In this blog post, I will examine the potential problems that “custom-made” humans—who may emerge as a result of advances in genetic engineering and stem cell research—could pose to society and individuals, and consider which life is preferable: that of a “custom-made” human or that of a “natural” human.
In 2003—50 years after Watson and Crick discovered the double-helix structure of DNA in 1953—the Human Genome Project was effectively completed, marking a major breakthrough in decoding the human genome sequence. However, the sequence completed at that time still contained some regions that remained undeciphered, and it was not until 2022 that a more complete sequence, filling in the remaining gaps in the human genome, was presented. Recently, research in the fields of genetic engineering and life sciences—including stem cell research—has also been advancing rapidly. If genetic engineering technology continues to develop at this rapid pace, it would not be surprising if “custom-made humans” were to emerge someday. If “custom-made humans” do indeed emerge, the question of “Should we live as custom-made humans or as natural humans?” will become a major social issue.
Some people argue that custom-made humans greatly contribute to improving quality of life. Is that really the case? Let’s think about it for a moment. In the movie ‘Gattaca’, Jerome—a genetically selected human—is shown to be overwhelmed by the perfection expected of him, despite possessing exceptional physical abilities. In particular, after losing a swimming race to his younger brother Anton, he becomes deeply frustrated, eventually attempts suicide, and ends up with a disability. Let’s look at a real-life example. In the past, a series of student suicides at the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), driven by academic competition and pressure to perform, sparked widespread social controversy. Situations where students become pessimistic about their own abilities after seeing others excel can occur right around us. Even now, before the advent of “custom-made humans,” this problem is serious. If “custom-made humans” were to emerge, they would compete with one another, and some might experience extreme frustration, much like Jerome. Even if it does not lead to suicide, there is a possibility that many “custom-made humans” will become psychologically withdrawn due to feelings of inadequacy. “Custom-made humans” may extend average life expectancy and protect people from various diseases. However, as noted above, there is a high likelihood that they will actually cause greater psychological distress. Therefore, the claim that “custom-made humans” contribute to improving quality of life is incorrect.
Furthermore, some argue that discrimination between customized humans and natural humans can be reduced by enacting strong laws. But would strong laws truly help reduce discrimination? Let’s look at the case of the United States. In 1865, slavery was abolished in the U.S. with the ratification of the 13th Amendment. However, even now, more than 160 years later, it is difficult to say that racial discrimination and inequality have completely disappeared. The famous soccer player Samuel Eto’o has also experienced racial discrimination from spectators while playing a soccer match. Considering the reality that discrimination persists even though Black and White people have achieved legal equality, one wonders whether laws can completely prevent the discrimination that arises between “custom-made humans” and “natural humans.” Recently, as the number of multicultural families has increased in South Korea, children with appearances that differ from those commonly seen in South Korean society have begun enrolling in elementary schools. There are cases where these students are bullied by their peers at a young age and suffer emotional trauma. Can we truly guarantee that such incidents would not occur between “custom-made humans” and “natural humans”? I believe it is entirely possible. Therefore, the argument that enacting strong laws will reduce discrimination fails to adequately reflect the reality of the situation. The case of Samuel Eto’o, who experienced racial discrimination, demonstrates that social discrimination may not disappear entirely through legal equality alone.
For the reasons outlined above, “custom-made humans” are a form of humanity that should be socially discouraged. So, what about the personal level? Let’s discuss “custom-made humans” and “natural humans” from a personal perspective. I’ll begin by setting up a scenario. Let’s say I’m about to be born, and everything else is exactly the same. Even if I were born as a “custom-made human,” my appearance would be the same as if I were born a “natural human,” and everything—including my personality—would be identical to that of a naturally born human. The only difference would stem from whether my genes were genetically engineered or not.
Genetic engineering is carried out through the will of a person. If “custom-made humans” were to emerge, it’s likely that parents would often manipulate their children’s genes. In that case, the child would live a life shaped by the parents’ will. Even if everything—including appearance and personality—is identical between a custom-made human and a naturally born human, there is a clear difference between having those traits because they were determined by someone else’s will and having them naturally. In the movie ‘Gattaca’, there is a pianist who has twelve fingers instead of six, and there is a scene where the number of his fingers is utilized to play a specific piece. However, the film does not explicitly explain whether this pianist was born through genetic selection or manipulation.
There may be opposing views. Let’s assume that parents had their child born with six fingers so that he could become an excellent pianist. That does not mean, however, that a child born with six fingers must necessarily become a pianist. He or she might become a pianist, a baseball player, or an engineer. Therefore, the argument goes, a “custom-made human”—born through genetic manipulation influenced by others—does not pose a significant personal problem. However, people tend to take a greater interest in what they are naturally good at and strive to excel in those areas. Considering this tendency, one might agree with the argument that designer humans could potentially infringe upon an individual’s right to live the life they desire.
Designer humans can be conceived using assisted reproductive technologies such as artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization, while naturally conceived humans are, as the term implies, conceived through natural pregnancy. In the case of designer humans, they can be conceived even without romantic love between a man and a woman. In other words, a single life can be created with just a man’s sperm and a woman’s egg. Every human being, at least once during adolescence, ponders the nature of their own existence. “Where did I come from? What is my origin?” They often ask themselves these questions. At such times, what would “designer humans” think if they learned that they were born through in vitro fertilization and genetic manipulation? For children who are not yet psychologically mature, this could certainly be a major shock. There is also a high likelihood that adolescents would experience psychological instability.
Some people might oppose the above opinion by citing the example of test-tube babies, who exist today. They might argue that even in the case of test-tube babies, although fertilization occurs outside the body, the phenomena described above do not manifest prominently. However, in vitro fertilization is performed for various reasons, including infertility treatment, and a child’s psychological state is not determined solely by the fact that they were conceived in a test tube. Therefore, we cannot simply equate the case of a “designer human” with that of a test-tube baby. The concept of a “designer human” involves the assumption that parents choose to have their child born as a “designer human” in order to select or manipulate the child’s genetic traits, even when natural conception is possible. Since there is a difference between intentionally altering genetic traits when natural conception is possible and not doing so, there may also be differences in how children perceive their birth and genetic traits. For this reason, even if “IVF babies do not exhibit psychological instability,” this conclusion cannot be directly applied to designer humans.
We have discussed the issues that would arise, both socially and personally, should designer humans emerge. However, “designer humans” have not yet actually appeared, and even if they do, the problems mentioned above may not necessarily arise. In reality, the most important factor is the social context at the time when “designer humans” emerge. The outcomes will vary significantly depending on the circumstances at that time. Therefore, it seems most appropriate to leave the true answer to the question of whether to live as a “designer human” or a “naturally conceived human” to the people living in that era.
