“Blade Runner is essentially everything you need to know about Dick.” Luna is forever yelling this from our screenwriting room’s rooftops while Dylan just stares at her blankly. The feeling he’s probably giving off is “you haven’t read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? because if you have you’d know that the movie completely misses the complex philosophical underpinnings of the book.” As is tradition, I sit here armchair philosophizing about the book to mediate peace.
Reality, as it often does, lies somewhere in the middle. Dick wrote on so many philosophical levels that a movie could only hope to capture some of what he was getting at. In order to understand what Dick was actually trying to say in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, we have to actually read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? and analyse it as its own entity.
Published in 1968, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? was written at a time when artificial intelligence was beginning to transform from science fiction to scientific reality. Questions about AI were being posed by actual scientists at a time when America was feeling the existential dread of technological disassociation, environmental annihilation, and nuclear fallout panic. Questions about consciousness and what it means to be human weren’t just some hippie fantasy, they were topics seriously being discussed in relation to the world humans were living in.
Author: Philip K. Dick
Year Published: 1968 ( Wikipedia )
Publisher: Doubleday ( Wikipedia )
Pages: 210 ( Wikipedia )
Our Rating: 9/10
For these reasons, it became a part of our dive into books that really delve into the philosophies surrounding identity and consciousness in their dystopian worlds. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? was Dick at his most philosophically ambitious. Sure the story follows a guy who chases androids around for money, but what Androids Dream really grapples with is the meaning of consciousness. What makes consciousness valuable? Is empathy the barometer by which we measure humanness?
Empathy as the Measure of Humanity
One of the first things we’re introduced to in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? is the idea that empathy is what makes us human. There empathy distinction isn’t some base appeal to how humans are better than androids. Dick actually uses empathy as a launch point to ask whether or not emotional response is truly the essence of consciousness.
The Voight-Kampff test measures empathy by gauging emotional responses to questions about the death of animals, destruction of the environment, and general human cruelty. By probing for involuntary physical reactions to descriptions of empathy, the test is able to tell human from android.
By using empathy as the defining characteristic of what makes someone human, Dick is collapsing the traditionally assumed divide between reason and emotion as the markers of consciousness. Sure these androids are intelligent, they have long term memories ( implanted or not ), can solve problems, build relationships, and want to stay alive. But they just don’t seem to feel empathy towards other characters’ suffering like their human counterparts can.
It’s almost as if Dick subscribes to some moral philosophy that values care ethics over rational moral decision making.
One of the most interesting parts about this set up is how it deconstructs itself throughout the text. The Voight-Kampff test is essentially putting a boundary up on where humanity ends and android begins. But what about empathy-deficient humans? In the book we’re introduced to John Isidore, a “special” who passes as human but was deemed unfit for relocation to Mars because of a brain injury he suffered from radiation. Despite his low IQ, John demonstrates empathy for the androids he hides. Contrast this with Rick Deckard, our supposed human protagonist. Deckard regularly dehumanizes the androids he “retires.”
Androids can problem solve? Cheque.
Androids can feel motivated by and connected to other androids? Cheque.
Androids can feel afraid? Cheque.
Androids can feel anger? Cheque.
Androids can lust after femme androids? Cheque.
It’s as if Dick wanted to pose the question of whether empathy is enough of a marker for what it means to be human.
Dick then further explores the toxicity of empathy through society’s dependency on empathy pills. If you need a drug to tell you how to feel about other people’s suffering what does that say about your ability to empathize? And more importantly, what does that say about your capacity for empathy as a valid litmus test for humanity?
Fallout and Disposable Mindscapes
Similar to how empathy operates on a literal and thematic level, Dick’s futuristic world filled with nuclear fallout operates on a thematic and literal level. The fallout raining down from the sky isn’t just creating a post-apocalyptic Earth soaked in radioactive dust. It’s creating a world where the anxieties of living whilst death is perpetually falling from the sky.
Not only have most animal species gone extinct making real live animals some of the most prized possessions you can own, but you also have fake animals to take care of to satisfy your empathetic cravings.
The environment isn’t just playing host to these questions about empathy and what it means to be human. It’s the cause for these questions to exist in the first place.
This then brings us to how you obtain animals in Dick’s world. If you can’t afford a real animal or if you can’t hope in owning a real animal due to maintenance and empathy costs, you buy an electric one. Dummy animals that mimic all of the behaviours of a living animal.
I’m sure you guys can guess where I’m going with this. If you’re capable of empathising with a synthetic object that perfectly emulates all of the psychological benefits of owning a living creature, is it really that different from owning a living creature?
Kipple is litter that randomly accumulates in Dick’s world. It could be anything from useless documents to empty wrappers. What’s interesting about kipple is that it builds off of itself. One piece of kipple leads to another and another and another. It’s a byproduct of humanity that demonstrates the inevitable heat death of the universe.
Humans are constantly trying to clean up kipple but it’ll never stop accumulating.
Radiation fallout not only is causing mutations in the human population creating specials like John Isidore, but it also introduces the problem of life and death.
Does AI Have Rights?
You’re not alive. Your laptop, iPhone, and all other devices have no rights.
Most viewers agree with this sentiment. The bots in AI aren’t sentient, they’re not conscious. They follow flows and if they get out of line or unfair to humans, we simply delete them.
As humans died from radiation poisoning, the folks left behind weren’t exactly sure if they were alive or dead. Since empathy was able to discern life from death, empathy tests became commonplace to see if you were still human.
Again Dick commenting on the anxieties of keeping your dead self together when the world around you is falling apart.
Androids
Of course we can’t talk about Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? without talking about the androids. One of the largest themes of the book is what it means to be conscious. And what better way to explore that theme than by creating robots that think they might be human?
All of the androids we meet in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? are running from their human killers while experiencing fear, sadness, anger, and the desire to live. These emotions that we hold to be characteristics of human consciousness are felt by the very Androids we believe to be our intellectual superiors.
Hell, Rachael Rosen even remembers fake memories of her childhood, can quote poems, and is sexually attracted to Deckard. If we can’t agree that Rachael feels everything we feel, what hope is there for AI rights?
These aren’t your run of the mill robots. They’ve got a four year lifespan which makes their existence more terrifying.
Phillip K. Dick sure loves to toy with the reader when it comes to the androids. Are they really conscious? It’s never really revealed.
Mercerism
Mercerism is a religion in Dick’s book where participants use an empathy box to feel the pain of a man climbing a hill as rocks are hurled at him. As the participants suffer, Wilbur Mercer continues to climb his hill.
Humans are able to feel each other’s suffering through the empathy box creating a collective unconscious of pain and perseverance.
Dick later goes on to discover that Wilbur Mercer was actually filmed climbing a hill on a tiny TV monitor with green glowing rocks being tossed towards him. Essentially Wilbur Mercer isn’t real, he was special affected.
Does this invalid the religious undertones of Mercerism? No, because all of these people are actually feeling each others’ pain. Dick exploring themes of religion before it was cool.
Dick also toys with the reader about Mercerism and the use of empathy boxes. If you need technology to help you feel empathetic towards your fellow man, then isn’t that empathy any real? Similar to the questions about the empathy pills, Dick is making a statement about the humanity’s capacity for empathy.
Relationships in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
The relationships we see built in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? mimic the world we live in. The bond between Rick and Iran is distant. He views her as nothing more than breeding stock despite the emotions she feels towards him.
Rick’s relationship with his animal demonstrates his desire to own a living thing to prove his social status. Even his relationship with John feels utilitarian.
The only relationship we see that is somewhat genuine is between Rick and his wife Iran.
Our only window into Rick Deckard’s “psyche” is through his obsession with owning a real animal rather than an electric one. His anxiety over maintaining his electric sheep that already perfectly substitutes for a real one really makes you think… would you even know the difference?
Don’t question your fellow humans. They’re already questioning themselves.
Conclusion
Dick tackles questions about authenticity on every conceivable level. Authentic animals vs fake animals, authentic humans vs Android robots, a fake religious figure preaching about an authentic god, authentic emotions vs chemically induced emotions. The list goes on and on.
Every facet of life we hold to be authentic really is called into question.
You’re wondering why all of this matters? So does Philip K. Dick.
One of the reasons Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? is so philosophically brilliant is because it provides no answer. Hell, it doesn’t even allow you to think there is an answer.
There is no argument to be made for what is authentic and what isn’t. Authenticity itself is a social construct we use to feel better about our fake lives.
Why Does This Matter?
You’re wondering “Jax why do I need to read this book?” Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? is essential philosophy you need to read to understand some of today’s biggest debates.
Artificial Intelligence
We are creeping closer and closer to AI actually being possible. We already have smartphones that can learn your daily routines and know when to send you notifications based on your mood. All smartphones have is AI, yet we’re comfortable using them without asking the hard questions about whether or not they think.
Climate Change
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? really brings up the conversation about how humans bond and interact with one another when everything natural is dying around you. Relationships with your partner, relationships with your pets, relationships with yourself.
Medication
If we aren’t sure whether the drugs our doctor’s prescribe us are making us feel authentic enough emotions, how are we supposed to trust they know better than we do?
THIS BOOK.
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Philip K. Dick is available now on Amazon.
If you liked this review, be sure to read our review of The Road by Cormac McCarthy.
Jaxon Trent is Dystopian Lens’s resident intellectual powerhouse, providing sharp, critical analyses of sci-fi media with a focus on realism, scientific accuracy, and complex narratives. A lover of hard sci-fi and dystopian themes, Jaxon dissects films, TV shows, and games with academic precision, offering thought-provoking insights backed by deep research. He thrives on debating the philosophical and ethical questions that sci-fi raises, and isn’t afraid to challenge the conventions of the genre. Readers looking for well-reasoned, serious content will find Jaxon’s analytical style a perfect fit for exploring the deeper themes of speculative fiction.