This blog post examines how genetic engineering technology alters the essential characteristics of living organisms and explores the philosophical and ethical questions surrounding whether engineered life forms can be considered part of the same category as existing humans.
On Earth, Homo sapiens, who gained new ways of thinking and communicating through the so-called ‘cognitive revolution,’ continue to expand their domain. The global population, which we learned was 6 billion during elementary school, has now approached 7.5 billion. This explosive population growth is an extremely recent phenomenon. Just 50 years ago, in 1970, the global population was 3.7 billion—almost exactly half the current level. The Industrial Revolution and advances in medical technology dramatically increased average life expectancy, leading humanity to reach a population scale never before experienced. Naturally, sustaining such a large population requires crops with higher productivity. And humanity is solving this problem through the science and technology of genetic engineering. However, this technology is not solely used for food production. Because it concerns genes—the very foundation of life—its applications are far broader.
Genes are the basic units of heredity, determining the form and characteristics an organism will exhibit as it grows. Cutting and pasting these genes to construct them in desired ways is called genetic engineering. In other words, this technology makes it possible to alter organisms to possess the shape or properties we intend. For example, if the genes of ordinary rice are manipulated to resemble those of rice that produces large grains, that ordinary rice will now produce large grains. This approach has enabled the production of more crops from the same area of farmland and the securing of more food at lower prices.
This naturally raises a question: Can genetically modified rice still be considered the same as conventional rice? It is likely difficult to say so. For one thing, its appearance has changed. When cultivated, genetically modified rice produces larger grains than conventional rice. Furthermore, its genes have also changed. Because both its outward appearance and its genetic makeup have changed, it cannot be considered identical to the pre-genetically modified state. Humans have now reached the level of creating organisms that did not exist in nature.
Next, what would happen if this technology were applied beyond plants to animals? Would its application to humans be acceptable? Since all living organisms possess genes, genetic modification applied to plants can similarly be applied to animals. Consider the pig industry, for example. As people reduce pork consumption due to concerns about unhealthy fats, industry stakeholders might turn to genetic modification as a solution. By inserting genes that convert harmful fats in pigs into beneficial ones, consumers could eat pork without worrying about harmful fats.
When considering applications to humans, the most prominent example would be treating genetic diseases. If we could know before birth that a gene causing a serious disease is present and then manipulate that gene to prevent the disease from developing after birth, this would truly represent the pinnacle of medical technology. Because it blocks the possibility of disease before it even occurs.
But if we could alter a fetus’s genes to change its appearance and personality, what stance should we take on this? We manipulated pigs without asking their opinion, but we cannot do that to humans. In this sense, it remains uncertain whether it would be acceptable for parents to decide a fetus’s appearance and personality—or, more broadly, to decide on genetic manipulation itself. This is because it completely contradicts the existing notion that children inherit half their genes from each parent. Furthermore, if the scope of genetic manipulation expands, it could become possible to insert genes expressing new traits not present in existing humans, as seen in the pig example. This raises the question of whether such individuals could be recognized as falling within the category of existing humans. This point is central to the discussion. It would be beneficial to explore this debate in greater detail. The question of whether such individuals can be considered Homo sapiens remains. If recognition is possible, what criteria should be applied, and to what extent should genetic modification be permitted? Currently, genetic modification of humans is prohibited for various reasons, including ethical, political, and religious grounds.
There is a saying that science and technology are value-neutral. Just as dynamite, originally developed for mining blasting, was widely used as a lethal weapon, technology can lead to diverse outcomes depending on how it is used. Therefore, it is difficult to predict entirely what future technological advancement will bring. However, genetic modification is a technology that can profoundly impact humanity itself. Discussing more specifically how it could profoundly impact us in the main body would make the flow of the article smoother. It seems entirely possible that technology developed by humanity could bring down the curtain on the Homo sapiens era.
