You aren't a luddite if you identify potential risks that we should be aware of. You are a luddite if you insist that any potential risk means we should reject the plan, even when it's a clear improvement over the status quo and you have no better alternative.
You aren't a luddite if you identify potential risks that we should be aware of.
Ah, but you are not identifying new risks. The risks are obvious.... IF you think that way. It's almost a politicaly argument, where some people are just convinced there is no systemic risk. To others is it obvious. I don't know why this has become such a polarized topic.
But the result is people who talk about systemic risk are often accused of being luddites. As if their view is not based on facts but on politics.
The alternative itself is also obvious, it is to grow a large variety of wheat strains. This however would reduce yields. And it seems that most societies prefer to bear the systemic risk... for now.
The preference for systemic risk might be political. Because there's still a lot of hungry people in the world, because farm lobbies like mono-culture, it may even be a rational preference for all I know.
