In this blog post, I’ll examine—through the movie ‘Gattaca’—whether the creation of “designer humans” could represent progress that overcomes human disease and limitations, and what we should be wary of in a society where genetic traits determine human worth and destiny.
Can “Designer Humans” Be the Hope for Human Progress?
Vincent, the protagonist of the movie “Gattaca,” has felt inferior to his younger brother since childhood. His brother, a “designer human” who inherited specific genetic advantages selected by their parents, was born healthy, with no major physical or mental defects. In an era where genetic traits can be selected and combined to enhance human health and abilities, Vincent is an “unqualified” individual as defined by society. With a heart weaker than others’ and a higher risk of developing diseases, the only job Vincent can hold is that of a building janitor. Today, biotechnology has advanced beyond simply studying the cells that make up life to analyzing gene functions and editing specific DNA. In particular, gene-editing technologies such as CRISPR-Cas9 are being utilized as practical medical tools to treat certain genetic disorders. However, current technology is still far from the stage depicted in the movie, where parents can freely combine desired traits to create “perfect” humans. In particular, the editing of human embryos—which can be passed on to future generations—is an area fraught with scientific, ethical, and social issues that requires rigorous debate and regulation. For this reason, the movie ‘Gattaca’ prompts us to reflect deeply on the future society that advancing biotechnology might create—and on what constitutes a “suitable” human being in such a society.
Every human being possesses unique physical and genetic characteristics. Some people have heart conditions, while others have poor eyesight—each person’s circumstances are diverse. If we could improve our own disadvantageous genetic traits through gene editing, what choices would we make? Or, when we meet a partner, get married, and have children, what if we could pass on our strengths to our children while reducing their genetic risk of disease? Most people would likely not want to pass on their disadvantageous traits to their children. One might therefore conclude that a society composed of “custom-made humans”—with reduced risks of genetic diseases and improved health-related traits—could realize human progress. However, it is crucial to recognize that a “dominant gene” does not necessarily equate to a “superior gene.” In reality, many human traits are influenced by a combination of genes and the environment, and it is difficult to assert that any single genetic trait is absolutely superior for everyone. Therefore, the discussion on customized humans should be viewed not simply as a matter of selecting dominant genes, but rather as a question of which genetic traits to select or edit in order to reduce the risk of disease and improve human life.
The Potential of Customized Humans to Overcome Disease
While it cannot be definitively stated that customized humans are physically superior to naturally born humans, there is clear potential for reducing the risk of specific genetic diseases. In fact, gene-editing technologies are currently being used in clinical settings to treat certain genetic diseases. For example, Casgevy, a gene-editing therapy, is used to treat sickle cell disease and transfusion-dependent beta-thalassemia. This demonstrates that the genetically engineered future envisioned in the movie ‘Gattaca’ is, at least in terms of disease treatment, becoming a reality to some extent. However, this does not mean that all human physical defects or diseases can be eliminated in advance. Even in the case of genetic disorders, the cause is not limited to a single gene; rather, many diseases and human traits result from the complex interaction of multiple genes and environmental factors.
So, can “custom-made humans” fulfill humanity’s long-held desire for a long, disease-free life? Given the current level of science and technology, it is difficult to view the elimination of all diseases and the infinite extension of human lifespan as realistic goals. The future society depicted in ‘Gattaca’ profiles all humans through blood tests and analyzes them based on these results. The basis for this analysis is probabilistic factors. It predicts a person’s future in terms of the probability of developing heart disease or their life expectancy. Some argue that probability does not guarantee certainty. In other words, even if there is a 99% probability of not developing heart disease, the remaining 1% cannot be ignored, and it is precisely that 1% that could alter one’s fate. That statement is certainly true. This is because the term “probability” itself does not guarantee certainty; rather, it indicates the likelihood of a certain event occurring within a given population. If the majority of 100 people do not develop a specific heart disease, this can certainly be viewed as progress in the sense that it reduces the risk of the disease. Of course, there may be some individuals who cannot avoid that 1% risk. However, viewed as a whole, lowering the likelihood of the disease occurring can contribute to extending average healthy life expectancy. Furthermore, if it becomes possible to reduce the genetic risk of a specific disease in the next generation, the likelihood of that disease occurring could decrease across society as a whole. In that case, we would be able to reduce the burden of certain genetic diseases that have plagued humanity through the creation of “custom-made humans.” However, current gene-editing technology is still at the stage of demonstrating these possibilities; it has not yet reached the point where it can eliminate all diseases or fully control human lifespan. The World Health Organization (WHO) also acknowledges the potential of human genome editing to contribute to disease prevention and treatment, while emphasizing the need for robust management and oversight regarding safety, ethics, and social inequality.
A contrasting viewpoint raised here is the argument that if all humans were “custom-designed” and lived long, healthy lives, the influence of natural factors that have historically regulated population size would weaken, leading to a sharp increase in the human population. The argument goes that if the human population were to surge, the costs of consumption and resources required to sustain that society would also rise exponentially. This conclusion is derived from the premise that most people are highly likely to choose to have their offspring as “tailored humans.” However, in a society where technology exists to modify human genetic traits, wouldn’t the technologies underlying human life—such as those related to food, clothing, and shelter—also have advanced sufficiently to support a society of “tailored humans”? If so, one might expect that even if the human population becomes excessively large—with everyone being a “custom-designed human”—there would still be a sufficient supply of the consumer goods that form the foundation of daily life. Furthermore, if humans can remain healthy even in old age, there is a possibility that medical costs associated with certain diseases could decrease. Of course, in reality, issues such as population growth, resource consumption, medical costs, the labor market, and pensions are intricately intertwined, so it is difficult to conclusively state that social costs would decrease or increase simply due to the emergence of customized humans. Therefore, assuming for now that the issue of social costs is not a major concern, I would like to explore the question of what constitutes a truly human existence in a society of customized humans through the two protagonists of ‘Gattaca’, Jerome and Vincent.
Can “Designer Humans” Escape Inferiority and Despair?
The character to watch most closely in ‘Gattaca’ is the real Jerome. I refer to him as the “real” Jerome to distinguish him from Vincent, who has borrowed Jerome’s body and identity. In ‘Gattaca’, Jerome is a “designer human” who was born with innate talent for swimming. However, he was defeated by another “designer human” and had to settle for second place. After becoming paralyzed from the waist down due to an accident, he provides Vincent with his identity and genetic information, allowing Vincent to fulfill his dream on his behalf. Watching Vincent realize that dream, he hangs the silver medal around his neck and takes his own life—a scene that provokes deep reflection. Although he was a natural swimmer, he was defeated by a “custom-made human” who was innately more gifted than he was, leaving him with no choice but to feel inferior. Rather than acknowledging his limitations and striving tirelessly like Vincent, he labels himself as a “second-place finisher.” If someone born with physical conditions far superior to others still cannot help but feel inferior, it leads one to question the very concept of “custom-made humans.” However, if a hierarchy of superiority and inferiority exists even among “custom-made humans” with outstanding genetic conditions, then Jerome, too, is ultimately just an ordinary human being. Jerome takes his own life after witnessing Vincent—to whom he had illegally provided blood and genetic information—fulfill his dream of becoming an astronaut. Even at that moment, he is clutching tightly to the silver medal that had made him feel inferior. For Jerome—once a promising swimmer who became disabled due to an accident—Vincent represented the very dream he was willing to sacrifice everything to achieve, and was the only means by which he could overcome the despair he had felt in swimming. The reality that forced Jerome to help Vincent—even if it meant breaking the law—and the suicide of Jerome, a “custom-made” human, imply that even those with superior genetic makeup cannot completely escape the limitations inherent to humanity, such as suffering and despair. The tragedy Jerome experiences in ‘Gattaca’ demonstrates that no matter how exceptional one’s genetic makeup may be, it cannot guarantee human happiness, self-esteem, or the meaning of life.
The next character to consider is the protagonist, Vincent. Born naturally, Vincent is a “non-conformer,” but he has harbored a dream of becoming an astronaut since childhood. He strives tirelessly to make that dream a reality. However, blocked by societal barriers, he ends up borrowing Jerome’s identity—though this merely involves using Jerome’s bodily fluids and genetic information to pass blood and urine tests, not actually borrowing his body. His body is his own, and so are his strong will and mental fortitude. Although he had a more than 90% chance of developing heart disease and his life expectancy was predicted to be 30 years, he overcame those low odds through sheer willpower and lived longer than expected. Most importantly, he ultimately realizes his dream of becoming an astronaut. Although Jerome and Vincent started from different starting points, it is Vincent who ultimately achieves his dream. Ultimately, the film’s message is that no matter how outstanding one’s physical “hardware” may be, it is the “software”—one’s spirit and willpower—that determines our future and destiny. This logic can also be applied to “custom-made humans.” Jerome cannot win first place in swimming due to his innate abilities and always remains in second place. And he “resigns himself” to this. However, as he watches Vincent—who, despite being deemed unqualified, strives to overcome his limitations—he gradually comes to realize the importance of willpower. If Jerome were to possess not only exceptionally outstanding innate physical conditions but also strong mental fortitude, he would surely be able to win first place in swimming. If human willpower were combined with genetically engineered humans, it would mark the emergence of a truly perfect humanity. Of course, the “perfection” referred to here does not mean that all humans become superior by the same standard; rather, it can be interpreted as a state where genetic conditions do not determine human potential, and where each individual’s will and choices are respected.
Could Discrimination Disappear in a Society of Custom-Made Humans?
As seen in Vincent’s case, the central issue in ‘Gattaca’ is societal discrimination. ‘Gattaca’ divides the social system into “qualified” and “unqualified” individuals. The criterion for this distinction is whether a person is a custom-made human or a naturally born human. The flaw in this system is that it socially ostracizes the “unqualified” without giving them any opportunities from the moment they are born. Although Vincent was exceptionally talented, he was forced to assume the identity of a designer human after hitting a social wall. In a society where not all humans are treated equally, even the fairness of opportunity is stripped away. We cannot say with certainty that such a society will not emerge if designer humans can be created. Rather, we must remain constantly vigilant against the possibility of a society forming that evaluates humans based on genetic traits. While current human genome editing technologies are turning the potential for disease treatment into reality, heritable genome editing raises even greater safety and ethical concerns, given its potential to affect children and future generations. Therefore, we must not forget the principle that in a democratic society, all people are equal and human dignity must be guaranteed. Even if “custom-made humans” are created, we must strive for a society where both “custom-made humans” and naturally born humans are equally respected.
From the past to the present, all humans have had different starting points. Some have been physically gifted, while others were born into economically affluent families. However, through laws and institutions, we have been guaranteed equity of opportunity and have strived to offset these inequalities in starting points to some extent. Although legislation prohibiting discrimination is mentioned in ‘Gattaca’, the film depicts a society where genetics equate to social class and where genetic information is bought and sold illegally. However, since the film portrays a world where a society of genetically engineered humans has already arrived, there is no way to know how human society controlled this during the transitional period before such a society emerged. Therefore, if we use the society depicted in the film as a cautionary tale and develop human-customization technologies while preventing the problems that could arise during the transitional period, we will be able to sufficiently reduce future issues related to genetic discrimination. In fact, the World Health Organization emphasizes that, alongside the advancement of human genome editing technologies, safety, ethics, equity, and international governance are essential. This also means that determining the principles and systems under which such technology will be used is just as important as the technology’s development itself.
Will Progress Continue Even If the Perfect Human Is Created?
Humanity’s attainment of such great science, technology, and civilization as we have today stems from the desire for “progress”—the aspiration to be better than we are now. This desire has served as a driving force for the development of human society. So, if a “perfect” humanity were to emerge, would this desire disappear and progress come to a halt? Probably not. Human progress has been fueled not only by the desire for progress but also by interaction with others. We come to understand ourselves through others, and others come to understand themselves through us. As long as humans form societies and live in communities, this dynamic cannot disappear. Even in a society of perfect humans, if each individual’s perfection differs and can be observed through others, the desire for one’s own progress will not disappear. Unless all humans are cloned to be identical, we can discover differences between ourselves and others through them, and one might imagine that this would apply equally even in a society composed of “custom-made” humans. In fact, in a society where human genetic conditions can be improved to some extent, the question of “what constitutes perfection” will become even more important. This is because the meaning of progress, as we perceive it, may vary depending on whether we define a “perfect human” as one who is free from disease, one with exceptional physical abilities, or one who can make independent choices about their life and transcend their own limitations.
Humanity has always sought to move forward. We also strive to overcome our own limitations. If we have a specific goal and select genetic traits best suited to that goal, this would constitute a different kind of progress—one that transcends existing limitations.
This alternative conception of progress—unlike traditional notions—does not merely refer to slow, gradual change, but rather to progress achieved through science and technology that enables us to overcome limitations more rapidly and efficiently. A custom-designed human tailored to specific goals could symbolize this kind of progress, and this would represent yet another advancement in the human world. However, true progress surely does not end with simply creating stronger and healthier humans. Even if genetic conditions become a tool for expanding human potential, they must not become the standard by which human value and destiny are determined. This is because, as Vincent in ‘Gattaca’ demonstrates, human potential is not entirely determined by genetic conditions at birth. Ultimately, if the era of customized humans arrives, what we should strive for is not genetically perfect humans, but a society that utilizes science and technology without losing human will, dignity, and freedom of choice.
