It's really easy to talk about decreasing genetic diversity when you have never known hunger. In India alone, the work of Norman Borlaug and his co-workers saved at least a hundred million lives. Before his intervention, large-scale famine and starvation in India was widely considered inevitable. Those are real people, whose lives you seem to weigh very little when you consider them against the still theoretical disadvantages of modern selective breeding.
I grew up in the period when parents trying to get their children to finish a meal said "Think of the starving children in India." The meme was pervasive because it was true.
I grew up in the same period for reference and the logic was slightly painful.
An additional factor is that my parents were born during the Great Depression and experienced the privations of WWII on the home front. So they taught by example ... still do, in fact.
The rest of your points are reasonable concerns, but need to be followed up by a very important question: are there alternatives that produce similar quantities of food for similar costs? Because until/unless there are, fixing the issues you raised means starving people to death.
>The rest of your points are reasonable concerns, but need to be followed up by a very important question: are there alternatives that produce similar quantities of food for similar costs? Because until/unless there are, fixing the issues you raised means starving people to death.
No not everywhere.
Sounds harsh but saving those lives also makes the problem worse i.e. the population's dependency and consumption grows meaning that if (when) the theoretical disadvantages start to become a reality, it's going to be truly horrific.
Unpopular opinion: these people need to stop fucking if they are going hungry.