In this blog post, I will examine the debate over genetic engineering and “designer humans” through the movie “Gattaca,” and summarize the arguments for and against, along with critiques of each.

The Movie “Gattaca” and Lives Defined by Genetics

The movie “Gattaca” depicts a society where advances in science, technology, and biotechnology allow for the manipulation of genetic information to create so-called “designer humans.” In this world, the protagonist Vincent, who was born naturally, is weak, prone to illness, and carries recessive genetic traits such as nearsightedness; as a result, he is forced into a low social status because he is considered genetically “inferior.”
In contrast, his younger brother Anton is born healthy after genetic engineering removes his predisposition to physical and mental illnesses. Vincent’s dream was to become an astronaut, but at the Gattaca Corporation, his genetic information limited him to working as a janitor. This portrayal of social status and opportunities being determined by genetic information raises the film’s central question: Can a person’s life be determined solely by their genetic makeup?
I believe that while human life is indeed influenced by given circumstances, ultimately, a large part of it depends on an individual’s will and choices. In the film, the scene where Vincent—who always lost in childhood ocean swimming competitions—strengthens his resolve and eventually wins symbolically illustrates the role of willpower. Such examples can be interpreted as evidence that genetic conditions do not completely define one’s life.
Furthermore, the terms “dominant” and “recessive” traits in genetics are not criteria for judging “superiority.” There are cases where skin or hair colors that people commonly prefer are actually recessive traits. Therefore, it is ethically problematic for parents to select their child’s height, health status, and even personality in advance before birth. There is no such thing as a “perfect human,” and it cannot be justified for others to determine someone’s life from the moment of birth.

Arguments for “Designer Humans” and Criticisms Thereof

A student representing the opposing view argues that “designer humans” are not simply about creating superior humans. Instead, they claim it could serve as a fundamental solution to future challenges such as declining productivity due to an aging population, a shrinking workforce caused by low birth rates, and environmental pollution and extreme weather events. For example, it is argued that “custom-made humans” would enable society to adapt to these challenges by improving productivity, extending working lives, strengthening immunity to diseases, and eliminating predispositions to mental illness.
Furthermore, it is suggested that, as depicted in movies, discrimination can be managed by legally prohibiting bias in the hiring process, and ethical issues can be resolved through social consensus and further research. The student also emphasizes that, since this has not yet become a reality, sufficient discussion and improved public awareness must come first.
My critique of this is as follows. First, the idea of solving the problems of an aging population and mandatory retirement age solely through genetic modification is unrealistic. The issue of mandatory retirement is not simply a matter of physical ability but is largely determined by economic and social structures. Extending lifespan alone cannot fundamentally solve the employment issues of the elderly or the problem of mandatory retirement.
The argument that environmental problems should be solved by “adapting humans” is also unconvincing. The fundamental solution to pollution and resource scarcity lies in restoring the environment and creating sustainable systems; it is not right to genetically modify humans to adapt to harsh environments.
Furthermore, the logic that problems can be solved simply by enacting laws against discrimination underestimates reality. While laws are necessary, they cannot instantly eliminate social prejudice and structural inequality—the root causes of discrimination. The argument that one can overcome adverse conditions through “willpower” alone also shifts the burden onto the vulnerable. It is unfair to attribute the discrimination and suffering experienced by ordinary people solely to the individual’s responsibility to “overcome” them.
Finally, the introduction of “custom-made humans” raises the problem of dictating the lives and rights of others. Decisions regarding whose life to design and in what way, as well as what constitutes “good” traits, are subjective and dangerous. If we respect human dignity and the right to pursue happiness, we must approach the technological and social institutionalization of determining another person’s life from the moment of birth with great caution.
In conclusion, the questions raised by the film ‘Gattaca’ are not merely science-fiction fantasies but prompt us to reflect in advance on the ethical issues we will face in the future. Rather than unconditionally accepting the benefits and conveniences that genetic technology can offer, we must also consider individual freedoms and rights, as well as the potential for deepening social inequality.