Discusses the implications of the decline in biodiversity and advances in genetic engineering for the future of humanity, and warns that the decline in genetic diversity due to the rise of personalized humans could pose a threat to human survival and evolution.
In recent years, the decline of biodiversity has become a serious issue around the world. This problem is not just environmental, but could have a significant impact on the future viability of humanity. According to a report by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), biodiversity loss is one of the most pressing environmental issues we face today. The diversity of life on Earth is essential to maintaining the balance of ecosystems, and when this balance is disrupted, the effects can ripple throughout the ecosystem. For example, the extinction of a species can lead to the collapse of the food chain, which can threaten the survival of other species that interact with it.
According to a series of articles in The Science Times, there are currently an estimated 13 to 14 million species on Earth. Of these, 25,000 to 50,000 species are lost every year due to development and pollution. Species loss is particularly acute in areas of high biodiversity, such as rainforests. These areas are home to more than half of the planet’s species, and their decline could have a profound impact on ecosystems around the world. At this rate, experts warn that 25% of all species on Earth will become extinct within the next 20 to 30 years.
Biodiversity loss isn’t just about fewer species. It can lead to a reduction in the resilience of ecosystems, which means a collapse in ecosystem services. Ecosystem services are the benefits humans receive from nature, including clean water and air, food supply, and climate regulation. Loss of biodiversity can therefore directly impact human life by destabilizing these essential services.
Human disturbance of ecosystems has mostly resulted in dire catastrophes. During China’s Great Leap Forward movement, Mao Zedong’s declaration that “sparrows are harmful birds” led to the tragic deaths of tens of millions of sparrows in China. As the sparrow population plummeted, the pests they ate skyrocketed, causing a major hit to grain production. This is an example of how human intervention in nature can have devastating consequences if done without sufficient consideration and research. In Australia, 12 rabbits introduced in the mid-1800s multiplied to 10 billion 60 years later, devastating the entire country. These well-intentioned human changes to ecosystems often have negative consequences. In some cases, the effects may not be felt immediately, but decades or even centuries later. And even if we can identify the problem, it’s often very difficult to reverse it.
However, advances in genetics have created an environment in which humans are able to alter the future evolution of the human species itself, and the problem of declining diversity may no longer be a problem outside of our species. While gene editing technology has positive uses, such as treating diseases, it could also have serious implications for the natural evolutionary process of humanity. This could translate into a challenge to the genetic diversity of the human race as a whole, rather than just individual health issues.
One of the key technologies in genetics is the decoding and manipulation of DNA. When the human genome was mapped in 2001, U.S. National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins said, “With the genome map, we could create a genetically engineered human being by 2020.” Today, in 2024, researchers agree that while the decoding of human genes is not progressing at the pace previously predicted, there is a consensus that genetically engineered humans will one day be created. While this genetic manipulation is great if it is used for positive purposes, such as curing terminal diseases or solving crimes, it can be problematic if the technology is used to create humans with specific purposes. In particular, there is an ongoing ethical debate about the risk that genetic modification could increase social inequality or become a technology that benefits only a select group of people.
The movie “Gattaca” (1997) is a cautionary tale about humanity’s optimistic expectations for the future of genetics. Through genetic manipulation before birth, children are born with only the traits that their parents want them to have. These humans are “eligible” as customized humans. Other humans are natural humans, or “misfits. The plot of the movie is about the main character Vincent, who is labeled as an “ineligible” from birth, and his efforts to fulfill his dream of becoming an astronaut. While the moral of the story is important, we want to focus on a conversation Vincent’s parents had with a doctor in the hospital before giving birth to Vincent’s brother, Anton. Vincent’s parents want to control factors such as Anton’s gender, the presence or absence of diseases, his appearance, his personality, and his likelihood of obesity in order to give him the best possible conditions for social success. Considering the level of science in the movie, and the use of the word elimination, we can think of it as eliminating the genetic factors that are considered socially recessive before birth, which means that the number of genetic traits inherited from parents to children is reduced.
While this may not seem like a big deal, it has the potential to seriously damage genetic diversity. Genetic diversity, along with beneficial mutations, is essential for the evolutionary adaptation of organisms. Reduced genetic diversity means that species will be vulnerable to new environments, and the potential exists for large-scale extinction of species due to even small environmental changes. If genetics were as advanced as we see in the movies, we might think that these problems would already be solved. However, science and technology are value-neutral, but the people who use them are not, so we cannot be optimistic about this issue. Even if it is almost impossible to imagine a society that completely eliminates wealth inequality and the genetic class divide shown in the movie, how diverse would the human population be in terms of genetic factors? At the very least, it would have less genetic diversity than today.
In such an evolved species, we might have to worry about human extinction not only for the big external changes we can currently imagine, such as new diseases or changes in global climate, but also for small, unimaginable changes. The loss of biological diversity can affect not only ecosystems but also human societies as a whole, and this will become even more pronounced during unexpected crises. One of the biggest reasons why consanguineous marriages are banned right now is related to genetic diversity. It’s no secret that European royal families practiced inbreeding to preserve the purity of their bloodlines and what it did to them. Also, science is not a magic bullet that can solve everything. The human imagination is limitless, which means that if you think backwards, there is always something unthinkable somewhere. A decrease in human genetic diversity could lead to a decrease in our ability to respond and adapt to the “unexpected”.
Of course, there’s also the possibility that genetic manipulation at birth may not necessarily lead to a decrease in human genetic diversity. If genetics becomes more advanced and we reach a stage where we can genetically engineer traits that are socially desirable, we may be able to replace the diminishing genotypes with new genotypes created by humans, and diversity may even increase. Just as humans of the past were different from humans of the present, humans of the future may be more diverse than we are today. However, the problem with this is that recessive genotypes that are no longer needed can be eliminated again, so it is unlikely that the total amount of genotypes will increase. Rather, the total amount of genotypes in humans will continue to decrease, despite appearances, due to anthropogenic intervention in the accumulation of genotypes over hundreds of thousands of years. Furthermore, it is possible that species speciation will occur, leading to the creation of new species that are nearly identical to humans but cannot reproduce with us. In any case, genetic modification could pose more of a threat than a help in terms of human survival.
However, there are many who argue that the advantages of genetically engineered “customized humans” outweigh the disadvantages and that we need them. One such argument is that genetic modification can help us achieve an egalitarian world where people start life on a level playing field. This argument suggests that while genetic engineering is often viewed as an immoral technology that creates unreasonable discrimination by seemingly valuing people based on their effort, it is actually a revolutionary technology that allows us to recognize our genetic differences and create a more level playing field, and that we can enter a world without disabilities or diseases.
But even if disability and disease help us get off to a fair start, can a world of equality be achieved through laws, institutions, or human perception alone? If evaluating human beings based on factors unrelated to effort prevents a level playing field among humans, then a world of equality would be achieved by equalizing not only disease and disability but also all other non-effort factors. However, since the beginning of time, humanity has always lived in the midst of conflict and division. In no case has perfect equality, except for effort, been achieved. When one factor is equally available to all, we begin to value it differently. Genetic manipulation to simply eliminate diseases and disabilities can be dangerous. Discriminatory factors such as height, intelligence, and skin color will continue to emerge. It will be difficult to limit these factors through laws, institutions, and education. Regulation is always one step behind social change.
Paradoxically, all human inequalities are the driving force behind human progress. Humans have always tried to move in the direction of overcoming inequality. The history of humanity is one of striving to share power and wealth that is concentrated in the hands of a few. The world is always fighting invisible wars, even if they’re not actual wars with guns and swords. It is through these wars that humans naturally learn lessons over millennia and seek and acquire more universal values, which is what we have always done and will continue to do. In fact, the moment absolute equality is achieved, human progress may come to a halt. Genetic manipulation cannot be used to create an equal society. The world will always be made up of people who look different and think differently.
All 7 billion humans on the planet have different genetic characteristics. There is no such thing as a 100% identical human being. This is a blessing for humanity. We develop our sense of self by looking at others who are different from us and establishing our values. In the midst of so many people who are different from themselves, each human being leaves offspring, writes, and lives with dreams and hopes in their hearts in order to leave evidence of their presence in the world. These “natural humans” should not be replaced by “customized humans” to create a better society.
A society that has lost its human diversity is a dead society. In Koji Suzuki’s novel “Ring,” another world loop implemented in a computer loses its diversity as the genetically identical Sadako Yamamura multiplies infinitely. This world eventually becomes boring and unchanging, a perfectly frozen world with no further evolution and development. This may be an extreme example. However, we should not ignore the possibility that the rise of “personalized humans” could lead to a decrease in human diversity, which could pose a major problem for the continued development and prosperity of the human race. The loss of diversity due to genetics could lead to a loss of individuality, which could lead to a grinding halt in the development of society, on a small scale, or a very large scale, which could threaten the very existence of the human species.
