In this blog post, I’d like to reflect on the social issues that could arise in a society where genetically engineered humans are commonplace, as well as the value of naturally born humans, through the movie ‘GATTACA’.
Let’s talk about the movie ‘GATTACA’. In the near future, most people will be able to select desired genetic traits through artificial insemination—rather than natural conception—before having children. They will also be able to genetically screen for or reduce the risk of conditions or specific traits such as left-handedness, nearsightedness, short stature, and heart disease. In this situation, parents will utilize genetic selection when having children to eliminate minor health issues and extend their children’s expected lifespan. Consequently, the world will be flooded with “custom-made humans” possessing genetically selected traits, while “natural humans”—born through natural conception with genetic risk factors—will find it difficult to secure jobs in the upper echelons of society from the moment they are born. In fact, the film depicts a transitional society where people born through genetic selection are classified as “valid,” while those born naturally are labeled “in-valid,” and this genetic distinction affects everything from social status to employment opportunities.
The protagonist, Vincent, is a naturally born human conceived through natural conception. In contrast, Vincent’s younger brother, Anton, is a genetically engineered human born through genetic selection. The film highlights the physical superiority of genetically engineered humans by showing how, despite being younger than Vincent, Anton is taller and more athletically gifted, and by depicting Vincent wearing reading glasses from childhood onward. While most “natural humans” in the film live their lives believing they can only become janitors because they are natural humans, Vincent has longed for space since childhood. Although Vincent’s parents tell him, “You can only be a janitor,” he dreams of becoming an astronaut—a dream that has been forbidden to him from the moment he was born. Consequently, despite his relentless efforts, the only position he could secure at GATTACA was, as expected, that of a janitor. However, he did not give up on his dream. He met a genetic broker who introduced him to Jerome—a man who had been genetically engineered but was paralyzed from the waist down due to an accident. With the information about Jerome’s paralysis still undisclosed, Vincent decided to impersonate him. Every day, to pass the genetic tests, he had to thoroughly remove any genetic material from his own body and use samples of Jerome’s blood, urine, skin, and hair; nevertheless, he managed to live his life as an astronaut employed by GATTACA. The film ends with him finally boarding the spacecraft bound for Titan, a moon of Saturn, a destination he had longed for.
While I believe a world composed of “natural” humans is more desirable, I have no intention of disputing the physical superiority of genetically engineered humans. If genetically engineered humans were to exist in the real world, it is entirely possible that they would, on average, possess certain physical and physiological advantages through technologies that select specific genetic traits or reduce the risk of disease. However, it is inappropriate to simply explain this as the innate superiority of an entire racial group in reality. For example, the phenomenon in which athletes from specific regional or ancestral groups stand out at a high rate in short-distance events, such as the 100-meter dash, results from a complex interplay of various genetic, environmental, and social factors; it cannot be concluded that a particular race is innately superior in terms of muscle elasticity. While specific genetic variations related to athletic performance have been studied, an athlete’s performance cannot be explained by just one or two genes or by race alone.
However, when asked whether solving the social problems prevalent in any society is possible simply because all its members are “custom-made humans,” I would answer in the negative. In the movie, Jerome was born as a “custom-made human,” but he became paralyzed from the waist down due to an accident, and even during his days as a swimmer, he was always second place, never first. Of course, one could argue that this is still a remarkable achievement, but even in a world of “custom-made humans,” competition that distinguishes between first and second place is inevitable. In fact, the movie shows that the very expectation that Jerome was endowed with genetically superior abilities acts as yet another source of pressure for him. Ultimately, genetic superiority does not guarantee social success, and even in a society composed of genetically engineered humans, comparison, competition, frustration, and discrimination can persist in different forms.
From this perspective, I’d like to offer a brief example of a problem in modern society. One of the major concerns for the younger generation in South Korea today is undoubtedly the employment crisis. Let’s begin by examining the question, “Why does the employment crisis occur?” The reason is likely that while the number of positions needed by companies and the government is limited, the number of people seeking employment far exceeds that number. This phenomenon occurs in the world of natural humans today.
Would such things not occur in a world of customized humans? If everyone were a customized human, it is highly likely that everyone would possess outstanding abilities and start from a similar starting line. If that were the case, I believe competition would ultimately be unavoidable even in a world of customized humans, and the employment crisis could not be resolved simply because everyone is a customized human. Assuming that customized humans exert the same level of effort as natural humans, their work efficiency would be higher than that of natural humans. This would lead to improved work efficiency. In other words, a single customized human could do the work that previously required two natural humans, which might actually cause job opportunities to disappear even further. This is because even if individual abilities improve overall, the number of jobs needed by society as a whole does not increase at the same rate.
The second condition would only be possible if birth rates decline and the global population shrinks. Just because it’s possible to conceive a customized human, would parents actually choose to have fewer children? Let’s think about this simply. Since men and women come together to have children—and assuming there are no childless people—if the initial ratio of men to women is 5:5 and every parent has two children, the global population could remain stable in the long term. Overall, if only the above condition were met, the human population cycle could remain stable. However, reality is different, and South Korea is already facing the problems of a very low birth rate and a shrinking population. Compared to the past, when parents had four or more children, it is common today to have only one sibling or to be an only child. Based on this, one might think that a shrinking population would make it easier to find a job. However, improvements in work efficiency driven by advancements in individual intellectual capabilities and technology, coupled with an aging population resulting from advances in medical technology—that is, as average human life expectancy increases—have also raised the age at which people can work. These factors, combined with the fact that fewer children are being born than in the past, mean that the problem of finding employment cannot be easily solved by population decline alone. In a world of “custom-made humans,” average life expectancy, the working age, and individual capabilities will all increase even further than they are today. This could imply that the population must be reduced even more; however, I believe that from a democratic perspective, the state restricting the number of children a couple can have infringes upon parental freedom. Furthermore, it cannot be assumed that the birth rate would decrease simply because parents are giving birth to children who are “perfectly custom-made.” Consequently, I believe that in a society of “custom-made humans,” employment difficulties are likely to become even more severe.
Thus, the positive aspects of “custom-made humans” argued by Kim Hyung-jin in his essay could actually cause greater problems on a societal level. If social problems are an inevitable part of human society, one might ask whether a world of “custom-made humans”—where people can lead healthier lives—wouldn’t be better. The answer to that question is also “no.” From an individual’s perspective, it would certainly be good to be healthy. Personally, one might think that a “custom-made human” who can live longer—though the value of a long life is certainly debatable—and live healthily is preferable. However, from a broader societal perspective, I believe that the emergence of “custom-made humans,” which could significantly alter the social order under which humanity has lived until now, should not be unconditionally accepted without thoroughly examining the accompanying social problems. Furthermore, if it were possible to conceive a customized human, any parent would likely choose to have a customized child, and there is a possibility they would attempt to select the gender of their child. However, balancing the gender ratio among these children would not be an easy task, and if the state were to regulate this, it would amount to a suppression of individual freedom. In other words, there will be a transitional period as we move from the era of natural humans to that of customized humans. It is questionable whether humanity will be able to navigate this process successfully, and it is possible that these problems—both large and small—could even threaten the democratic values humanity has built up to this point. We must ask ourselves whether customized humans are truly necessary for this world to the extent that we should overlook these anticipated problems, both major and minor. “GATTACA” also illustrates the pressure a society where genetic predictions determine human potential can place on individuals, showing that even those with exceptional genetic abilities may face corresponding expectations and frustrations.
Finally, I’d like to conduct a thought experiment from a personal perspective. Although the situation differs slightly from that in the film, let’s make an assumption to explore the meaning behind what is “manipulated” and what is “pure.” Suppose I could choose between a natural human and a genetically engineered human, but ultimately, whether I am a natural human or a genetically engineered human, everything—including physical abilities and personality—remains identical, and the only difference is the label: “genetically engineered” versus “natural.” In other words, this is a thought experiment about whether my genes would be manipulated at birth or whether I would follow the course of nature. While this doesn’t perfectly align with the premise of an experiment where genetic manipulation is applied from the very beginning, I’d like to extend this as a thought experiment. We tend to prefer and value naturally beautiful people over those who have undergone plastic surgery. Both types are equally attractive in appearance. But why do we prefer naturally beautiful people? I don’t think it’s simply because we’re thinking about having children. The reason, in my view, is scarcity. To become a surgically enhanced beauty, anyone can alter their appearance with just the cost and a short recovery period. However, a naturally beautiful person can only be born when a single egg meets a specific sperm among countless others, resulting in fertilization. Extending this to a thought experiment: if I were born through genetic engineering—a process designed to meet specific desired conditions—it would have a relatively high probability of occurring. However, being born as I am today through the laws of nature is an extremely difficult feat, requiring a series of coincidences with odds approaching one in hundreds of millions. Even if both lives were identical, I would rather live believing that I was chosen and born amidst countless coincidences than living a life that was designed from the start to be inevitable. This is because the latter is more difficult and therefore more valuable. Through the thought experiment above, we can also see why a naturally born human holds greater value.
“GATTACA” depicts a world where genetic information—composed of the bases that make up human DNA: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T)—is treated as if it determines human life. It is difficult to easily answer which is better: a world where, before I am born, I cannot choose the abilities I desire—and where it seems that the genes inherited from my parents determine everything—or, conversely, a world where parents can choose the abilities they want and design their children accordingly. So, would humans truly become happier if we lived in a world where genetic selection were possible?
Perhaps what we should protect is not a perfectly engineered human being, but humanity itself—with all its unpredictable possibilities.
