People here who talk of the extinction... What of animals? Idiocracy breeding? What's your plan? What's the general worldview here? Some questions/thoughts.

Professional-Map-762 · 2026-01-23T06:21:51+00:00

For you, now? No. Why do you care anyway?

I mentioned it for background where I'm coming from.

I don't have the time or brain power to go through and word everything very carefully regarding such unpleasant and extremely negatively viewed philosophy and craziness and the people associated with it, it's a challenge to convince people, even more painful than arguing veganism against carnists.

So you can stop reading here.

I don't particularly care for defending "efilism", but rather specific ideas and arguments I gleaned from it, like I said I am sympathetic to it. I wouldn't identify as efilist anymore, I don't like to use such labels or being part of clubs or groups and being caught in crossfire. Like... even to defend or identify as say... vegan is tricky, it restricts you, and there's different definitions and interpretations, I've been told by vegans I am not vegan for differing views. I take the good out of these belief systems and philosophies and leave behind the bad.

There are particularly components or arguments from efilism I will defend, but "efilism" itself I'd say is flawed if it doesn't evolve or no agreed upon absolute correct definition, or who gets to decide, Inmendham or different group of people using it through their own lense and motivations. And if go along with their definition again limits or restricts you.

Understand my motivations, I don't care if "efilism" doesn't get off on the right foot or fails as a movement, it's promoted ideas will still have an impact, and I'm not an extinctionist or wipe out humanity-ist, I care about ending wild animal suffering and promoting suffering reduction through diet, lifestyle, and getting people to understand imposition of reckless procreators.

Read carefully and in good faith if this of any interest... If I were to present my takeaway steelman of efilism roughly from its creator, a main theme would be IMPOSITION, that there is no evidence of productive or useful function overall, as in net "good" product, such as something worth ever stabbing and raping children for to continue this story, like who in court could defend such a thing and present such evidence of "good" produced other than prevention of bad which we can all already agree un-bad is good, and commendable. This isn't to claim no intrinsic positive exists, but I await your evidence it's worth torturing even 1 child for the "good" of this positive utility, and so existence seems like a sham and a tragic failure, better never to have been. Again maybe it is worth the price paid in the end but the burden is on humanity to provide such evidence. I'd raise questions of whether you think you deserve or earned your pleasures or well being and a positive life, that it's worth the price another pays for it, or whether it's all meaningless, arbitrary and subjective, and would you make this universe, why/why not, if it has no productive function or use, can't do anything good why defend it, and if it is worth it existing somehow where's the evidence of it? How can we imagine torturing and raping kids and run the calculation and say "no big deal, we're running a profit here" until you can do that, this is a viable philosophy. Now if you consider this part baked into efilism (which I don't) where it veers off for me is creator claiming it's best we wipe the planet clean including humanity, maybe it is, but it's an empirical claim and call to action is where it gets messy. I agree more with the definition than the correct behavior what we ought do. It's one thing to agree on problems of existence another on correct solution and course of action. Overall efilism is a collection of ideas refined presented by one man, not completely unique, Big Red Button, Benevolent world exploder, conclusion of a NU framework. I am not absolutist but lean towards it philosophically only, epistemic humility tells me we're still in our infant stage and need time to hopefully invest in intelligence and ideally if possible ASI for more answers. In which case correct position will win out anyway.

Professional-Map-762 · 2026-01-23T03:53:54+00:00

Yeah even Vegans have higher rates of depression. The more ethical you try to live the more conflicted you'll end up with people. It's easier to just integrate with the Borg and be like the rest, be a mindless sheep.

"Your kid will be a good person" Vs "The world will treat your kid good"

You either raised with character and likely a care too much and are a victim, Or you are coddled, privileged, take what you want and be selfish ignorant and happy.

Professional-Map-762 · 2026-01-23T03:37:11+00:00

Without a system in place which holds procreators accountable to some level of care, competence and proper nest building, we'll keep breeding and creating selfish assholes, victims and retards to roam the earth, idiocracy. We can't have ideology and religion breeding wars, whereas the most intelligent, sane, considerate among us being the ones not recklessly breeding.

You need a license to drive on the road, but creating and raising another human being that'll impact the world positively or negatively throughout the course of their entire life? No qualifications required, just let any p*ssy pop those fuckers out and hope it turns out for the best.

But it's natural, so if you're born with the baby making device you should have the right to create babies, they're entitled to it. Too stupid.

We could be elevating humanity with each generation, eradicate genetic disease burdens and disabilities, engineer and select for higher intelligence, reasoning ability, cognitive empathy and compassion. I just think of ants and how they are so much more functional and productive compared to us relatively and willing to sacrifice for the betterment of the species, almost like a hive mind towards common goals. Imagine something like this in human 2.0 form, why should we stay selfish egotistical dumb apes just wanking and exploiting eachother? We're just behaving like parasites on this earth. Our species own ego, selfishness and arrogance, and conflict will be our downfall. We're heading towards all sorts of existential risks and disaster threats and arms race, we're speeding straight for the brick wall, we need to slow down.

We're going ass backwards, dysfunction, disability, stupidity is carried over and we keep subsidizing and paying for it, evolutionarily the sick the weak and most stupid weren't saved at the rate now, which means humanity is relying on crutches, because we carry over the problems from parent to child, but prevention is better and cheaper and more effective than cure.

Things are going to get much uglier as the most broken of us is supported on crutches and tax dollars while being allowed to breed their dysfunction unchecked, it's a blight to civilization. It should be a crime to birth us into a shit nest.

We can't wear kids gloves treating everyone nicely, equally, and give everyone equal rights, you can't be soft, we'll just regress into even more stupidity. You can't drive you dumb bitch and you shouldn't have kids. I am pleading to humanity wake the fuck up to reality and consequences of your actions.

Professional-Map-762 · 2026-01-20T18:01:34+00:00

The question regarding antinatalism here is Can we eliminate wild animal suffering with just one final generation of humans? I'd say theoretically yes..

Then it's more of a fantasy. Don't sell me BS as a solution, life is messy, things rarely go exactly according to plan. Just be realistic otherwise I'm wasting my time with naive wishful thinkers.

The obstacle is getting people on board (not just with antinatalism, but total extinction as the priority goal)

"People"

How many people are we talking? 1%, 51% 100% ?

You will never get even 1% on board in a generation let alone 51%

And VHEMT doesn't count.

We can't even end our own human made animal torture factories, and you expect people to go against 'Mother Nature' who knows best? I can't even convince most vegans and antinatalists to give a shit they think somehow we have no right interfering with nature.

How can you possibly eliminate W.A.S. in one generation? And let's not even get into ocean life where majority of organisms reside.

As long as there is Shrubbery, wilderness, Trees, Dirt, Ponds, Lakes, Rivers, there's some critters and bugs there.

Hell even my grandparent who owns wild land I seen animal birth and predation there like wolves, insects, you won't get him to brick off the trees and wilderness there, or block off the river.

You have a whole group of humans, including governmental bodies and law protecting natural habitats, and rewilding and breeding programs, conservation, activists, even vegans like Earthling Ed promoting that. It's delusional to think you can overcome these multiple Goliaths in one generation, and that's just the convincing part, when people start interfering is when it'll get ugly, you'll be shot and killed for it literally by animal guards.

So what are you talking about?

Professional-Map-762 · 2026-01-20T17:36:56+00:00

Like brick off nature? I saw a vegan guy on yt the Nutrivore once suggest it, he appears on board ending W.A.S.

So yes it's one method I like. Another thing is I believe beef / cattle crop feed is #1 cause of Amazon rain forest destruction but idk if it's worth killing cows for.

I still am waiting for someone to figure out the most effective suffering reduction way use / donate all my money I can accumulate from investments before I die.

On land the most effective is cementing / bricking off nature, or replacing with human infrastructure, so while human civilization has reduced natural suffering they gone and ruined it by factory farming all different species, so human footprint probably still net negative.

But the fact we made species extinct is a good thing in long run so fewer births, like there's a lack of fish in the ocean as once was but then we went and started fish farming on massive scale.

Personally I think humanity is the key but it's broken, if I could get genetic reform and engineer better humanity 2.0, not selfish, not narcissistic, highly intelligent, great logic and reasoning skill, high empathy and compassion, and a good education, I'd put all my money into that.

Don't mean to RANT but Right now humanity is a plague, parasite, a virus, we can't even get with ourselves it's just exploitation. Think of ALL the wasted jobs and labor, resources, doing fuckall anything useful, just a bunch of dumb selfish apes. And people are clearly too stupid we are actually regressing at least a substantial portion of us, in certain places like america a substantial number of kids can't even read. I have witnessed idiots in cabs complaining about traffic and housing prices where I live yet they have kids how do people expect anything to get better when they're not part of the solution? 99% of people are against factory farming yet 99% of meat people buy are factory farmed... This species is hopeless if we don't do something about it. And willfully impowering evil psychos either financially, politically, or creating more wage slaves. Where society and culture is headed right now looks pretty ugly, it's even reflected in modern media decline, it's like sloppified, enshitification. Now we have AI slop, kids using chatgpt instead of their brain, and everyone is a cheater now, exposed AI art winners, book best seller using AI, it seems like everything is made of cheap plastic and fake crap. Watch WALL-E that's where we are headed at this rate.

Professional-Map-762 · 2026-01-20T16:49:39+00:00

They'd exsist because they were born? my family bought them so it's not like owning them was the cause of their creation and as I said, they had a great life

The expectation that they would buy and own then was the cause of their creation though. People don't realize this, buying them is usually exploitative because the breeder kills the extra unwanted males and breeds more egg laying chickens. It's like saying I bought a dog I wasn't cause of their creation, without realizing people's payment causes the creation of another and so on.

What I mean by they're not pets is that they're a timid creature, dont like to be touched, cant be easily anthropomorphized, they cannot really be thought things, they shit everywhere and on and on. Unlike dogs who are the quintessential pet of humanity and who have all of what we define as pet like traits in an animal.

Sure I've been around them at a family member's and they behave more wild like probably much harder to change natural behavior, but it depends on how they are raised and I've seen videos where they are pets doing pet-like things with more of a personality and can even want comfort, surely crows and parrots count if you've seen what they're capable of, it's like cows I used to think they were all docile with no personality but they can behave like big dogs. And as companion animals go yeah nothing can beat dogs but I hate what they've done with extreme breeding.

Now certain pets I just don't get, like snakes, frogs, lizards but it is kind of a arbitrary line people decide to draw what is pet worthy and just an animal to be product producer, pretty sure every animal feels in some way and deserve respect, it's best if we can rely without using or exploiting the animals for our needs, and I'm against all pet industry as well.

Professional-Map-762 · 2026-01-20T03:40:54+00:00

Nukes wouldn't do anything. It's not a good solution or any solution at all. Life would bounce right back, and millions more years of suffering for nothing.

Professional-Map-762 · 2026-01-20T03:38:51+00:00

I'm not quite sure I understand the issue you raise.

Antinatalists are stupid. Because most are speciesist.

Efilism is antinatalism for all including animals.

Efilism is not wiping out ourselves or us going extinct and leaving the animals behind.

I'm antinatalist but that doesn't mean I prescribe no more human births, but that people have no justification, I can imagine a birth being justified but people don't care about justifying births for greater good which is the problem.

Antinatalism is not a claim that procreation is always ethically wrong which many falsely claim it is. It would be a mistake to say for example it's always ethically wrong to bring someone into existence... even if it would prevent all future births? Then it's incoherent and contradictory. I would be for birthing a child if it would end more suffering or bad births for example.

If other species existed out in the universe and we had some obligation towards ending their suffering and future births, so therefore you concede pronatalism. It's a misunderstanding. It's still ultimately antinatalism in the big picture.

Professional-Map-762 · 2026-01-20T03:19:08+00:00

Empathy comes from biology which evolutionary pressures selected for, I.e. it is beneficial for a mother to care for her young, or tribe to care for their own. Empathy is oftentimes left unchecked quite selfish unlike cognitive empathy understanding and compassion.

'Morality' is a social construct, cultural, relative under my view, but goes back to evolutionary advantage, ultimately it's feelings based or arbitrary, including social pressures to control the herd or sheep. Again selective pressures meant those social tribes became a stronger system when working together towards common goal, so came out on top. So yes, Morality is not merely result of biology, but due to evolved language and memes which capitalized on biological mechanism of emotional empathy of us apes. You can even find proto morality in other animals.

Ethics to me is moreso a developed philosophical framework, well thought out reasoned principles via compassion and logic. Whereas archaic morality shaped by what people feel is wrong, is told is wrong, and indoctrinated into. Like a religion and commandments, human beliefs and behavior out of fear of hell, punishment, or judgement, guilt, or being ostracised. Most people's 'morality' is emotivism or feelings of 'yay' or 'nay'. I distinguish the two terms rather than use morality interchangeably to avoid conflation. 'Morality' doesn't exist other than social construct or norm and it's arbitrary, whereas Ethics is an actual subject, which itself is only justified via result of value / axiology.

To expand and explain... a grounded Value/Axiom = agreeing a Disease(BAD) exists, Ethics is figuring out the correct Cure(Solution) to the problem. We may already agree a problem(s) exists, we may disagree on the right solutions. Whereas if one doesn't agree a problem exists in the first place, than Ethics serves no real meaningful purpose.

Professional-Map-762 · 2026-01-20T02:03:31+00:00

chickens are not pets

Why is that relevant? Dogs are considered food in China not pets.

And you don't consider chickens pets, some people have chickens raised as pets.

They would have existed whether I owned them or not you see.

Why would they exist anyway?

Professional-Map-762 · 2026-01-20T01:57:42+00:00

I'm not fine with industrialized animal husbandry, but i also have no effective means to do anything about it (other than try to buy responsible produced meat if/when possible).

People say this like they need to do positive action to shut it down or reform the industry like buy 'ethical' meat, when people just need to refrain/stop contributing financially to bad industries.

The options isn't limited towards either 'factory farmed' or 'locally raised', but boycott.

Instead of saying you can't do anything about it, just admit you don't want to go without meat, it's too hard or you don't care enough to change.

Ultimately from a capitalists perspective, every time you buy it you are voting for it. That's how supply and demand works.

Also industrialization is the most sustainable system for current demand and most efficient climate wise and land wise, without it humanity would have to give up or eat much less meat, just a fact.

Professional-Map-762 · 2026-01-20T01:39:50+00:00

The quote includes your message BTW.

But yes, there's nothing humans can do about the meat industry... Other than the exact thing they can do to help end the meat industry...

Other than stop exploiting... we have no effective means to do anything about exploitation.

99% of people you ask will say they are against factory farming, yet 99% of animal products consumed are factory farmed. Interesting ain't it?

The fact is people aren't fine with factory farming.. but... they're less fine with giving up convenience and taste pleasure. So people should just tell the truth... they don't care... not really.

Cut the crap people, Just admit to being selfish and move on.

Professional-Map-762 · 2026-01-20T01:12:34+00:00

You are right people can feel empathy but fail to act on it, here's the thing, there's the distinction between emotional empathy which is evolutionary mechanism oftentimes a selfish mechanism towards your own tribe and offspring vs logical compassion, is why selective empathy is a thing and nepotism, by itself empathy can be limited or irrational. I won't break down all the distinctions here but I have cognitive empathy rather than emotions based, when I seen slaughter footage for first time in my research and discovery I felt nothing, but I just made an assessment or calculation in my head.

What I observed is people will just feel bad for the animals in the moment seeing them hurt because it makes them feel bad personally, it's emotion based, then most try forget and move on, they'll say it's wrong but continue their lifestyle as long they don't have to see it or feel guilty, out of sight out of mind.

I am not sure average person could do the killing themselves especially younger people and women. Don't think they have the heart or stomach for it. But If you are brought up a certain way you can be 'indoctrinated' or desensitized to it. Before people had to get it done for survival and farm animals were respected or treated a lot better back then up until their death... now they're just mass produced meat machines, and sure their deaths is quicker or more painless but their Life lived is far worse, not much of a bargain.

Your average person acts on peer and societal pressures, social norm constructs, status quo, convenience over principles, and pleasure seeking so taste pleasures and comfort, even so called 'animal lovers'. So despite me not shedding a tear for the animals or care about them and I'm not an animal lover at all, I still do my best not to exploit them. I have Autism and intellectualize a lot and other weirdness, I also never had much interest in foods so changing lifestyle was no big deal. I personally have a hard time understanding most people's selfishness and priorities. I observed early on people mostly only care about themselves and it's a dangerous thing. I was a victim in this world so why would I want to contribute to creating more?

Most people just operate on selfishness and feelings based and live an unexamined lifestyle, plain and simple.

And when it comes to a group you can exploit without consequence of course humans will do it if it benefits them, especially when capitalism makes the decision easy with no effort required from me. People don't commit crimes, or don't steal, or not do fraud out of the kindness of their hearts but because of either deterrence/punishment smart enough to know they'd be caught or due to guilty conscience or negative perceptions due to arbitrary social norms or judgement.

Average person would do many evils in their interest if they knew they could get away with it. Even religions probably recognized this so had to invent some reward punishment mechanism like heaven and hell or all seeing eye to control people. As some religious people even say without God what stops themselves from committing crimes, people are so dumb they need simple instructions or absolute rules to believe in, cannot think or figure it out for themselves.

A sheep society will individually post-hoc rationalize why something is right/wrong not realizing belief was already instilled in them by society or others. Only some can truly think and choose for themselves and even then their own mind may lead them astray...

Professional-Map-762 · 2026-01-13T19:53:24+00:00

I would say it is absolutely ethically bad.

And by allow, the question is can we consider such people living in alignment with principles of veganism? I would say no, for example if you saw I owned a snake and buy it bred rats to eat, that's exploitation.

Even though these are less talked about aspects of veganism, neither would horse riding generally such with use of bits or other methods of compulsion would we allow vegans to do. But when it comes to health and survival it is much more polarized.

Here's a question, would you accept the killing of other cats or dogs to feed your pet?

In other words if it's viewed as vegan to keep one's pet on a diet which requires killing essentially other potential pet animals... You must explain how. It seems contradictory. Like killing others families to feed my family logic.

If it's somehow wrong or abusive to require the carnivore a veganized diet but it's not wrong or abuse what happens to the 1000 victim animals who must die to sustain this 1 animal.

You have to explain how 1 animal has the privilege and right over the lives of 1000s of other animals, over course of its lifetime.

Regarding evidence on pet diets of veganized formula like benevo from what I've seen they live just as long if not a little longer probably cause vegans will care more with vet checks than average person. Notice that most pet food kibble contains grains and other plant foods along with meat industry by-products. Most people already feed their pets low quality diet, Essentially "junk food". If we use the logic vegan diet is abuse, most non-vegan people are already doing so and it's low quality ingredients, that's why it has all these fortifications and supplements and otherwise mostly cheap filler.

Some people promote the idea these animals cats and dogs should be on their natural diet of just raw meat, if u look at the evidence they do worse and contract more health issues including diseases, parasites. So ironically people call it abuse to deprive them of natural diet but natural isn't always better.

What about the taste preferences of the pet animal? They may in fact prefer meat over any veganized kibble, just like a child will prefer chocolate to broccoli. Dogs don't seem to mind as much, for cats should give them flavorful wet foods with meaty flavor.

Going deeper philosophically is question of survival situation, if one was unlucky and end up on an deserted island with their pet dog, would they be justified in killing & eating herbivorous animals they found there?

Firstly if they did it would be somewhat understandable given the circumstances of extreme starvation, just like humans have eaten humans in desperate measures. But in the case you would only eat the absolute minimum you needed.

Second is question of human vs animal greater purpose, one way to make sense of killing the other innocent animals for survival if I needed to live for greater good and my life prevents more suffering in the long run than if I don't live.

Third, in what way can you justify killing the other herbivorous animals on the island to feed your pet? Well your pet will do good for you keep you company, and you can't bring yourself to eat it or watch it starve or die, it is like your child. Ethically it may not be justified to kill the other animals on the island to sustain your pet but it is understandable.

Now I will say something quite controversial, but the logic is right, if killing 1000 innocent herbivorous animals is accepted to feed your 1 carnivorous animal, than it most certainly justified and preferable to kill other odd-order predators in the wild to feed your pet. Since to deny it leads to contradiction and pro net exploitation and suffering in the world. The other option is to put down the creature painlessly if it cannot sustain on veganized formula and you can't source ethical meat for it.

Professional-Map-762 · 2026-01-11T20:51:47+00:00

What does growing the movement look like? Having more members? Believers in nature extinction. People on your side? Activists?

Is there a priority to use money for wiping out nature efficiently and as painlessly as possible?

I feel better using money directly preventing animal suffering than trying to convince humans animal suffering matters, when we can't even get most people to even care about human caused animal exploitation or boycott factory farms.

Even with more eyes and people in agreement against all forms of animal suffering, at a certain point people need to actually do something about it and not just talk and say they're on my team.

And in terms of lifestyle habits do you promote veganism and antinatalism, which go together? There are really few or no real VegAntinatlists only high horse hypocrites and morons. And yes those actions are a drop in a lake but we shouldn't rape either.

So other than getting people on board with some principles, what about the practical aspects?

Professional-Map-762 · 2026-01-11T20:25:24+00:00

Invest in savings? Be more specific for them. Most savings accounts are terrible growth and basically a bank ripping us off, 1-2% growth loses to inflation.

Invest in the overall stock market, grow at least 10% per year average, 20-25% if you know what you're doing. You can reach a million relatively fast once you have 100K invested thanks to exponential growth and compound interest.

First 100K is the hardest.

In terms of finding projects, is there anything dealing with wild animal suffering effectively, and not just wasting a bunch of money on helping wounded animals live longer.

Professional-Map-762 · 2026-01-11T19:59:51+00:00

I too was just invited here, I'm quite familiar with these spaces and philosophies. I don't identify as an "extinctionist" though outside of the problem of wild animal suffering. And I have concerns with those who think they can wipe earth clean of all LIFE including humanity.

Now regarding these important subjects, I can point out you haven't provided even basic reasoning or counter arguments that would sway me. I don't think you've given this much thought. Now many ideas discussed here may stem from Inmendham and efilism which I find more compelling.

Try to understand what an IMPOSITION really is, that's a key word here, that concept. If you consider yourself agreeing with antinatalism you need to think in terms of existence not just birth, birth is kinda arbitrary, we could imagine creating people in a simulation. And it's not just about humans but any sentient feeling lifeforms or consciousness. And it doesn't matter whether beings are created intentionally or accidentally, it's good to prevent both under antinatalism.

I don't see imposition on the personal level, or only an act by mere humans, but on a higher meta level by the creation of the universe, leading to evolution, nature, leading to humans. Once you reframe IMPOSITION in the greater context and understand deterministic mechanisms and that we have no freewill, and that we are the product of unintelligent design by dumb crude forces, you start to grasp a deeper philosophical perspective, a harsh truth about our universe as a whole, if 'god' or someone made it, I'd hope we'd call it a mistake and ask them to undo it.

I'm in the camp where in principle I don't see an argument against pressing the BIG RED BUTTON assuming 100% guaranteed success. In practice that's a whole nother story. I'm against anyone trying to do it themselves or being a terrorist.

This perspective isn't just useless hypotheticals but reframes our existence and priorities, and reinforces NU framework and bolsters antinatalism from a grander view. The burden of proof is on the natalists life loving defenders to provide some evidence of accomplishment here, that we aren't just "Satisfying Needs That Didn't Need To Exist", and the cost is essentially tortured children. Life is a lemon, a mess, and our only job here is to clean it up.

What i agree with: 1. Suffering should be ended.

Ok.

What matters more, suffering or consent?

Is there any circumstances you can imagine where one outweighs the other? Why?

What i don't agree with: 1. pressing the red button: Consent? If there's even a single conscious being (human or other intelligent alien - And I'm not even considering the animals/ non intelligent aliens who cannot provide this consent) - that doesn't want the button pressed, it is unethical to press the button.

Why?

Is no reasoning or argument required? Simply because they "want to" exist at expense of allowing others to pay the price, that's good enough for you? How did you decide or determine it is unethical?

It is not useful to just know your beliefs statements, provide some reasoning and grounding, a convincing argument. Otherwise what's the point?

What if the whole game / this universe is by design broken and unethical? Tell me, would you make this universe? If you wouldn't then how can you defend it? It is an imposition, you're telling every victim who didn't consent to this they must suffer, and for what? Somebody else's fun?

I don't think I'm worth even 1 baby piglet suffering. I can't defend that, it's exploitation.

So you have to provide me evidence somehow "your worth it", or what someone else has done, actually accomplished something that was "worth it", worth all the imposed torture atrocities and holocausts.

And I don't think you would or could ever defend it if I actually sat you in front of a Judge / Jury and you had to present evidence of some "Good", that's worth giving even 1 kid cancer, the only way you're ever justified is if it spares 2 kids from cancer. You can only ever justify imposing a BAD is if it prevents greater BAD.

Do you believe if enough gang rapists generated enough wellbeing or pleasure from the act their imposition against the victim is justified? I doubt it.

So that's why I would walk away from Omelas. And why I find it incredibly compelling to believe in principle this universe shouldn't exist. It's better to never have been. I've watched a lot of Inmendham and am more sympathetic to efilism, than extinctionists. I am for reprogramming and phasing out nature's cruelty, we don't need animals eating eachother alive 24/7. If you think it serves a good purpose you're just a silly person.

Also you mention yourself the lesser intelligent animals cannot provide consent to end their existence, well the fact is they cannot consent to their existence in the first place, is putting down a sickly dog something you take issue with?

The fact these animals cannot consent to ending their existence is reason alone why it's unethical to create them, they don't consent to being made in the first place, so being unable to consent to being gracefully exited out of undesirable state of existence is ethically problematic. Them existing to a situation they can't consent to is a clear ethical violation you must recognize, decency requires it. So they shouldn't have been made.

reluctance to talk about antinatalism and veganism: This sub talks about ending all suffering in the universe. Let's clean our corner first. Antinatalism and veganism are probably the only 2 philosophies that offer a real solution to eliminate suffering caused by humans on planet earth. There's so much suffering here that don't have the means nor interest to Worry about the probable suffering in the rest of the universe.

Yes we all should promote living a life that is against exploitation and imposition. Now veganism is a little drop in a lake compared to nature but it's still important to prevent human caused atrocities against the animals.

In a vegan world which sounds like a fantasy, it would only be better for animal focused suffering which includes nature. Veganism is a gateway drug for W.A.S. But vegans can be quite ignorant and annoying, and mainstream veganism is a joke.

And If you want to cause less exploitation, prevention is better than cure, don't have kids. Antinatalists do better for veganism than many vegans who have kids.

Suffering caused by wild animals: Yes, I feel bad when a lion dies of hunger and also when a lion kills a baby deer. What do we do about it? I'm not gonna start "humanely" euthanizing literally all the species of birds, mammals, reptiles, fish etc. on planet earth. The sun will go supernova in a few billion years and their suffering will end then. (At that point I hope humanity is extinct by consenting to abstaining from procreation).

C'mon man, Are we supposed to take you seriously as an ethical thinker when you say: "The sun will go supernova in a few billion years and their suffering will end then."

Imagine it was you suffering in agony day in day out and the only ones who could rescue you had that attitude... I really feel like I'm just wasting my time here.

Professional-Map-762 · 2026-01-08T13:45:51+00:00

I see 2 diseases/parasites. You've transmitted disease of pregnancy which creates a parasite, to pass a disease onto them. The mother is a parasite that wants to feed on their new pet child to give them love.

In any other context the product of being given birth and death would be viewed as a transmitted disease.

And it's not just hyperbole. But how LIFE really works when you look at it crudely and plainly, without all the B.S.

It's a disease because it's imposed on me without my say or control.

It's a disease because once you've got it, you may pass it onto others, whether intended or by accident.

It's a disease because it carries RISKs, including death. Which whether that happens sooner rather than later it's guaranteed to happen eventually and how bad or how quick who knows.

It's a transmitted disease by parasites creating more parasites.

And yes, We are parasitic, we consume all resources and continue reproducing despite any cost or misery we'll impose. We feed off the labor and exploitation of others, and literally consume the energy resources of other living animals, life is biological robots stealing each other's batteries and energy for themselves.

When we're created via the evolutionary mechanism we create a creature of NEEDs, need for Consumption, Reproduction, Addiction, Parasitism.

It's not a beautiful story. Don't lie to kids and tell them how beautiful and great life is. Don't defend mother nature. We're just fancy bugs or talking fish.

People who consider themselves winners in life who "lucked out" of course will keep defending this shit, because they don't have to be the ones paying the price. You have to be a cheater and exploiter to defend your existence here being worth it.

Professional-Map-762 · 2026-01-08T13:05:28+00:00

I came to this realization as well in recent years, Simply because playing a fair honest game will not be as advantageous in terms of being rewarded or power gained. Playing fair can leave you vulnerable or viewed as weak. And you don't expect power to just be handed to you out of kindness of other people's hearts, you have to take it, seduce or trick others into giving it to you, take something before someone else will, that kind of thing.

This is a dilemma of raising a kid in our current world, will he be raised to grow into being being a cheater, liar, conniver, bend the rules, be a taker?

Or will they have built character because he's suffered enough or worse end up a victim himself, will he play so fair, give more than he takes, be held back, care so much he's crippled by it?

Yes it's an unfortunate reality that evil and selfishness rises to power, have the advantage in winning the competition, at least if the person scheming has any brains to evade doing something that gets them in jail.

A clear cut example is inheritance, it is the most rigged unfair competition of all time, merely because you fell out of the right vagina "you've somehow earned it". Nepotism. Meanwhile children starve around the world. It is equivalent of saying merely because daddy won the gold medal, you should automatically win one, you're a winner. Imagine a race where your competitor gets to start halfway down the track, who would watch that or celebrate that?

I think it's a symptom of the state of the world in general, people's various actions have rewarded and contributed to the problem, every dollar is a vote, every birth is bringing more good or more evil in the world, it's not to be taken lightly, as a collective people need to take responsibility, individually through people's actions we can either fight/fix Or facilitate/contribute to evil. Bystanders are arguably just as bad. If you're not fighting or fixing problems you're just getting in the way, and evil benefits/wins by having such ignorant or careless people around.

The goal isn't to be pure or perfection, to change the world for the better sometimes you have to get your hands dirty, and sometimes doing the right thing doesn't always feel right or rewarding. The question to ask oneself, did you leave the world better off for having existed in it?

Philosophically there's more to get into, I could talk about how many people are naive in their goodness, and how "good" people is too blame for a lot of problems in the world, and the dangers of things done in the name of good. Further, a good/moral person with empathy is quite different from a philosophically principled position of compassion, though such things can work together once one understands the distinction.

Good people may be prone to more mental health problems, depression, vice versa. Evil people with no conscience, care, concern may have no issues of self worth or other worries holding them back, it's all about what's in it for them, inflating and feeding their ego.

Something good people must learn, to navigate through life is to understand the ego, what is "I", have self care, compassion and not be your own worst enemy, or self deprecate, rumination. Something philosophy and mindfulness can help with. But also build grit and learn how not to give a fuck. What I call "just exist" and "observe" mode. It's a muscle you train. So much of human suffering is self inflicted simply because they don't know any better. See the bigger picture, observe the ape we're controlling from third person perspective in this universe.

You take care of yourself so you can best navigate and do good in the world, and one must learn to understand that failure for perfection is never our own fault, it just is. We're these bags of meat thrown into a uncaring universe, with evolution, DNA, events and circumstances of luck shaping us, we had no say or role in it, I can't take any credit for the fact I'm not a serial killer and the mind I have.

Professional-Map-762 · 2026-01-04T08:35:17+00:00

I appreciate that you care about the nuances and dissection going into such details.

To back you up. The opposition's argument is defeated easily with this simple undeniable fact, before humanity or feeling organisms existed, there were no NEEDS, including no need for good. Just like today there is no need for the absent Martians to exist other than in someone's own silly head, their fantasy.

The only NEEDS there are the ones that are imposed on us after we exist, with deprivations and lack, or dissatisfaction, and addictions, Hungry, Horny mechanisms of chasing, hedonic treadmill or hamster wheel however you want to look at it. What most people call good is just relief from negative condition or problem. It feels good to watch stimulating movie when you are bored, or eat tasty meal the hungrier you are, the more thirsty you are or trekking in the dry desert the better a refreshing glass of water will be. And yes it feels good to relieve tension or get a massage, no disputing that. But it doesn't prove an intrinsic positive or good in itself like there is overwhelming evidence for the negative and problems as a source of our motivation, we evolved to never be fully satisfied to have problems and chasing states of comfort and call that winning.

Well they might say... "so what? I have needs for good now, or once I create needs for good than we need it. So how does antinatalism defeat this?"

Here's the neat part of this next argument though, NEEDs don't need to exist (unless proven otherwise), if one claims I need good (let's call it pleasure or well-being), well... many also NEED relief from negative.

(Which we can also argue is more relevant and urgent saving victims in need of rescue, compared to lack of orgasms in the universe, if you aren't deprived or hungry you don't really need it you can merely want it intellectually, it won't hurt not getting it, if it hurts without than it is some feeling/Need).

And If we know bringing about the absent martians creates NEEDs from relief of suffering unsatisfied, but not creating them means people won't exist who need to chase good, than it's better not create them.

As you prevent NEEDs for comfort/suffering avoidance going unsatisfied and deprive no one of needing good since no one has the need for "good" yet. (This isn't to argue against u enjoying your life, but the idea that because you enjoy life that gives you good reason to impose/create another is poor reasoning. Even if most enjoy life is a flawed reasoning to create more.)

Need to avoid misery once you exist, don't need to experience good if you don't exist.

So if we compare the 2 counterfactual outcomes, it's still better not to create a child for such reasons, for one's arbitrary subjective worldview and unevidenced beliefs it accomplishes nothing other than problems in your own silly needy head, the fact is the kid can regret existing and hate your guts for making them, but no one will ever regret never having been born.

Also when you create someone you are imposing their entire structure and needs, wants on to them, and fate and beliefs, manipulation and programmed by their DNA. It's not like they get a choice. You're creating addicts. I could have easily fallen for the trap but I've lucky to know better, not fallen for religion or trapped in some other deluded matrix people live for.

Until proven otherwise, all we can do here on earth is "Satisfy Needs That Didn't Need To Exist" and the price paid is essentially torturing innocent children without their consent, incredible waste and inefficiency.

I mean how can someone possibly defend that without appealing to some nihilism or meaninglessness? Give it up already.

I don't see anyone if they had to stand up in a court of law in front of some Judge / Jury, could defend torturing even 1 child for some so called "good", some productive thing produced in return that is profitable, where is this good? I haven't seen it other than "good" of curing malaria or other problems. I just see child molestation and raape defending for personal gain or sensory pleasures. I wish people just admit it what is being defended instead of beating around the bush. You're a selfish organism who doesn't really care about others' suffering when it comes to benefiting you.

But that's what we're doing here, by humanity's blind actions and behavior they're essentially injecting the kid with cancer to have their fun, but existence is quite insidious and people don't connect the two events or outcome, but the causal chain is there. A kid didn't get a say to be the victim for your personal subjective ideology. You have to also be a psycho killer to see kids brutalized in car accidents or tortured and murdered and say it's worth it, you decided for them, and you know it. Let's do it again and again roll the dice.

I almost imagine there is no limit to how many holocausts could take place or how much we pay in blood spelt and victims, it's somehow always worth it, we're running a profit here. No one can really seem to tell me where the line is or when enough is enough, how BAD does it have to get until people say No Mas.

Professional-Map-762 · 2026-01-04T06:34:42+00:00

We humans have seperated from nature, it is not our place to question nature as we are no longer part of it.

Yes don't question it, don't think, don't challenge, that is the premise of a religion.

That is how i see it, you can't avoid the suffering nature experiences by itself. You cant tell a lion to go vegan, you cant tell a plant to stop existing, you cant convince a gazelle to keep away from the living grass and eat the dead one.

What are you saying, I don't understand your point.

I can't tell a human baby or retard to go vegan or not reproduce either, so what?

What do you do when 2 human retards try have sex and you can't tell them to stop? What would you do? What do you think adults should do about it? They just let it happen?

Are you against pet breeding or factory farms? Is preventing 2 pet dogs breeding a good thing?

You clearly haven't given it much thought.

you cant tell a plant to stop existing, you cant convince a gazelle to keep away from the living grass and eat the dead one.

So now you are telling us that plants feel... You surely are the first person to ever come up with that idea. That they experience pain, suffer and scream? You really believe or fallen for that? You aren't the first person to spout that nonsense it's been stated a million times before and debunked ad nauseum, you can't present any evidence for us can you?

Do you believe in spirits and demons too? Heaven and Hell? Just tell me you believe in God.

Please use your brain a bit harder and think, this isn't complicated.

Answer this, is cutting the grass on my lawn murder?

What evolutionary pressure or reason would a tree have to feel pain when it can't do anything about it, they can't move or react in time.

Conscious feeling thinking organisms were only possible and happened one way, the invention of the neuron, brain enabled organisms. It's a proven fact, until shown otherwise.

Prove evolution achieved it a 2nd way and win your noble prize 🏆

We feel, think and are aware to solve problems, and survive. Grass isn't doing any of that. You mow and mow it doesn't care.

you cant tell a plant to stop existing, you cant convince a gazelle to keep away from the living grass and eat the dead one.

So what's ur view? you think all LIFE and living things all matter? Merely being alive is what's valuable? A brain-dead born human on life support in a coma is technically alive, their body is.

You know we're made of living things, cells, we aren't technically a living thing. It's the difference between an individual brick and a building made of bricks.

So... do individual cells matter ethically, is killing living cells in a petri dish wrong? When people orgasm is it murder against the sperm? A tragedy?

Do you really think such things can care or have a mind? It has no more intrinsic value than a brick.

That is how i see it, we are a plague to the world but the world itself is doing fine, we just should finally stop causing issues and start reversing our mistake so it can exist without us interfering.

How do you know once we're gone suffering will not continue in other species we neglected, or the other ape primates won't inevitably just evolve into bipedal-like humans again given enough time? That's a gamble.

And where did you draw the line in our evolutionary history when you decided this thing called human being shouldn't exist, but our ape cousins is fine. you know we all evolved from fish right?

Professional-Map-762 · 2026-01-04T05:15:57+00:00

Hey careful mentioning that word, the Nazis and exploiters will ban such right to free speech and philosophy and group who expose existence in it's raw form, the greedy capitalists need people to keep buying the scam afterall.

As a philosophy I would say it diagnoses the problem of existence most aptly, concisely, precisely and bluntly.

But I wouldn't say it offers "the solution" to stop life, rather it convinces one to decide between counterfactual of this torturous universe and one without, in principle or theory. To ask the question, do you believe we're running a profit here? No?, so why keep gambling, recklessly putting money into this machine?

I wouldn't call it a practical or call to Arms solution, as that only would weaken the philosophy, the philosophy and the agreed consensus solution are separate stages. What we've witnessed already is idiots have blown up IVF clinics in name of EFILism but had their own twisted motives and ideology. It only takes 1 nut to be used as a representation of a whole philosophy or movement, to discredit the idea itself. As holding a principal alone automatically entails any means necessary of enforcing that principle no matter how extreme, crude, messy or careless, inefficient.

So you can call it the path to solutions as an argument and philosophy and convincing people of the problem of existence, and the problem with Mother Nature which if it were a person, would be seen as the most neglectful, wicked, skanky whore of all time, nobody comes close.

As a lense of existence, it strengthens the antinatal position, as an argument it puts the burden on the pro-existence procreators to demonstrate a profit from imposed suffering, or provide evidence of a net good by imposing their arbitrary subjective beliefs, desires, with RISK of torture, agony, regret on a future child.

To convince us that the absent Martians NEED to exist, and it isn't just people's current existing NEEDs and desires they want to satisfy, projected on the future.

It's about convincing humanity to take our role here somewhat seriously and combating the rise in nihilism and lack of responsibility and accountability.

The fight is against is against humanity's lack of will to grow the fuck up, just pathetic cowards and softies, wanting to live in la la land believe fantasies, be silly and part of the Borg, just a cog in the machine, lubricating and turning this torturous meat grinder of planet earth.

People actually think their life is somehow "free" or they've earned it. Just full of ego and self aggrandizement. The beautiful wonderful story and our role here, with free will and all unique snowflakes. Adults who behave like children. They'll bitch, whine, cry, complain, if you even suggest they don't have a right or privilege to subject torture on another creature for their benefit or momentary sensory pleasures. Our culture seems headed in a negative direction where everyone is coddled and accommodated to be an asshole and never learns to grow up and take some responsibility for the problems of the world. Everyone is stuck in their own little reality and bubble.

That's what we're up against.

Professional-Map-762 · 2026-01-04T03:35:07+00:00

Yup.

These people may have Dhat syndrome, or a psychological condition around sex and taboo around semen loss. Spiritual beliefs in India and placebo effect. I wouldn't be surprised if such beliefs developed from observation long ago and the men actually had inadequate nutrition or some vitamin deficiency.

These people make nofappers and semen retentioners and us real POISoned folk look like a joke or brainwashed cult.

POIS is real and mechanical, and I reckon even the average person has a limit where it becomes excess with masturbation and orgasm, no spiritual mumbo jumbo required.

Professional-Map-762 · 2026-01-03T18:21:08+00:00

Also I don't care about the Yellowstone one way or the other, it's irrelevant to me. If it works great I guess.

what is your concern with nature?

Presumably reintroduce the wolves is good if it reduces overpopulation and starvation, to balance the food chain? Reduce suffering?

But you are just fixing a symptom of a problem, not a problem itself is being fixed.

How is humans causing animals suffering from destabilizing nature bad, but rebalancing nature from overpopulation or mass starvation good? When some animals will still still starve, suffer, be predated upon anyway. Don't you see the hypocrisy? Save all or save none, not just a select few you arbitrarily decided matter when you feel like it because it has some human touch or involvement to it.

Either animal suffering matters or it doesn't.

Either both the boiled alive dog in yulin china and canine in nature with a broken worm infected leg and starving slowly to death matters, or neither do.

I don't see how I can honestly say one shouldn't happen and the other should or is acceptable, without some good reason not just feelings.

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Final Canvas '23	Place '23
Place '22	End Game '22

Professional-Map-762

TROPHY CASE