Have you considered, maybe perhaps, riding the tiger?

Have you considered, maybe perhaps, riding the tiger? Perhaps the absolute lamest aspect of philosophy that the world is complex. It depends. Nuance is important. And the truth is somewhere in the middle. Last week I made the distinction between left wing vitalism and right wing vitalism, the left being ultimately focused on transhumanism, the destruction of biological life, nature and all things beautiful for the sake of an easily controllable society that can transcend the limits of death, because they are materialists. While right wing vitalism is focused on the return to a more primitive social structure and way of life that allows for the natural distinction of inequality, of the strongest to rule over. Of course, we could spend hours unpacking each of these and providing the necessary nuance. And perhaps in the future we shall. But what I think we can agree on for the moment is that the true battle seems to be over whether or not nature is inherently good or bad. I personally think that nature is good. An appeal to nature is a rhetorical technique for presenting and proposing the argument that "a thing is good because it is 'natural', or bad because it is 'unnatural' or 'synthetic'." It's not much of a fallacy at all. If anything, nature is an authority and it's an appeal to authority fallacy. So nature is good and right wing vitalism is therefore axiomatically correct. So why is the answer nuanced? Because I do in fact believe that modern problems require modern solutions. We live in a post industrial, post enlightenment world in which simply returning to nature is impossible. Politics and philosophy aside, on a purely physical material level, many will simply say that if you live like your ancestors, you'll be healthy and vitalistic like them. But we can never go back to a world in which microplastics, radiation, pollution and soil depletion do not exist. The water is not the same. The food is not the same. The air we breathe is not the same. We can naturally be as healthy, grounded and robust as our ancestors were before these things existed. And I swear to God I'm not joking when I say this. But Nietzsche speaks of this, not of the physical direction, but of the spiritual direction of society. He famously said, "God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, the murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That we are not the greatest of this deed too great for us?" "What must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?" In Nietzsche's eyes, God signified a spiritual decline into absolute nihilism of all meaning, which is without question the exact predicament that we are facing now. So what is to be done about it? We must become Ubermensch, little gods ourselves. He says, lest we live in a world devoid of values and meaning. Now, while I disagree with Nietzsche of God's existence, I understand his sentiment that we cannot simply go back to believing in a post rationalist, post enlightenment society. But rather we must create a new one. This is what I meant when I said that Nietzsche's view aligns more with the transhumanist view of creating the new humanity, the evolved consciousness, creating the new God. Nietzsche says that "What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end." "Man is something that shall be overcome." Man is merely a bridge to be crossed, something that must be overcome to reach the new thing. What if, instead of creating the new God, we rediscovered the God through new intellectual and philosophical mechanisms? What if, instead of creating the new human, the Ubermensch, the vitalistic man capable of all of these things, we rediscovered him through technological and scientific advancements? What if we played by their rules? Of trying to ignore or escape the beast, the tiger, if we chose to ride him instead?