegiance between the androids and the bladerunner. The Voigt Kampf is a clever way to blur the distinction even further.

 

[Junomidge]

I didn't really understand the need to kill the androids ASAP, as they had a max lifespan of about 4 years anyway.

 

[Sibeling]

I suppose they wanted to kill androids because the androids saw no value of human life and could easily kill humans if they felt like it, so killing androids was a kind of preventative measure.

 

[Dr. Atomic]

I also think the feeling was that by letting androids run around free, the culture in the book would be implying that the androids had the RIGHT to run around free. And if they had that right, maybe they have other rights... Next thing you know, you've got androids as citizens, and that just wasn't going to fly. So you shoot them. It maintains the idea of the android as property, as something for humans to control.

Reading the book with the above perspective, I think, makes the ending even more powerful, all things considered...

(Sheesh! It's REALLY tough to discuss this book without including spoilers...)

 

[Dave]

Sheesh! It's REALLY tough to discuss this book without including spoilers...)

There's no rule or reason for you not to. You can use the {spoiler} {/spoiler} function with [] brackets if you want. But, my view is that anyone reading this thread must have already read the book, or else at the very least, have seen the film, to even be interested. That goes for any book/film/TV episode thread. As such, they must be aware that spoilers are possible.

...by letting androids run around free, the culture in the book would be implying that the androids had the RIGHT to run around free. And if they had that right, maybe they have other rights... Next thing you know, you've got androids as citizens... It maintains the idea of the android as property, as something for humans to control.

I agree, that is what I see as the main theme of the story.

In "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" there is more that is not in "Blade Runner". The population on Earth has been damaged by some previous War. Care for life of any kind is very important. In the absence of the real thing, people care for, feed and clean simulacrum animals. Yet, androids are considered to be a threat to humans and are not cared for. That dichotomy is also very human. It's like the way animal liberationists can make a case for bombing scientists associated with animal experimentation.

As I said, the same theme is present in Issac Asimov's work. Robots take human jobs, humans resent robots, humans are afraid of robots, humans blame robots for everything wrong in the world. Now replace "robots" with "immigrants".

 

[Dr. Atomic]

Now replace "robots" with "immigrants".

Yep, definitely something Asimov was concerned with/interested in. And while I think it was probably in the back of Dick's mind, as well -- and replace "robots/androids" with "slaves," too -- I think Dick was looking at things from a broader existence/non-existence point of view. "How do I know what it means to be human? What defines reality? If a robot reaches a certain point, is it 'alive'? If so, how do I know I'm not a robot? If I'm a robot, am I still 'human'? If I'm a robot, do I have any control at all? If I'm HUMAN, do I have any control at all?"

(And, probably as some sort of an afterthought, "How many of these pills can I take, and where can I score some more?" But perhaps I digress.)

I think part of Dick's genius comes from his ability to explore the idea of reality (vs. perceived reality, etc.) from so many different angles, and in so many different ways.

I mean, half the things he wrote were terribly written (short stories, in particular). Fragments of ideas and half-realized concepts with barely any characterization to speak of and a seemingly minimal amount of effort put in to creating readable text. HOWEVER, the ideas were always pretty amazing, even when the stories themselves sucked. (The other half of what he wrote was just across-the-board amazing... which, when you think about it, isn't a bad track record.)

 

[j d worthington]

Yes, Dick was always interested in exploring both epistemology and ontology, and the idea of life and the universe as mechanistic, or as something with a further dimension (or dimensions). As you say, half the time his writing is jarringly bad, and other times it's amazingly good. But his ideas are almost always caviar for the mind, something to mull over, and that is what makes him such a fascinating writer. (Like David Lindsay, who was alternately brilliant and atrocious in his style, but who very often had such scintillating concepts and magnificent imagery....)

 

[Nikitta]

Just to add that Robots/ Androids/ Simulacrum that look like real people have always been used as an analogy to slavery. Read any Issac Asimov story.

I used to have a collection of some of his short stories on robots, which I enjoyed a lot. I like the way he makes a point about humans with the robots. I will probably need to buy it again now that I lost it because that's one I can imagine myself re-reading.

 

[Nikitta]

In "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" there is more that is not in "Blade Runner". The population on Earth has been damaged by some previous War. Care for life of any kind is very important. In the absence of the real thing, people care for, feed and clean simulacrum animals. Yet, androids are considered to be a threat to humans and are not cared for. That dichotomy is also very human.

This discussion got me thinking of a story I read last year. I've lend it to my boyfriend's mother and forgotten the title, so I will have to ask her to find out.

In any case, it takes place in a world where humans no longer can have healthy children, only very deformed ones, so they start to produce android "children" for people to adopt, so they can feel like they have a child and the school classes won't be so empty. However, these androids are treated as porperty, mistrusted and ridiculed by just about everyone. We follow the first one made for that purpose.

I'll try to find out what the title is, but the point it makes is the same: humans mess up things and make android "children" as a kind of "solution" to make themselves feel better, but then they look down on the androids which they made, themselves, as a "solution".

 

[Nikitta]

This discussion got me thinking of a story I read last year. I've lend it to my boyfriend's mother and forgotten the title, so I will have to ask her to find out.

In any case, it takes place in a world where humans no longer can have healthy children, only very deformed ones, so they start to produce android "children" for people to adopt, so they can feel like they have a child and the school classes won't be so empty. However, these androids are treated as porperty, mistrusted and ridiculed by just about everyone. We follow the first one made for that purpose.

I found out. It was Beware of the Metal Children by John Peel. It's doesn't belong to the category Classic SF&F, but I figured I might as well give the answer here, since I brought it up here.

 

[Gandalf]

I've always been fascinated by the prospect of artificial life / consciousnesss and I've always thought of PKD's stories as a real portent to those in the world (like myself I suppose) who are striving to create machines who are more human than human (sound familiar folks ;-)).

Whereas Asimov always came across as - 'hey, we'd better treat machines with some respect' PKD is more 'we really shouldn't be going there in the first place...'

I'm new to this forum and I'm liking what I'm seeing - some very interesting threads / sub forums etc.

Cheers,

~G~