In this blog post, we’ll examine—based on the social relationships between genetically engineered humans and naturally born humans depicted in the movie ‘Gattaca’—what significance competition and hard work would hold in a society where genetically engineered humans are the norm, and how such a society might evolve.
The film “Gattaca” (1997) depicts a future where scientific and technological advancements have made space travel a reality, and where people born through natural conception (hereinafter referred to as “natural humans”) coexist with those born through reproductive technologies that screen or select genetic information (hereinafter referred to as “engineered humans”). The story follows Vincent, a natural human, who—with the help of Jerome, a designer human—overcomes his circumstances, in which he is not only treated as socially inferior but also suspected of being a potential criminal, and ultimately becomes the astronaut he has always dreamed of being.
In the film, a company called “Gattaca” divides people into two categories based on blood tests: “Designer Humans” are classified as “valid” and hold key positions within the company, while those born through natural conception are classified as “invalid” and are forced to take on jobs such as janitors. The way genetically engineered humans and naturally conceived humans are divided into distinct social classes in the film can be viewed as a transitional phenomenon occurring before genetic screening and reproductive technologies become fully mainstream. In reality, while technologies such as in vitro fertilization (IVF) and preimplantation genetic testing are currently used to reduce the risk of specific genetic disorders, we have not yet reached the point where we can design everyone’s abilities or appearance exactly as desired. In particular, technologies that utilize polygenic traits to select complex characteristics—such as height or intelligence—have not yet been clinically established, and as of 2026, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) does not recommend the clinical use of polygenic embryo selection. Therefore, assuming a society where “custom-made humans” have become completely widespread, the initial wealth gaps and class divisions arising from technology being available only to certain social strata may change over the long term as the technology advances and becomes more widely adopted. Of course, this process may give rise to counterarguments regarding utilitarianism. However, before new technologies become widespread, social disparities often arise due to differences in cost and accessibility, and the nature of these disparities can also change as the technology spreads. Based on this, proponents of the “natural human” could argue that reproductive technologies enabling genetic selection are themselves a cause of widening wealth disparities. However, as with all technologies, as time passes and these technologies advance further, they are likely to become universal, allowing more people to benefit from them. Consequently, an increasing number of people will gradually reap the benefits of these reproductive technologies, and existing class distinctions may naturally diminish over time.
The position that we must adhere to “natural humanity” to eliminate phenomena that inevitably arise during a transitional period can be viewed as akin to the actions of Heungseon Daewongun, who erected the “Stele Against Foreign Relations” to block the influx of new Western culture. Of course, the situation is different from that of the Joseon Dynasty, but personally, I believe that for society to continue developing, we must accept a certain degree of social costs and sacrifices that occur during the transitional period. Historically, whenever new technologies and institutions emerged, conflicts with the existing order arose, and there were instances where people clung to the status quo out of fear of change. On the other hand, capitalist and liberal democratic societies, exemplified by the United States, have also undergone numerous changes and conflicts, refining their institutions and establishing new orders in the process. Therefore, this essay will proceed on the premise of a society where reproductive technologies—including genetic selection—are widely adopted and “custom-made humans” have become the norm.
In an essay written for the “Science and Technology Writing” course during the fall semester of 2012, Jang Se-won (2012) argued that in a future where “custom-made humans” are ubiquitous, competition would be impossible because everyone would be exceptional. He also argued that because “custom-made humans” possess genetic traits that are fundamentally considered superior, they can demonstrate their abilities in various fields without significant effort; consequently, as efforts to compensate for shortcomings and pursue improvement diminish, society will remain stagnant. However, capitalist societies—whether at the individual or corporate level—have developed through continuous competition, with everyone striving to outdo one another. While the driving force for innovation may weaken in a society without competition, a structure in which individuals and companies are rewarded based on the value they create and strive to achieve better results allows new technologies, products, and services to emerge through competition. In that sense, capitalist societies have developed based on competition thus far, and that driving force will continue to be maintained to some extent in the future. I believe the argument that competition is unnecessary because everyone has become competent does not hold water in this regard. No matter how much society develops or how competent people become, competition is inevitable if we are to use finite resources more efficiently. Jang Se-won (2012) argued that limited resources do not necessarily lead to intensified competition, but this can be refuted by examining various phenomena currently occurring on Earth. Oil is one of the most important energy sources in modern society, but its production is concentrated in specific regions, and its reserves are not infinite. Furthermore, significant fluctuations in crude oil prices—driven by the policies of oil-producing nations or international political conditions—can have a substantial impact on the global economy. It is clear that the scarcer the resource and the greater the number of people who need it, the higher the likelihood of competition arising to secure that resource.
Evidence for this can easily be found in today’s society. More people than ever before are attending college and receiving higher levels of education, and living standards and physical health have generally improved compared to the past. Even so, someone has to be a street sweeper. Those who fall behind in the competition may end up taking on roles that others shy away from, while those who win the competition secure the positions that others prefer. The same is true in movies. Some may fall behind in the competition and end up as janitors—even if they are “custom-made humans”—while others may pursue a career as an astronaut. It’s just that, since the portrayal in the movie focuses on the differences between the two groups—natural humans and custom-made humans—this isn’t clearly shown; however, competition among the custom-made humans themselves would likely be fierce. As mentioned earlier, the existence of competition also implies that there is a driving force for societal development. If, through artificial reproductive technologies and genetic selection, the number of people possessing specific abilities or health-related traits increases, the average capabilities of society’s members are likely to rise, and society may consequently develop more rapidly.
Jang Se-won (2012) refutes this argument from the perspective of supporting “natural humans.” While one might think that the widespread adoption of “designer humans” would mean everyone’s abilities have improved, he argues that the greater one’s abilities, the greater the shock or frustration experienced when falling behind in competition with others. He also argues that if people knew from the start that they could not win even if they competed, their sense of frustration would be correspondingly less.
However, it is evident that this contradicts the argument presented earlier by Jang Se-won (2012). In the opening section of his paper, Jang Se-won (2012) argued that society develops through the process of striving to overcome its shortcomings. Yet, knowing in advance that one cannot win even if one competes implies a corresponding decrease in motivation and suggests that one undertakes tasks while having already set limits on one’s own capabilities. If a person comes to believe that no matter how hard they try, they cannot achieve anything beyond a certain level, it will be difficult for them to fully realize their potential, and it will be difficult for society to develop in such an atmosphere. Instead, they will view their circumstances solely in a negative light, and such self-pity could lead to crime or other undesirable social phenomena.
As Edison’s saying, “Genius is 99 percent perspiration and 1 percent inspiration,” suggests, in a society where everyone is a highly capable, “tailor-made” individual, the likelihood of success—regardless of one’s current social standing—increases if one works harder than others. Consequently, competition is bound to become even more intense. Furthermore, looking back at South Korea in the 1970s and 1980s, there was a saying: “A dragon can rise from a muddy pond.” This meant that even amid difficult family circumstances or poor educational environments, people could overcome these challenges and achieve success solely through their own efforts. However, such cases now seem relatively rare compared to the past. Although systems have been established to support people in regions that are relatively less affluent or lack sufficient educational opportunities, these systems alone cannot guarantee the success of people in those areas. In this regard as well, in a society where “tailored individuals” have become the norm, we can expect that an individual’s starting conditions will be less heavily constrained by differences in ability than in the past. This means that even those who grow up in relatively underdeveloped areas can succeed based on their own effort and ability. If this happens, not only will the wealth gap narrow, but we can also expect the development of those regions.
In the movie, Vincent removes the body hair every day to hide the fact that he is impersonating Jerome. Of course, Vincent’s actions demonstrate that even a “natural human” can overcome their birth status through effort and stand on equal footing with “custom-made humans.” However, upon further reflection, this implies that no matter how hard Vincent tries, he is merely pretending to be a “custom-made human”; ultimately, he cannot possess the same genetic conditions they do. Although he overcomes the crises he faces and becomes an astronaut, Vincent must continue to live as Jerome even in space. He must persist in making constant efforts that a custom-made human would not need to make. I can’t help but wonder: if Vincent had been born a custom-made human rather than a natural human, wouldn’t he have become an astronaut and fulfilled his dream without experiencing many of the events depicted in the film—and wouldn’t he have contributed to societal progress in some way? However, today’s genetic engineering has not yet reached the stage of fully designing human capabilities, as depicted in the film’s world. While human genome editing technology is currently being used in medical practice for somatic cell gene editing to treat certain diseases, clinical applications involving the creation of children through the editing of the human germline—which could be passed on to the next generation—are not yet permitted. Therefore, the society of “custom-made” humans depicted in ‘Gattaca’ is not yet a reality; rather, it is more appropriate to view it as a hypothetical future scenario that prompts us to consider the extent to which genetic technology could transform human life and social structures.
