BRunner

So after watching the new Blade Runner I feel like replicants aren't robots/androids at all, that maybe they are just clones with certain DNA changes, and the whole "replicant" concept is a lie. Like, the new replicants are compliant because they are executed if they fail the compliance test (and they've been told their whole life that they can't disobey so they don't realize they can), they are sterile b/c fucked up DNA/gestation... but generally, it doesn't seem like the replicates are even slightly non human. Like, I don't think there's any evidence in either movie that replicates are anything but imperfect/modified human clones.

It also explains why memories are so important to emotions (and distinguishing replicant/human), because that's the one big difference between a person grown in a vat and pooped out as an adult versus someone who grows up normally.

I remember there is the guy who says like "I designed your eyes" or something. Maybe he just means he selected the genes and made sure they developed in the artificial womb (vs being a robotics expert). Or he was lying.

Is this something everyone thinks? I feel like there's lots of evidence.

they are "robots" in that they are organic android/cyborg type things.
the whole point is that when does this "machine" become a truly living being?

Yeah, I guess what I'm wondering is if they were pretty close to cloning and artificial womb tech but it wasn't quite perfect (sterile, limited lifespan) so they handpicked genes to make the clones super strong/sexy and then claimed they had made android/cyborgs...

You guys are both retarded.

Replicants were always simply genetically modified humans.

If they had robot parts there would be no need for a voight-kampf test since you could x-ray them or something similar and get it over with.

The reason they did a special emotion-response test is because they're indistinguishable from humans apart from their odd emotional responses since they had a lifespan too brief to develop a proper personality.

They eye guy in first movie had actual developed eyes in vats, so no.

They aregenetic constructs, not just clones, which doesn't change much desu. They're still more human than human

This, they're just humans grown as adults in a vat

Yes replicants are organic, artificially created humans. The guy who “designed” the eyes would have been in charge of making sure the genetic sequence for the eyes would result in the type and performance asked by the buyer, basically code monkey for genetics.

So yeah, replicants are just a created slave caste optimised for performance and installed with failsafes.

What's the difference between fertilizing a human modified egg and growing the fetus in an artificial womb (a clone with modifications) vs a human grow in a vat as an adult?

I guess the point of the whole franchise is this sort of question

Nah, it doesn't matter at all

The novel mentions mechanical breakdown and circuitry when discussing both the fake animals and the andys alike. Granted, our idea of a robotic person has somewhat evolved past wires and metal, but unless I'm mistaken the androids are still intended to be fully synthetic. That is, not just designer flesh grown from cells, but full artificial 'living' tissue designed to be stronger and better than the real thing in every way, but thought to lack the missing human element that would allow for true sentience.

The line is also heavily blurred by the fact that most of the real humans in the novel are augmented in someway (iirc most of that was to do with machine interfacing, letting them experience the physical sensations tied to Mercerism, or dial specific emotional states)

They're entirely organic, what makes them slaves is that they are 'programmed' while they are growing to follow orders and never have emotions.

>that maybe they are just clones with certain DNA changes, and the whole "replicant" concept is a lie.
They are called Replicants BECAUSE they are bio-engineered organisms. They are not androids, however their brain and biology have been programmed, ergo they are regarded as non-human.

And yes, they are slaves. That was the whole point, they are a race of slaves created by humanity as a labor force. After the last great war, the one that fucks up Earth so bad they have to leave it, humanity's got a bit of a self-loathing thing going on with a religion of animal worship and electronically relieving the execution of a jesus like character

>The novel mentions mechanical breakdown and circuitry when discussing both the fake animals and the andys alike.
What I remember about animals is that they're robots, not clones / replicants. I don't remember any specific lines about the humanoid replicants have any non-organic / cybernetic parts.

>humans are augmented
They wear a thing for that, it's not cybernetics, although the mood organ sure sounded cybernetic. I don't think the novel makes any point about them not being sentient, only that humanity already has different classes or castes of people (based on how mutated they are) and the replicants are just a slave class.

Hijacking this thread.

Can someone explain the bees to me?

I don't think the novel is a very good source for the movies

It is very similar and inspired the movies, but the movies do their own thing

I don't think this is accurate. They're not just emotionally stunted clones, they're artificial humans that have gone on to develop consciousness. Having the question be whether some mind wiped gene splice can be a real human is so much more less interesting and completely robs the significance of the pregnancy in 2049.

Baring ethics we could presumably clone a functional human right now (having been successful with several lesser mammals) and assuming the reproductive system was intact there would be nothing stopping it from mating. A cloned human is still a human. But designing a machine to approach a human state is another thing entirely, and when the line starts to blur is where the ethical questions of Blade Runner come into play. (The difference here being whether they were originally derived from human tissue, or progressed from simpler mechanical robotics)

An android is defined as a synthetic organism designed to appear and behave human and having flesh like tissue. That still seems to fit the bill for both the book and the films.

Harrison has been eating honey for 30 years straight.

Brainlet here
Is Deckard a replicant? Is K related to him or not? If so, are K and the redhead twins? What was the whole resistance thing?

I think that's mostly movie 3 territory

Deckard is human, fuck what Ridley Scott says

K is literally an average Joe

It is ambiguous as to whether or not Deckard is a replicant. The answer depends on whom you ask in regards to the first film and the 2nd film is vague enough to keep the answer open.

K and the redhead may or may not be twins. It is implied they are not but certainly the trickery used to hide the girl could have many layers to it and part of that could be convincing her twin that he is not her twin and is unremarkable. Another example of hiding in plain sight.

Or he just isn't.

It isn't known why he was given real memories or if he alone has them.

Yes
No
No
a foil for Wallace, to show that ultimately K was not concerned about the grand political ambitions of either side, he just wanted to salvage some real emotional humanity for Deckard/the daughter and by proxy, himself

The part in 2049 where K literally glues the wound on his arm shut gave the impression that he was constructed from artificial materials, but I wonder if that was just some futuristic medical glue that would work just as well on regular humans

We have glue right now though. I recall using a glue and liquid bandaid over a decade ago maybe two.

Yeah but it clearly quickly heals after he glues it in the movie. He didn't just glue the wound shut.

No they are CONSTRUCTED with cloned biological parts.

Thats why they got an ID number on their skeleton and why there was a guy creating eyes in the first movie.

Just got back from going to the cinema alone. I had to pay extra to avoid the no singles policy.

What the fuck plants were they pollinating in that nuclear wasteland desert?
Also how did Doggo not hit tripwire or laser activated bombs?

That whole sequence felt odd like it was added in later by a studio exec or something.

He was a good Doggo and the bees were there to show that the Earth was starting to heal. There was a freshly picked flower at the beginning of the movie so clearly there are still some around.

we don't know if it healed or not just that it was closed