In this blog post, I’ll examine the differences between “custom-made” humans and “natural” humans based on the movie ‘Gattaca’, and consider the potential value—from both individual and societal perspectives—of choosing genetic engineering to enhance one’s potential for self-actualization.
The movie “Gattaca” is set in a future society where genetic engineering is possible. The protagonist, Vincent, is a natural human who was born without having his genes selected. Unlike his younger brother Anton, who is a genetically engineered human, Vincent is short and has a weak heart—so much so that he loses every swimming competition. Vincent’s dream is to travel beyond Earth and fly into space, but he faces limitations in achieving that dream because his genetic makeup is perceived as defining his limits. After overcoming countless hardships and making every possible effort—including purchasing genes—Vincent succeeds in going into space.
If society were like the one in the movie, where people could choose how their genes are created, would you choose to live as a genetically engineered human or as a naturally born human? In other words, if we set aside value judgments unrelated to ability and exclude all other considerations, does the act of “customizing” genes—whether by one’s own will or that of someone else—hold a different value than being born naturally? Before answering this question, we must first explore what constitutes a meaningful life as a human being.
A human life is most valuable when the desire for self-actualization is fulfilled. Humans are beings who pursue happiness. Our countless actions—such as eating delicious food, earning money, or studying—are all ultimately aimed at pursuing our happiness. There are several types of this happiness. First, we can feel happiness from the temporary satisfaction of desires, such as eating. Second, we can feel happiness by realizing the self we aspire to become—the self we believe holds significant value in our lives. Humans can attain a more fundamental happiness through self-actualization than through the mere satisfaction of temporary desires. We can find a purpose in life and find happiness by accomplishing great feats or by doing things we consider valuable or worthy of significant recognition from those around us.
Achieving self-actualization requires both the ability and the effort to carry out such tasks. Most famous sports stars have consistently trained their bodies since childhood, and even great scientists like Einstein and Newton—whom we regard as geniuses—spent months, or in some cases decades, constantly pondering and researching the topics they were passionate about. To compare the value of self-actualization for an individual, let’s consider a scenario where two people are pursuing the same type of self-actualization and possess equal ability but differ in their level of effort. Beyond the value of the outcome of self-actualization itself, let’s discuss whether the effort expended to achieve it holds additional value in and of itself.
For example, let’s consider two students who both scored 100 on an exam. We know from past test results that the two students have very similar abilities. In this exam, one student scored 100 without putting in much effort, while the other studied hard—even sacrificing many other things—to achieve a score of 100. In this case, do the two students’ scores of 100 hold different values? From an economic perspective, they can certainly be evaluated differently. When assessing the value of any action or decision, we can judge it by comparing it to the opportunity cost that would have been incurred had a different action been taken during that time. Given equal ability, the opportunity cost for the student who put in little effort is clearly lower than that of the student who put in a lot of effort; therefore, since the 100 points represent something worth investing that much time and resources in for the student who put in a lot of effort, the value of those 100 points to that student can be considered greater than to the student who did not put in the effort. Consequently, all other things being equal, it can be said that effort adds additional value to the outcome.
From an individual’s perspective, choosing a “custom-made human” can be viewed not as leaving the various conditions of birth to a probabilistic genetic process—as is the case with a “natural human”—but rather as an effort to realize one’s will for self-actualization through the selection and adjustment of genes. From a genetic perspective, human birth occurs through a process in which genetic information inherited from parents is recombined and influenced by various genetic and environmental factors. Thus, in the case of being born as a naturally conceived human, there is no room for one’s will to influence one’s genetic characteristics before birth; however, choosing a custom-designed human can be viewed as a pre-birth effort to place oneself in a more advantageous position for realizing the life and self one desires. Even if both individuals possess the same postnatal abilities and exert the same effort after birth, because of the pre-birth effort involved, the self-actualization of a “custom-made human” holds an advantage over that of a “naturally born human” equal to the extent of that “pre-birth effort,” as discussed earlier. Therefore, from an individual’s perspective, choosing to be a “custom-made human” to achieve a more valuable form of self-actualization would be a rational and economical choice.
In summary, from this perspective, isn’t it a wise choice for humans to select the path that leads to greater self-actualization? The notion that we must unconditionally follow the natural way is nothing more than meaningless inertia. One cannot condemn humans for rejecting the traits naturally bestowed upon them and choosing the path that offers greater potential for self-actualization. This is because it is part of the freedom they can exercise in the pursuit of their own happiness. Rather, because the expected value of self-actualization increases due to pre-birth efforts—even if post-birth characteristics are identical—living as a customized human, through the greater happiness gained by realizing this potential, is a choice that takes into account a “valuable life.”
In “The Problems with Custom-Made Humans” (Kim Kyung-yeon, 2012), Kim Kyung-yeon argued that since it is difficult to determine which traits are disadvantageous, and since structurally not everyone can become a custom-made human, custom-made humans will ultimately exacerbate the existing social imbalances. Of course, my premise in this essay concerns an individual’s choices made before birth. However, since Kim Kyung-yeon’s essay discusses the environment and society surrounding the individual, I will refute her argument by applying it to the individual level and the level of interpersonal relationships.
Determining which traits are disadvantageous to self-actualization is not merely difficult or variable. There are also cases where the value of self-actualization is relatively clear from a rational perspective. For someone who wants to become a basketball player, being short can be considered a disadvantageous trait in terms of physical conditions, and for someone who wants to become an outstanding researcher, a lack of the abilities necessary for research activities could be a disadvantage. Furthermore, even if we concede that it is difficult to judge what constitutes a disadvantageous trait, the fact that a “custom-made human” was selected does not disappear; therefore, the effort involved in identifying and deciding on traits beneficial to oneself remains valid. From this perspective, the specific examples of variable disadvantageous traits cited in this essay do not influence the choice of a customized human as part of the effort toward self-actualization.
Consequently, Kim Kyung-yeon’s main argument can be summarized as the social imbalance—a negative aspect brought about by a customized society. However, this argument can be easily refuted on the grounds that it would not differ significantly in a society of “natural humans” if technologies like those in ‘Gattaca’—which allow humans to be judged by their genes—were to exist. Moving beyond this argument, let us discuss what kinds of conflicts might arise between natural humans and customized humans in areas other than ability.
If natural humans and customized humans with equal abilities were to cause conflict, the cause would likely be their only difference: prenatal genetic manipulation. As mentioned earlier, I have defined this as altering one’s abilities through prenatal intervention. Viewed in this light, the resentment that naturally born humans feel toward designer humans is no different from the resentment a naturally beautiful person feels toward someone who has undergone plastic surgery; conversely, the emotions designer humans feel toward naturally born humans would stem from feelings similar to the envy and inferiority complex one might feel toward a student who achieves high grades without studying at all. In the case of “custom-made humans,” since the envy and inferiority they feel cannot be attributed to the other person having a direct impact on them, it should be possible to educate them to the extent that they do not harbor such aversion. On the other hand, emotions similar to the sense of relative deprivation felt by “natural humans” are difficult to trace to an essential cause; however, because they tend to believe they have been directly harmed by the other person’s prenatal genetic manipulation, these feelings will be difficult to correct or change.
If that is the case, even when considering society as a whole, it follows that emotions such as the sense of inferiority that customized humans feel toward natural humans can be corrected; and even if not corrected, there is room to transcend them through one’s own efforts after birth. However, the sense of relative deprivation felt when living as a natural human is an unnecessary emotion that is difficult to improve or put to good use. Therefore, from the perspective of human beings living in interaction with others and society—even if their abilities are equal—choosing to be a designer human would be the wiser decision for the individual.
A society like the one in ‘Gattaca’, which judges humans solely by their genes, is clearly an absolute evil. However, if we set aside such preconceptions and examine an individual’s decision regarding whether to be a natural human or a customized human, it is clear that choosing to be a customized human and undergoing genetic modification are additional efforts humans make to realize their true selves, and these efforts will ultimately enhance the value of human self-actualization. Furthermore, from a social perspective, the conflict experienced by a genetically engineered human—which stems from feelings of inferiority rather than direct personal impact—is more manageable than the relative sense of deprivation a naturally born human might feel. Moreover, this conflict can be transformed into another effort toward self-actualization. Therefore, even when excluding the variable of ability from the choice between a naturally born human and a genetically engineered human, the individual should still choose the genetically engineered human.
