In this blog post, we will examine the impact of advances in genetic engineering and biotechnology on human society and identity.
In 2012, aliens invaded Manhattan, New York. To stop the attack, Iron Man, Captain America, Hulk, and other heroes formed the Avengers and rushed to New York. They defeated the aliens, sealed the passageway to outer space, and restored peace to Earth. This is a scene from the movie Avengers (2012). Among the Avengers, one hero stands out in particular. It is the Hulk, with his green steel skin that even bullets cannot penetrate and his muscular physique. The Hulk can fight against not just one army, but countless troops, and he never gives up, showing off his strength as if to demonstrate his power. We watch the movie hoping to see Hulk, who protects the earth, become even more powerful. But is it okay for us to enjoy Hulk as mere entertainment? We always take heroic stories of good triumphing over evil for granted. But can we guarantee that powerful beings like Hulk will not harm humanity by siding with villains or terrorists? Do you think such science and technology are a distant dream? If so, I would say that you are underestimating the rapidly advancing scientific civilization of humankind. Given the current pace of development in biotechnology, no biotechnology can be dismissed as nonsense. If research to revive mammoths, which disappeared from the Earth 5,000 years ago, by modifying elephants is already close to success, can we not predict the success of other research?
As such, biotechnology will not only have a beneficial impact on Homo sapiens. If so, under what circumstances could Homo sapiens become extinct? The book Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (Yuval Noah Harari) describes various scenarios in which Homo sapiens could become extinct from the perspective of genetic engineering.
First, the collapse of social structures caused by genetic engineering could lead to the extinction of Homo sapiens. You may wonder if scientific influences can directly affect sociocultural factors rather than simply having a ripple effect. However, let’s look at the story of field mice as an example of how science has directly influenced sociocultural factors. First, it should be noted that the genes of all living organisms are determined by the type of gene. For example, let’s say that a specific gene A determines whether or not a person has double eyelids. Then, this gene only affects the presence or absence of double eyelids and does not affect other parts of the body, such as eyebrows or fingernails. Utilizing this characteristic of genes, geneticists obtained specific results in their research on field mice. Most field mice species engage in promiscuous mating, but one species is said to maintain a monogamous relationship. Geneticists claim to have successfully isolated the genes responsible for monogamy in this species of field mouse. If it becomes possible to transfer these genes to other field mice, the lifestyle and personality of most field mice could change. The results of this study may also apply to Homo sapiens. If these genes are applied to Homo sapiens, it could bring about changes in personality, and social changes would inevitably follow. However, would changes in personality and social structure only be beneficial? Yuval Harari says that in the near future, humans will be able to design their own desires. This raises concerns about personality changes in Homo sapiens and the frightening consequences that may follow.
Another aspect is the problems that may arise as Homo sapiens borrows the advantages of various life forms with the advancement of genetic engineering technology. This is slightly different from the social extinction mentioned above, as it refers to the extinction of Homo sapiens due to the collapse of the standards that define us.
In August 2014, genomics researchers at Arizona State University in the US conducted a detailed analysis of lizards using gene search technology and discovered 326 genes involved in the regeneration of various parts of the body, including the tail. Although this discovery cannot be directly applied to humans because lizards and humans have different DNA structures, the similarities between lizard and human genes suggest that lizards’ regenerative abilities could potentially be applied to humans. In addition to this example, efforts to borrow the advantages of other living organisms continue. If so, can humans who have been injected with such genetic technology still be called Homo sapiens? Let’s take cars as an example. Cars with wheels are designed to move quickly on land. However, if we add wings to cars to overcome the limitations of land, their functionality will improve, but should we still call them cars? Or should we call them airplanes? If Homo sapiens borrows the functions of various living things, a new human race with a new name will be born, and Homo sapiens will eventually face extinction.
In this way, biotechnology can often be likened to a knife. When used in the right way, a knife is an excellent tool that increases work efficiency, but when used incorrectly, it can become a weapon that harms people. However, the reality is that knives cannot always be used in the right way. Similarly, biotechnology inevitably has its drawbacks, but if its advantages are utilized properly, it can serve as an excellent tool for improving the welfare of humankind. However, this technology cannot always be used for good, and there is a real possibility that it could be misused. Therefore, just as we must always handle knives with care, we must also develop and apply biotechnology with caution.
