I’m bemused by those who feel if a chromosomal alteration happens randomly it must be good, but if a chromosomal alteration happens deliberately it must be bad. Or maybe they feel if the alteration manifests as a “small” change as measured by some criteria it's good, if as a “large” change it's bad.
I can't see the sense behind such positions. A change is a change, regardless of how it occurred or why it occurred. Whether it's good or bad to me depends only on whether it alters the outcome in a direction I value vs. a direction I don’t value. Random natural variation is a firehose, relying on natural selection to weed out the less fit genes as organisms suffer and die out over multiple generations. Intentional genetic manipulation just deliberately goes straight toward a desirable result, skipping most of the random trial and error time and expense.
Or maybe the attitude is humankind is not wise enough to know what it wants. Well, speaking for myself I know what I want for myself. If going straight toward that saves me money and gains me quality of life, I'll do that. I’ll take the resulting benefits and let them compound for me over time. I’ll genetically modify organisms to get superior products. I’ll take the better, cheaper food, the life-saving medicines, cheap energy, etc.
I’ll let others suffer the price for disdaining products produced by genetic modification. I’ll let others hope and pray nature eventually randomly produces a more nutritious tomato, bacteria excreting human insulin for diabetics, or algae cranking out cheap biofuels. I’ll let others pay more, suffer more, and die sooner for lack of all such things while I enjoy them. I’ll leave the caveman method and associated burdens to those who want that for themselves.