This blog post philosophically explores whether humans can have the right to artificially design their own capabilities and limitations, based on discussions in genetic engineering and bioethics.
The 2011 film Rise of the Planet of the Apes features Caesar, an ape with intelligence surpassing that of humans. Genetic enhancement triggered by a drug designed to restore damaged human brain function gave rise to a new species of life distinct from existing humans. The film culminates in an all-out war between the so-called ‘super apes’ led by Caesar and humanity. While this narrative was created for entertainment purposes, viewed from today’s perspective—where the potential for brain enhancement through pluripotent gene research and gene editing technology is actively discussed—it doesn’t feel like purely unrealistic material.
The film, which featured the slogan “Evolution is a revolution threatening humanity!” on its poster, symbolically presents the potential dangers that accelerating biotechnology advancements could bring to humankind.
Genetic engineering, which has rapidly emerged relatively recently compared to other scientific and technological fields, is one of the representative technological domains of the 21st century, with research becoming increasingly active over time. Consequently, moral and ethical awareness across society has also undergone changes. However, situations frequently arise where ethical reflection cannot keep pace with the speed of technological advancement. Issues like human cloning and genetic manipulation of unborn children have moved beyond theoretical discussion into the realm of technical feasibility, causing ethical confusion and anxiety for many people. Faced with this situation and the question “What attitude should we adopt?”, I began reading Michael Sandel’s book, “The Case Against Perfection.” I generally agree with Michael Sandel’s position that “we should adopt an attitude of accepting life as a gift,” and I wish to explain the basis for such an argument.
Sandel’s *The Case Against Perfection* centers on a philosophical critique of genetic enhancement. Here, genetic enhancement refers to genetic engineering interventions aimed at artificially improving physical and intellectual abilities to create a ‘better human,’ distinct from gene therapy intended for disease treatment. Sandel argues that examples of enhancement like steroids, growth hormone administration, and genetic manipulation can undermine human dignity and lead to a loss of humanity. He contends that opposing enhancement simply because genetic engineering technology is not yet ‘safe’ is insufficient, as technological advances could overcome this concern; a more fundamental ethical insight is needed. The author is particularly concerned that many forms of enhancement violate an ‘essence’ that has been implicitly agreed upon by society. For example, steroids undermine the essence of sport, which is ‘developing an athlete’s talent through effort,’ while selecting the sex of an unborn child violates the essence of parenthood, which is ‘maintaining an open mind before chance.’
Here, one question arises. How can we know that such an ‘unchanging essence’ actually exists? Clues to this can be found in the psychological discomfort we feel. When we see an athlete caught doping, we instinctively feel disgust; when we hear that parents selected their child’s gender or traits, we naturally express doubt and rejection. This is a common reaction shared by many people encountering advances in genetic engineering technology.
On the surface, this reaction might seem to stem solely from a rejection of the unfamiliar. Situations where parents select their child’s genes, athletes gain superhuman abilities through drugs, or students take memory-enhancing drugs to improve test scores represent phenomena we have never before experienced. However, this aversion cannot be explained solely as a reaction to novelty.
If we understand it as discomfort with artificial enhancement itself, where does this aversion stem from? The word ‘enhancement’ inherently implies artificially elevating something already sufficient to a better state. Consequently, such actions often feel less like efforts driven by desperate necessity and more like the fulfillment of unnecessary desires.
For instance, someone who faces no difficulty securing three meals a day accumulating wealth to eat more delicious food or drive a better car may be perceived as acting out of luxury rather than survival, appearing selfish. Should such behavior then be condemned or restrained? Of course, there is no reason for us to condemn or prevent the pursuit of happiness through the legitimate accumulation of wealth.
So how should we view the act of enhancing one’s physical abilities through genetic engineering? Enhancement in the realm of sports reveals relatively clear problems. Take soccer as an example. Suppose a player genetically enhances their leg muscles to run faster than Usain Bolt. This player could easily rise to the top of world soccer with overwhelming dribbling ability. Where exactly do we perceive the problem? Precisely in the artificially enhanced physical abilities achieved through genetics. Soccer is a sport where individual players hone their dribbling, shooting, and passing skills through practice, and where teams that score more goals than their opponents through cooperation with teammates are highly valued. The key element here is the process of ‘practice’. All athletes must develop their abilities through relentless effort, building upon innate talent. It is precisely this effort that inspires admiration and applause. However, enhancing abilities through genetic manipulation or drug use renders the value of such effort meaningless. This can be considered an act that undermines the very essence of sport.
A counterargument might be raised: aren’t athletes born with exceptional genetic talent, like Lionel Messi, starting from an unfairly advantageous position compared to those without such gifts? Of course, the distribution of talent can be called unfair. Yet people marvel precisely at the process where innate talent combines with effort to manifest itself; no one condemns Messi’s talent itself as unjust.
Thus, genetic enhancement provokes resistance because it risks undermining the very essence of the activity in which it is applied. How might we view this from the perspective of society as a whole? The ideal society Sandel envisions is a community bound by human bonds. To achieve this, he argues that humans must adopt an attitude of accepting life as a ‘gift’. In other words, it is crucial to build social institutions that are more generous and kind toward the imperfect talents and limitations of human beings.
From this standpoint, Sandel clearly states that while he opposes embryonic research aimed at enhancement, he supports research for disease treatment. The author also agrees with this view. The position opposing embryonic stem cell research generally rests on the principle that humans should not artificially manipulate cells with the potential to develop into a life. However, the author believes the significance of embryonic stem cells can vary depending on their intended purpose. This becomes easier to understand when considering the shift in societal attitudes toward organ donation. In the past, removing organs from brain-dead individuals for transplantation to others was viewed as an intrusion into a living human body and was not readily accepted. However, as the recognition that organ donation saves other lives spread, it has now become a widely accepted cultural norm. Embryonic stem cell research can similarly be perceived as research enabling the creation of organs for critically ill patients or the treatment of incurable diseases. We need to shift our perspective away from the notion that ‘humans are arbitrarily manipulating cells that could become people’ and toward the positive direction of helping those in suffering. The meaning of things changes depending on the perspective from which they are viewed. Just as a knife can be seen as a tool for murder or as a cooking utensil for preparing food for someone, embryonic cells can also be understood as tools that can be used for good purposes, rather than being viewed solely as potential persons.
For these reasons, like Sandel, I oppose the development of genetic engineering technologies aimed at enhancement. Many would agree that all scientific and technological progress ultimately serves humanity. Biotechnology, which explores the essence of life, is particularly a field that can provide the most direct assistance to humans and is undoubtedly a crucial discipline that will lead human society in the future. However, precisely because it studies humanity itself, the risk of losing our humanity is also immense. If we maintain an attitude that accepts life as a gift and never forget our fundamental gratitude for human existence, biotechnology can develop not as a threat to humanity, but as a force that makes humanity shine even brighter.
