In this blog post, we compare overparenting—such as the trend of SAT prep schools—with genetic engineering, examining arguments against genetic modification as well as the logic in favor of it.

Raising the Issue

For several years now, concerns have frequently been raised about the excessive fervor surrounding private education. Students in the Gangnam area spend anywhere from several million to tens of millions of won a month on private tutoring, and tutoring services have even emerged that teach elementary school students subjects typically covered in medical school curricula. To curb this overheated competition, the government has gone so far as to enact laws restricting advanced learning.
This phenomenon is not unique to South Korea. In the United States as well, parents are highly motivated to turn their children into sports stars or send them to prestigious universities. These phenomena can be seen as stemming from a tendency among parents to over-manage and try to improve their children.
Meanwhile, advances in the life sciences have led to an understanding of the human genetic sequence and raised the prospect that it will one day be possible to manipulate that sequence to design life. Consequently, ethical questions such as “Is it permissible to intervene in and manipulate human birth?” are being raised across various fields, including religion, science, and society. We intend to examine this issue from the perspective of “child design.”

Perspectives on Parenting Through Education and Genetic Manipulation

Some books oppose genetic enhancement, arguing that parents cannot be allowed to “select” their children rather than accepting them as they are. They cite as grounds the fact that the parent-child relationship can be damaged by parents’ arrogance in pursuing perfection, and that inherent human characteristics—such as compassion based on unpredictability—can be undermined.
I do not agree with this argument. The human desire to understand and alter nature has been the starting point of modern science and the driving force behind technological advancement. Physics developed from the aspiration to fully understand the laws of nature, as seen in Newton, and we find beauty and creativity in artifacts that defy natural laws—such as fountains that defy gravity. Many aspects of modern civilization, including land reclamation and space exploration, also stem from the desire to transform nature.
Of course, there have been many adverse effects resulting from human intervention in nature, and I understand the concern that such attempts should be banned outright because of these cases. However, refraining from even attempting something out of fear of past side effects could be a foolish act that hinders progress. When predicting the future, we have no choice but to base our judgments on past examples. It is the same principle as referring to past data when formulating national budgets or making industrial forecasts.

Responses to Major Counterarguments

First, opponents question the morality of the very intention to engage in genetic modification. However, in reality, moral values have rarely been the sole priority. Individual freedoms are sometimes restricted for the public good, and choices that are not morally perfect are sometimes adopted by majority rule. If genetic modification can prevent serious congenital disabilities and reduce suffering, I believe we must consider the resulting benefits.
Second, there is concern that “viewing health through a utilitarian lens is dangerous.” While the book cites examples such as the health contests of the 1920s, it is difficult to view aesthetic and physical competitions like Miss Korea or Strongman as inherently immoral. In a society where competition and preferences exist, we cannot simply conclude that pursuing specific standards is always harmful.
Third, regarding the criticism that “over-enhancement” will lead to eugenics, past eugenics was a state-led, coercive, and cruel practice. This is fundamentally different from today’s situation, where genetic enhancement is left to individual choice. Furthermore, some of the problems arising from “over-enhancement” stem from issues of methodology, not from enhancement itself. For example, injuries caused by excessive exercise result from improper exercise techniques and overtraining.
Fourth, I find it difficult to agree with the criticism—as argued by Habermas—that freedom and contingency are deeply intertwined, and that eliminating contingency infringes upon freedom. Freedom is typically understood as a state in which an individual’s desires or choices are unrestrained, and the claim that contingency guarantees freedom is intuitively hard to grasp. Society has already restricted much of this freedom through rules and laws, and in return has secured greater public good.
If genetic modification brings greater benefits to humanity as a whole, I believe it is permissible to allow for a reduction in some degree of randomness.
Fifth, the claim that genetic modification eliminates individuality can also be refuted. The formation of a person involves a complex interplay of numerous factors, including not only genes but also the environment, upbringing, and random events. “Genetic determinism” is a perspective that many geneticists already question. Even taking physical appearance as an example, even if we were to manipulate genes to favor specific traits, the resulting diversity would still be vast.
Finally, a crucial point is that since we have not yet actually conducted widespread genetic manipulation, we cannot definitively conclude whether it is good or bad. There is a possibility that genetic manipulation could lead to unexpected negative outcomes, but conversely, there is ample potential for it to eradicate diseases and significantly improve human life.

Conclusion

Genetic engineering is an issue where moral concerns and practical benefits coexist. While we must approach it cautiously, learning from past failures, we should not ban research and applications based solely on fear. If we harness the benefits of genetic engineering while maintaining appropriate regulations and ethical discussions, it can make a significant contribution to reducing congenital diseases and creating a healthier society.