Is the future of commercialization of human genetic modification really a better world?

Using the movie “Gattaca” as an example, we discuss the promise and problems of commercializing genetic engineering, including disrupting ecosystems, destroying human dignity, and increasing social inequality.

 

In the near future, we may be able to determine things like the color of our skin, hair, and eyes, as well as our height, face shape, and body size from birth. In the movie “Gattaca,” released in 1997, this is all possible. The movie is set in a future where “human genetic manipulation” is possible, where parents can select the genes they want in a fertilized egg and remove the ones they don’t, passing on only the traits they want to their child. In other words, the parents’ choices can determine not only the child’s appearance, but also its personality, intelligence, and even health. The idea of having an attractive appearance, a desirable personality, high intelligence, and a healthy body, all guaranteed from birth, is very appealing. And we’ve all fantasized about what it would be like if this future became a reality. However, if the movie does come true, the society of the future will probably not be as nice as we imagine.
In fact, this opinion is already reflected in the movie. Vincent, the main character of Gattaca, dreams of becoming an astronaut. But society doesn’t allow him to do so because he was born with inferior genes. No matter how hard he tries, he can’t overcome the genetic barrier. Vincent is forced to make an extreme choice: disguise himself as someone else. Jerome Marlowe, a genetically engineered man with superior genes, sells his DNA to Vincent after an accident renders them useless. Vincent then disguises himself as Jerome Murrow to pursue his dream of becoming an astronaut, and the movie ends with him boarding a spaceship to Saturn. How does the movie portray the negative aspects of a future society where human genetic manipulation is commercialized? As people who have seen the movie know, the people are very stiff and bureaucratic, and the background of the movie is very stark. In Kataka, the movie centers on the problems that arise from genetic modification, such as the creation of new discrimination.
However, a movie can only capture a slice of society, not the whole of society, and the “new discrimination” in Kataka is only one of the many problems that genetic modification of humans will bring. In other words, there are many other problems besides the creation of a culture of discrimination. In this paper, I will present a number of problems that could arise from the commercialization of genetic modification, including the problem of new discrimination, and argue that it should not be commercialized. First, I will present the issues of ecological disruption and destruction of human dignity as problems that may arise from the commercialization of genetic engineering. Next, we will discuss the problems that may emerge after the commercialization of genetic engineering, such as new discrimination and the creation of new classes. We will then examine the arguments made by those in favor of commercializing genetic engineering and what they overlook.
First, let’s look at the problems with commercializing genetic engineering. It usually takes a lot of research and trial and error to fully systematize, stabilize, and commercialize any technology, and genetic modification is no exception. Many of the studies that lead to the commercialization of genetic modification involve experiments on different organisms, including laboratory mice, and since we’re talking about genes and not other experiments, we’re talking about different kinds of mutations. What if some of these mutations escape from the lab and enter the ecosystem? Of course, it’s possible that they won’t, but it’s also possible that they will have an adverse effect on the ecosystem, which will disrupt it. In fact, the disruption of ecosystems due to the introduction of foreign species has already happened in many ecosystems.
And while the early stages of the experiment will be conducted on other organisms, the final stage of the experiment will inevitably involve clinical trials on humans, who will ultimately be the ones to whom the technology will be applied. But is it ethical to use human sperm, eggs, and fertilized eggs in experiments? The question of whether sperm, eggs, or fertilized eggs can be considered “human” or have dignity in their own right has not been settled, and various opinions are still conflicting. However, it is clear that sperm, eggs, and fertilized eggs are the beginning of life and should be treated as such. In fact, when Dr. Hwang Woo-seok donated her eggs for embryonic stem cell research, many issues were raised, and the same issues will be raised if we start research on human genetic modification.
Human dignity is a value that humans have from birth, and it means that humans are worthy of existence and should be respected and have inalienable rights that cannot be replaced by others, just because they are human. If human genetic manipulation becomes possible, we will judge human beings by their genes rather than seeing them as human beings, as in the movie. Can the dignity of human beings, that they are worthy of existence just because they are human beings, be preserved in a society that does not see them as human beings? Furthermore, can the dignity of life be preserved if we can choose and manipulate everything about a life at will? If we believe that life has value and should be respected for having life, and if we want to preserve its dignity, we believe that the birth of life should not be subject to the control of other entities. When we start to question whether a human being created by humans has the same dignity as another human being, it shakes the framework of our values about human dignity.
Even if human genetic modification technology is commercialized after such a complex research process, there are still problems. The problems that will arise after the commercialization of genetic engineering include the deepening of the gap between the rich and the poor and the creation of new classes. Can the process of selectively retaining only the best genes through artificial insemination be applied equitably to all fetuses around the world? This is an important task that determines the future of a human being and requires a high degree of sophistication to ensure that only the desired genes on the chromosome are replaced or removed without damaging other genes. Even in a world where genetic manipulation is possible, it would probably be very expensive, and the people who would benefit from it would be limited to the upper echelons of society (or at least the middle class). This is where the problem arises. In this situation, the children of the upper class who can be born through genetic manipulation will be born with only the best genes, but most of the other children will be born through natural fertilization and will have inferior genes compared to the children of the upper class. It is easy to predict that among the children born with only superior genes through genetic manipulation and the children born with a mixture of superior and inferior genes through natural fertilization, the children who are more likely to succeed socially are those born through genetic manipulation.
In this way, children from the upper echelons of society are born one step closer to success. In this way, money can buy health, buy intelligence, determine appearance, determine personality, and determine a person’s future. In the end, the children of the upper class will have better and better opportunities, resulting in the deepening of the gap between the rich and the poor, which is one of the problems of the current society. In addition, this phenomenon will not only deepen the gap between the rich and the poor, but will also create a new culture of discrimination mentioned above, and even a new status or class. Human genetic modification not only exacerbates current social problems, but also creates new ones. Can we really say that what humanity will gain from this technology is worth all that we will lose from these social problems?
If so, let’s take a look at the reasons why people in favor of genetic modification are in favor of it, and whether there’s anything wrong with those reasons. In fact, there are many advantages to commercializing human genetic modification. The most common ones are that it will make it easier to treat human diseases and allow for human evolution. With the development of genetic modification, we may be able to cure congenital diseases that are either incurable or only temporarily treatable with conventional medical techniques. In fact, there have been cases where genetic information has been used to diagnose and treat congenital diseases. In a society where genetic manipulation is commercially available, we can eliminate the genes that cause congenital diseases while we are still in the fertilized egg and live a healthy life without worry. This could result in lower medical costs and a higher quality of life.
The question is, however, will genetic modification be used in a humane way to protect human health and improve quality of life? All technology is a double-edged sword. When used for good, it can produce good results, but when used for bad, it can produce bad results. And if you look at the history of humanity’s misuse of dangerous technologies, you’ll see that they have caused a lot of pain in the past. The same is true for human genetic modification. I’m not opposed to all technological advances for these reasons. But if it affects the survival of the human race, we certainly have the right to oppose it. And if nothing else, it’s about our genes, which determine everything about us. We cannot predict what the consequences will be if this technology is used for war and other purposes other than human happiness, but what is certain is that the end result will be unimaginable.
Another reason given by those in favor of commercializing genetic modification is that if a large number of people with superior genes are born through genetic modification, a new human race will emerge and society will become more advanced. This is a valid argument. Evolutionary biologists also argue that human evolution has stopped. Evolution is the result of the law of survival of the fittest, where individuals with genes that favor survival survive and those with genes that disadvantage survival are eliminated. When individuals with unfavorable genetic information disappear, the genes of the surviving population are examined, and most of the unfavorable or unnecessary genetic information is removed, and only the favorable genetic information remains. Scientists explain that evolution is when the genetic information of a species as a whole changes in a specific direction and becomes different from the genetic information of the previous species. They argue that evolution has stopped because humanity is not facing a survival problem, and therefore the law of survival of the fittest cannot be applied.
However, if human gene manipulation technology becomes commercialized and artificially changes the genetic information of human beings, the changes in the genetic information of different human beings will result in slightly better genes when looking at the genes of human beings as a whole. This is a significant change in the genetic information of the entire species in a specific direction. In this situation, if enough time passes and the changed genetic information becomes different from the existing genetic information of humans, evolution occurs. In other words, it is definitely possible to evolve humans through human genetic manipulation.
But is evolution necessary for humanity right now? The answer is no. Evolution is a phenomenon that occurs when a species is faced with the problem of preserving its species, which means that it doesn’t have to happen if it doesn’t have to. The agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution, and the information revolution have given us increasingly good technology, which has improved our quality of life, and the new humans, who will inherit only the best genes from the old humans, may improve technology by leaps and bounds, creating a world that is much more comfortable and capable of much more than it is now. So, is it certain that our future life will be happier than our present life? In fact, we have become so used to cell phones that we can live without them without much inconvenience, whereas only a decade ago, we would feel very uncomfortable without them. Even though our quality of life has increased compared to a decade ago, we’re not sure that it’s better now than it was then. The development of technology provides us with convenience and a higher quality of life, but it doesn’t provide us with happiness itself. So all we get from more advanced technology is a little convenience. Should humans evolve at great risk for a little convenience?
The movie opens with a quote from Ecclesiastes 7:13: “Behold what God has done; who can make straight what God has made bent? Bent things are bent because they mean what they are bent to mean. In other words, no matter how a human being is born, what they are born with is meaningful and valuable. To be valuable is to have something different from others. In a society homogenized by genetic manipulation, there may be no value or identity, and I wonder if it would be better to be satisfied with the present and spend time finding our own value rather than spending time researching the technology of human genetic manipulation at great risk.