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.
It traded higher individual risk for higher systemic risk.
There are ways to deal with systemic risk. I think the best defense is to simply stockpile 2+ years of food for every person in the US by saving a portion of the increased yield.
Big machines like seed producers and oil companies are extremely lazy when it comes to dealing with inevitable contingencies. Stockpiling food seems like a defensive strategy to me. A better approach would be to proactively encourage seed stock variety even if those seeds do not have a high yield. Then when something like this happens it will be much easier to pick a resistant strain from the naturally diverse population. Overall average production and profits might go down but there won't be any spikes in crop loss because of lack of diversity.
Diversity reduces average crop yield so each farmer would have significant incentive to "cheet" the system. With storage it's fairly easy to varify your approach is actually being caried out. Also food storage protects vs a wider range of issues.
EX: Wide scale contamination of the food supply, War etc.
Before the green revolution there were a lot of very different wheat varieties around the world. In fact, if my memory is correct, during the selective breeding for high yields one of the breakthroughs came from a thick and sturdy stalked dwarf wheat from Japan. The stalk genes it had produced a stalk strong enough to carry the new large yields.
The point being, we used to have a large variety of geno and phenotype around the world, and now we don't.
population responds to available food. if there was a 50 year food boom, population also boomed. setting food levels back to prior values creates a lot of economic pressure to find cheap food. If 1/5 of the calories humans consume need to be obtained from some other source, the economics get weird.
People who point out that it is in fact high yield & high risk, tend to be accused of being anti-progress luddites.