Your dystopia only exists in science FICTION novels. Try to remember that.
Because, to this day, human genetic engineering has been either unavailable, illegal or not viable.
We already screen for many of these diseases and abort when they appear. A very primitive method, but it works.
Also, because we are fairly intelligent, we can think about the possible bad things that might happen and plan to either avoid or mitigate them. For instance, selecting for selfishness would quickly lead to dystopia. Ergo, we would go out of our way to avoid that. Because a society of sociopaths wouldn't function. Google game theory, joker effect and sociopaths.
And finally, I realize that the article is talking about removal of genetic disposition for behaviors, not genetic defects. That's a much squishier argument, and I'm avoiding it at the moment for the sake of simplicity. Mostly because you started with the generic premise that ANY genetic engineering is wrong.
Anyway, we should probably stop here. You will not convince me of the "relativity" of morality and I will not convince you of the contrary.
I suggest you go read up on Huntingtons.
If we can prevent that gene from even popping up, we improve lives.
There is NO scenario where being born with Huntington's is a good idea. There is only one "moral" choice here. And while you were tangled in the underpants of semantics, you missed it.
Bah. I was logged out for some reason... That's me.
I liked Hudson Hawk you insensitive clod!
Don't let Lindelof get near your script and you might have a chance.
"Of course we need agencies like OSHA to protect the workers, and the EPA to stop dumping of chemicals in waterways, and FTC to keep investment banks (gambling houses) separate from savings banks..... but we should try to keep these things as minimal as possible. When they start arresting people for choosing to drink natural milk, then they've gone too far and need to be downsized."
Except that they feed that natural milk to their kids, and it has a tendency to do severe and permanent damage. Enough damage that we, as a society, say you have to clean that milk up before you sell it.
Your argument sounds very close to that of an anti-vaccination nut. You might want to rethink your opinion on that one.
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper
You are not making a fair comparison. The dragon capsule is for delivering goods. For delivering "modules" you would use something else.
VEHICLE - PAYLOAD TO LEO
Falcon Heavy - 53,000 kg
Space Shuttle - 24,400 kg
Falcon 9 - 10,450 kg
In short, it's a more than adequate replacement. To use your car analogy, the Space Shuttle was an El Camino (with flames) kept long past its prime, and the SpaceX offerings are more like the rental flatbed trucks from the local U-Haul.
"Tech or GTFO"
The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the `social sciences' is: some do, some don't. -- Ernest Rutherford