In this blog post, I’ll examine the differences between “custom-made” humans—created through genetic engineering—and naturally born humans through the movie ‘Gattaca’, and consider whether “custom-made” humans can create a better society for everyone.
The movie ‘Gattaca’ is set in a future society where advances in science and technology have made it possible to select or manipulate human genetic traits. As a result, humanity is divided into “natural humans”—those born without genetic manipulation or selection—and “designer humans”—those born after their parents selected traits they desired or screened for genetic characteristics to reduce the risk of disease. In the film, the protagonist Vincent is a natural human, while his younger brother Anton is a designer human, born with more advantageous traits selected by their parents through genetic screening. Vincent attempts to join a company called “Gattaca” to pursue his dream of becoming an astronaut. However, because he is not a “designed human,” he is unable to secure the opportunity he desires in a society where people are evaluated solely based on their genetic profiles. While working as a janitor at Gattaca, Vincent meets another protagonist, Jerome, through a DNA broker. Since Jerome was a designer human with exceptional genetic credentials, Vincent devises a plan to use Jerome’s DNA and identity to become an astronaut. While carrying out his plan, he nearly has his true identity exposed several times and experiences conflict with Jerome, but ultimately, Vincent is selected as an astronaut and departs for Titan, a moon of Saturn. This raises a question for us. Are designer humans truly unconditionally better than natural humans? Designer humans may find life more convenient than natural humans, as they can reduce the risk of genetic diseases or select specific traits. However, it is difficult to argue that a society where everyone is a designer human would necessarily be better than our current society of natural humans.
In this essay, I will present an argument that refutes the essay “Non-Discriminatory Designer Humans and Improved Quality of Life —Reflections on ‘Gattaca’—.” In his essay, Kim Ji-hoon argues that one of the advantages of “custom-made humans” is an improvement in the quality of human life, and that genetic diversity does not necessarily decrease in the process. He also states that discrimination that may arise between “custom-made humans” and “natural humans” can be prevented by law, and that ethical issues are not necessarily serious problems as long as the primary purpose is to ensure that fetuses are not born with diseases or health problems. However, while current gene-editing technologies are being used in research for disease treatment and prevention, as well as in some somatic cell therapies, the editing of human embryos for reproductive purposes—where genetic changes are passed on to the next generation—has not yet reached the stage of widespread clinical application due to safety and ethical concerns. The World Health Organization (WHO) also recognizes that strict regulation and oversight are necessary for heritable human gene editing.
There are several problems with these arguments. Even if the law prohibits discrimination between “designer humans” and “natural humans,” a new form of discrimination could arise if companies or society come to prefer “designer humans” with superior abilities and genetic traits. In fact, in the film ‘Gattaca’, genetic discrimination is legally prohibited, yet people effectively judge human abilities and social status using DNA testing and genetic information. Furthermore, regarding ethical concerns, if people are able to freely select or manipulate genes, parents may compete to give their children better genetic conditions, and in some cases, pressure may arise to select specific traits that are socially preferred. Problems can also arise from the fact that children are born with genetic traits chosen by their parents, regardless of their own will. In addition to these issues, another point worth considering is the potential for a reduction in genetic diversity. Of course, genetic editing or genetic selection does not automatically lead to a decrease in genetic diversity, and the outcome may vary depending on which genes are selected and which traits are socially preferred. However, if many people prefer the same or similar traits and those choices are repeated across multiple generations, it is entirely plausible that certain genetic traits could be selected excessively within a population.
First, let’s examine the possibility that genetic diversity might decrease in the process of creating “designer humans.” In his article, Kim Ji-hoon stated that the creation of “designer humans” does not necessarily lead to a reduction in genetic diversity. However, if, in the process of creating “designer humans,” specific genetic variants are repeatedly selected or modified to lower the risk of certain diseases or to select traits desired by parents, there is a possibility that socially preferred genetic traits will become increasingly widespread. However, it is inaccurate to explain this simply by saying that “removing recessive alleles reduces the number of genes.” A gene is not harmful or unnecessary merely because it is recessive, and many recessive variants cause no health problems whatsoever. Therefore, the issue of reduced genetic diversity should be considered not in terms of the blanket removal of recessive alleles, but rather in the context of people consistently selecting specific genetic traits based on similar criteria. While it may be a natural desire for parents to want to pass on better genetic traits to their children, if the types of “good” genes preferred by society as a whole become limited and that selection is repeated over multiple generations, people’s genetic traits are likely to become increasingly similar. As gene-editing technologies advance, it is also necessary to consider the possibility that such selection could extend beyond individual choice and lead to societal competition.
If this situation repeats itself, there is a possibility that specific genetic traits will become excessively concentrated over multiple generations. Opponents of this view might argue as follows: For example, some parents might select genetic traits associated with very tall stature because they want their child to become a basketball player, while others might select traits associated with relatively short stature because they want their child to become an equestrian. Furthermore, some parents might choose physical traits that are generally not preferred because they hope their child will become a comedian. However, it is difficult to conclude that genetic diversity is sufficiently maintained by these choices alone. In reality, most people would prefer a moderate height rather than an extremely tall or short one, and they are also likely to prefer children whose appearance is close to their own ideal standards. For example, if many parents prefer the handsome looks of actors like Kang Dong-won or Won Bin, there may be a recurring tendency to select similar physical features. Of course, just because a certain trait is preferred does not mean that the genes associated with it are simply selected one by one; human traits are influenced by a combination of multiple genes and environmental factors. Nevertheless, if the selection of specific, socially preferred traits is repeated over a long period, it is possible that this could affect genetic diversity. Therefore, in a society where “custom-made humans” emerge, we must not only consider the quality of life for individuals but also take into account the cumulative effects of genetic selection across multiple generations.
Potential issues that arise when genetic diversity decreases or specific genetic traits become overly concentrated include a weakened ability to adapt to changes in the natural environment and increased collective vulnerability to disease. If the natural environment were to change significantly from what it is today, people with similar genetic traits might become collectively vulnerable to specific environmental changes. Furthermore, if new viruses or pathogens—as yet undiscovered—were to emerge, they could cause widespread harm. Historically, there have been infectious diseases such as the Black Death and the Spanish Flu that resulted in a very high number of casualties. While one might think that creating “custom-made humans” through genetic manipulation could reduce the risk of specific diseases, this does not guarantee resistance to all future diseases. This is because human immune responses and susceptibility to disease result from the combined effects of various genetic and environmental factors. In particular, if a new disease emerges due to a new virus, it is difficult to fully predict in advance how existing genetic traits will affect that disease. One might argue that if science and technology have advanced to the point of gene editing, new diseases can also be easily treated; however, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim. While disease treatment and gene-editing technologies may be related, they are not the same field, and even if a cure for a new disease is sought, it may take a considerable amount of time to develop it. Therefore, it is difficult to assume that all risks associated with reduced genetic diversity will disappear simply because treatment technologies for specific diseases advance. Rather, as gene-editing technology advances, social and ethical discussions regarding the purposes for which it should be used and the extent to which it should be permitted will become even more important.
This is not to say that “designer humans” are inherently bad. If designer humans were to emerge, the quality of life in society would undoubtedly improve, and there could be areas where society progresses more rapidly—such as through the reduction of risks associated with genetic disorders or through leadership by individuals possessing specific abilities. In fact, current human gene-editing technologies have the potential to be used to treat or prevent diseases, and some somatic cell gene therapies are already in use in medical practice. However, addressing the problems that could arise in a society of “custom-made humans” is likely to be more difficult than solving the problems faced by a society where naturally born humans coexist. In particular, if genetic traits begin to be treated as synonymous with an individual’s abilities or worth, a society could emerge that judges people solely by their genes, as Vincent experienced. Therefore, while the technology for selecting or editing genes need not be viewed as inherently bad, we must approach it with caution to ensure it is not used in ways that restrict human diversity and freedom. Ultimately, what matters is not judging that either “custom-made humans” or “natural humans” are unconditionally superior, but recognizing that genetic traits should not serve as the standard for determining human value. For this reason, living as a “natural human” is also a perfectly valid choice, and advancements in science and technology must be directed toward improving human lives while simultaneously safeguarding human diversity and freedom of choice.
