In this blog post, I’d like to reflect on the criteria that distinguish humans from robots—and the selfish nature of humanity revealed therein—through the story of Andrew from the movie ‘The Bicentennial Man’, who chooses death in order to be recognized as human.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is Ms. Marjorie Botta, Chief Justice of the World Court. “According to Robotics Corporation’s records, the robot named Andrew Martin was activated at 5:15 p.m. on April 3, 2005, and will turn two hundred years old in a few hours. Andrew Martin will thus be recorded as the oldest human in the history of mankind.” This sentence encapsulates the literally “bicentennial”—that is, the 200-year lifespan—of Andrew, the household robot and protagonist of the film ‘The Bicentennial Man’. Over the course of the film’s two-hour runtime, Andrew’s 200-year life—from his birth as a robot to his death as a human, and his evolution as he interacts with humans across several generations—is woven together in chronological order.
Following the film’s narrative, we see the robot Andrew striving to be recognized as human—changing his appearance to look exactly like a human and developing human-like emotions. However, it is only at the very end of the film, when the robot Andrew chooses “death,” that he is finally recognized as human. This is because, when Andrew initially filed a lawsuit demanding to be recognized as human, humans argued that while they could accept an “immortal robot,” they could not accept an “immortal human.” Thus, the film consistently maintains the logic that no matter how advanced a robot becomes or how much it resembles a human, it cannot be recognized as human unless it is subject to the “finiteness of time.” Ultimately, Andrew is recognized as human by conforming to this human logic and accepting that, as a robot, he too is destined to grow old, fall ill, and die just like humans. However, is the fact that one must inevitably “die someday” truly the only valid criterion for recognizing humanity? Could this not be a manifestation of the contradictory logic stemming from humanity’s selfish nature—a desire to dominate and categorize all beings other than humans?
The story is set in the year 2200—approximately 200 years from now—when Andrew files a lawsuit in court demanding that he be recognized as human. According to the film’s premise, by this time, even countless humans are prolonging their lives by having artificial organs developed by robots implanted into their bodies. In other words, humans, too, are “part machine.” Citing this fact, Andrew argues that he, too, is “part human” with a heart capable of feeling emotions. Since this is an undeniable fact, the judge acknowledges it but ultimately dismisses his suit on the grounds that he is an immortal being. However, this logic can be seen as stemming from simple human envy and jealousy. If humans were to conform to nature and simply accept their inevitable fate of death, then attempting to extend their lives even slightly—whether by implanting artificial organs or using life-extending technologies and medications—would be a contradictory action. It is clearly a contradiction to treat the very value of life extension—which they desire and continually pursue—as a taboo.
Humans are undoubtedly beings who pursue eternal life. Therefore, as time goes on, they will increasingly seek to live longer lives; just as depicted in the movie, they will install artificial organs and strive to extend their lives by utilizing life-prolonging technologies and medications. Consequently, as time passes, their lives will be endlessly extended—so why should only humans be permitted to pursue such values? I believe it is an extremely anthropocentric and selfish line of reasoning to deny that a robot is human simply because it possesses eternal life—even if all its other characteristics are identical to those of humans—merely on the grounds that it possesses a value humans themselves have failed to achieve.
Looking at the selfish nature of humans from another angle, the robot Andrew was created from birth—not by anyone else, but by humans themselves—to be immortal. This means that the robot Andrew had no choice regarding eternal life. In other words, if we apply the human logic that one must be subject to the dominion of death in order to be human, robots are designed in such a way that they can never, absolutely never, become human “by human design.” They were designed solely for the purpose of serving humans and obeying their commands. Even if a robot were to possess, like Andrew, all the external characteristics of a human and the internal quality of “humanity,” it could never be human from the very beginning. How is this any different from blatantly taking a life? Is it truly without sin for a human to “shut down” a robot that is completely identical to a human—simply because it is a robot that will never die? In this regard, we can see the cruel side of humanity and the selfishness underlying it.
Furthermore, this human selfishness extends beyond robots to other living beings currently coexisting with humans on our planet. In other words, even though humans are living beings subject to the finitude of time—meaning they “will die someday”—they refuse to recognize as human any being whose other characteristics fall short of their own. For example, animals and many other living beings are naturally not recognized as human. This is true today, it will be true 200 years from now—the setting of this film—and it will continue to be true long after that. The problem is that humans seek to abuse and dominate other living beings solely based on these classifications and judgments. Although their levels of development may vary, many non-human living beings possess intelligence and emotions, as well as many characteristics similar to those of humans. However, throughout history, humans have treated non-human life with excessive disregard, leading to numerous problems such as extinction and environmental pollution. Now, nature and living organisms are returning the consequences of human actions in the form of extreme weather events and natural disasters. These human values and behaviors are applied unchanged even 200 years in the future to the robots they themselves have created.
The robots in the film, represented by Andrew, have advanced to the point where they possess many of the same characteristics as humans. However, humans still refuse to acknowledge the robots’ personhood; continuing their tendency to dominate other living beings, they seek to keep the robots under their control as well. Even Andrew’s owner, Richard, did not fully acknowledge Andrew when Andrew realized the value of freedom and sought to become independent. It was only on his deathbed that Richard admitted to Andrew that he had been wrong, acknowledging the truth that Andrew, as a robot, is also entitled to freedom and does not have to be dominated by humans. Thus, the film asserts that robots already have the right to enjoy economic and social freedoms equal to those of humans. However, the fact that Andrew—who is equal in appearance and characteristics and enjoys equal economic and social status—and other robots like him cannot be recognized as human simply because they do not die reflects humanity’s greed to keep not only all non-human life forms but even robots under their control.
I would like to conclude this article by quoting Andrew’s final words in court. “As a robot, I could live forever. But I would rather die as a human than live forever as a machine. I want to be recognized. My goal is to have the simple truth about who I am acknowledged—not through praise or judgment, but simply as fact. To achieve that, I have staked my honor on choosing death.” This is sometimes explained as the human desire to control one’s own desires, the desire for stability, and the desire for recognition.
Andrew, who looks like a human, feels human emotions, and shares the human desire to be recognized, chooses death over eternal life. Who could possibly tell Andrew that he is nothing more than a lifeless robot? And is choosing death truly the only acceptable path for Andrew to be recognized as human? For the sake of all life forms other than humans—and, furthermore, for the robots we will one day encounter—we must take a moment to reflect on humanity’s self-centered selfishness, which continues now and will likely continue into the future.
