In this blog post, I’ll examine which type of human—the “custom-made human” or the “natural human”—might lead a happier life from the perspectives of health and achievement, and I’ll argue that the “custom-made human” may indeed lead a happier life.

Designer Humans vs. Natural Humans: Which Is Happier?

Everyone has probably experienced envy at least once—whether toward a friend’s talent or the innate abilities of historical figures in books. As we envy them, we imagine how wonderful it would have been to be born just like them. The movie ‘Gattaca’ reflects this line of thinking. The film is based on a technology that allows parents to select a desired embryo from various genetic combinations before conceiving a child and to predict the genetic traits that embryo will possess. Parents choose embryos with a high probability of resulting in healthy, talented children and give birth to them. Of course, this situation is entirely different from how the people we commonly call “geniuses” are born. While the “geniuses” we see—and ourselves—are natural humans, the children in the movie who are brought into the world after their genetic traits have been selected are “custom-made humans.” So, does the life of these custom-made humans seem appealing? Between custom-made humans and natural humans, which leads a happier life? I would answer that it is the custom-made human.
I’d like to clarify our topic further and proceed with the discussion. Our topic is “Should we live as customized humans or as natural humans?” In other words, it is a question of which would lead to a better life. I do not intend to examine the ethical justification of the manipulation involved in creating customized humans or the biotechnology that makes it possible. Nor is this about what leads to the better development of society as a whole or what makes society happier. Examining such issues is meaningful only from a means-end perspective. In other words, there is only reason to consider these matters if being born through ethically justified technology contributes to a good life, and if a good life is one that brings happiness to society. However, the extent to which these issues are related to a good life varies depending on an individual’s values. Furthermore, assessing ethical validity or gauging the impact on society is an extremely complex matter that cannot be easily discussed. Therefore, rather than addressing these two questions, I would like to discuss what kind of life would be happier for a human being. I will also argue, specifically in terms of health and achievement, why living as a “custom-made human” leads to greater happiness.
Current biotechnology has not yet reached the level where parents can freely design a child with the genetic traits they desire, as depicted in the movie ‘Gattaca’. In reality, preimplantation genetic testing (PGT)—which involves screening the genetic characteristics of embryos during in vitro fertilization—is currently used to identify specific single-gene disorders or chromosomal abnormalities. However, technology capable of accurately predicting complex traits such as height and intelligence at the embryonic stage and selecting them according to specific preferences has not yet been clinically established. In particular, polygenic embryo screening (PGT-P)—which predicts diseases or traits involving multiple genes—has not yet been sufficiently proven for clinical utility or predictive accuracy as of 2026, and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine has determined that it should not be offered as a routine clinical service. Furthermore, no test can guarantee the birth of a healthy child. Therefore, the term “designer human” used here should be understood not as referring to humans who are already commonplace with current technology, but rather as a conceptual assumption based on a future scenario in which genetic traits can be selected to a significant degree.

Will a healthy “designer human” be happier?

First, a “designer human” is happy because they are healthy. It is difficult to deny that “designer humans” are likely to be healthy. This is because the process of creating them can prevent genetic diseases or congenital malformations, or at least reduce the risk of them occurring.
In fact, one might even argue that creating a “custom-designed human” primarily means guaranteeing a healthy body in and of itself. Given the current level of advancement in life sciences and medicine, it is far easier to reduce the risk of disease and create a healthy body than it is to cultivate talent or potential in specific fields. Furthermore, it is self-evident that these relatively straightforward tasks will take priority in the creation of a “custom-designed human.” Furthermore, the health of a “custom-made human” will be a very comprehensive concept that includes not only physical health but also mental health. With the current advancements in psychiatry and neuroscience, our understanding of the causes and mechanisms of many mental illnesses is deepening, and research in this field will continue to advance. Therefore, when we speak of being healthy, we must keep in mind not only a sound body but also a sound mind. I believe most people would agree that a person with a healthy body and a healthy mind is more likely to be happy than someone who is not. Since a “custom-made human” is likely to be healthier than a natural human, they are also more likely to be happier than a natural human.
Some people may disagree with the statement that being healthy equals being happy. This is because we frequently encounter books that share insights gained while battling illness, or stories about people who live with hope despite physical limitations. However, using these books or stories to argue that one can achieve greater happiness when unhealthy is a fallacy that generalizes the experiences of a few. Which is more common: a healthy person who is happy, or an unhealthy person who is happy? It would be the former. In fact, the reason stories of people who are unhealthy yet happy are shared through books and other media is precisely because they are viewed as exceptional cases compared to those who are both healthy and happy. Furthermore, as we mentioned earlier, health can be understood in a comprehensive sense that includes mental health. A healthy mind is another expression of happiness and is, at the very least, closely linked to it. Therefore, the statement that “being healthy leads to happiness” holds a certain validity, and the “customized human”—who is more likely to be healthy—is more likely to be happy than the “natural human,” who is more prone to health problems. This can be viewed as a statistically more common trend; while exceptions may exist, considering each one individually would be inconsistent with the purpose of this discussion.

Custom-Made Humans Achieve Greater Success

Second, custom-made humans are happy because they are capable of achieving more. Custom-made humans possess greater talents than natural humans. At the very least, we can assume that a customized human is someone born with exceptional talent in at least one field. Therefore, they are capable of greater achievements. Thanks to their innate talent, these achievements are likely to be not merely at a level that satisfies the individual, but at a level that earns recognition from others. The achievements made possible by talent—especially those recognized by others—are one of the factors that make customized humans happy.
Some people express skepticism as to whether “tailor-made individuals” truly achieve more than “natural individuals” thanks to their talent. In fact, talent may only be a part of achievement. In other words, effort may be a crucial factor in achievement. If so, the question shifts to which of the two—the “tailor-made individual” or the “natural individual”—is more likely to work harder. And to this question, I would answer that the “tailor-made individual” is the one who works harder. The basis for this lies in two factors that influence one’s willingness to work hard: confidence and interest. A “customized human” is more likely to work harder than a “natural human” because they have greater confidence in what they do and feel a stronger sense of interest in it. Let’s examine this in more detail.
First, the “tailored human” is more likely to possess self-confidence. Among “natural humans,” there are many who fall into despair, saying, “This doesn’t work, and neither does that,” despite having put in the effort. We often see people who blame their innate talents and succumb to defeatism. On the other hand, how do “tailored humans” view themselves? If they know they are “tailored humans,” they have faith in their own talents. Therefore, if the results aren’t good, they are likely to say, “This isn’t a matter of talent but of effort,” and work even harder.
The effort and achievements stemming from this attitude make “tailored individuals” happy. Furthermore, this confident attitude—the belief that “if I just put in the effort, I can do it”—itself gives “tailored individuals” hope and happiness.
Second, “tailored individuals” tend to find things they enjoy and become deeply immersed in them. They often experience a virtuous cycle where they excel at what they love and come to love what they’re good at. The starting point of this cycle may vary from person to person. However, if there is something they are good at, they can enter this virtuous cycle, leading to greater interest and the development of their abilities. The “custom-fit person” is more talented than the “natural person.” Therefore, within this virtuous cycle, it is easier for them to find interest in and become immersed in a particular task, which means they can achieve greater success through effort. Furthermore, we are happy when we do things that interest us. In other words, interest not only motivates us to work harder but also contributes to the “custom-fit person’s” happiness in and of itself.

Are there “natural” people who surpass the “custom-made” person in talent?

In fact, I cannot say for certain that my long-held position—regarding the talent of the “custom-made” person, the achievements stemming from that talent, and the other factors that make these achievements possible (namely, effort, as well as the confidence and interest that enable that effort)—is always correct. There may well be “natural” people who put in enough effort to surpass the talent of the “custom-made” person and achieve even greater success. Jerome, the protagonist of the movie ‘Gattaca’, is precisely such a case. Jerome does not let the fact that his innate physical condition is an obstacle to his dreams get to him; no matter how many times he is rejected by companies, he never loses sight of his dream and achieves what he desires by transcending his talent. But is this really a common occurrence? Considering the process driven by confidence and interest mentioned earlier, I believe such cases are rare. Even in the movie, Jerome is not a common case. It is not always the case that “tailor-made” individuals possess more confidence and interest and work harder. However, pointing this out does not contribute to the discussion. We are discussing general trends, and exceptional individual cases are entirely irrelevant when choosing between “tailor-made” and “natural” individuals.
Another possible counterargument regarding the talent, effort, and achievements of “natural” and “tailor-made” individuals is as follows. A “tailored person” knows what they are talented at and, therefore, knows which field to pursue and to what extent they will succeed in that field. This deprives the “tailored person” of the opportunity to choose what to do or the free will to decide what to pursue. Above all, they will be disappointed if their achievements fall short of expectations relative to their talents. On the other hand, the “natural human,” being unaware of their own talents, acts with the opportunity to choose their own path and the free will to decide what to do. In this process, even if they do not achieve the level of success recognized by others, they can find happiness in the results commensurate with their efforts. This counterargument misses the point. It presupposes a difference between the “tailored human” and the “natural human” in terms of access to genetic information. In other words, it assumes that the customized human knows their talents, while the natural human does not. However, when comparing the customized human and the natural human, we must assume that their level of awareness regarding their own talents is the same. In other words, the argument that the customized human is prone to disappointment when they fall short of their expectations—because they know what level of achievement they should attain and expect to reach it—applies equally to the natural human.

How should we view the happiness of the “tailored individual”?

So far, we have examined the two factors—health and achievement—that enable the “tailored individual” to be happier than the “natural individual.” The “tailored individual” is more likely to be healthy, both physically and mentally, and is therefore more likely to be happy. Meanwhile, thanks to their talents, the “tailored individual” achieves greater success, which makes them happy. In response to the counterargument that natural humans can achieve greater success through greater effort than customized humans, we have rebutted this on two fronts—self-confidence and interest—and confirmed that these two factors themselves also contribute to the happiness of customized humans. We have emphasized that we are interested in general trends rather than exceptional cases, and we have also pointed out the fallacy arising from an asymmetrical understanding of access to genetic information between natural and customized humans.
A significant number of people who view “custom-designed humans” negatively exhibit emotional reactions. Science and technology are perceived as endlessly cold and gray concepts. When such science and technology are applied to living beings, people tend to reject the idea. However, we must consider whether “custom-designed humans” truly represent such a cold and gray technology, or whether they reduce humans to mere machine parts required to perform better, as people often assume. While current biotechnology has not yet reached the level of human design seen in the movie ‘Gattaca’, technologies that screen for an embryo’s genetic characteristics and enable choices aimed at reducing the risk of specific diseases already exist. However, there are still significant limitations to technologies that can accurately predict and select for complex diseases or the diverse abilities and characteristics of humans. That said, the concept of “custom-made humans” does not inherently imply unhappy people. On the contrary, under the conditions we’ve assumed, it can be argued that custom-made humans are more likely to lead happier lives in terms of health, talent, achievement, confidence, and interest. Custom-made humans are happy.