In this blog post, we’ll focus on the “custom-made humans” featured in the movie ‘Gattaca’ to explore the potential of advances in genetic technology to solve the problems of future society, as well as how we might view the ethical and social issues that could arise in the process.

The World of Custom-Designed Humans Depicted in the Movie “Gattaca”

An individual’s life expectancy, probability of developing diseases, physical abilities, and intellectual capabilities are determined to a certain extent even before birth, and wherever one goes, genetic information collected from their eyebrows, hair, or saliva serves as a form of identification. Based on genetic traits determined at birth, an individual’s future occupation and career path are effectively predetermined, and genetic information becomes the criterion for distinguishing one person from another—even more so than nationality. In a way, this way of life appears to be permeated by technocracy; the world depicted in the film ‘Gattaca’ is one where “custom-made humans”—individuals whose traits have been selected and adjusted through genetic engineering—live.
The protagonist, Vincent—a naturally conceived human—was born without his parents having artificially selected or modified his genetic traits. In contrast, his younger brother, Anton, is a human whose genetic traits were screened during in vitro fertilization to minimize the likelihood of diseases or specific risk factors. The two types of humans constantly contrasted in the film—natural humans and customized humans—are not only major issues in their own right, both ethically and scientifically, but also possess their own respective advantages and disadvantages. However, in a society where science and technology continue to advance, we will face attempts to use genetic information to prevent disease and enhance human capabilities and survival prospects, and we cannot rule out the possibility that customized humans, such as those depicted in the film, will become a subject of real-world debate. While we have not yet reached the stage where humans can be freely designed with genes tailored to specific desires, technologies for analyzing the human genome and directly modifying genes to treat specific genetic diseases are already being utilized in medical practice. In 2023, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Casgevy, a CRISPR-based genome-editing therapy for the treatment of sickle cell disease. However, these therapeutic technologies cannot be viewed as the same concept as the “custom-made humans” depicted in movies, whose abilities and characteristics are pre-designed. To answer the question, “Is such development truly desirable, and are custom-made humans the right choice?” we must first consider what exactly a “custom-made human” is.

Advances in Genetics and the Possibility of Custom-Designed Humans

Since Gregor Mendel, an Austrian monk in the 19th century, established the laws of inheritance, genetics has evolved into modern genetics in the 20th century and continued to advance. After Watson and Crick discovered the double-helix structure of DNA, it was specifically established that genetic information is stored in DNA, and in the latter half of the 20th century, research to decode the human genome began in earnest. In 2003, the Human Genome Project was effectively completed, with the sequence completed at that time covering approximately 92% of the human genome. As technology advanced, the Telomere-to-Telomere Consortium presented a virtually complete human genome sequence in 2022, filling the major gaps that had remained. Consequently, research today has moved beyond simply mapping the human genome to understanding individual genetic differences, the mechanisms of disease onset, and the functions of specific genetic variants, with the aim of applying this knowledge to treatment. Recently, research and treatments have been conducted using genome-editing technologies such as CRISPR-Cas9 to correct disease-causing genetic mutations or alter the function of specific genes. However, given the current state of technology, it is a scientifically oversimplified explanation to assume that simply changing a specific gene from a recessive to a dominant allele would create a human with desired abilities. This is because human characteristics—such as disease susceptibility, intellectual ability, physical ability, and personality—are rarely determined by a single gene but rather result from the complex interaction of multiple genes and environmental factors. Therefore, rather than equating the “designer humans” seen in movies—which have not yet become a reality—with today’s technology, we need to understand this concept as pointing toward future possibilities: analyzing genetic information before birth to reduce the risk of specific diseases or to select and modify genetic traits to suit specific purposes.
The significance of “custom-designed humans” lies not merely in the fact that they create superior humans. They have the potential to offer new solutions to various societal problems that are difficult to avoid due to the biological limitations of humans.

Can they solve the problems of an aging society and declining productivity?

Thanks to advances in health and welfare systems and medical technology, human life expectancy has increased significantly over the long term. According to the World Health Organization, global average life expectancy rose from 66.8 years in 2000 to 73.1 years in 2019, but fell to 71.4 years in 2021 due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, alongside the long-term trend of extended human lifespans, the phenomenon of an aging population will remain a significant social challenge in the future. As fertility rates decline while average human life expectancy increases, the proportion of the elderly in the population is rising, while the proportion of the working-age population—those capable of economic activity—is shrinking. This phenomenon is a challenge faced by many countries. The World Health Organization also notes that the global elderly population is growing rapidly, projecting that the proportion of people aged 60 and older will rise from approximately 14.5% in 2024 to about 22% by 2050. To address the economic burden and decline in productivity resulting from these demographic shifts, introducing “customized humans”—who possess higher productivity than the average individual and have a reduced risk of intractable or hereditary diseases—could offer solutions in two key areas. First, this approach could help offset the decline in economic productivity caused not only by an aging society but also by other factors such as population decline. In other words, if human economic capacity is enhanced overall, tasks that were previously difficult to perform may become possible, and higher work efficiency can be expected even within the same work environment. Second, it would extend the practical working age range. Currently, many countries define the working-age population statistically within specific age ranges, but these criteria do not necessarily align with an individual’s actual labor capacity. If customized humans can reduce the risk of disease and slow the decline in physical function associated with aging, they will not only extend life expectancy but also increase the likelihood of continuing to participate in economic activities even in old age. Furthermore, since this extension of the practical period of economic activity differs from a simple increase in the elderly population, it could serve as one method to alleviate the economic problems arising in an aging society.

Environmental Changes and Adaptation in Future Society

Customized humans could also serve as a solution to the inevitable problems caused by climate change, extreme weather events, and severe environmental destruction. Due to environmental pollution resulting from the proliferation of cars and factories, indiscriminate energy consumption, and shortages of food and water resources, future societies will likely require greater resilience and adaptability than they do today. Although various improvement measures are being developed based on advances in science and technology to address persistent resource shortages and environmental pollution, climate change and environmental pollution remain significant issues affecting human health, food, water, and living environments. The World Health Organization also explains that climate change affects human health through various channels, including heat waves, floods, droughts, instability in food and water resources, and changes in infectious diseases. Therefore, when considering a human type suited to a society where such environmental changes persist, the concept of “custom-made humans” can be presented as one possibility. If custom-made humans possess biological characteristics that increase resistance to diseases caused by environmental pollution, reduce the likelihood of certain diseases, and enable adaptation to changing environments, they could be expected to adapt and survive better in new environments than existing humans. However, for this possibility to become a reality, scientific research must first determine which genetic traits are actually beneficial in the face of complex environmental changes; furthermore, we must not assume that genes alone can eliminate complex human traits such as mental illness, depression, or violent tendencies in advance.

Social Discrimination and Counterarguments Regarding “Custom-Made Humans”

While some support “custom-made humans” based on these arguments, opponents may point to various problems that could arise if such humans become widespread in society; counterarguments to these concerns can be explored through the film’s narrative.
First, opponents of “custom-made humans” may argue that if they become widespread in society, they could cause a sense of relative deprivation among “natural humans” and lead to discrimination. This issue appears in a similar form in the film. Vincent, the protagonist and a “natural human” in the film, is deemed unqualified to be an astronaut due to his high risk of heart disease and short life expectancy; however, he chooses to reject the fate assigned to him by his genetic information. In other words, by watching the protagonist—who defied the fate assigned to him through genetic evaluation, followed his own will and convictions, and ultimately succeeded—we can consider that the sense of deprivation experienced as “natural humans” can also be overcome to some extent through individual awareness and improvements to social institutions. Furthermore, the film depicts a legal prohibition against discrimination based on genetic traits in the hiring process. If society were to ban discrimination against “natural humans” caused by “custom-made humans,” strictly regulate the use of genetic information, and establish institutional mechanisms that do not discriminate between “custom-made humans” and “natural humans,” it would be possible to reduce the relative sense of deprivation and discrimination felt by “natural humans.” Of course, establishing such institutional mechanisms requires an important prerequisite: genetic technology must not be monopolized by a specific social class. In other words, it should not be the case that only those with great wealth or high social status can obtain “custom-made” offspring through greater genetic selection and modification; rather, all members of society must be able to access this technology under fair conditions, based on their medical needs and personal preferences. In fact, concerns regarding human genome editing are currently being raised not only about its therapeutic potential but also regarding safety, accessibility, equity, and social inequality; the World Health Organization has also emphasized the need for international regulation and oversight to ensure that human genome editing technologies do not exacerbate existing health inequalities.
The second issue that may arise is an ethical one. Specifically, from the perspective of bioethics, it is clearly anticipated that questions will be raised regarding human intervention in biological traits that are naturally inherited and determined. In biotechnology research—including animal testing, embryonic research, and genome editing—debates over where the line between ethical and unethical behavior lies in the process of studying and intervening in life have long been a contentious issue for which it remains difficult to reach a consensus. In particular, since human genome editing today is no longer merely a futuristic fantasy but is actually being used to treat diseases, it is necessary to distinguish between somatic cell genome editing—which is intended for therapeutic purposes—and the genome editing of germ cells and embryos, which can be passed on to future generations. The World Health Organization (WHO) has stated that, unlike somatic genome editing, heritable human genome editing requires a more cautious approach due to its potential impact on future generations and society as a whole, as well as safety concerns; in 2021, it issued recommendations to establish an international governance and oversight framework for human genome editing. In other words, rather than simply compromising with a “sacrificing the few for the greater good” mindset, it is indeed necessary to improve social awareness and reach a consensus on the ethical aspects that are truly contentious. Just as the theory of evolution, which emerged in the 19th century, has been the subject of prolonged debate alongside creationism, it is difficult for society as a whole to easily arrive at a single answer to the question of to what extent “designer humans” are ethical. Moreover, since technologies capable of designing human abilities and characteristics before birth—as depicted in movies—have not yet become a reality, relevant preliminary research must undergo a thorough process of social review and consensus-building before the ethical debate on “custom-designed humans” can begin. It is also possible to raise concerns that, as time passes and offspring born through genetic selection or editing span multiple generations, everyone will come to share similar genetic traits, leading to the gradual homogenization of humanity and, consequently, potential confusion regarding personal identity. However, the assumption that everyone will possess genetic traits aligned in the same direction—and that people will consequently all become alike—is too hasty to predict with certainty. Since values will also change over time, if many people come to utilize genetic selection and editing in the future, it is possible that societal values will shift toward placing even greater importance on individuality and distinctiveness. Second, as humans develop, not only genes but also their upbringing and environmental factors play a significant role in determining a person’s personality and abilities. In other words, I believe the counterargument—that everything is determined by genes and that this raises ethical issues regarding human existence itself—is an overly simplified assumption used to explain the problems with “custom-made humans.” Human traits and abilities are shaped by the complex interplay of genetics and environment, and current genome-editing technology has not yet reached a level where it can fully design human characteristics in the desired direction.

Could “custom-designed humans” be the solution for future society?
So far, we have discussed the necessity of “custom-designed humans,” the reasons why they could become a suitable human model for future society, and the anticipated counterarguments. When discussing future problems that have not yet materialized and seeking an answer to what is most appropriate, there may, in fact, be no single correct answer. However, as the movie ‘Gattaca’ illustrates, whether we should allow genetic information to completely determine a person’s life or transcend those limitations to pursue one’s own potential is a separate issue. While discrimination or a sense of deprivation stemming from certain genetic traits is not a problem that can be solved by individual will alone—but rather requires improvements in both social institutions and public perception—it is equally important that humans can choose and forge their own potential. Based on this premise, “custom-made humans” have the potential to be a desirable solution to the various problems facing future society. Thus, if “custom-made humans” are utilized in the right places for the right purposes, and if institutional frameworks and ethical standards are established to prevent social discrimination, a society may emerge—as depicted in the movie—where the distinction between “custom-made humans” and “natural humans”—whether one has six fingers or not—no longer constitutes a significant point of contention.
However, for such a society to be a desirable future, the goal should not be limited to merely enhancing human capabilities; rather, it must begin with medical objectives—such as the treatment and prevention of disease—while also taking into account safety, equitable access, human dignity, and social consensus. Ultimately, the value of “custom-made humans” does not lie in how superior a human being is created, but rather in how genetic technology is utilized for the benefit of humanity and society.