In this blog post, we’ll examine—based on the genetically engineered humans featured in the movie “Gattaca”—how genetic selection and ability enhancement could pose problems for the intensity of competition, individual happiness, and the division of labor in society.
In many pre-modern caste-based societies, one’s birth status largely determined the course of one’s life. The rights and opportunities granted to royalty and slaves differed drastically, and it was difficult to cross those boundaries through individual effort alone. In societies where competition across social classes was limited, it was virtually impossible for everyone to compete fairly under the same conditions. Unless the social order underwent a fundamental change, most people had to accept the status and constraints assigned to them and live accordingly. However, modern society, at least institutionally, adheres to a different set of principles. It rejects discrimination based on social status, values individual freedom and equality of opportunity, and holds that people should be able to compete based on ability and effort. Those who succeed in competition can earn greater rewards, and if they receive social recognition, they may even gain attention as so-called “stars.” The idea that what an individual achieves is more important than the social status into which they were born underpins competition in modern society. Of course, since differences stemming from family background and economic circumstances have not entirely disappeared, it is difficult to say that this principle has been fully realized in reality.
The ideal of modern society—that anyone can compete freely to achieve what they desire—holds fairness as a core value. People compete fiercely for a better life, and these efforts often serve as the driving force behind social progress. However, we must pay attention not only to the achievements brought about by competition but also to the problems that arise in the process. One such issue is that the stress and anxiety accompanying competition can threaten individual happiness. While we cannot conclusively state that the overall level of happiness for humanity is steadily declining based on this alone, we cannot ignore the fact that some people feel unhappiness under the pressure of competition. The film ‘Gattaca’ expands this issue to a society where opportunities vary based on genetic conditions. To explain the distinctions within the film, we will refer to people who were not genetically selected or edited to possess specific abilities as “naturally born humans,” and those who underwent such genetic design as “custom-made humans.” However, since complex traits such as intelligence are influenced by a combination of multiple genes and environmental factors, the film’s premise should not be interpreted to mean that desired abilities can be precisely engineered in reality. Explanation of Intelligence and Genetics from the U.S. National Library of Medicine. Nevertheless, if we assume a society where “custom-made humans”—who excel in various abilities, as depicted in the film—have become the norm, competition could become even more intense than it is today. I intend to critically examine a society of custom-designed humans from the perspective that such competition could amplify stress and anxiety, thereby actually threatening human happiness.
The first reason competition in a society of custom-designed humans could become harsh is that even if the number of people with exceptional intellectual and physical abilities increases, there is no guarantee that the number of desired positions and rewards will increase proportionally. If highly capable individuals compete for limited opportunities, the criteria for determining superiority among them may become even more refined. People will devote more time and effort to stay even slightly ahead of others, and they will also shoulder the burden of having to meet these heightened expectations. This means that an improvement in ability does not necessarily lead to a reduction in competition. If the standards of competition continue to rise in this way, mental fatigue and pressure will increase, and individuals’ sense of happiness is likely to diminish.
To illustrate this, let’s assume that in today’s competitive environment, rankings are determined by a difference of just one point. In a society of “tailored humans,” where competitors’ achievement levels become increasingly similar and evaluation criteria become more granular, it is possible to imagine a situation where a mere 0.1-point difference determines success or failure. Here, the figures 1 point and 0.1 point are not actual research results or future predictions, but rather assumptions designed to illustrate that even minute differences can become criteria for competition. In such a situation, even those who have already achieved outstanding results may feel they have failed due to a very small difference, and they may take on an even greater mental burden in an effort to narrow that gap. Of course, we cannot conclude that stress necessarily increases simply because the score difference is small. The key point is that, whether in a society of naturally born humans or one of genetically engineered humans, competition will not disappear simply through the improvement of abilities as long as limited opportunities and hierarchy-based evaluations persist. If differences that were previously not considered significant become the criteria that determine success or failure, won’t humans—even those with superior abilities—feel even greater pressure than they do now?
Another point to consider is that it is difficult to establish a standard for what constitutes a “perfect” human in every situation. If a society of “custom-made humans” emerges and parents are able to select their children’s genetic traits, many parents will likely choose the conditions deemed most ideal at that particular moment. However, there is no guarantee that those standards will remain constant. This is because people’s expectations and desires vary depending on the society to which they belong and the people with whom they compare themselves. For example, suppose a society considers a height of 180 cm to be the ideal. Once that height becomes commonplace, some people may begin to promote 181 cm as the new ideal simply because they want to stand out from the crowd. However, since actual height is influenced by various genes and environmental factors, it is not a trait that can be precisely engineered as if by entering a desired number. Explanation of Height and Genetics from the U.S. National Library of Medicine While it is conceivable that, if this competition continues, everyone might eventually become giants, this cannot be viewed as a scientifically valid prediction of the future. The key point this example illustrates is that what humans consider “excellent” is relative, and those standards are subject to constant change. Therefore, even a “custom-designed human” could never be a perfect being forever. Nevertheless, should we move toward designing human genetic traits to gain a relative advantage?
In response, some might argue that society has developed through competition and that the fiercer the competition, the greater the achievements. Indeed, competition has that aspect. From an individual’s perspective, competition can help one discover one’s abilities, strive to achieve goals, and be motivated to realize one’s potential. When these efforts accumulate, they contribute to the development of society as a whole. There is also a view that the economic difficulties faced by some communist regimes in the past can be attributed to a lack of competition and performance-based rewards. However, it is an overgeneralization to explain the failure of a specific system solely by the absence of competition or to assume that without competition, no one will work hard. This is because people also derive motivation from a sense of responsibility, the meaning of the work itself, and cooperation with others. Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge that appropriate competition and fair rewards can spur individual effort and aid in societal development.
However, the issue that deserves attention is not the existence of competition itself, but rather the impact that excessive competition has on human life. To consider this, we must first examine why people strive for higher performance and status. While the reasons for participating in competition vary, the desire for a better life and greater happiness is one of the key motivations. Those who succeed in competition can rise to higher positions or receive material rewards. Since financial security reduces life’s anxieties and broadens life’s options, people enter into competition in the hope of greater rewards. These efforts can also contribute to social development. However, economic prosperity does not automatically guarantee happiness, and the burdens one must bear in the process of obtaining rewards must also be taken into account. The situation changes if, due to competition, one is unable to enjoy rest and satisfaction and cannot escape the anxiety that one might fall behind even after achieving success. Competition, which was meant to be a means to a happy life, has instead become an end that obstructs happiness. If competition, which began as a pursuit of a better life, turns into a race to keep up with ever-rising standards, then the purpose and means of competition have been reversed.
An example of the controversy surrounding excessive competition and academic pressure is the series of student suicides that occurred at the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) in South Korea in 2011. At the time, the pressure placed on students by a tuition system in which fees varied based on grades and by the competitive academic environment became a major social issue, and the tuition system in question was subsequently abolished. Record of the KAIST Incident and System Changes However, the deaths of individual students should not be attributed to a single cause, such as the tuition system or academic competition. What this case highlights is that when academic performance is linked to financial burden, the pressure felt by students can intensify. Jerome from the movie ‘Gattaca’ also prompts us to reflect on the relationship between competition and happiness. Although he possessed exceptional genetic traits, he could not accept winning only a silver medal in swimming and experienced deep frustration caught between the expectation that he must be the best and the reality of his situation. The film reveals that he became paralyzed from the waist down after attempting suicide, demonstrating that exceptional genetic traits do not shield one from mental anguish. Plot of the movie “Gattaca” Through these examples, I believe that enhancing human capabilities alone cannot guarantee happiness, and that we must oppose a society of “custom-made humans” that further intensifies the pressure to achieve superior results.
The problems that the emergence of “custom-made humans” could bring are not limited to individual happiness. Many parents hope their children will live happily and believe that economic stability is a crucial condition for that happiness. Their desire for their children to attend a good university and secure a socially respected career is closely tied to this. If a society emerges where parents can select the genetic traits of their unborn children, choices are likely to be concentrated on the traits that society at that time deems advantageous for success. This is because parents want to spare their children hardship and provide them with better opportunities. The pianist with six fingers on one hand and the swimmer Jerome, who possesses exceptional physical abilities, both featured in the movie ‘Gattaca’, symbolically represent expectations for specific abilities and achievements. Following this line of reasoning, parents might attempt to endow their children with traits they deem suitable for socially coveted professions. If so, who will take on the jobs that must be performed in difficult or dangerous environments? The term “3D jobs” refers to work that is difficult, dangerous, and dirty—that is, work performed in harsh, hazardous, or unsanitary environments. Examples include certain tasks at construction sites, as well as waste collection and cleaning jobs. However, this terminology should not be used as a basis for devaluing these professions or the people who work in them. The key point is not that the work is inferior, but rather that the intensity of the labor, the risks involved, and the working conditions can make it difficult to secure workers. Society absolutely needs people to perform these tasks. Human society is sustained by the labor of people working in various fields, and it can develop stably only when necessary tasks are carried out evenly.
In response to this, some might argue that people who have failed to secure the status they desired through competition should simply take on such jobs. It could also be argued that “tailored humans,” if they are healthy and physically capable, would be better able to adapt to strenuous labor. However, it is inappropriate to label workers in certain occupations as “losers” in the competition, and having favorable genetic conditions does not automatically make even hazardous working environments safe. The value of technologies aimed at reducing the risk of genetic diseases and treating illnesses can certainly be recognized. In fact, while human genome editing has the potential to be used for the treatment and prevention of diseases, genetic changes that can be passed on to future generations entail separate risks and ethical issues. World Health Organization Recommendations on Human Genome Editing Therefore, we must distinguish between the goal of reducing disease and the goal of designing humans with desired abilities. It is also unreasonable to assume that genetic intervention can prevent all congenital diseases or disabilities. In particular, it is impossible to equip individuals in advance with the ability to defend against every disease that may emerge in the future. From an immunological perspective, this means that even if specific genetic traits are selected, immunity against all future pathogens cannot be guaranteed. Even as science advances, it remains difficult to completely eliminate the risks posed by newly emerging diseases, natural disasters, or workplace accidents. Even “custom-designed humans” are people who must be protected from such risks. Furthermore, if choices become concentrated on preferred occupations and there is a shortage of people to perform essential tasks, an imbalance in the distribution of labor could arise. While we cannot conclude that this is an inevitable outcome, it is reason enough to be wary of the expectation that society’s labor problems will be solved solely through the enhancement of abilities. Considering these limitations, I find it difficult to view a society of “custom-designed humans” with optimism.
Human happiness can arise from the process of freely choosing one’s own life, exercising one’s abilities, and achieving self-actualization. While healthy competition can stimulate this process, it is not the sole condition for creating happiness. Today, there are people who struggle with career choices because they do not fully understand their own talents, and others who, exhausted by constant competition, long for a different way of life. However, if we pursue a society of “custom-made humans”—where abilities and career paths are designed even before birth—solely to resolve these difficulties, it could actually create new burdens. This is because the expectation of providing better conditions could turn into pressure to achieve higher performance. If the desire to excel grows endlessly in that process, there is also a risk that technology intended to promote human freedom and happiness will be used as a means to mold people to fit certain standards.
The world has developed through the cooperation of people with diverse abilities and roles. We cannot limit the people society needs to only those with high intelligence or exceptional skills in specific areas. If we focus solely on the improvement of certain abilities, it is easy to assume that “custom-made humans” possess more desirable qualities than those born naturally. However, the value of human life and society cannot be assessed based on just a few abilities. To avoid making judgments that overlook the bigger picture, we must examine not only the benefits gained from enhancing abilities but also the pressures of competition, individual happiness, and the need for diverse forms of labor. Before expecting a society of “custom-made humans” to solve our current problems, we must consider the possibility that it could exacerbate existing issues or create new difficulties. This is because making humans more exceptional does not always equate to making them happier.
