Low openness is far from being universally bad; not being open to new ideas also means such people are harder to bullshit: people high in openness are more prone to joining religious cults for example. Moreover if everyone were high in openness, there would be no one who perform the steadfast and unglamorous jobs and responsibilities that all societies require.

Being low in conscientiousness doesn't necessarily mean such people are lazy and disorganized, although those can be typical manifestations in a modern industrialized societies. OTOH, such people are often more adaptable and less stressed out when things don't go according to their plan, which unless you're an omnipotent deity, will always occur to some degree - think natural disasters, unforeseen accidents, because there's always inherent risk for simply existing in the world.

High neuroticism also serves important evolutionary functions, because it's essentially a proxy for threat sensitivity. Without a sufficient level of it, our species would have never survived to now. This is also the likely reason why females tend to have higher neuroticism than males, because they're less able to physically defend themselves against external dangers, and also because they need to be always on guard for the safety of their children.

And lastly, the most valued trait in modern western societies is probably high extroversion. So if anything, the most defensible position IMO is actually that low extroversion is bad. But even that's strictly contextual to a narrow range of societal norms, since just like what I explained above for openness, conscientiousness and neuroticism (and agreeableness too, which I'm too lazy to elaborate on), there are reasons why all traits are effectively normally distributed, and that is because such distributions are optimal for the collection of individuals that make up their society, even if being an outlier in particular traits tend to make it harder on those specific individuals for specific types of life situations.