In this blog post, we’ll explore human happiness and the implications of genetic engineering through the ethical debate surrounding “designer humans” and “natural humans,” focusing on the movie ‘Gattaca’.
Do you know the genius painter Van Gogh? One of his masterpieces, ‘The Starry Night’, was completed during his stay at a sanatorium following the incident in which he cut off his own ear. In the field of mental health, it has been suggested that Van Gogh may have suffered from various conditions, including bipolar disorder, depression, and temporal lobe epilepsy; however, an exact diagnosis has yet to be confirmed. Even amid extreme mental anguish, he continued his remarkable creative output, and it is said that he produced over 2,000 works in about 10 years. Ultimately, however, he took his own life with a gunshot wound. So, what significance did these great works hold for Van Gogh’s personal happiness? Perhaps Van Gogh needed genetic modification to improve his disposition. This is the position that supports “custom-made humans”—humans created through genetic modification—as opposed to “natural humans” born naturally.
Those who advocate for natural humans cite as their primary reason that the creation of custom-made humans is a decision that completely disregards the individual’s will. Every human being is born with the right to choose and determine their own life. However, the logic that someone other than the individual holds the right to determine their life is extremely dangerous. To reclaim individual rights, humanitarian reform movements aimed at abolishing slavery unfolded in 19th-century Western Europe and the United States. The argument is that predetermining an individual’s life through “custom-made humans” and infringing upon their rights is an inhumane act that runs counter to the spirit of the times.
Proponents of “designer humans” counter that even if a person undergoes genetic modification, the act of designing one’s own life remains unchanged after birth. In other words, the process by which an individual designs their life takes place entirely after birth. Genetic manipulation, on the other hand, takes place before birth. Therefore, the right to shape one’s own life after birth is guaranteed to both genetically modified individuals and those who are not; no one is born with the right or ability to choose their life before birth. A life determined by slavery differs from that of a “custom-made human.” A person born into slavery is not properly guaranteed the right to determine their own life even after birth. In contrast, a person born as a “custom-made human” can fully exercise their right to make decisions about their own life. In other words, unlike a slave, a “custom-made human” is fully guaranteed the rights to their own life.
Those who advocate for “natural humans” counter that the problem with “custom-made humans” lies not only in the victim’s perspective—where their individual will is ignored—but also in the fact that no agreement can be reached with the victim. Of course, even if one is born as a “custom-made human,” there is no difference in their ability to shape their own life after birth. However, that is merely a matter for after birth. The fact that one human being has determined the life of another without any consent remains unchanged. Determining another person’s life without consent is no different from an act that disregards individual will and infringes upon rights. While slavery differs from the “custom-made human” in that it deprives a person of their rights after birth, there is no fundamental difference between the two in that one human being determines the life of another without consent.
Proponents of designer humans counter the argument that one cannot influence another’s life without their consent by citing vaccination as an example. Since the development of the anthrax vaccine in the late 19th century, vaccination has played a major role in preventing numerous infectious diseases. Even today, vaccination plays a crucial role in reducing the incidence of various diseases, such as measles and hepatitis B, and in improving public health. Humans are already performing medical procedures, such as vaccinations, to protect future lives even in situations where obtaining the individual’s prior consent is difficult. The same applies to “custom-made human” technology. The argument is that, although it is impossible to reach an agreement with individuals who have not yet been born, these technologies can steer their lives in a better direction.
Proponents of the “natural human” acknowledge the example of vaccination and accept that infringements on rights without consent may be permitted in exceptional cases.
However, proponents of “custom-made humans” counter that this does not constitute such an exception. Society has formed a broad consensus on universal values such as “humans do not want to suffer” and “humans want to be happy.” While, in principle, one should not determine another person’s life without consent, exceptions can be recognized for universal values that clearly benefit others’ lives. Vaccinations constitute a universal value because they protect people from disease and suffering. However, genetic modification is fundamentally different. Genetic modification can be likened to the act of giving a gift. No matter how much the giver tries to embody universal values, they ultimately choose the gift based on their own subjective values. The recipient has no choice but to passively accept that decision. In other words, genetic modification lacks universality. In contrast, vaccinations are administered based on scientific evidence and social consensus, not on individual preferences or values. It is precisely this social consensus that underpins the universality of vaccination.
Advocates of “designer humans” counter that the scope of an individual’s life can simply be defined by social consensus. However, parents cannot freely administer any substance they desire to a newborn. Similarly, only vaccines whose safety and efficacy have been medically verified can be used for immunization. The argument is that the scope of genes to which “custom-made human” technology can be applied can also be limited through social consensus. Furthermore, they argue that certain traits—such as superior intelligence or a healthy body—are recognized as relatively universal values that transcend time and region. Therefore, if objective criteria are established based on social consensus and genetic modification is carried out only to the extent that it benefits human life, “custom-made humans” could also become a technology that realizes universal values.
Those who advocate for “natural humans” point out that the very idea that genetic modification technology can be sufficiently regulated by social consensus alone is dangerous. There is a widely known anecdote about Mun Ik-jeom, a scholar from the late Goryeo period, who hid cotton seeds inside his brush and smuggled them into the country upon returning from China’s Yuan Dynasty. At the time, the Yuan Dynasty strictly restricted the export of seeds to monopolize the economic benefits derived from cotton cultivation. As a result, even as people in other countries suffered from the cold, the technology was not readily shared. Genetic engineering technology is also likely to be extremely costly at first, and its benefits may be concentrated among a wealthy elite. If the wealthy monopolize this technology, it could lead to far more severe social inequality than was caused by the mere monopolization of cotton seeds. Furthermore, genetic engineering is not a simple technology that anyone can secretly obtain, like cotton seeds. Even if the technology were to leak, the consequences could be very serious if it is not properly understood or used safely.
Advocates of “designer humans” counter that genetic engineering is, by its nature, a value-neutral technology. Technology merely provides humans with a means; it does not, in and of itself, replace human judgment. As seen in the earlier example of Mun Ik-jeom, responsibility for the outcome lies not with the cotton seeds themselves but with the person using them. Genetic engineering technology can be likened to the art of pottery. Depending on the user, clay can be shaped into a flower or a gun. Just because someone uses clay to make a gun does not mean the responsibility can be attributed to the art of pottery itself. The responsibility ultimately lies with the person using the technology.
Those who advocate for nature and humanity, however, refute this claim of value neutrality. Those who develop technology should not stop at simply creating it; they must also consider the impact that technology will have on humanity and its social consequences. Even if the person who developed the clay-making technique intended it solely for making flowers, they cannot be completely free from responsibility if they failed to consider the possibility that the technology could be misused as a weapon. This is because if the technology for manufacturing clay had not existed, weapons made from clay would not have existed either.
Furthermore, even if genetic engineering technology were value-neutral, that does not mean its risks disappear. Value neutrality is a matter of determining who bears responsibility for science and technology. However, regardless of where responsibility lies, we must clearly recognize the risks that science and technology can pose. Whether the responsibility lies with researchers or with those who use the technology is not the core issue. Ultimately, society as a whole must bear the consequences brought about by science and technology. While we are free to envision expectations and blueprints for the future, if we do not sufficiently consider practical problems and risks, those visions are likely to remain mere idealistic fantasies.
Vincent van Gogh is known to have had an innate tendency to blame himself. However, we cannot conclude that such a disposition directly led to his unhappiness or suicide. Between genetic factors and suicide lie various life circumstances, such as poverty, loneliness, repeated failures, and mental anguish. Therefore, we should not attribute the cause of his tragic life solely to his innate disposition. Furthermore, it is known that he spent a relatively happy period in 1873 while working as an art dealer in London, England. This fact offers us an important insight: a person’s life is not determined solely by the genetic traits with which they are born; rather, depending on the life they create for themselves and their surrounding environment, they can lead entirely different lives. The social consensus we need is not to have a reborn Van Gogh become a different person through genetic engineering, but to create a society in which Van Gogh could live happily. Many of the problems we believe require genetic engineering can be solved through social efforts and environmental improvements; indeed, genetic engineering—presented as a solution—may actually lead to even greater ethical and social problems. Humans can find various ways to overcome current problems without relying on genetic engineering technology.
