In this blog post, we’ll examine the implications that replicants have for human identity, ethics, and technological civilization, focusing on the movie ‘Blade Runner’.
German folklore features a creature known as the “doppelgänger.” This term, which means “one who walks in two places” in German, refers to a situation that defies the laws of physics—the coexistence of two identical selves within a single space-time—and is associated with a legend that states anyone who witnesses this will soon meet their death. This concept is also utilized in ‘Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde’, ultimately leading to a fatal conclusion. Clones can also be interpreted through the lens of this doppelgänger concept. Humans cannot easily let go of their attachment to their own existence; it is human nature. This attachment and curiosity have led to temptation and obsession with “beings like myself” or “beings that can replace me,” and through technological advancements, this is now becoming a reality. Clones are the life-like entities created by human technology that most closely resemble humans; they stimulate desires akin to the forbidden fruit—offering infinite possibilities and the dream that humans could become god-like beings. However, these beings also instill a fear that, amid identity confusion with humans, they could ultimately lead humanity to self-destruction. The film ‘Blade Runner’ is the most symbolic work illustrating this warning about the future. The film begins in Los Angeles in the year 2019. Airships navigate through pillars of flame shooting up everywhere and a hazy fog, and the city unfolds around two massive architectural structures. Below them, densely packed buildings, neon billboards featuring geishas, and advertising airships promoting migration to space colonies line the skyline, while people walk expressionlessly through the rain. This dystopia, depicted in the film’s opening scene, starkly reveals the director’s worldview of a society shaped by technocracy. The pyramid-shaped structure, reminiscent of a computer chip, is the headquarters of the Tyrell Corporation, which manufactures and commercializes replicants—artificial human beings. It is surely no coincidence that this structure, evoking the Tower of Babel in an era of technocracy that defies nature, is interpreted as such a symbol.
In fact, the concept of artificially created life forms had already appeared in the novel ‘Frankenstein’, published in 1818. The scientist Victor Frankenstein creates new life by piecing together the bodies of the dead using only the power of science. However, life created by humans—which disregards the natural process of birth—ultimately leads to destruction and despair. In the film ‘Blade Runner’, humans, intoxicated by their own technology, create replicants that are even more human-like. However, fearing that their status might be threatened, humans limit the lifespan of these genetically perfect replicants to four years and even ban them from entering Earth to prevent chaos in human society. If a replicant secretly enters Earth, detectives known as “Blade Runners” are tasked with “retrieving” them. Many films dealing with replicants, including ‘Blade Runner’, share this common theme of wariness toward replicants, vividly exposing humanity’s species supremacy and fear. This is not merely a narrative within the film. It is hard to deny that real humans also harbor similar wariness toward replicants. Looking back at history, humans have caused countless tragedies by failing to accept even minor differences among their own kind. Discrimination against people of color, which has persisted since the Middle Ages, led to slavery, and amid racial hatred, approximately 6 million Jews were massacred by Nazi Germany. The monster in ‘Frankenstein’, who longed to be accepted by human society but was ultimately rejected, and the replicant in ‘Blade Runner’, who met his death while dreaming of a human-like life, illustrate the possibility that humans may fail to accept even beings they have created with their own hands as equal living beings. The conflict between quasi-human life forms that wish to become human and humans themselves is highly likely to lead to significant social upheaval.
In fact, within this context, there are quite a few voices supporting the development of cloning technology. They argue that cloned humans could be used to perform high-risk tasks that humans must otherwise undertake, and that they could contribute significantly to medical advancements, such as research into curing incurable diseases and organ transplants. However, these arguments are underpinned by a perspective that views cloned humans as mere commodities. Today, the rights of animals are recognized, and animal protection movements are thriving worldwide. Yet, it is clearly contradictory to treat cloned humans—who bear the closest resemblance to humans—as mere objects simply because they were created by humans. This issue ultimately ties into human identity itself. If we believe we can control them at will simply because they were created by human technology, we end up negating the very value of life that naturally born humans have upheld until now. In the film, the director uses vivid depictions of blood and varied camera angles in every scene where a replicant dies to show that they, too, are beings with bodies just like humans. By treating beings that resemble themselves as mere objects, can humans truly preserve their own dignity to the very end? In modern society, where capitalism is already deeply entrenched, people are becoming increasingly insensitive to values other than economic ones. Given this reality, the exploitation of life-like beings is highly likely to lead to a trend of disregarding the value of human life itself, as well as a weakening of ethical and moral sensibilities. Therefore, the social turmoil that the production of cloned humans would bring does not end with mere discrimination and oppression. It could give rise to a new form of species supremacy and, in a dangerous delusion where humans blindly believe in their innate superiority, lead to a repetition of the 20th century’s history of war, genocide, and exploitation.
While acknowledging these extreme harms, some argue that cloned humans could be accepted within human society on a limited basis if provided to infertile couples or same-sex couples. Since they, too, have the right to enjoy the same happiness as other families, this positive aspect could be viewed favorably. However, another problem remains: whose genes should be cloned? Modern people, living in a fiercely competitive society, tend to want their children to be exceptional. If so, it is highly likely that in the future, there will be a preference for genes considered superior. This will ultimately create new forms of discrimination, and the idealization of specific genes will undermine human diversity and potential. The importance of genetic diversity can also be seen in the case of the African cheetah. Although the African cheetah, whose population once declined sharply, has recovered thanks to conservation efforts, it has proven vulnerable to disease and environmental changes due to a significant reduction in genetic diversity. Genetic diversity is an essential factor for adapting to and evolving in response to environmental changes. If a trend toward favoring only specific genes emerges, humanity may ultimately limit its own ability to adapt to environmental changes.
There are still those who argue that, provided sufficient legal regulations and institutional safeguards are put in place, cloned humans could be accepted as members of human society. However, the issue that must be discussed first is the extent to which human value should be recognized. What is the difference between a cloned human and a natural human, and why is it difficult for us to accept the two as equal? Cloned humans are created as means to a specific end even before they are born. Therefore, the moment they lose that purpose, their very reason for existence may be called into question. In contrast, humans are not means; their existence itself is the end. As existentialist philosophy states, humans first come into being in the world and then seek the purpose of their lives. This is fundamentally different from how the essence of a knife lies in cutting well, or the essence of a pen lies in writing well. From the moment of birth, humans form relationships with their parents, engage with others, and interact with their surroundings—through these processes, they develop their own values and identity. These aspects further clarify the distinction between cloned humans and ordinary humans. Cloned humans, born with a purpose as a means to an end, find it difficult to completely break free from that starting point, no matter how much freedom they are granted. Some argue that if cloned humans are guaranteed the freedom to choose their own lives, they are no different from ordinary humans. However, even if they choose a life similar to that of humans, it remains debatable whether beings who suffer from an identity crisis—aware that they were originally created as a means to an end—can be considered completely identical to humans. Some extend this debate to the issue of animals, asking why cloned humans are singled out as a problem when humans also use animals as means. This point also warrants careful consideration. However, animals are not beings born solely for a specific purpose in the first place. Cloned humans, on the other hand, differ in that they are created for a specific purpose, outside the natural order of the ecosystem. If the sole reason for their existence lies in their value as a means to an end, they immediately begin to follow a path distinct from that of humans, and their significance as normal living beings may also be called into question. It may be an overly arrogant notion to assume that we can accept as human beings these quasi-humans who have lost their humanity.
At the end of the film, after a tense chase lasting about 20 minutes, the replicant Roy corners the detective who had been pursuing him. However, he saves the detective from falling off a cliff and meets his own death, having burned through all his life force. In this scene—where humans, who had treated replicants like mass-produced goods, are instead saved by a replicant—the director asks whether it is not, in fact, humanity itself that has lost its memory of nature and humanity, rather than the replicants. The film satirizes humanity as it gradually loses its inherent nature—which once valued individual life, rights, and freedom—and transforms into beings driven solely by the desire for capital and technology. Ultimately, we must not merely debate whether the production of clones benefits humanity; we must view this issue from the perspective of all humanity and the natural world. We must remain constantly vigilant against the fact that extreme technological development can lead not to progress, but to catastrophe. It goes without saying that the technology we should pursue is one that places human values and identity at its core and fully safeguards them.
