Inequality based on genetic information already exists in our society. So, can custom-made humans solve this? We explore both the ethical issues and the possibilities.
Gattaca is a film about ‘custom-made humans’. It tells the story of a protagonist who is not a custom-made human, living in a future society where the birth of custom-made humans is commonplace and where unequal treatment based on genetic information is prevalent. He ultimately achieves his dream of becoming an astronaut.
This film prompts deep reflection on the impact of scientific and technological advancement on human life and society. The concept of custom-made humans is not merely scientific imagination; it presents the possibility that genetic manipulation technology could become a reality. Even today, gene-editing technology is advancing rapidly, potentially extending beyond disease treatment to altering human abilities and characteristics. Against this backdrop, Gattaca serves as a window into our possible future.
Given that the protagonist is a natural human (not a genetically engineered one), the film takes a rather negative stance toward genetically engineered humans and the society where they are commonplace. The film focuses on the human ‘will’ and ‘passion’ that cannot be quantified. And ‘custom-made humans’ are portrayed as elements threatening that inherent human nature. I, too, was moved by the will and passion of the protagonist Vincent while watching the film. However, despite this, I don’t want to view custom-made humans as negatively as the film does.
What causes people to think negatively about customized humans? I believe it stems primarily from the underlying ‘inequality’ it implies. The view is: Is it truly fair that some succeed easily through genetic manipulation, while others born naturally struggle? While this perspective is understandable, it’s immediately apparent as a double standard when compared to today’s reality, where customized humans don’t exist. For instance, exceptional looks could make someone a celebrity admired by many. Being tall offers an advantage for becoming a basketball or volleyball player. Crucially, as seen in Gattaca, vision is a primary admission requirement at Korea’s Air Force Academy.
Inequality based on genetic information doesn’t merely concern future potential. Even in today’s society, inequality of opportunity exists based on genetic information at birth, irrespective of environment or personal effort. The difference lies only in whether that judgment is made through analysis of the genes themselves or through the traits expressed by those genes. The reason this inequality exists has little to do with whether ‘custom-made humans’ are possible or not. It arises simply because certain human characteristics, such as appearance, height, and eyesight, depend almost entirely on genetic information at birth. This is unavoidable for us humans, each born with our own unique genetic information. Individuals born with specific traits are socially recognized because there is demand for those traits.
Furthermore, the ethical issues surrounding genetic manipulation are also a significant concern. The debate over whether custom-made humans are morally justifiable is ongoing. The long-term effects and potential risks of genetic manipulation on humanity are not yet fully understood. Concerns about the potential misuse of this technology and its capacity to further deepen social and economic disparities are very real.
Thus, it is clear that social inequality based on genetic information did not arise because of custom-made humans. Rather, it is more accurate to view the demand for customized humans as arising precisely because social inequality based on genetic information already exists. If such inequality is already a pervasive problem in our society, might introducing customized humans actually help reduce it? For instance, by having the state cover the costs associated with customized humans. If such a world were to come to pass, we would no longer have to experience situations of inequality based on genetic information. It could become a world where everyone, based on their own strengths, reaps results commensurate with their efforts. Isn’t that the ideal world we’ve so long desired?
Yet, despite this, the reason we tend to view customized humans negatively is because we’re wearing colored glasses. The various conventional beliefs we’ve held until now are shattered by the concept of customized humans. Changing our mindset overnight is certainly no easy task. Yet I must ask again: Is it right to leave the stark inequality that exists as it is, simply because it has ‘always been there naturally’? Or is it right to resolve it through customized humans? If the technology for customized humans becomes feasible in the distant future, we must not miss the opportunity to elevate the quality of our lives and the level of our society to a new dimension.
This discussion is not merely about future scientific possibilities. It demands deep reflection on the essence of human existence and the kind of society we wish to build. We must prepare for the future by considering both the positive changes tailored humans could bring and the resulting moral and ethical challenges. I hope that tailored humans will not merely be a product of scientific advancement, but a tool for building a better society.
