Your position applies to technology in general. In each direction that it advances the choice is present: choose a way that is better in some manner or choose to reject it for the already existent way.

You hold reasoning as something different than any other field of knowledge that may be advanced with understanding. Buried in your position is the assumption that it is wrong to advance - that man should not seek to shape his reality in ways that he identifies as beneficial and then develop the means to change reality to that path.

Right now we have the capacity to change genetic traits. Should we not attempt to identify better from worse traits? If we do identify them, should we not act to realize the better traits? Should mankind seek and choose its own path or should it forever submit to things beyond its control?

It was easy to foresee the rise of neo-luditism. It isn't clear that it is incorrect either. Our capacity to change ourselves and our reality is outpacing our capacity to understand the deep consequences of those changes. If we let nature make our choices for us, at least we are not quite as culpable for the consequences.

I have a hard time accepting ignorance and faith as a ruler however.