That about summarizes these types of articles. Solutions that do not require the world to change its behavior should be favored. Perhaps we could launch seed containers into low orbits such that they automatically and safely return to earth centuries in the future just in case.
Almost everything we have, from religion to politics to technology to morality to language to culture, etc. etc., all comes from people who intentionally changed things. Compare us to our ancestors 10,000 years ago, nomads emerging from the Paleolithic with only stone tools, no writing, etc.
Reactionary perspectives - the hot trend of the unwitting - seem to think that the world was what they grew up with, as some natural state. Someone dreamed, worked, sacrificed, persuaded, etc. to make it this way.
It's great news - we can do it; we can make a better world. You don't have to be Copernicus or Jefferson to do it. Our ancestors paved the way, put down lane markers and signs, gave us every tool we need. What are you waiting for?
Aren't we still those people? Aren't stone tools, and tools made of wood, bone, and other plant & animal parts, enough? They don't require smelting (though I wouldn't be surprised if someone(s) 10,000 years ago got curious about the metal bits in their fire and traced it back to iron deposits in the sediment stuck to the wood gathered from a dry riverbed), and are far less environmentally damaging than a lot of the stuff we make these days.
Numerous other animals make and use tools, and plenty others don't seem to, and they get by okay- a meaningful life can be lived without the technological trappings we've cocooned ourselves in.
I take neither this phone nor reading and writing for granted; it's all wonderful and unnecessary technology. Who needs to read & write when you are part of a tight-knit, mutually-supportive community with a rich oral tradition going back millennia?
We don't need every application of technology, but the rest is a fantasy.
Let's not forget that the world's largest famine was only 60 some years ago and was due to someone persuading a country that food yield should be a lower priority. GMOs and factory farming are the tech that moved humanity forward, the tech that people dreamed, worked and sacrificed for. People no longer starve because some locusts ate all their crops or there wasn't enough rainfall, and that's a pretty big deal.
There's zero nuance in this article, it is heavily biased and has no consideration for the negative externalities such as the lower and less predictable yields, the increased difficulty in farming and processing all the different grains, the cost and risk that the farmers are taking on by planting them.
We almost caused a famine in Sri Lanka recently by pressuring the government into banning chemical fertilizers, causing an economic crash (not the only reason but a significant one). I'm all for progress, but how about we be careful with all the "dreams" that have a decent chance of causing mass starvation.