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

[Abyssimal]

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...'

Aside from creating Daneel Olivaw (a robot with synthetic "skin") Asimovian robots were just that - robots - easily differentiated from humans. Replicants on the other hand, are essentially engineered humans; and that's where the line gets blurry.

Roy Batty's last line in Bladerunner was so poignant because it really hammered the question home.

 

[Omphalos]

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

I think that the real problem that people had with the replicants was that they would one day replace humans. That caused them to become angry and resentful, and stick their heads in the ground to ignore the obvious. After all, between the natural creatures and the replicant ones, including people, the replicants were the only ones who could adapt to the wrecked Earth. Everything esle was dying out. That is partly what the bit about the replicant frog at the end of the book is all about. Decker finds a replicant frog in the middle of nowhere. The implication is that the real frogs can no longer survive in the dust (think that is what it was called - its been a while). I was struck by the fact that it was a frog Decker found, because frogs are generally regarded by biologists as an "indicator species," or one whose plight foreshadows what will happen to other species in the future, thus indicating that humanity and all natural creatures were doomed. That I think also was the real source of tension for Decker. He recognized this, but instead of supporting the creatures that would one day replace us on Earth, he was the vehicle by which others struck out in irrational anger at them.

 

[Rodders]

I wonder if the replicants would've ever "Evolved" out of their four year life span?

 

[ElectricOwl]

I'd imagine that the androids would have to take over production for that to happen. Since there is no reproduction, there is no evolution.

 

[Gandalf]

But if they are biological organisms surely they would be able to procreate although this probably wouldn't be a good idea from the standpoint of their creators.

The replicants are not androids in the traditional sense anyway are they? Are androids not 'humanoid robots'? Automatons if you will?

In other words flesh on the outside but mechanical/electical parts internally? The replicants in Bladerunner certainly seem to be 100% organic but I can't remember accurately PKD's description....

 

[Connavar]

They sure arent 100% organic, that would make the humans much stronger in science then they are Androids world.

Dont bother with Bladerunner, it isnt so near what this book is about.

The Androids in PKD book cant procreate, that would have made them get killed even faster if they could create more of themselves.

 

[ubik]

The androids were created by man and therefore owned by man. When they rebel, man loses his possession and it's man's natural instinct to keep what they own. Thus establishing Rick Deckard who is working to reclaim man's possessions. Atleast that's how I saw the novel and Dick's idea in portraying the need for man to exterminate the androids.

However, he's clever in showing an unbiased view. It's up to you who you sympathise with.

 

[Diggler]

To me the androids had no conscience as such. That is what distinguishes them from humans. The part near the end where they dissect a spider for the fun of it shows that they are not designed to feel sympathy or remorse, except possibly for themselves and other androids that they associate with. I was of the opinion that they were very much akin to sociopaths.

 

[Connavar]

To me the androids had no conscience as such. That is what distinguishes them from humans. The part near the end where they dissect a spider for the fun of it shows that they are not designed to feel sympathy or remorse, except possibly for themselves and other androids that they associate with. I was of the opinion that they were very much akin to sociopaths.

I felt the same, it was something how PKD made you feel like them dissecting that Spider was a heinous crime. I was freaked out by their lack of empathy like that semi-crazy guy was in the story.

Thats one of the strengths of the book, its only a mid level Dick book but it had some really good moment,ideas he played with.

 

[Diggler]

I felt the same, it was something how PKD made you feel like them dissecting that Spider was a heinous crime. I was freaked out by their lack of empathy like that semi-crazy guy was in the story.

Thats one of the strengths of the book, its only a mid level Dick book but it had some really good moment,ideas he played with.

The concept of having animals as status symbols was a very unique spin. It was kind of like their civic duty to care for animals as penance for eradicating them in the first place. I remember Deckard even being envious of his neighbour for owning a real horse.

It's these small things that, to me, really make Dick's books stand out.

 

[Connavar]

Yeah that concept might be simple compared to his other quality books but as a first PKD book like it was for me it makes you like the author much faster.

Plus it hits harder today than when he wrote it. Today many animals are dying out despite there were many thousands of them less than 100 years ago. Tigers,smaller animals,species that will be gone forever in a few years.

Reading that in National Geographic magazine makes you sad and disgusted by what humans can do to the world.

 

[Diggler]

Yeah that concept might be simple compared to his other quality books but as a first PKD book like it was for me it makes you like the author much faster.

Plus it hits harder today than when he wrote it. Today many animals are dying out despite there were many thousands of them less than 100 years ago. Tigers,smaller animals,species that will be gone forever in a few years.

Reading that in National Geographic magazine makes you sad and disgusted by what humans can do to the world.

Dammit! Now I want to start reading some more PKD

I've just started The Hero Of Downways by Michael G Coney. For a relatively unknown novel, it's really quite good.

Anyways back to PKD. I have 18 of his books (15 novels and 2 short story compilations). I really wanted to mention the HD-DVD/Blu-Ray release of Blade Runner. If you do have either formats I highly recommend grabbing the 5 disc edition of this. The movie itself is one of the best HD transfers I've ever seen and the bonus discs have extensive interviews with PKD's family and a fair bit of information about his writing.

HD-DVD is far cheaper. As I bought it after the format war for like $15 US

 

[Window Bar]

I may have to play the Amazon Books game. I love PKD, yet his tomes almost never hit the used book stores, and absolutely NEVER hit the new book stores. Is he out of print?

 

[Diggler]

Every one of PKD's novels are in circulation. The problem is book stores tend to deal mainly in new fiction, or what they deem as being high volume authors. While Dick is very, very well known, he just doesn't rate as high as Tolkein, Clarke, Heinlein, Herbert, etc as far as they are concerned.

 

[Dave]

Also, when I have seen his books in high street and shopping mall bookshops, the books tend to be film-tie-ins; the book covers have the film name and pictures from the film. I expect that many readers who find him that way might be disappointed that the short stories and novels are so little like the film. I began reading his stories borrowed from the Public Library where they had shelves of anthologies in yellow hard-backs.