Your strong and emotional reaction made me read the article (thanks for that) and it makes your statement even stranger.
What is disgusting in saying that the majority/the average can exercise a moral tyranny on the individual that is above the average by virtue of its sheer number?
The author is right in saying that, by prioritizing the slowest, you penalize the fastest. This is not a moral opinion, just pure logic.
> the moment the author said "you can also apply this to poverty and obesity" he crossed the moral event horizon.
Again, you're getting outraged over what seems, to me, a very practical and healthy reasoning : "If someone is standing on a slope, you don't just offer them your hand and let them hold on indefinitely, wasting both people's energy, because you will soon both fall down. You should instead get them on solid ground instead, and get them to move better on their own. If someone wants sympathy and aid but rejects offers of working on a solution, that means they don't want to expend any effort in solving it themselves."
What did you want him to say? That your duty is to sacrifice yourself for others' well-being even if they don't do most of the work themselves?