Efilism

The philosophy of efilism can be defined as absolute antinatalism. Antinatalists assign a negative value to birth and theorize that reproducing is morally wrong due to the unborn individual’s ability to consent to living and the inevitable suffering that the person would experience in life. Many antinatalists, such as professor David Benatar, believe that it would be better for a person to not come into existence at all than be born into a world where pain, suffering, and death is inescapable. In Benatar’s book, Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence, he discusses the ethical implications of human reproduction and reaches the conclusion that having children is always morally wrong.

Efilism agrees with all of the concepts discussed in the philosophy of antinatalism, but efilism goes a step further to include humanity and all other living creatures. Efilists believe that all sentient beings should stop reproducing in an effort to end the cycle of suffering that life causes. The term “efilism” is derived from spelling the word “life” backwards (LIFE=EFIL), symbolizing the idea that ceasing to exist is the only saving grace for all of Earth’s inhabitants. The primary motivation for efilists is to minimize suffering for other beings, which is a belief that is deeply rooted in negative utilitarianism and philanthropic desires. It should be duly noted that antinatalism and efilism philosophies are altruistic in nature. They do not advocate for harming other humans who have already come into existence. When confronted with the question of why antinatalists and efilists don't simply commit suicide if they believe life is so awful, philosophers explain the concept of "The Human Predicament." This thought experiment explains that, while life is ultimately meaningless, death "exacerbates rather than mitigates our cosmic meaninglessness"

History

The term "efilism" was first notably coined by a philosopher who has created and shared hundreds of videos on the topic through the YouTube channel, inmendham. This channel was created in 2007, and the user also launched a website dedicated to the philosophy of efilism, which is called DoNotGod.com. The anonymous philosopher has also created other YouTube channels that relate to efilist beliefs, including JustSayNoToKids, GracefulExit, and SufferingSucks. The videos this user has created tend to have rather graphic titles and intense, overzealous presentations that can cause those unfamiliar with antinatalism to feel shocked, confused, and angry at the seemingly outlandish beliefs.

Over the past decade, however, additional sites and forums have been formed for individuals to further explore and discuss efilism with one another. Some notable communities of antinatalists and efilists can be found in the links listed below:

• Efilism Wiki
• r/Efilism
• r/Antinatalism
• The Friendly Antinatalist
• Exploring Antinatalism Podcast

Core tenants

At the most basic level, efilism was created around the two-fold argument that 1) there is a notable asymmetry between pain and pleasure, and 2) bringing a person into existence without their consent is immoral. The asymmetry argument, a well-recognized antinatalist explanation, includes four basic principles that describe why it's better for someone to not exist than to be brought into existence:

1. The presence of pain is bad.
2. The presence of pleasure is good.
3. The absence of pain is good, and one cannot suffer if one does not exist. Non-existence is a good thing if it means avoiding pain.
4. The absence of pleasure is not bad if one does not exist to be deprived of said pleasure.

In simpler terms, it is more beneficial for a being to not exist at all than to be brought into a world where they will experience pain or a mere absence of pleasure. Additionally, psychologists have believed for decades that humans have an optimism bias, which means that people tend to view life as more positive than it really is. Plenty of empirical data has been collected on this phenomenon from social media surveys to a 1969 study on human language tendencies conducted by researchers Jerry Boucher and Charles E. Osgood. This common lean towards optimism means that people generally overemphasize the positive aspects of life, whether it's done unintentionally or done in purpose in an attempt to make oneself feel better. Armed with this knowledge, one can conclude that there is a stark contrast in the number of neutral or unpleasant encounters a person experiences versus the comparatively small number of pleasant or positive encounters. If a person knows that life ultimately contains more bad than good, efilists and antinatalists alike agree that it would be unethical to have a child and expose them to the harsh negative realities of life.

One key difference between antinatalism and efilism is that efilism completely rejects speciesism, which is the assumption that humans are the dominant or superior species. Efilists believe that all sentient creatures are equal, and therefore most efilists adhere to a vegan diet to avoid contributing to the undue pain and suffering of animals raised to be slaughtered.

Criticism

The initially shocking components of efilism can be uncomfortable to think about, and the so-called "extreme" belief has led to countless angry and confused people who remain adamantly against the concept of efilism. One common assumption is that there is a correlation between this philosophical belief and depression, as the psychological condition can make an individual feel as if their own lives are not worth living. However, one could also argue that nihilism and depression could be correlated because the conclusion that life is meaningless can resonate with someone struggling with clinical depression. An individual could be content with their life and also realize that bringing another human into the world would be doing them a disservice.

Natalists who hold specific religious beliefs may oppose efilism because they believe it to be inherently selfish to not have children, or that remaining voluntarily childless goes against God's will for humanity. Many Christian groups believe that the childfree movement is in direct opposition of the Biblical direction to "go forth and multiply," with TheGospelCoalition.org even arguing that "Children are God’s merciful means of growing his redeemed people, generation after generation, in all the nations of the world." However, the very notion that all children born of Christians will also grow up to be believers in the religion is deeply flawed. According to the November 2019 American Perspectives Survey, 30% of young adults who were raised in a Christian environment report that they're no longer affiliated with any church group or religious tradition as adults.

Other criticisms of antinatalism and efilism stem from the misconception that those who adhere to these beliefs are misanthropic or indirectly supporting eugenics. These arguments can be quickly extinguished due to the fact that:

1. Antinatalists and efilists view all births as equally unethical, whereas positive eugenics is associated with viewing beings with certain genetic predispositions as having greater value than those without the "desirable" traits.
2. Misanthropy is defined as, "the general hatred, dislike, distrust or contempt of the human species or human nature." Efilism strongly opposes this theory due to its philanthropic goals and desire to minimize the suffering of mankind and other sentient creatures.

References

This article "Efilism" is from Wikipedia. The list of its authors can be seen in its historical and/or the page Edithistory:Efilism. Articles copied from Draft Namespace on Wikipedia could be seen on the Draft Namespace of Wikipedia and not main one.

---