In this blog post, we explore the influence of genetics, environment, and human choice on destiny through the film Looper.
Several years ago, I saw a film called ‘Looper’. The protagonist, Joe, is a hitman whose job is to kill people transported from the future. It’s simple and well-paid work: just show up at the designated location at the right time, wait for the target to arrive, and shoot them. However, every hitman faces the most dreaded scenario: becoming the target themselves. This happens to the protagonist too. Panicked, he lets the future ‘Joe’ escape from the scene.
But the future ‘Joe’ didn’t flee simply because he didn’t want to die. He convinces the present ‘Joe’ that by eliminating the villain responsible for his future predicament in the present, he can prevent all future problems. Knowing that a hitman who fails to eliminate a target properly becomes the organization’s new target, the present ‘Jo’ seeks to eliminate the future ‘Jo’. He hides, waiting for the right moment, in a place where those he expects will grow into villains gather.
Finally, the present ‘Jo’ arrives at the very moment the future ‘Jo’ is about to kill the boy destined to become a villain. But he suddenly realizes something upon seeing his future self attempting to kill the boy’s mother, who shields the child. It is precisely this moment that he predicts will cause the boy to grow into a villain. The present ‘Jo’ eliminates his future self by shooting himself, allowing the boy and his mother to survive.
If the boy’s genetic factors were the sole cause of his future evil, the protagonist’s choice would have been a meaningless, futile death. But if environmental factors—specifically, the event of his parents being murdered by an unknown assailant, etched into the boy’s mind—influenced his future, then the protagonist’s choice changed that future. Nature or nurture? Is it determined by innate disposition or shaped by upbringing? In truth, this debate is not a novel topic that suddenly emerged recently. The so-called “Nature vs. Nurture” debate is a subject that has been endlessly discussed not only in the West but also in the East.
To put it bluntly, I don’t believe that even if the protagonist saved the boy and his mother, that single event alone eliminated all possibility of the boy growing up to be evil. Nor would I say that the boy inherently possessed the genetic predisposition to become that way. I believe it is invalid to discuss genetic and environmental factors in isolation; I contend that both factors influence each other and shape an individual’s traits.
The nature versus nurture debate presented in the film ‘Looper’ has been a central theme in numerous literary works and philosophical discourses. For instance, in Dostoevsky’s novel ‘Crime and Punishment,’ the question of nature versus nurture emerges as a central theme. The protagonist, Raskolnikov, constantly prompts readers to question whether his crime was inevitably shaped by his social environment or whether it stemmed from his inherent violence and innate disposition. In this way, the complexity of an individual’s actions—which cannot be explained by genetic factors alone or environmental factors alone—is emphasized. Similarly, the choices made by ‘Joe’ in the film underscore that a boy’s future cannot be determined by a single event.
The difficulty of understanding genetic and environmental factors in isolation is also confirmed through the works of others. Evelyn Fox Keller states in her work, “Without environmental factors, genes lack the power to realize the development of each individual; conversely, the environment without genes is equally incapable.” In other words, because their mutual influence is intricately intertwined, discussions that separate them are meaningless. Matt Midley expresses a similar view. Arguing that we must move beyond the nature-nurture dichotomy, he contends in his work that the debate between these two elements should be seen not as one side benefiting at the expense of the other, but as a mutually complementary relationship that yields a richer argument.
In psychologist B.F. Skinner’s behaviorist theory, environmental stimuli are described as the primary factors determining an individual’s behavior. That is, humans learn and modify their behavior through external reinforcement and punishment rather than through innate nature. Applying this to the case of ‘Jo’, it can be seen that the boy’s future is more likely to be significantly influenced by the events he experiences and their psychological impact on him than by his genetic temperament.
The debate over whether nature or nurture exerts a greater influence on humans has also persisted in the East. The book ‘The Mysteries of Prenatal Education’ (태교신기), written by Lady Saju-dang Yi in the 24th year of King Jeongjo’s reign (1800), discusses the power of nurture exerted on the fetus while it resides in the mother’s womb before birth. While it does state that an individual’s innate qualities exert an influence incomparably greater than education—likely reflecting significant influence from Chinese theories of human nature—the significance of ‘Tae Gyo Sin Gi’ lies in its simultaneous revelation of both educational and biological aspects.
This raises a point that must be addressed: whether the external influences exerted on the fetus can truly be termed environmental influences. If external influences affected the fetus during its formation and caused changes in its genetic makeup, these cannot be attributed solely to genetic factors. Epigenetics provides a complementary explanation.
Epigenetics posits that gene activity is influenced by external factors. For example, when a methyl group inside a cell attaches to DNA due to specific circumstances, this process, called ‘methylation,’ reduces gene activity. Beyond methyl groups, actions caused by ethyl groups or environmental hormones, and even higher-level influences like child abuse or parental drug addiction, also suppress genes from expressing properly. It can be said that the environment alters the outcome originally intended by the DNA.
Humans do not grow solely by virtue of their existence. Everyone lives within their own space and time. Even if genes exist within a person’s body, they can only be expressed when a given environment is present. The influences received from the outside during this expression process determine how the genes will be utilized thereafter. Did the boy saved by the protagonist ‘Joe’ grow up to become a villain? We experienced through the future ‘Joe’ that if his world had continued as it was, the boy would have grown into someone who endangered others’ lives due to his inherent genetic traits and the environmental conditions he faced. However, the protagonist’s actions became the trigger, drastically altering the boy’s future.
The film does not show whether the boy grew up to become a villain. It ends much like a fairy tale that concludes with “The princess married the prince and they lived happily ever after,” leaving children to close the book. Perhaps the protagonist’s prediction was wrong. Of course, we cannot definitively say that the boy’s future was predetermined to be villainous solely because his mother died. His future could diverge in many directions depending on the various environmental factors he encounters as he grows up and how his innate genetic predispositions play out. Even small changes in his environment could significantly influence his behavior and character.
In this way, the film suggests that human destiny is not determined by a single factor. Genetic predisposition alone cannot predict a person’s entire character, just as environment alone does not determine everything. This complex interplay of nature and nurture offers no clear answers, leaving human futures firmly in the realm of the unpredictable.
Ultimately, ‘Looper’ leaves the boy’s future open-ended, refusing to definitively state what will become of him. This poses a crucial question for us: Is human destiny truly predetermined by nature? Or can it change based on the environment one lives in and the choices one faces within it? Did the protagonist Joe’s sacrifice truly alter the boy’s future, or would the boy have inevitably turned evil through another path?
The film offers no definitive answer, but it leaves us room to ponder these questions.
