ok but how are we defining modernity in this case? If we're ending all this LGBTQ nonsense I'm for that, but what i'm not ok with is going back to living in caves or living in a world where people like me who were "born accursed" are left to be pets of kings and priests at best and living in squalor in the street at worst.
A few things to consider:
1. "Modernity", in the sense understood here, is the era that was initiated by the so-called Enlightenment and the radical revolutions it produced (mainly the French Revolution). We are still living in the intellectual, political and social wake of those events.
2. There is no "going back". That's not what will happen. Amaury De Riencourt notably said that since time moves ever forward, the cycle of history is actually a
spiral. So we turn back to a certain direction on one axis, yes, but we keep moving forward in time on the other axis.
3. Another metaphor that might be useful is this: imagine someone pulling on a young, springy branch. You pull and you pull... and eventually it slips from your fingers, and violently springs back in the other direction. It whips about a few times before settling. "Modernity" is pulling on the world. Pulling it into an extremist position. Inevitably, it'll eventually spring back-- violently.
4. We are all born accursed, I'm afraid. But not in the way you presumably mean. I stress again that we're not talking about technological regression here. In fact, science is currently
suffering from the cultish excesses of modernity.
I don't want to see humanity go backwards technologically or socially.
As I mentioned, technology won't be an issue. But when it comes to social matters, you are basing your stance on a faulty premise: the flagrant lie that "Modernity" is inherently an
improvement, socially. The lie that social attitudes in fact go "backward" and "forward". They don't, really. They go side-ways in various directions. They can be communalist or individualist. They can be uniformalist or pluralist. They can prioritise strength and cohesion, or diversity and experimentalism. They can value order (to the point of risking tyranny) or freedom (to the point of risking chaos).
These things can all be good or bad, based on degree and on circumstance. The point is... "Modernity" has not brought us "forward" at all. What you imagine as "forward" is almost entirely due to technological progress, which has quite little to do with social mores. Modernists have self-servingly equated the two, but that's not how it works. In reality, the current era has pulled us towards unhealthy extremes. The strain is increasing, and becoming unbearable. The springy branch is about to slip from their fingers, and snap back with a vengeance.
(Some people imagine that if we just roll back the last ten years or so, we'll be okay. You hinted as much with
"If we're ending all this LGBTQ nonsense I'm for that". The thing is: that recent, most radical stuff doesn't just come out of nowhere. It's the tip of a pyramid, and if you want it gone... you have to tear down the
whole pyramid. Otherwise, they'll be back with the same shit in just a few short years.)
www.cnbc.com
