In this blog post, we’ll examine the differences between genetically engineered humans and naturally born humans through the movie ‘Gattaca’, and consider whether genetically engineering humans to possess superior traits truly enhances human value and happiness.
The movie ‘Gattaca’ is set in the near future, in a society where a person’s social status is determined by their genetic information. Genetic information extracted from human fingernails, saliva, hair, urine, blood, and skin tissue can be used to determine gender, personality, diseases, and even life expectancy. Most importantly, genes are manipulated at the fertilization stage to create humans who are physically and mentally superior to those conceived naturally.
The film’s protagonist, Vincent, is a child conceived naturally through his parents’ love. At birth, genetic testing revealed a high likelihood of negative mental states, diseases, and—in particular—early death due to heart disease; he was born with an average life expectancy of 30 years. In the society of ‘Gattaca’, genetically inferior people born through natural conception are called “unqualified,” and their employment opportunities are extremely limited. In particular, Vincent’s dream job—navigator—is a profession reserved exclusively for the “qualified.” The film’s main plot follows Vincent, an “unqualified” individual in the “Gattaca” society, as he disguises his identity as a “qualified” person to become a navigator. In the “Gattaca” society, where everyone’s potential is determined at birth, various conflicts arise, as depicted in the film.
The “Gattaca” society appears to have no qualms about producing genetically engineered humans. People are readily genetically engineered to achieve superior physical abilities, mental states, and various other superior metrics. But do humans created through genetic engineering truly possess the same value as those born naturally? I do not believe so. Of course, while naturally born humans may have inferior physical abilities compared to genetically engineered ones, as depicted in the film, I believe they possess value simply because they have not been genetically engineered. We need to consider the inherent value of being naturally created without genetic manipulation.
However, even if natural humans have value, many people believe that this value cannot outweigh the many advantages that custom-designed humans will possess. In fact, in the movie, custom-designed humans are preferred precisely because of these physical differences. Furthermore, many people do not believe that simply being unmodified inherently confers greater value than being modified. Let’s first conduct a simple thought experiment to address this. Let’s assume that two objects have the same basic properties, and the only difference is whether human intent was involved in their formation. To give a concrete example, on Jeju Island, there are hexagonal columns known as “columnar joints.” These are naturally formed columns and a popular tourist attraction. Conversely, suppose I were to create a stone with the same composition as these “columnar joints” and shape it into a hexagonal column. Clearly, the hexagonal columns I created are no different from “columnar joints,” but people would not flock to see the ones I made. This is because they were intentionally created, and one cannot find the value of “naturalness” in them.
We must therefore consider why a difference in value arises between what is natural and what is intentional. First, given that something is intentional, we can identify the agent of manipulation—that is, a subject possessing some form of consciousness. To narrow the discussion slightly, let’s assume that the conscious agent is a human being. Furthermore, given that natural phenomena exist, we can see that humans did not create all things. A point that must not be overlooked here is that the agent who assigns value to an object is also a human being. In other words, the value of an object is also created by humans—the agents of consciousness—and this, too, is not natural but involves human intention. This is only natural; people assign higher value to objects that are more beneficial to them. Furthermore, people intentionally assign value by considering not only the convenience and pleasure an object provides but also various emotions. In other words, if the fact that an object was formed naturally versus the fact that it was intentionally created influences human emotions, their value can differ even if their physical properties are identical.
So, why do naturally formed objects hold greater value than manufactured ones? While their values may differ, one might think that manufactured objects could actually hold greater value. I believe the reason natural objects hold greater value is due to the scarcity of naturally formed objects. Through many life experiences, people have come to judge that, among objects with similar or identical properties, the scarce ones hold greater value. This becomes clear when we consider that the meaning and value of scarcity are determined by humans. When someone who owns a common object needs a rare one, it is difficult to obtain; conversely, it is easy to obtain a common object. In other words, the situation that is more advantageous to oneself is possessing a rare object, and therefore, such objects are assigned greater value. Let’s consider the value of artificial versus natural objects once more. Naturally formed objects exist in limited quantities. However, the quantity of objects created by human design can be intentionally increased. In other words, objects created by human design are less scarce than naturally formed objects, and thus their value is diminished.
Kim Ji-hoon (2013) argues that since customized humans are superior to natural humans in various physical metrics, they will contribute more significantly to humanity. However, I hold a negative view on this as well. Even if the abilities of natural humans and customized humans differ, I believe that a society composed of customized humans—given their excessive superiority and the fact that they were intentionally created—would be inferior to a society of natural humans. Society must guarantee the happiness of each and every one of its members. Businesses expand the economy, and advances in science and technology enrich human lives, thereby contributing to the happiness of humanity. In other words, what we must not overlook is that we should strive for a society where members can feel happy, rather than one defined solely by numerical indicators of economic power or human superiority. At first glance, the society in ‘Gattaca’ appears to have taken the fulfillment of basic human needs to the extreme. Custom-designed humans can prevent most diseases even before birth, and their physical abilities are also exceptional. Furthermore, since even mental states—such as violent tendencies—can be regulated, the capabilities of each individual are clearly superior to those in conventional societies. However, this superiority does not necessarily guarantee the happiness of its members. On the contrary, as the gap in talent widens excessively, numerous social problems will arise and conflicts will intensify between the “unqualified”—those conceived naturally—and the “qualified”—those born through genetic engineering.
In the society of ‘Gattaca’, the “unqualified” are given no opportunities. While many argue that this is because ‘Gattaca’’s society has chosen to practice discrimination, it cannot simply be dismissed as discrimination when objective differences in ability are proven. However, while this approach may help society continue to develop in the short term, it makes it difficult for individuals to feel happy. If people cannot achieve what they desire no matter how hard they try, they will not strive to improve themselves, and the “unqualified” will simply do what society permits—not what they want, but what is given to them. Furthermore, in the long run, if opportunities for the “unqualified” are restricted and competition diminishes, even the “qualified” will become complacent with the status quo rather than seeking further development. Just as historically powerful nations have often collapsed after becoming complacent and failing to develop further, society too can stagnate if it loses the opportunities for continuous competition and development. Furthermore, happiness is not something felt solely in a life of equilibrium. People feel happy when positive changes occur in their lives. It is not simply having a lot of money that brings happiness; rather, people feel happiness when their wealth increases further. Even the qualified may become intoxicated by a sense of superiority in their current lives, but that sense of happiness will not last long, and that society will experience a steady decline in development, eventually collapsing.
I would proudly choose to be a natural human being rather than a “custom-made human” created by someone’s design to be born under slightly better conditions than others.
