Depends.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Hardly.
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.

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

http://www.spacex.com/falcon_heavy.php

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"

Skip CS. You won't be doing any kind of upper level programing for 90% of the engines out there. The controllers in those things are really basic.

For engine management systems, go ME + EE, and fill your choices with control theory classes.

This also gives you a backup plan. If you have to find a job, the EE degree will give you a broader choice of positions. The industrial control systems field is an excellent spot to be looking for work.

Regulation stifling competition is a soundbite, not a fact.

Or do you prefer to having mercury spread by coal fired power plants or lead paint all over your house?

If the new regulation erects a barrier so high that new business cannot compete using the existing process, then usually an entirely new way of doing things will overturn the monopoly.