Gattaca provides a necessary inspection into a problem that we will eventually have to face, which is the decision to apply genetic modifications to humans. The arguments against revolve around the consequences if we “tamper” with nature and the arguments in support tend to focus on the “perfect” human. The extremes are irreconcilable, but it is obvious that if we look at specific points of both sides there will be some middle ground resulting in minor modifications to the humane gene.

While speaking with two students who were vastly more informed on the subject than I was, I got a good grasp of the full range of concerns of the opposition. For one, there’s the fear of another Nazi-esque eugenics movement, which is rooted in the reasonable concern over who decides what gene mutations are superior. Whoever this arbiter figure would be decides the fate of human evolution. Doubtless, there would be backlash over every decision stemming from each protester’s sense of what needs to be preserved in the gene pool. This is without taking into the account the more spiritual side of tampering with nature, as in some sense we’ve already done a good deal of this with the more spiritual disputants unknowingly enjoying the reaped benefits and human modifications would only serve to benefit everyone if done correctly. Done correctly is the second point of contention, as it implies avoiding all the frightening eugenics and focuses on improving human intelligence and physical capability, but avoids how to account for the unknown. I’m unprepared to argue against this point as I was oblivious to the fact that, at this moment there apparently already exists differences in blood types that may be considered unfit, but help survival rates in Africa against disease. How to plan and foresee what changes to the work nature has carefully handcrafted over millennia would likely become a huge topic of study. The third point, which I find a little less troublesome if strong privacy ethics are upheld or enough generations take up genetic modifications, is the fear of social genetic stratification. That is to say, some people’s genes are better because they have more of X and Y or a person is inferior for a position because they carry the Z gene. All points carry merit, but they all have solutions, however difficult these may be to apply.

If Genetically Modified Humans were to come into existence, I believe much of the rational concerns from the opposition could be quelled by judicious application of the technology. Assuming we only focus on what I imagine are shared “absolute qualities” by all societies, such as increased intelligence and genetic health of muscle and other tissue. These qualities are things that the GMH’s could decide to fully utilize or not, meaning no one forces a more physically capable human to run more or the more intelligent people to study. Addressing the opposition point of who decides the measure for intelligence, I mean in the sense of absolute intelligence such as faster chemical neuron signals and better memory which has served to benefit, as far as I’m aware, every human and past civilization. As for capability to understand abstract ideas and an appreciation for art, I believe those are subjective and modification should be avoided. I am no geneticist and I have no clue how one would pinpoint these beneficial modifications, but as a thought experiment to say if we ever could, if the route taken was highly cautious of past human-failures, I do not see a viable argument for purposely halting progress towards building a better human.

While this may all be easy to say, it is likely near impossible to perfectly apply this system and man will inevitably lapse back to repeat some atrocity from history, but maybe a modified human wouldn’t.