In this lesson, we will examine the emergence of customized humans and the resulting social discrimination issues through the setting of the movie Gattaca, discuss legal and ethical aspects, and examine the positive and negative impacts of customized humans on humanity.
The movie Gattaca is set in a time when genetic technology has become so advanced that a little bit of genetic information can tell us everything about a person. In this era, most people choose artificial insemination with improved genetic information over natural insemination to have children. People born through natural insemination are at a genetic disadvantage to people born through artificial insemination in terms of longevity, likelihood of contracting diseases, and so on, which puts them at a disadvantage in many ways, including employment. In other words, this is a society that favors people born through artificial insemination, with most people born through artificial insemination and only a few born through natural insemination. People born through artificial insemination are called “customized humans” and people born through natural insemination are called “natural humans. Natural humans can only work in a limited number of jobs, such as janitors, because most companies prefer genetically superior customized humans. The movie shows how natural humans are increasingly marginalized and discriminated against as the number of custom humans increases, so it’s inevitable that negative perceptions of custom humans will spread. But are custom humans a bad thing? No, they’re not, and they have many advantages that benefit humanity.
Personalized humans can help increase life expectancy and improve quality of life. Currently, many people die of illness at an early age, rather than from old age. However, since personalized humans are genetically modified to remove disease-causing factors, their life expectancy will increase, and they will naturally suffer from fewer illnesses, improving their quality of life. It could be argued that by removing recessive factors and selecting only dominant factors when fertilizing personalized humans, genetic diversity could be reduced, making them more susceptible to infectious diseases. However, since the personalized humans in Gattaca are not using genes from celebrities, but are fertilized after removing disease-causing or life-shortening factors from their parents’ genes, genetic diversity is not significantly reduced. In the former case, genes from a very small number of people, such as sperm or egg banks, can be spread around and reduce genetic diversity, but the latter involves removing a few factors from the parents’ genes, so there is little reduction in genetic diversity.
Opponents of customized humans argue that “in a society where customized humans are rampant, discrimination between customized humans and natural humans will become a serious problem, just like the situation in the movie.” However, the world of “Gattaca” is the director’s imagination of a society where customized humans are rampant. In other words, “Gattaca” is one extreme example of a highly discriminatory society. In reality, there are ways to reduce discrimination.
We can reduce discrimination by enacting strong laws. “In Gattaca, genetic information can be used to know everything about a person, so it is possible to distinguish between customized humans and natural humans. This distinction leads to discrimination in employment, for example. This is possible because the act of obtaining and analyzing genetic information is not prohibited by law. If the law prohibited the public from obtaining and analyzing genetic information, companies would not be able to distinguish whether an applicant is a customized human being or a natural human being, and discrimination based on genetic differences would be greatly reduced. If a company cheats, such as using fingerprints or hair to obtain genetic information from a doctor, there should be strong penalties to deter companies from doing so.
In class discussions, it has been argued that laws don’t stop discrimination because there will always be people who will break them, even if they are sanctioned by the law. But this argument defeats the point of laws: the point of laws is to stop certain behaviors. Of course, there will always be people who don’t obey the law. In this case, it’s not that the law is irrelevant, but rather that the law should be gradually strengthened to further reduce discrimination.
The other argument is that laws against discrimination can only go so far, because when a company hires a person, it can determine whether they are a customized human being or a natural human being by, for example, asking them to run a 3-kilometer mile. The value of a company is to make a profit. It’s reasonable for companies to use a variety of tests to assess applicants’ abilities in order to hire the best people. Typically, companies test to see if applicants have the right skills for the job. For a research position, they’ll assess how well you do research; for a sales position, they’ll assess how well you deal with people. These abilities are not determined by genetics. The argument that being good at studying is genetic ignores the importance of hard work. Your ability to study can change depending on how much more you put into it. The same goes for running a 3-kilometer mile. In other words, without genetic testing to determine whether an applicant is a customized human or a natural human, companies cannot easily determine whether an applicant is a customized human or a natural human. Furthermore, it is a stretch to think that companies will bother to distinguish between natural and customized humans, since it is in their interest to hire people based on their job-related skills, rather than using incidental skills like running to determine whether they are natural or customized.
Finally, there is a counter argument that points to ethical issues. The argument is that it is ethically problematic for a parent to arbitrarily change the genes of their child because it is the parent’s will and not the child’s will. “The customized human in Gattaca is a human whose body has been made healthier and the factors that would make it sick have been removed. You could argue that it’s not ethical because it’s not the child’s will, but I don’t think any child would be opposed to being born under these favorable conditions. Of course, as mentioned in the discussion, I don’t think it’s right for parents to have their children born with genes specifically enhanced in certain areas in order to set their child’s path according to their wishes. However, modifying genes to improve health is not about determining a child’s career path, it’s about giving them more career choices in life, so there’s nothing ethically wrong with that.
As mentioned earlier, in Gattaca, it has been a long time since customized humans have appeared, and discrimination against natural humans has intensified because proper measures have not been taken against discrimination. “Watching Gattaca, you might think that customized humans cause discrimination. However, if we assume that customized humans are developed in the real world and more and more customized humans are created, and if we prevent discrimination from the beginning by enacting strong laws, the world of Gattaca will not become a reality, and we will have a world where it will be impossible to distinguish between customized humans and natural humans, and there will be almost no discrimination due to genetic differences. In such a world, there is no reason to oppose customized humans that improve life expectancy and quality of life.
I’m a blog writer. I want to write articles that touch people’s hearts. I love Coca-Cola, coffee, reading and traveling. I hope you find happiness through my writing.