Just learned the term Tradhumanism from Dryden Brown. The idea is that instead of using technology to turn people into freaks with pink hair and prosthetic arms, we should use it to create a future that allows people to express an idealized version of the past.

@drydenwtbrown

There is, IMO, a viable future for "Tradhumanism".

There is also a viable future for Posthumanism where people turn themselves into vastly superior entities with weird and outlandish minds.

But there's no future for Transhumanists with pink hair, piercings and magnets.

Why?

Because at best transhumanism is a state of transition from humanity to something else. At worst it's out-of-control weirdness signalling with no coherent goal.

The pink hair and piercings types generally have fertility below replacement so will not last.

They're also not resistant to superstimuli.

I think one of the defining features of Tradhumanism is defending human beings (a type of animal, ultimately) from super-stimuli such as over-optimized food.

Without such defenses, human beings simply won't last.

What about "freedom" and "no limits"?

Generically, freedom leads to disaster. There are various reasons for this. I've recently gone over what a disaster food freedom is; it leads to obesity and death and exploitation by hostile forces out to make money

https://twitter.com/RichDecibels/status/1339320083131330564

What are the different failures of freedom?

- Food freedom: The Food Optimizer, Obesity
- Sex Freedom: Loneliness, catladies, incels
- Computer freedom: Social media addiction, etc
- Religious freedom: out of control virtue signalling

The West has far too much freedom and needs to give people the option to voluntarily constrain themselves: in food, in sex, in religion and in the computational inputs they accept.

Anyone who didn't accept such constraints is a fool, though with eyes open they should be allowed to do so.

And at the same as having way too much freedom in some areas, we have too much constraint in others: many things are actually overregulated or regulated in an inflexible way (drugs are an example: it's better to allow people to take them legally with open eyes)

Since a number of people have claimed that this is #Fascism, I should note that I don't think fascism is a good idea; the core problem is that fascism as it existed in the 20th century was fragile due to too much central control from a small number of powerful individuals.

Finding a way to create coordination that's not fragile and centralized, but also not bureaucratic and bloated is actually the core unsolved problem here.

How could this go wrong? @BasilissaAnna provides a critique.

A common failure mode for the political right: too much strength signalling, fetishization of obedience over rationality and creativity, leading to inflexible and ultimately weak systems. https://twitter.com/BasilissaAnna/status/1339587108269219843

A "Tradhuman" vision of the future can't rely on strongmen or personality cults, and shouldn't fetishize loyalty and obedience to an unhealthy level. Innovating here is the key.

Since a lot of people suggested Guillaume Faye's Archeofuturism, I started reading it. My expectations were very low, but so far I have been pleasantly surprised. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Archeofuturism-European-Visions-Post-catastrophic-Age/dp/1907166092