Advertisement

When a Robot Can Love – Blade Runner as a Cautionary Tale on Law and Technology

  • Shulamit Almog
Chapter
Part of the Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice book series (IUSGENT, volume 25)

Abstract

This paper examines Ridley Scot’s 1982 film Blade Runner as a cautionary tale relating to the role of law in a technology augmented environment. Blade Runner presents a regime that uses law first in order to create beings with superior abilities and pre-determined longevity, and then to define them as non-human or non-beings, devoid of legal personhood, and thus exploitable. Blade Runner, alongside other cultural representations created within the science fiction genre, serves as illustration of a society that brings together technology and law, in order to maintain unaccountable and arbitrary employment of authorized power. It provides a warning against uninhibited use of technology in order to crate genetic inferiority, and calls for careful scrutiny of the overt and covert functions of law, as new technologies gradually become available.

Keywords

Science Fiction Legal Personhood Social Meaning Artificial Creation Cautionary Tale 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Almog, S. 2001. Literature alongside law as a contemporary paradigm. Cultural Dynamics 13(1): 53–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Almog, S. 2007. Windows and ‘Windows’: Reflections on law and literature in the digital age. University of Toronto Law Journal 57(4): 755–780.Google Scholar
  3. “android.” Merriam-Webster.com. 2012. Available at: http://www.merriam-webster.com. Last accessed 16 Aug 2012.
  4. “android.” AHdictionary.com. 2012. Available at: http://ahdictionary.com. Last accessed 16 Aug 2012.
  5. Barlow, A. 1991. Philip K. Dick’s androids: Victimized victimizers. In Retrofitting Blade Runner: Issues in Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner and Philip K. Dick’s Do androids dream of electric sheep? ed. J.B. Kerman, 76–89. Bowling Green: Bowling Green State University Popular Press.Google Scholar
  6. Barr, M. 1991. Metahuman ‘Kipple’ or, do male film makers dream of electric women?: Speciesism and sexism in Blade Runner. In Retrofitting Blade Runner: Issues in Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner and Philip K. Dick’s Do androids dream of electric sheep? ed. J.B. Kerman, 25–31. Bowling Green: Bowling Green State University Popular Press.Google Scholar
  7. Booker, M.K. 2006. Alternate Americas: Science fiction film and American culture. Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar
  8. Bukatman, S. 1997. Blade Runner. London: BFI Publishing.Google Scholar
  9. Chopra, S. 2010. Rights for autonomous artificial agents? Communications of the ACM 53(8): 38–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. “cyborg.” Merriam-Webster.com. 2012. Available at: http://www.merriam-webster.com. Last accessed 16 Aug 2012.
  11. Derrida, J. 1990. Force De Loi: Le “Fondement Mystique De L’Autorité”/Force of law: The “Mystical Foundation of Authority”. Cardozo Law Review 11(5–6): 920–1045.Google Scholar
  12. Dick, P.K. 1968. Do androids dream of electric sheep? New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
  13. Dick, P.K. 2007. Human is? London: Orion Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  14. Fancher, H. and D. Peoples. 1981. Blade Runner – Screenplay. Available at: http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/blade-runner_shooting.html. Last accessed 16 Aug 2012.
  15. Fischer, N. 1989. Blade Runner and do androids dream of electric sheep? An ecological critique of human-centered value systems. Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory 13(3): 102–113.Google Scholar
  16. Francavilla, J. 1991. The android as Doppelgänger. In Retrofitting Blade Runner: Issues in Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner and Philip K. Dick’s Do androids dream of electric sheep? ed. J.B. Kerman, 4–15. Bowling Green: Bowling Green State University Popular Press.Google Scholar
  17. Gwaltney, M. 1991. Androids as a device for reflection on personhood. In Retrofitting Blade Runner: Issues in Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner and Philip K. Dick’s Do androids dream of electric sheep? ed. J.B. Kerman, 32–39. Bowling Green: Bowling Green State University Popular Press.Google Scholar
  18. Heldreth, L.G. 1991. The cutting edges of Blade Runner. In Retrofitting Blade Runner: Issues in Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner and Philip K. Dick’s Do androids dream of electric sheep? ed. J.B. Kerman, 40–52. Bowling Green: Bowling Green State University Popular Press.Google Scholar
  19. Kerman, J.B. 1991. Introduction. In Retrofitting Blade Runner: Issues in Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner and Philip K. Dick’s Do androids dream of electric sheep? ed. J.B. Kerman, 1. Bowling Green: Bowling Green State University Popular Press.Google Scholar
  20. Koops, B.-J., M. Hildebrandt, and D.-O. Jaquet-Chiffelle. 2010. Bridging the accountability gap: Rights for new entities in the information society? Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology 11(2): 497–561.Google Scholar
  21. Lessig, L. 1995. The regulation of social meaning. University of Chicago Law Review 62(3): 943–1045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Milton, J. 1821, orig. 1667. Paradise lost. London: Printed for John Bumpus, Holborn-Bars.Google Scholar
  23. Murphy, C. 2008. Is it wrong to select a deaf embryo?. BBC News, March 10, 2008. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7287508.stm. Last accessed 16 Aug 2012.
  24. President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical Behavioral Research. 1982. Splicing life: The social and ethical issues of genetic engineering with human beings. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. Available at: http://bioethics.georgetown.edu/documents/pcemr/splicinglife.pdf. Last accessed 10 Oct 2012.
  25. Robertson, J.A. 1996. Genetic selection of offspring characteristics. Boston University Law Review 76(3): 421–482.Google Scholar
  26. Robertson, J.A. 2003. Procreative liberty in the era of genomics. American Journal of Law and Medicine 29(4): 439–487.Google Scholar
  27. “robot.” Merriam-Webster.com. 2012. Available at: http://www.merriam-webster.com. Last accessed 16 Aug 2012.
  28. Savulescu, J. 2002. Deaf lesbians, “designer disability” and the future of medicine. BMJ 325: 771–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shelley, M. 1974, orig. 1818. Frankenstein or: The modern Prometheus, ed. J. Rieger. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  30. Solum, L.B. 1992. Legal personhood for artificial intelligences. North Carolina Law Review 70(4): 1231–1287.Google Scholar
  31. Teubner, G. 2006. Rights of non-humans? Electronic agents and animals as new actors in politics and law. Journal of Law and Society 33(4): 497–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Žižek, S. 1993. Tarrying with the negative: Kant, Hegel, and the critique of ideology. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LawUniversity of HaifaHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations