It won't happen explicitly of course. The root comment mentioned "depression", for example, which is at least in part caused by inadequate work-life balance, poor quality of life in general, lack of social fabric, etc... So if you would genetically engineer people to be less depressed, even if you just empirically looked at what genes depressed people have in today's world (as the root comment is proposing), you could end up engineering people that are OK with working long hours for little pay, eating slop, sitting at home doing nothing, never socializing with anyone, obedient to their boss, etcetera etcetera. This would be, in effect, "genetically engineering an under-class", yet it would be easy to defend in the newspapers by just saying "we're only getting rid of depression, how can you be against it?" It's just a logical conclusion if you can think more than two steps ahead.
If the outcome is the same does it matter that there was never a secretive cabal organizing it behind the scenes? You'll happily march towards a dystopia because at least noone intended it to be that way? Is it really unintended if we can foresee it right now and decide to go ahead anyway? I don't get this attitude at all.
If it is unintended, then when we notice it happening we will change course. We will see that the specific gene edits had negative effects, and we will avoid those gene edits in the future. The effect size will probably also be a lot lower than if you were specifically aiming to make people as agreeable and authority-following as possible.
Additionally, the people with the gene edits would only make up only a small percentage of all the people in a society. They will get some form of herd immunity when combined with people born naturally, older generations, and people without the gene edit.
This is a dramatically different situation to someone intentionally trying to engineer a servant class.
