In this blog post, I’d like to examine, through the movie ‘The Bicentennial Man’, what makes humans human and how the meaning of life and death relates to human nature.
Before actually watching ‘The Bicentennial Man’, I assumed it was either a typical sci-fi film featuring robots that threaten humanity’s survival, or—conversely—a predictable story where a robot and a human form an emotional bond and save the Earth. However, after actually watching the film, I felt that—although it takes the form of a science fiction movie—it is a work that prompts viewers to reflect on the meaning of life and death and to revisit the film’s narrative. In short, I was strongly struck by the impression that this is not a film to be taken lightly. Here is a brief introduction to the film. The protagonist, Andrew, is a humanoid robot—model NDR-114—manufactured by Northarm Robotics and designed specifically to perform household chores. However, due to an unknown issue that occurred during the manufacturing process, he possesses exceptional learning abilities unlike other robots of his kind. He acquires knowledge independently through books and develops the ability to creatively analyze and process that information to perform complex tasks. Consequently, by creating wooden dolls and building clocks, he earns his owner’s recognition, and the owner goes on to reap enormous financial gains by leveraging the robot’s abilities. However, Andrew—with his exceptional ability to reorganize information—begins to analyze the emotions humans direct toward him and comes to realize the complexity and irrationality of human emotions. In particular, while trying to deduce why humans treated him that way, he comes to recognize his inherent limitations as a robot. Just as humans, after passing through infancy and adolescence, come to recognize the limitations of life through learning and various experiences—and consequently feel doubt and despair—the robot Andrew also begins to wrestle with questions about his own existence.
At the end of a dark tunnel of oppression caused by feudal traditions and religious ignorance, humanity, having gained a new understanding of itself through the light of reason, finally recognized the values of freedom and equality. Since then, humanity has struggled in various ways across different cultures for hundreds of years to attain these absolute values. To break free from economic bondage, they ceaselessly explored nature, sparking the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions; and to escape political oppression, countless people risked their lives to fight against absolute monarchies and feudal religions. Andrew, a robot who recognizes his inherent oppression and limitations, also makes various attempts to attain freedom and equality, just as humanity has throughout history. First, he achieves economic independence by carving wood to create sculptures and clocks, selling them, and saving the proceeds in a bank account; he then uses this economic power to rise to a position where he can declare complete independence from his owner. In the scene where Andrew declares his freedom to his owner—a moment that significantly shifts the film’s narrative—Andrew tells his owner, “Throughout human history, countless people have risked death to attain it; countless people have staked their lives on it because it is so precious—that is freedom.” In doing so, he evokes the sublime significance of freedom as it has manifested throughout human history. From the film’s opening moments, the writer—who had been exploring the essence of humanity by rapidly endowing the robot Andrew with human attributes one by one—ultimately reached the pinnacle of human values: freedom and equality. Andrew, who had been struggling with all his might to overcome his inherent limitations, sought to do so through the pursuit of freedom and equality, just as those who lived on this land hundreds of years ago had done.
The filmmaker, who had been exploring human nature through the device of a robot, delivers a bold, direct punch to the audience in this scene, turning the tables and urging them to delve into a higher-level line of inquiry. I believe this is a highly effective narrative technique within the film itself, and personally, I felt a sense of mental tension and thrill. Andrew eventually gains complete freedom, builds a small cottage on the beach, and pursues creative work, living the simple life he had always dreamed of while occasionally spending time with his former owner and his family. However, unlike Andrew’s clock, which remains frozen in time, the human clock continues to tick inexorably. His former owner passes away, and the owner’s daughter—Andrew’s one and only friend—starts a family, has children, and grows old. The pursuit of eternal youth is a long-standing human aspiration, as evidenced by China’s Emperor Qin Shi Huang, who scoured the entire world in search of the elixir of life, and by modern people who are willing to go to extreme lengths—even to the point of cutting into their flesh and scraping their bones—to achieve supple skin. Yet one cannot help but wonder: if one could live forever without dying, would such a life truly have any meaning? Of course, if death did not exist, there would be no need to part ways with loved ones and friends in this world, nor would one have to endure the misery of being left alone after they pass away—which might indeed bring indescribable joy. However, if we follow the trajectory of Andrew’s life in the film, we cannot definitively conclude that his eternal life—bestowed upon him as a being capable of living forever—is truly a complete life.
In his book ‘The Psychology of Being’, the renowned American psychologist A. H. Maslow explains that humans initially seek to satisfy lower-level needs—such as food, clothing, and shelter—necessary for sustaining life, and desire a stable existence. Once these needs are satisfied to a certain extent, people seek a sense of social belonging—such as gaining social recognition, forming harmonious relationships with others, and sharing emotions. When even this is fulfilled, they seek self-actualization, which includes pursuing beliefs such as freedom and equality, embracing religious values, and expressing their individuality. Similarly, Andrew learns how to carve wood and make clocks in order to gain social recognition, and he attaches a device to his face that allows him to express facial expressions so he can convey his emotions to others. Once he has gained social recognition and a sense of belonging, Andrew begins to pursue a form of self-actualization. This is evident in his efforts to gain financial freedom, become independent from his owner, and finally discover his true self. However, after undergoing a series of efforts to find his true self and happiness in the film, Andrew concludes that, as an immortal robot, he cannot achieve this, and decides to grow old and face death just like a human. I believe that in this scene, the writer—who had strived throughout the film to identify the elements that make humans truly human in terms of economic independence, social stability and a sense of belonging, and political freedom or equality—ultimately conveys that these elements lie in death.
I am not arguing that death is the purpose of human existence. I believe that the inevitable fate of humans—that we will all eventually face death—can impart complete meaning to the various values we pursue in life, as mentioned earlier. In other words, the pursuit of human values does not cease at the threshold of death; rather, it is at the limit of death that this pursuit can take on a more complete meaning. I believe we should view death from the perspective that value is not an attribute that ceases at this limit, but rather that it is through this limit that value is finally realized.
On the other hand, if we can consider death to be a fundamental attribute of humanity, an interesting question arises: if we were to endow a robot with this attribute of death, could we say that the robot has become more human-like? In other words, the question is whether a robot must necessarily be killed in order to make it more human-like. I believe that in addressing this question, we must focus on the contradictory fundamental nature of death, which possesses both certainty and uncertainty simultaneously. I believe that while death itself is certain, the fact that no one in this world can know the exact moment of death is a contradictory attribute of death—and, in a sense, an essential part of it. However, when applied to robots, I believe that no matter how sophisticatedly designed a robot may be, since the moment of its death is ultimately designed and controlled by someone else, it carries a meaning that is fundamentally different from human death. Therefore, even if artificial intelligence and biomimetic technologies advance to the point where robots with the exact same appearance and thought processes as humans emerge, we cannot say that such robots are completely identical to humans because we cannot endow them with the attribute of human death. For this reason—and I’ll emphasize this once more—human death can be considered a unique and fundamental attribute that makes humans human.
To summarize, through the film ‘The Bicentennial Man’, the writer posits an era in which scientific advancements will one day allow for the creation of robots nearly identical to humans, and through the robot’s life and fate, raises philosophical questions about the essence of humanity. In many films featuring robots, these machines are portrayed as threats to humanity’s survival or dismissed as mere tools that provide audiences with novel experiences by overcoming human limitations and performing tasks beyond human capability. However, this film breaks away from the conventional, formulaic approach to robots and offers us an opportunity to reflect on life and death; for this reason, I believe both the film and its source novel have continued to inspire people over the years. In other words, since the essence of this film lies in the discussion of such philosophical questions, I believe it is more appropriate to view the film through the lens of the various philosophical concerns the author originally intended to convey—rather than focusing on interpretations of superficial phenomena directly related to science or discussions about the new society depicted in the film. In this film, the author used the device of robots to illustrate various human values that have run through human history—such as the fair distribution of income, equality and freedom, and life and death. In the ending, the author grants death to the robot; to me, this part paradoxically conveyed the message that no matter what kind of robot it is, it cannot become a being completely identical to a human. While death is an inescapable fate for humans, it possesses a unique quality in that we cannot know when that moment will come; ultimately, there is a fundamental difference between human death and the death of a robot. Therefore, this further reinforced my long-held belief that, no matter how much science and technology advance, robots can never fundamentally become human.
