BR2049 Discussion Question Responses

1. After Lt. Joshi (princess Buttercup) tells K to kill the replicant child, he offers "I've never retired something born before." "What's the difference?" asks Joshi. "To be born is to have a soul, I guess." What is a "soul," and does its existence depend on one's origin, as K seems to think? Also: when Joshi remarks "you've done fine without one," is that an insult or a compliment?
   
   Shane: A soul is the immaterial aspect of a human that differentiates us from animals. I think it persists after death. Descartes said "I think, therefore I am." I think this self-realization of our own existence is just as much a self-realization of the existence of our soul. I don't think its an insult, because K is recognized as being great at what he does.
   
   Rishi: In my professional Blade Runner opinion, I think that "soul" is something that makes us human, which is what I think K is referring to when says "To be born is to have a soul, I guess." I think that, yes, in terms of this situation the existence of a soul depends on the origin of the individual. As a robot, if is nearly impossible to program a soul into the body of a program, but a human has a soul when they are born which is what allows them to make moral decisions and create their own moral compass. The soul of a robot, if invented, would all be identical, and would not allow them to be unique and create their own morals as humans have done for years. I think that Joshi was trying to compliment K when she made the statement about K getting on fine with a soul, and I think it was a compliment because K appeared to be sad that he was different and did not have a soul. So, Joshi might have said it to be more reassuring to K so that he would not feel different about being a Replicant.
   
   Jordan: I think in retrospect to the movie, a soul is a characteristic of a human that makes them distinct. It can regulate morals and values, but also serve as a form of conviction when those morals and values are deemed to be compromised. I do think its existence depends on one's origin as it is developed and cultivated based on how you are raised and what ideas and actions are accepted in your environment. If it is something that is programmed then I don't think it carries the same weight. Joshi's remark could be taken either way, but to K, it was probably seen as an insult — as it was something that he was intrigued by.
   
   
2. An important theme of the movie is identifying what's "real." (Examples: when Joi's jingle goes off as Mariette (red-head prostitute) walks with K, Mariette teases "oh, you don't like real girls." Joi tells K that she "wants to be real" for him. Lt. Joshi states that "we're all just looking out for something real." When presented with the new version of Rachael, Deckard confidently says, "I know what's real." K asks Ana (immuno-compromised memory artist) whether his memory is "real.") What does "real" mean to these characters? Also, in a scene strikingly similar to the one in Her, the body-less Joi merges with Mariette to have sex with K. If K is right that only those who are "born" have souls, then it would seem that Joi possesses neither a soul nor a body. What is she, then? In what sense is she "real?" Which one would make her more "real": endowing her with a soul, or endowing her with a body?
   
   Jordan: Real to these characters is something they can be assured belongs to them and only them. It can range from memories to romantic partners, but each should represent a personal experience that then translates to the feeling of being real. In reference to the second part of the question, Joi can be simply seen as a virtual companion. She is real, in a sense that she provides companionship to K in a way that no one else does in the movie and seems to stick by him until she can't anymore, but outside of that there is nothing more. I think that endowing her with a body would make her more real to other humans as it would present something most similar to them. The only way to discover the lack of soul would be to dig a lot deeper in my opinion.
   
   Rishi: I think that in the case of this situation, the sense of the term "real" is similar to our sense of the term "real." In other words, I am referring to the everyday activities that we do as human beings that we know to be real, anything we do when we are awake and not asleep is "real," and I think the term means the same way in the movie, anything that actually happens in their life when they are awake and sometimes they struggle to realize if it is real or not because they are replicants and they have to decide whether what they see or remember is real or not. Joi is simply a hologram of a woman and in the term of the sense of the "real," she is not real. She is a hologram or a projection of a woman as a video. Therefore, she is not real, and it makes sense in that way because she is just a projection. I think having a body will make her body more real because it is something that K can actually hold and feel. Before, it was just a video that he could watch and listen to. Endowing her with a body will give her the best chance of becoming more "real" than merely just giving her a soul.
   
   Shane: Real means not created just to fulfill a role. Even when the replicants are created to carry out specific tasks, because they have free will they can choose to do something other than what they were created for, making them real in the sense they have real feelings, autonomy, agency, etc. Even though movies aren't "real" they still explore real human emotion and emotion they evoke in us is not fake.
   As I said in response 1, I think a soul is the most important aspect of existence. Our bodies are just as much a part of the physical universe as inanimate objects around us. The material making up our bodies came from stars. So saying, "my body exists" is really just a statement that "the physical universe exists." The particular atoms of carbon that make up our bodies at the current moment are no more special than any other carbon atoms. A soul is much more important in determining one's own existence as an individual.
3. Although Wallace (sparkle-eyed megalomaniac) seems to view replicant reproduction in practical terms ("we need more replicants than can ever be assembled") other characters like Mariette, Freysa (one-eyed resistance leader) and Luv (psycho ponytail) treat it as an ontological game-changer. The ability to reproduce would "mean we're more than just slaves" (Freysa). The same theme is explored in Battlestar Galactica, as the Cylons seek to breed with each other and cross-breed with humans. Why would the ability to have offspring make replicants "more real," "have a soul," or anything else?
   
   Rishi: I think that having the ability to reproduce and make more of themselves makes them feel more human because that is something that humans can still do that replicants cannot even though they are worse at everything else compared to the replicants. In order for the replicants to be fully replicated as humans, they need the ability to reproduce so that the last function of humans can be accomplished by the replicants. Also, the ability to reproduce would "mean we're more than just slaves," meaning they would have the ability to start a family or make other choices other than the tasks that they were designed for. It would allow them to be more human, in the sense that they could determine what they wanted to do, in terms of reproduction. It allows them to make the unique decisions that humans have the right to make, and once that is accomplished, I think that the saying "More human than human," would become true.
   
   Nico: I share the belief of Freysa and Luv who treat the idea of replicant reproduction as an ontological game changer. The ability to reproduce will mean that replicants are no longer machines, as machines cannot reproduce offspring. Reproduction is solely an animal characteristic. All animal species, no matter the fashion, can reproduce in some way. Thus, if Remnants gained the ability to reproduce, it would propel them from being just a machine (or human replicant) into their species. This makes reproduction such a game changer as it would make replicants be more than slaves or tools, but instead be their own species and in turn force many humans to view them in a different light.
   
   Shane: They couldn't be controlled. Instead of just being a product that rolls off the assembly line, they would have the autonomy of promulgating their own species. They would not exist just because a lever was pulled in a factory. It makes them independent as a species, but doesn't contribute to their realness or "soulness."
   
   Jordan: The ability to have offspring would make replicants more real for sure, but the implementation of a soul would be quite difficult to breed. Having the ability to reproduce would simply be a game changer for replicants because it would be one step closer to completing all tasks that humans can do. Reproduction also leads to an increase in population and it is really hard to ignore and disregard a group when they shift their appearance from minority to gradual majority! Additionally, the ability to produce offspring would confirm that replicants are progressive in a sense, therefore, it could be hypothesized that soul implementation could occur sooner than imagined - completing another piece to such a very complex puzzle.