Blade Runner 2099, the latest sequel to the classic 1982 film Blade Runner, premieres later this month on Amazon Prime Video. The sci-fi enthusiast in me is, of course, looking forward to it, especially given the high quality of the previous sequel from 2017, Blade Runner 2049.
That said, I’m anticipating that the economics of the miniseries will be as aggravating to me as those of its two cinematic predecessors. The Ridley Scott–directed original film—which was only loosely adapted from the 1968 novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Philip K. Dick—imagined a 2019 Los Angeles of tremendous technological progress: humanoid robots, flying cars, and trips to off-world colonies.
Despite those advances, Blade Runner offers one of the most famous depictions of a dystopia ever put on film. Even if it ever stopped raining and the skies cleared, this would still be a world where the fruits of technological progress are enjoyed by a tiny elite living in impossibly high pyramid-shaped skyscrapers or in those aforementioned space colonies. Everybody else mucks around down below, hustling for a few bucks and some decent noodles wherever they can.
No wonder there are some critics who read the film as a neo-Marxist cautionary tale about late capitalism (with a bit of environmental catastrophism tossed in for good measure) where workers—at least the artificial ones—finally decide to throw off their chains. But economic history suggests a far different path, given all that tech progress. One would expect the world of Blade Runnerto be far richer across the board, with the consumption habits of the wealthy eventually becoming commonplace.
This is certainly what happened with real-world advances such as automobiles, air travel, computers, and smartphones. I’m reminded of this quote from British historian and Whig politician Thomas Babington Macaulay: “On what principle is it that, when we see nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?”
Not only do I expect this new Blade Runner iteration to continue with the bad economics of the old one, but apparently it will add a robo-apocalypse angle, according to Wikipedia: “In 2099 Los Angeles, following an uprising, Replicants are the power brokers in the city while humans have become second-class citizens.”
Look, not everything Hollywood produces needs to inspire us to create a better tomorrow. But so very little of what it has produced for a half century fits that description. The Star Trek franchise is an insufficient and imperfect offset.
To create a future of greater abundance and opportunity, futurist Herman Kahn said back in the 1970s, “Perhaps the single most important thing that could be done would be to substitute reasonably accurate positive images of the future for the depressing images that now prevail, especially in the Advanced Capitalist nations.”
Still waiting.
