In this blog post, I’ll examine the potential problems that the emergence of “custom-made humans”—as depicted in the movie ‘Gattaca’—could bring to humanity and society, and consider whether the enhancement of genetic abilities necessarily leads to a better society.
Since Gregor Mendel discovered in 1865 through his pea experiments that genetic traits are inherited in discrete units, human understanding of genetics has advanced rapidly—from Watson and Crick’s proposal of the double helix structure of DNA in 1953 to the Human Genome Project’s announcement of the virtually complete human genome sequence in 2003. As genomic analysis technologies continued to advance, the first complete human genome sequence—spanning from telomere to telomere—was published in 2022. Today, humans enjoy a higher quality of life than ever before, thanks to the mass production of insulin and various pharmaceuticals and agricultural technologies made possible by genetic engineering.
The movie ‘Gattaca’ depicts a future society with a very high level of understanding and utilization of genetics. In a society where most people use assisted reproductive technologies and genetic screening to have children with desired traits, those born naturally are labeled “invalids” and face social restrictions and discrimination. In the film, Vincent applies to a company called Gattaca to fulfill his dream of becoming an astronaut, but as a naturally born individual, he is unable to join the company due to his genetic risk factors. The only job he could get was as a janitor at the company. In contrast, Vincent’s younger brother Anton was born through genetic selection and is evaluated as possessing superior abilities to Vincent in many respects.
In a society like the one depicted in ‘Gattaca’, most people would likely want to avoid passing on their unfavorable genetic traits to their children. If traits such as short stature or a weak heart could be prevented from appearing in their children through genetic screening or genetic engineering, many people would likely seek to do so. As a result, many people might come to possess superior characteristics—in terms of intellectual ability, life expectancy, and physical capabilities—compared to previous societies. One could argue that, by objective standards, society has become superior. Since we live on limited resources, it could be argued that if people with objectively improved abilities compete in an even more intense environment, society will develop more productively. However, resources are always limited, regardless of whether people’s abilities improve or not. The fact that resources are limited does not necessarily mean competition will become more intense. On the contrary, in such a society, since many people possess similarly outstanding abilities, the motivation to work as hard as before to compensate for one’s own shortcomings may weaken. As a result, there is a possibility that society could actually become stagnant compared to the previous one. This is because society develops through the process by which people overcome their shortcomings through effort.
Furthermore, if everyone’s abilities are outstanding, there may be no one willing to take on socially undesirable jobs. The current youth unemployment problem may stem from an actual shortage of jobs, but it is also due to the difficulty of finding positions where individuals can fully utilize their abilities. For example, consider a graduate from a top-tier university looking for a job. That person would undoubtedly want to work for a large corporation that offers a good annual salary and benefits. However, if there are no openings at large corporations, would that person actually take a job at a small or medium-sized enterprise? It’s unlikely they would readily do so. In a society where everyone can demonstrate exceptional abilities, many people will seek out highly desirable jobs like those at large corporations mentioned earlier, and from a societal perspective, there may be a shortage of people willing to take on tasks that need to be done but that no one wants to do.
In a society where everyone has the same abilities, winning or losing in competition can be determined solely by effort. In other words, one can be confident that if they lost a competition, it was because they put in less effort than others, and that if they just tried a little harder, they would surely win. One could argue that the frustration experienced in such a society would be less than that experienced in a society where, due to differences in ability, one cannot win no matter how hard they try. However, one could also consider the opposite scenario. For example, in a society like the one we live in today, people who fall behind in competition can take some comfort in the belief that their loss was due to a lack of ability. But in a society where everyone has the same ability, there is no one to blame for losing a competition. In the class-based societies of the past, poor people could attribute their poverty to their social status, but in today’s society, poor people often have no choice but to hold themselves solely responsible for their poverty; in such cases, the sense of unhappiness and frustration stemming from poverty can intensify. In other words, the more people feel that the starting line is the same, the greater the sense of unhappiness and frustration they may feel upon losing a competition, compared to when they feel the starting line is different.
Furthermore, if everyone were to possess only objectively superior genetic traits, their ability to adapt to a changing environment might decline. The plants and animals on Earth have evolved over a long period of time by adapting to their surroundings. From the Precambrian through the Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic eras, there were plants and animals representative of each era, but many of them no longer exist today. This is because they were unable to adapt to significant environmental changes during periods of upheaval. Humans, too, have lived on Earth for thousands of years while preserving a variety of traits that allow them to adapt better to their surroundings. No matter how carefully we select the best traits to create humans, each trait inevitably has weaknesses depending on the situation. For example, the sickle cell trait can cause health problems in normal environments, but in regions where malaria is endemic, it is associated with protection against the disease. In particular, it is known that carriers—individuals with one normal gene and one sickle cell gene—have a selective advantage against malaria. Thus, a trait that appears disadvantageous in a specific environment can aid survival in another. Therefore, if we select only specific traits to create a homogeneous human population and continuously exclude traits that differ from them, we risk losing the ability to adapt when sudden environmental changes occur. Ultimately, if humans fail to adapt to environmental changes, they may face difficulties surviving, much like many species in the past. Furthermore, since there may be traits that have not yet been discovered or that serve different functions in specific environments, problems could also arise from the perspective of ensuring genetic diversity.
As such, “custom-made humans” could cause various problems by standardizing genetic traits around objectively superior dominant traits. The emergence of “custom-designed humans” could certainly increase the likelihood of people living lives marked by superior intellectual ability, life expectancy, and physical capabilities. However, at the same time, it is clear that society could stagnate, no one might be willing to take on jobs that others shun, individuals’ feelings of unhappiness and frustration could grow, and the risk of failing to adapt to environmental changes could increase.
While technological advancements that enable people to live healthier and longer lives undoubtedly fulfill human desires, we must also consider the various problems that could arise as everyone’s traits become increasingly similar. In the latter part of ‘Gattaca’, during the swimming race between the passionate older brother and his genetically superior younger brother, the older brother says the following after defeating his younger brother: “I beat you because I didn’t hold anything back.” In this way, genes can only reveal certain possibilities and risks regarding human destiny; they do not completely determine a person’s future. Isn’t living life with the belief that one’s future is truly shaped by hard work and effort the very essence of a truly human life?
