In this blog post, based on the movie ‘Gattaca’, we’ll explore how the creation of “designer humans” might affect human free will, happiness, and the meaning of life.
The Choice Between “Designer Humans” and “Natural Humans”
Vincent, from the movie ‘Gattaca’, was born out of his parents’ love. However, a genetic sequencing test conducted immediately after his birth brands him as “unqualified.” The results show a 60% chance of developing a neurological disorder, a 42% chance of developing depression, an 89% chance of developing attention deficit disorder, a 99% chance of developing heart disease, a high likelihood of premature death, and a life expectancy of 30.2 years. At this point, Vincent’s father in the film is deeply devastated. The figures presented in the film are not meant to imply that actual genetic testing can predict a person’s likelihood of disease and lifespan with such precision; rather, they are a dramatic device to illustrate a society where genetic information is perceived as determining a person’s future.
The film effectively depicts the social problem of discrimination that arises between “custom-made” humans and “natural” humans in a future society where the former are created. As he grows up, Vincent faces discrimination—he is denied insurance coverage due to his high risk of disease and is even rejected by a preschool for the same reason. In a society where custom-made humans are possible, people believe that human beings are determined by their genes, and occupations are strictly restricted based on genetic traits. Acquired abilities are not taken into account. Those deemed unqualified face discrimination based on their genetic traits and lead miserable lives; women even analyze a man’s genetic characteristics using genetic material left on their lips after a date.
Some people will oppose genetically engineered humans because of these social issues, while others will support them based on the potential benefits of genetic engineering, such as the treatment of genetic diseases and the enhancement of physical abilities. To separate the benefits and social problems arising from genetic engineering from personal choice, let’s consider the following special scenario. Let’s assume that “custom-made humans” are the result of altering human genetic material using genetic engineering technology; thus, while they differ fundamentally from “natural humans,” for the sake of this discussion, let’s assume that both custom-made and natural humans have the same appearance and abilities. The only difference is that one is a custom-made human and the other is a natural human. To prevent various forms of discrimination, let’s assume that after birth, it is impossible to tell whether a person is a “custom-made human” or a “natural human,” and that while one might choose between a “custom-made human” and a “natural human” at birth, after birth they appear identical and lead the same life. In other words, we assume that, apart from the fact of being a “custom-made human” or a “natural human,” they are essentially identical in appearance and will lead the same life. So, which would you choose?
In such a situation, I would choose to be a natural human. The reason is that the birth of a custom-made human involves the purposes and will of others. It means that a person’s birth is determined by the expectations and preferences of their parents, or by the goals of others who seek to create a healthy and attractive individual. The fact that someone else’s will and purpose are involved in why I was born as myself means that, even if the end result is essentially the same, strictly speaking, it is different. Even if I were to live the same life after that moment of choice, I would not be living my life entirely by my own choices and will, but rather with the intervention of others. And that intervention, whether large or small, would have influenced my life in some way; consequently, even if the life were the same, it would be a different life if judged solely by what was achieved entirely through my own strength and choices.
To those who argue there is no reason to choose a “natural human” or who claim they would choose a “custom-made human,” one might ask: “If a custom-made human were created without any purpose, wouldn’t you still choose that custom-made human?” To put it simply, even in that situation, I would not choose a custom-made human. The reason is that even if another person did not make a choice with a specific purpose in mind, the fact that their actions influenced my life is not fundamentally different from a choice made with a specific purpose. Regardless of whether there was intent or purpose, the fact remains that the moment another person intervenes, it alters what I choose, strive for, and ultimately achieve. In other words, even if I were to live the same life, it could never be essentially the same; therefore, I would choose the natural human—even if the outcome of my life were the same at the moment of choice—because I would at least know how I would be influenced.
The reason for not choosing a customized human at the moment of decision is the same as the basic principle of investment. Suppose there is no genetic difference between a customized human and a natural human, and suppose that after birth, I would not even know whether I am a customized human or a natural human. In that case, what reason is there not to choose a natural human? If a customized human is no better than a risk-free natural human, then it is reasonable not to choose the customized human. There is no reason to take on a risk that may or may not exist.
Custom-Made Humans and Free Choice
Let’s change the conditions, then. Jeong Bong-jin argues in ‘The Era of Custom-Made Humans That Will Drive Social Progress’ that genetic engineering technology will lead to an increase in outstanding talent, and that people will be able to better demonstrate their true worth through hard work and effort thanks to their superior abilities. He also states that social progress can be driven by the healthy competition among these outstanding individuals, and that is why he supports genetic engineering technology. Let’s assume, as Jeong Bong-jin suggests, that under the conditions described above, those born as “tailored humans” are superior and that no social problems exist in the world. In other words, we will consider the advantages of “tailored humans” resulting from genetic engineering.
To put it simply, even if society itself could advance through the introduction of genetically engineered humans—thanks to the “superior abilities” gained through genetic engineering—the members of that society, born with specific predetermined purposes, might actually become unhappy. As discussed earlier, the involvement of others is closely tied to happiness. While there are many conditions and definitions of happiness, I believe that free choice is a fundamental element. While gene-editing technology is currently being used in some somatic cell therapies, the clinical creation of “custom-made humans” through the editing of human embryos—which can be passed on to future generations—remains a subject of scientific, ethical, and social debate. The World Health Organization has also stated that the clinical application of germline gene editing should not be rushed.
For those who do not agree that free choice is a fundamental element of happiness, let’s first examine why free choice is considered a fundamental element of happiness. People experience stress when they cannot choose what they want. They feel stressed when they are prevented from eating when they are hungry or from going out when they want to. People feel stressed during exam periods when they can’t play because they have work to do, and they feel stressed when they can’t do what they want to do. In extreme cases, being forced to play when you really don’t want to can also be a source of stress. No matter how good something may be, if it’s not something you want to do or desire, it can still cause stress. So, can people be happy in such stressful situations?
Some might argue that even if you didn’t want to, studying for an exam and doing well on it can lead to happiness. However, in this case, even though you didn’t want to, you still had the option to choose. Dislike and the suppression of choice are two different things. One could also argue that if a task forced upon you by your parents ultimately turned out well, it could lead to happiness. However, this is different from the case of a “custom-made human.” In the example above, even if the child was forced by their parents, there is a process of acceptance. In other words, there is a process of resistance. Furthermore, in extreme cases where the child strongly resists, they may refuse to comply with their parents’ demands. Choosing to be a “custom-made human,” however, means having to accept another person’s goals and actions in one’s own life without resistance or choice, which makes this situation fundamentally different.
Accidental Birth and the Meaning of Life
Humans can be viewed as having been created by chance. Considering that tens of millions to hundreds of millions of sperm can be released during a single ejaculation, that only one of those sperm meets the egg to form a zygote, and that the genetic traits of that sperm and egg also form various combinations during meiosis, the fact that a particular human is born as that specific person can be seen as the result of an immense stroke of chance. In modern reproductive medicine, the number and quality of sperm are evaluated in various ways, but human birth cannot be explained simply as the process of a single specific sperm being selected. Therefore, human life can be viewed as the process of interpreting and choosing one’s own purpose and meaning from this accidental birth. However, a “designer human” no longer leaves this element of chance to chance. And this poses a problem in that the outcome—whether it has a major or minor impact—influences the individual’s ability to assign their own purpose and meaning to their life and to fulfill it.
