Transhumanism or Primitivism?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

They're both terrible. I voted for primitivism because it at least seems like a way we could live (considering we already have before). Transhumanism is just utopian nonsense.

Where's the option for taking all of humanity back to the 19th century? (Moderate Hero)

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This question sounds pretty much like "are you religious or not?"

Not necessarily. It's not at all obvious to me that being a transhumanist would necessarily preclude certain forms of (say) Buddhism, except in the sense that in orthodox Buddhism gods are at a disadvantage relative to humans because they're too content and thus too complacent to seriously pursue enlightenment. I once read somewhere that it's also possible to cram transhumanism into a Jewish framework, although the source didn't specify how.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I recently read an interesting Atlantic article (the article itself isn't at all recent, but I just ran across it the other day) about Ted Kaczynski that talked a bit about the origins of contemporary primitivism in the technopessimism (my word) of the immediate postwar intellectual class. Here it is. I think the perspective of the article is a little too "progress towards what?" in its rejection of technopessimist attitudes, but that's characteristic of the times in which it was written.