Personalized human technology offers the possibility of liberating humans from disease, but it could also create new inequalities and ethical issues, requiring social consensus and preparation.
All living beings are governed from birth by a biological code called a “gene,” which is responsible for the expression of our biological characteristics. These traits can determine not only our physical and mental characteristics, but also our future health. So shouldn’t the genes that characterize us biologically be better for our future? This question requires a fundamental reflection on the nature and future of humanity. The movie “GATAKA” starts from this question and depicts the struggles and adversities of Vincent, a human born by natural fertilization. The film shows how Vincent, a natural human, overcomes his genetic defects and outperforms his custom-made counterparts, fulfilling his dreams through his own efforts rather than leaving them to his genes. At first glance, it’s inspiring to see the protagonist’s efforts to overcome his genetic limitations and not have his life determined by his genes.
But if you look at the story from another perspective, what would the movie’s theme be if the protagonist had died of a genetically predicted heart attack before turning 31? In the movie, Vincent defies genetic prediction, but for those who don’t, it raises the question of whether the natural human is always right. It’s important to remember that customized humans don’t just enhance human capabilities, they also ensure a healthy future for an individual. Through these issues, the movie shows how genes can determine a person’s destiny and how it can conflict with free will.
In the overall population, the number of people who are born and die with a genetic disease is probably small. But if that small number includes you and those around you, genetic diseases can be a very harsh ordeal. The biotechnology, chemistry, and medicine we study today are working to overcome these incurable diseases. Personalized humans are the culmination of these efforts. If we can overcome these diseases through genetic manipulation, humans will be freed from the horrors of disease. Everyone is born with different abilities. However, if the differences in abilities represent the characteristics of each person, the differences can be accepted as diversity, not discrimination. However, it is very unfair to be born with a disease. Genetic manipulation is valuable as a means of reducing this unfairness.
However, if genetic manipulation is costly and only a few wealthy people can benefit from it, new forms of inequality will emerge. This situation is likely to intensify as technology advances. Poor people without money, or those without access to basic healthcare, such as in Africa, could end up passing on genetic diseases. This can create new social divisions where none existed before, which will exacerbate existing social inequalities. Currently, malaria, a disease spread by the Anopheles mosquito, is killing many people in Africa. Despite the fact that the disease is preventable, those who cannot afford to be vaccinated are still at great risk. Inequalities in access to healthcare exist today, and treating genetic diseases with personalized humans will not eliminate them. However, the value of personalized humans should not be underestimated, as the technology nevertheless offers the possibility of liberating humans from disease.
If genetic manipulation is used for therapeutic purposes, it can have a positive outcome of freeing humans from disease. However, if the purpose is simply to enhance certain physical, intellectual, or mental traits, it can become an ethical issue. For example, if a parent wants their child to be good at playing the piano, and they choose to have their child born with six hands, this would be a violation of the child’s free will. The child would be forced to live his or her life based on the characteristics determined by the parents, which would violate the dignity of the individual. Societal laws and consensus are important to ensure that the technology of personalized humans is used within ethically acceptable bounds.
The concept of the personalized human is aimed at liberation from disease, but misuse of the technology can create new social problems. We need to reach a social consensus on how to use this technology to ensure that personalized humans are properly positioned in the future. Personalized humans are likely to be an inevitable part of the future, and we need to start preparing and discussing them now.
