This blog post explores whether customized human technology could be the solution to curing disease, or if it might instead spark new inequalities and ethical controversies.
Every living being is governed from birth by a biological code called ‘genes,’ and biological characteristics are expressed according to that code. These traits can determine not only our physical and mental characteristics but also our future health. So, shouldn’t the genes that biologically define us naturally be better for our own future? This question demands fundamental reflection on human nature and our future. The film “Gattaca” begins with this question, depicting the anguish and adversity faced by Vincent, a human born through natural conception. The film shows Vincent, a naturally conceived human, overcoming his genetic flaws to demonstrate abilities superior to those of genetically engineered humans. It depicts his journey of achieving his dreams through his own efforts, rather than surrendering them to predetermined genes. At first glance, the protagonist’s struggle to overcome genetic limitations, proving life isn’t predetermined by genes, is deeply moving.
However, viewed from another angle, what would become of the film’s theme if the protagonist had died of a genetically predicted heart attack before turning 31? While Vincent defied genetic predictions in the film, it raises the question for those who cannot: is being a natural human always the right choice? We must not forget that customized humans not only enhance human capabilities but also guarantee an individual’s healthy future. This film illustrates how genes can dictate human destiny and how this can clash with free will.
Looking at the entire population, the number of people born with genetic diseases and dying from them is likely small. However, if that small number includes me or those around me, genetic disease would present an extremely harsh ordeal. The biotechnology, chemistry, and medicine we study today strive to overcome these incurable diseases. The concept of a customized human represents the culmination of these efforts. If genetic manipulation can overcome such diseases, humanity would be liberated from the fear of illness. People may be born with different abilities. However, if these differences represent individual characteristics, they can be accepted as diversity rather than discrimination. However, being born with a disease is profoundly unfair. Genetic manipulation holds value as a means to reduce this unfairness.
Yet, if genetic manipulation proves prohibitively expensive, allowing only a wealthy few to benefit, a new form of inequality will emerge. This situation could intensify as technology advances. The impoverished, or those in regions like Africa lacking basic healthcare, may pass on genetic diseases. This could create new social divides that did not previously exist, further exacerbating existing social inequalities. Currently, in Africa, many lives are lost to malaria transmitted by Anopheles mosquitoes. Despite being preventable, those without the economic means to receive vaccinations remain at significant risk. Such inequalities in access to healthcare persist today, and personalized human genetic disease treatment will not resolve these disparities. Nevertheless, the technology of personalized humans offers the potential for humanity to be liberated from disease, and its value should not be overlooked.
If genetic manipulation is used for therapeutic purposes, it can yield positive outcomes by liberating humans from disease. However, if the purpose is merely to enhance specific physical, intellectual, or mental traits, this could raise ethical concerns. For example, if parents alter their child’s genetics to be born with six fingers in order to excel at piano, this would infringe upon the child’s free will. Such a child would be forced to live according to characteristics predetermined by their parents, violating personal dignity. Given that the technology of customized humans must be used within ethically permissible boundaries, societal laws and consensus are crucial.
While the concept of customized humans aims for liberation from disease, misuse of this technology could create new social problems. We must ensure customized humans can appropriately take their place in future society through social consensus on how to use this technology. Customized humans are highly likely to inevitably exist in future society, necessitating preparation and discussion starting now.
