Inequality is rising, not falling.
For example, any person at all today can easily get their hands on weapon that would win them any fight with a caveman wielding a bone, sure. But today, there's tanks and satellites and whatnot -- the most powerless became WAY more powerless in contras to the most powerful. You don't compare the poor of today with the rich of yesterday, you compare the them with the rich of today. And you compare the poor of tomorrow with the rich of tomorrow.
> Rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon - so long as there is no answer to it - gives claws to the weak.
-- George Orwell
Already it's pretty normal for rich people to consider themselves above socializing with poor people. Adding editing of genes on top of that might not just turn that wide gap into a fortified moat, complete with property rights and patents and enforcement of said patents (imagine getting a mutation by chance that you have no license for), it might also mess up the incentives for medical research even more.
Why find a cure for a disease that anyone can get, that is another "equalizer", when you can immunize yourself and your offspring to it? You may say all such things will always be made available to everybody, but how would you know now? What of the current behaviour of the powerful gives you reason to consider that likely? When it comes to biodiversity and the possibility of extinction, not many HN comments mention the people with the biggest footprints, but a lot mention "overpopulation". So how would that mesh with making the unwashed masses more resilient and healthy? Wouldn't it make more sense to go the opposite way? You see, "perhaps" isn't good enough with something like this. At these speeds, "eventually" steering means crashing into a wall.
I think we’ve already fell into this type of scenario and I think this is partially why some are so against it. They’re looking at this as an luxury to families but if done right, gene engineering could and should be used solely to protect against inheritable and community spread diseases. This type of engineering can be a massive breakthrough for developing countries and similar areas.
But looking at this from a realistic standpoint: genetic engineering will be a taboo extreme that only a few will ever be successful with—until it is internationally recognized as beneficial and properly regulated.
Are they equalisers though? And what makes you think gene editing won't be available to everyone? It seems like the sort of thing with an exponential cost curve. It will very rapidly become cheap and accessible to all.
In fact, i'd argue it's likely to be more equalizing than inequalizing.
The rich and already disproportionately powerful will get it and use it first (creating barriers to upward mobility and exacerbating class power divides), then will have every incentive (and even more disproportionate power than previously) to create barriers to access.
Similar to the reason that, 70+ years later, there are only a handful of nuclear weapons states.