I can't speak with total authority on this; I am just speculating. Perhaps these ships are seaworthy, perhaps they are not as top-heavy as they look due to advanced internal reinforcement that allow structural strength to be maintained with less weight of metal. Maybe modern computer design techniques can overcome these difficulties, and one accident by itself proves nothing, but to my eye and instinct, they look unsafe.

There's more than just top heaviness to worry about, too. These ships are flat-bottomed, so they can carry more tonnage into shallower harbors, and they are boxy, which makes them easier to assemble from prefab sections. and cheaper to make, more accessible volume for less hull plating, and so on. This means the shape of the hull itself does not generate the righting moments as different cross-sections are forced into the water by the ship's roll and pitch. The graceful hulls of steamships have evolved over almost two centuries to resist capsize on the N Atlantic run and have been refined by much science, tank testing and experience. A boxy shape is not "weatherly" and the stabilizers presumably make up for this. How well they work and how dependable they are I don't know, but I don't trust them.

I cruised once on a conventional hull design liner retrofitted with stabilizers, and it was remarkably stable, (cruise passengers cannot tolerate any rough weather) although the ship's residual motion felt unnatural and awkward to me. I was a destroyer sailor, long, narrow and top heavy with deep draft. We practically qualified for sub pay in heavy weather and extreme rolls never scared me, I knew she always came back. Stabilizers kind of hesitate and jerk, they don't feel right to a sailor, and if they should jam or turn the wrong way, they could make a normal roll at high speed while carrying some rudder totally unpredictable, which I suspect may have played a role in this accident.

Ships are built this way for purely economic reasons, more displacement in less size, ease of construction, access to more and shallower harbors for the tourist trade, massive superstructures with way to much freeboard and windage, so everyone can have a stateroom with a balcony (with sliding glass doors!). They have GPS navigation, weather radar and satellite communications so they should be able to avoid bad weather rather than have to fight it. And of course, they are designed to cruise in areas that have nice, sunny weather most of the year. On top of that, they are building these things huge, 4-5K passengers and crew! That's as much as an aircraft carrier. And what was that ship doing there, with today's nav gear, and with the Med being very well charted and marked with aids to navigation? There was even a lighthouse on the island she ran into!

The officers and crews are from different countries, speak different languages, and I can't imagine how they can train effectively for emergencies, even if they are competent.

In spite of all my Navy talk on this forum, I'll be the first to admit I may not know what I'm talking about, it's been a long time since I've been anywhere near a ship. But my instincts (and I trust them) tell me these vessels are death traps.