In this blog post, we take an in-depth look at whether an era in which all children are born with superior genes would truly make the world a better place.
With the rapid advancement of genetic technology, the time when such technology will be directly applied to our lives is fast approaching. There are growing expectations that advances in genetic technology will enable us to overcome various diseases and disabilities that cannot be treated by conventional medicine, but there are also concerns about the problems that could arise from directly manipulating genes. However, I believe that the innovative developments that genetic engineering, including customized humans, will bring are so attractive that the problems that may arise from it can be solved through various means. In the following, I will examine the arguments of those who oppose the introduction of customized human technology and present my thoughts on the matter.
Although the Human Genome Project was the most significant event in the world that ushered in the era of genetic technology, the series of events surrounding stem cells may have had a greater impact on us. The nationwide attention focused on these events is proof of the revolutionary impact that stem cell technology will have on us. The possibility of treating diseases and disabilities that cannot be cured by conventional medicine is extremely appealing to those affected. Those who were most actively involved in supporting stem cell research at the time were also attracted by this appeal.
However, there are always those who warn that innovative technologies always come with drawbacks that are equal to their benefits. Let us recall the heated debate that took place in various countries over whether to support or ban stem cell research when it became a hot topic in biotechnology.
At the time, opposition to the introduction of stem cell technology was led mainly by religious groups opposed to the creation of life. However, the issues surrounding genetic technology are not limited to the ethical realm. The movie “Gattaca” depicts a society where the creation of customized humans through genetic engineering is permitted. In the movie, humans born through customized human technology often discriminate against and ignore natural humans, who are considered relatively inferior.
Companies use genetic information to select customized humans from among job applicants. The protagonist, who was born a natural human, is able to get a job by trading the genetic information of a customized human and becoming a “rented ladder.”
However, it is necessary to consider whether these problems are inherent to the technology itself. Technology is fundamentally value-neutral. Consider nuclear fission and fusion technology, which have the potential to produce weapons of mass destruction, but can also be used for beneficial purposes such as nuclear power generation. In other words, the problem we are concerned about may not be a problem with technology itself, but rather a problem with how we use technology. If the issue of how technology is used is thoroughly discussed, it can ultimately be resolved through laws and regulations.
However, in the case of genetic technology, it can be argued that the technology itself is problematic. In order to use genetic technology, we must distinguish between the superiority and inferiority of each gene, which implies that we can evaluate the superiority of individuals by synthesizing the superiority and inferiority of the genes they possess. In other words, it is possible to assign genetic scores to humans.
This contradicts the claim that all humans are born equal, and could even be considered eugenics on an individual level. This is a way of evaluating humans as if they were objects, which goes against our general values. We have seen too much evaluation of humans in schools and workplaces. Many people view life as a series of competitions, comparing it to a marathon or a 100-meter dash.
Therefore, you may wonder why evaluating people is such a big deal. However, the criteria for evaluation are important. If we are evaluated based on our efforts, we can accept the results of the evaluation, but if the evaluation is limited to things that are independent of our efforts, such as blood ties or wealth inherited from our parents, we will consider the results of the evaluation to be unfair. This can be likened to running a 100-meter race with different starting lines. The same would apply to evaluating humans based on their genes. Evaluating humans based on factors unrelated to their efforts hinders fair competition among humans.
However, the aforementioned differences in blood ties and wealth are already present in the real world. We are basically starting the race from an unfair starting line. In that case, this counterargument would only be valid if genetic engineering technology exacerbates inequality. However, if genetic engineering technology is applied to everyone, all of our descendants will be able to start with superior genes. They would be able to compete on a more equal playing field than before, without congenital disabilities or diseases. Therefore, genetic engineering is not a technology that causes discrimination, but rather a technology that recognizes genetic differences between humans and ensures fairer competition.
Furthermore, when we look at how we evaluate the living things and objects around us, we can see that our evaluations are made without consideration of effort or innate characteristics. If we cannot present a valid argument as to why humans should be evaluated differently from other living things and objects, then the above discussion itself cannot stand. Some people cite human dignity as the basis for this argument. They argue that humans are dignified and therefore should be evaluated differently from other beings. If so, we must reexamine what it is that makes humans dignified. What exactly makes humans dignified?
Some argue that humans are dignified because they have free will. This is what distinguishes humans from other living beings. However, humans in a brain-dead state are still treated as dignified beings even though they have no free will. Even the remains of humans after death cannot be treated carelessly. Considering this, it is clear that free will cannot be a requirement for human dignity.
On the other hand, it can be argued that humans are dignified because they possess highly developed intelligence. However, in this case, the criteria for intelligence used to measure dignity are unclear. Some humans have lower intelligence than animals. However, they are also recognized as dignified human beings. It can therefore be concluded that intelligence is not a requirement for human dignity.
There is also an argument that humans are dignified because they are not a means to an end, but an end in themselves. The argument is that humans cannot be measured or used as a means to an end because they are all ends in themselves. At first glance, this argument seems logical, but without further explanation as to why humans are ends in themselves, it is nothing more than a circular argument. Ultimately, in order to support this argument, we must assign some kind of absolute value to humans. But how can we assign special value? This leads us to consider the differences between humans and other beings. This brings us back to the topics of free will and intelligence discussed earlier.
We respect any human being as a human being, even if they do not possess most of the mental characteristics of humans. Even people with very low intelligence or no consciousness are respected as human beings. Even people who try to harm others are respected. Considering this, we can think that dignity comes from the homogeneity between humans. Then why do humans respect other humans? Humans respect other humans in order to protect their own rights.
Then, we need to consider whether genetic engineering technology infringes on the rights of individual humans. As mentioned earlier, the introduction of such technology will enable humans to compete more fairly than before. Fair competition is a virtue that is more necessary than anything else for the maintenance of human society. On the other hand, it is difficult to think that the introduction of such technology will particularly infringe on the rights of individual humans.
Of course, when customized human technology is introduced, there may be transitional problems. As shown in the movie, there may be huge differences between customized humans and natural humans, which could lead to widespread discrimination. However, this problem is only valid on the assumption that the genetic differences between natural humans and customized humans will be greater than the genetic differences between natural humans and natural humans that currently exist.
This assumption stems from genetic determinism.
However, as can be expected from the protagonist’s victory over customized humans with all his abilities, human abilities are not determined solely by genes. Although personality and crime rates can be estimated based on genes, it is impossible to predict the extent of their influence, and if that influence is significant, humans will not take responsibility for their crimes and other problems, blaming their genes instead. It is a bleak society where everything is determined by genes. Genetic engineering technology does not aim for genetic determinism, but rather for a more equal world where people compete on an equal genetic starting line.
With the development of genetic engineering technology, many concerns have been raised along with its potential applications. Since this technology targets humans themselves, it is only natural to be sensitive to the ethical and moral implications of its application. At first glance, genetic engineering technology may be considered an immoral technology that causes unreasonable discrimination by evaluating humans based on factors beyond their control. However, it is actually an innovative technology that recognizes genetic differences between humans and provides opportunities for fairer competition. Through genetic engineering technology, we can enter a world of equality without disabilities or diseases.
