In the quoted post is one more thing I disagree with you though. I believe using lifeforms and genetics is crucial to reach the next step in effectiveness. Applying genetics to technological solutions will hardly be pointless. Also, I'm not completely convinced (though it's not impossible) that computers will advance so far that we're able to replace life with them. If that's what you meant by making genetics pointless when computers are powerful enough. My apologies if I understood you wrong.
DNA and biological components are a bit incidental and primitive. They are sticky and mired in billions of years of sloppy evolution. As you know, evolution is not a very efficient process. It twists and morphs existing features to serve new and novel functions (look at a frail and contorted bird's wing, for instance.) Humorously, the greatest evidence against Intelligent Design is that... organisms are very clearly poorly "designed." The human brain too has scores of redundancies and inefficiencies, too. Trying to undo them so that you can make something else out of them would seem harder than using a new material that isn't biological to get the job done.
So I'm very convinced that we will create intelligent, self-learning machines far before we are mixing and matching different lifeforms or even building complex and intelligent life forms from the ground up. Have you ever heard of Computational Theory of Mind? It basically posits that the brain is a highly complex computer, and neurologists have been able to identify with a fair amount of precision how many bits of information a brain can compute. So if the brain is a computer, it stands to reason that we can create a machine computer that can process as much as the human brain.
Moore's Law states that computer processing power doubles roughly every 2 years. The law has held remarkably firm for 70 years and if it continues to hold true, we'll have computers that are as powerful as the human brain by around the year 2030 (that's assuming we've moved away from integrated circuit and transistor computers and toward optical or quantum computers, otherwise we're probably looking at 2040.)
How long will it take us to build an artificial biological lifeform from scratch? Far, far longer. So my point is why build biological lifeforms when you have been building far better computer based lifeforms for much longer? In the end, you would need a computer far more powerful than the human brain just to alter the human brain in any meaningful way through gene interaction. Granted, I doubt we'd be making computer's to think like humans.
And yes, I'm very familiar with Craig Venter's work and had read about it from other sources (so I only skimmed your links).