This blog post examines the forms of class separation that could emerge in a society where genetic engineering is commonplace, deeply exploring the nature of new inequalities arising between designed humans and those born naturally.
Anyone interested in life sciences has likely heard of the film “GATTACA.” The somewhat unusual title “GATTACA” is a word composed of the combinations of G, A, T, and C, the bases that make up human DNA. This film depicts a future society where genetic engineering technology has become practical, allowing the manipulation of a fetus’s genes to selectively possess only superior ones. The rapid advancement of modern science and technology is generating new forms of debate, and particularly in the fields of life sciences and biotechnology, intense ethical conflicts directly related to human life are being raised. The film “GATTACA” serves as a prime example illustrating the societal changes that occur when humans design their children’s traits. Michael Sandel’s book “Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do?” poses an equally compelling question: “Is it acceptable to design children?”
Michael Sandel, a Harvard professor widely known as the author of “Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do?”, clearly presents his position on this question in “The Ethics of Life.” Three sentences particularly well illustrate his argument. First, he explains the phrase “parenthood is an open-hearted embrace of a future of chance,” stating, “This tells us what people’s instinctive moral aversion to genetic enhancement is directed against.” In other words, humans feel an intuitive discomfort and rejection towards genetic enhancement, and this feeling is not merely emotional but grounded in moral intuition. Second, Sandel warns of the relational and ethical losses genetic modification brings, stating: “The arrogance and impulse of parents to conquer the mystery of birth not only ruins the parent-child relationship but also robs parents of the capacity for humble acceptance and the innate human compassion formed in unpredictable circumstances.” Finally, he states, “The excessive parenting of our time reflects an excessive anxiety toward conquest and domination, which is to miss the meaning of life as a gift. This attitude draws us close to eugenics,” expressing a firm opposition to designing children. This argument is highly persuasive. The act of parents designing children to fit their own standards is ethically clearly wrong.
Of course, opposing viewpoints exist, generally summarized into three arguments. First, the claim that there is no fundamental difference between using genetic engineering to enhance a child’s intelligence and improving intelligence through education. This perspective holds that the means differ only in the means, as the goal is enhancing the child’s abilities. Second, the eugenic argument that if the population with superior genes increases and inferior genes decrease, the overall benefit to humanity increases. For example, if a specific trait confers a survival advantage, increasing the proportion of individuals possessing that trait enhances the species’ overall survival potential. Third, the argument that genetic enhancement also benefits the child personally. In the film “GATTACA,” the male protagonist was born through natural conception, while his younger brother was born through genetic manipulation. While the protagonist carried physical defects and disease risks, his brother possessed physical and intellectual superiority, enabling him to achieve social success more easily. This scenario could similarly apply in modern society: if one could be born with high intelligence through genetic manipulation, that child would likely hold an advantageous position in academics and social life.
However, while these arguments appear plausible at first glance, each carries significant flaws. The primary issue with the first argument is ‘responsibility for involuntary choices’. Adults are legally considered responsible for their own actions. However, parents genetically modifying their children’s genes constitutes an involuntary choice from the child’s perspective. This raises the question: if unexpected side effects arise from the genetic modification, who should bear the responsibility? The second argument carries the risk of severely undermining human diversity. Socially desirable genetic traits are already largely standardized: tall stature, favorable facial proportions, high intelligence, and sociable personalities are preferred. Selectively spreading only these specific genes would reduce diversity across the entire species, ultimately leading to a homogenized society. The third argument raises issues of discrimination based on genetic modification status. Even if genetic enhancement technologies become practical, not everyone will equally benefit from them. As high-cost technologies, they are likely to be used primarily by the economically privileged, potentially creating a divide between a ‘genetically superior class’ and a ‘naturally born class,’ thereby exacerbating modern societal inequalities. The class structure depicted in the film “GATTACA” could very well be replicated in reality.
Among these three issues, I consider the expansion of discrimination to be the most serious problem and have reflected on it more deeply. Some argue that establishing social systems could resolve this issue. For example, they propose that if the South Korean government operated a system like the national health insurance program, allowing all citizens to access genetic design at low cost, it could mitigate discrimination. However, counterarguments exist, primarily concerning the enormous cost. Even in the United States, attempts to expand healthcare systems modeled after South Korea’s faced significant public opposition due to the enormous fiscal burden, making implementation difficult. Excessive welfare can threaten national finances and potentially lead to bankruptcy risks, as seen in Greece. Considering such precedents, it is reasonable to criticize that a state-subsidized genetic modification cost system is practically difficult to implement.
Nevertheless, another perspective offers a counterargument. The Greek case is merely an extreme example; countries like Sweden and Switzerland operate high-level welfare systems while maintaining fiscal stability. This suggests that even if more taxes are collected and invested in welfare, problems may be avoided with proper management. Furthermore, given that genetic modification is a technology with profound lifelong implications for humans, many citizens might willingly pay the necessary taxes. However, this argument also has a critical limitation: “Providing genetic modification to everyone could actually deepen inequality.” Currently, anyone can be born with diverse talents, and even those living in economically challenging environments have the potential to succeed by leveraging their talents. However, if genetic modification becomes universal, resulting in everyone being born with similarly superior abilities, only those in economically privileged environments who receive better education and resources will be able to utilize those abilities more effectively. Ultimately, genetic leveling would create a new form of inequality. The author could not find sufficient additional counterarguments to this, leading to the conclusion that designing children is ethically difficult to justify.
Thus far, we have examined the question “Is it acceptable to design children?” primarily through Michael Sandel’s book “The Ethics of Life.” While the pro-design position appears theoretically sound at first glance, it ultimately fails to resolve several critical issues—particularly the problem of social discrimination—making genetic manipulation of children undesirable. As the line from the movie “GATTACA” states, “Just remember one thing. I did my best, and I was better than anyone else. If I could have left from the start, I might not have become so clever.” Human life is more valuable when it is chosen and fulfilled by oneself, rather than following a path designed by someone else.
