Jump to content

Are there ex-efilists (animal-focused antinatalists) or ex-promortalists I can talk to?


Recommended Posts

Hello. I have come to heavily doubt my Efilist and promortalist stance.

Is anybody here an ex-efilist, an ex-animal-antinatalist or ex-promortalist?

How did you get into it, how did you leave?

This is a call for help, I feel trapped by this philosophy. I need to know if there are others like me.

EDIT:

I am mainly looking for people who have held these stances and have now changed. But I suppose I might as well let others join in.

Efil is life spelled backwards. It represents a stance of "anti-life". Efilists are universal antinatalists ,which means they want to sterilise the planet, and are generally promortalists.

Promortalists attaches a negative value to life, it is a philosophical stance is that it is better for you to cease to exist than continue to be.

 

 

Edited by Implications
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brief definitions would help the conversation.  Guessing wildly on the meaning of promortalist, I will say that I'm all in favor of mortality, as the planet would be SRO at this point without it.  J/K

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Implications said:

This is a call for help, I feel trapped by this philosophy.

Are you seeking response only from those who know these terms, have held these stances, and now don't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Changed.

Quote

Promortalists attaches a negative value to life, it is a philosophical stance is that it is better for you to cease to exist than continue to be.

Promortalistm attaches a negative value to life, it is a philosophical stance is that it is better for you to cease to exist than continue to be.

Put otherwise, it is the stance that if you do not want to suffer, then death is the only reasonable option other than preventing someone else's suffering.

 

Edited by Implications
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you very much for the clarifications. And do I understand that you no longer benefit from holding these stances, and are questioning their validity in general?

I can see why promoting an anti-life stance would be prohibitive intellectually. Evolution selected for enough intelligence in humans for them to see that life has a negative value? That makes little sense. If you understand evolution, life is anything but negative.

In fact, it's reasonable to say that life is more efficient at absorbing and distributing energy from the sun than inorganic matter is, therefore life is inevitable and desirable. You could sterilize the whole planet but there's a great chance the whole marvelous process would find a way to start up again. 

I can see why some folks have a negative view about humans on the planet, and why they think of us as some kind of usurper in a world of nature. But it sounds like your old beliefs lumped plants and animal life into it as well. I'm not sure I've ever discussed life with someone who didn't want ANYTHING to live. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah. I'm not entirely sure I have made it clear.

These philosophies are based on welfare considerations. Efilists and promortalists want to reduce the amount of conscious life on Earth, as much as possible, to prevent them from suffering. They believe that their philosophies are kind and will reduce suffering.

I continue to believe that the only thing that is good or bad, is what is good or bad for conscious beings, so I do not believe evolution, inevitability or energy use are relevant.

 

 

 

Edited by Implications
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Implications said:

Efilism is interested in removing as much intelligent life as possible, in order to remove suffering from the world.

Intelligent life is the source of suffering in the world? How intelligent? Humans only, or do the dolphins have to leave as well? I suppose I'm being too philosophical in taking a much deeper view of humanity over a longer period of time, and placing them in context with other species. Sorry.

10 minutes ago, Implications said:

It is a question of what is believed to be good or bad for conscious beings.

Consciousness as in human-level awareness, or conscious beings like primates, or what? And no matter where you set the bar, life is ALWAYS best for consciousness. If you aren't defining it this way, then you have a non-mainstream definition of death.

14 minutes ago, Implications said:

I think  I would object that any arguments regarding evolution or energy efficiency does not involve welfare considerations.

Welfare is something else you should probably define more clearly, but it would seem to be a fairly subjective and contextual measurement with regard to living beings. I'm trying to show objectively how, if you take a big step back and look at the bigger picture, life is inevitable if there's enough solar energy to take advantage of existing conditions. From there, evolution is always adapting life to the conditions it finds itself in. Any arguments you may have after that need to take that universal process into account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Intelligent life is the source of suffering in the world? How intelligent?

All conscious animals as much as possible, cats, dogs, magpies, geckos.

Efilism is a form of animal antinatalism; the view that animal birth, and animal life, have negative value.

 

Quote

non-mainstream definition of death.

I define life as containing positive and negative feelings.

In this context. I define being dead, or nonexistence, as having neither positive or negative feelings.

To me, this makes the argument unclear.

 

 

 

Edited by Implications
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does being dead,  instead of having a life, seem preferable to you?   If your answer is no,  then this doctrine is adequately rebutted and may be dismissed.   If you answer is yes,  then we should end this chat and encourage you to seek professional help asap.  

An additional question is what is wrong with some suffering, if we can endure it,  learn from it,  and then enjoy our lives and take satisfaction in what suffering taught us?   Euthanasia usually is considered only when the suffering blots out all other aspects of life. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quote

To gain a better understanding of how such a philosophy is implemented,  who volunteers to go first on the consciousness reduction?   

 

Activism involves campaigning for the right to die, convincing people that birth is wrong; convincing people to adopt children or to adopt abandoned animals.  They campaign to sterilise wild animals and destroy forests.

There is a man I have found interesting who is not a promortalist, and may or not be an efilist (efilists tend to be a certain kind of people), but he is an animal antinatalist.

Brian Tomasik

He has posted a whole manifesto on how to reduce the amount of life that occurs on Earth. He advocates for focusing only on animals, not humans.

He advocates for wiping out a large amount of plants or insects (because they are at the bottom of the food chain, and becuase he thinks insects might suffer).

 

All these philosophies are based on an "asymmetry argument".

Negative feelings are bad for someone

Positive feelings are good for someone

There are no negative feelings when there is no-one to experience it

There is no desire for positive when there is no-one to experience it

Therefore the conscious being should not exist.

 

 

Edited by Implications
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Implications said:

All conscious animals as much as possible, cats, dogs, magpies, geckos.

Efilism is a form of animal antinatalism; the view that animal birth, and animal life, have negative value.

The basis of that "value" you mention would be interesting to know. What scale determines the value? What exactly is being negatively impacted wrt animal life?

19 minutes ago, Implications said:

I define life as containing positive and negative feelings.

In this context. I define being dead, or nonexistence, as having neither positive or negative feelings.

Now you have to define "feelings". I define a love letter as containing positive and negative feelings. Life should have stricter parameters, imo.

23 minutes ago, Implications said:

To me, this makes the argument unclear.

I can see why, and I'm glad you have doubts about this philosophy. It seems to focus on some perceived lacks in certain higher order species and conclude that they all need to be eliminated. It's difficult to see where that kind of reasoning ever becomes clear or critically thought out.

9 minutes ago, Implications said:

Activism involves....

Oh, so another bad faith argument. "I'm doubting my philosophy, can you please help?" And now you're going to soapbox for killing people to avoid their suffering. This is a science discussion forum. Jeez.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the basis of what is or isn't valuable is negative and positive feelings. 

I do not study consciousness, but feelings are what, in those studies, might be considered affect, mainly, negative and positive valence. 

Feelings may be; unwanted, aversive, negative valance, against preference.

Or; wanted, attractive, positive valence, or towards preference.

I claim the letter itself does not, itself, contain feelings, it is an intentional object, you can experience feelings about the letter.

I am not trying to argue FOR the philosophy.

 

 

Edited by Implications
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Implications said:

 

 

Activism involves campaigning for the right to die, convincing people that birth is wrong; convincing people to adopt children or to adopt abandoned animals.  They campaign to sterilise wild animals and destroy forests.

There is a man I have found interesting who is not a promortalist, and may or not be an efilist (efilists tend to be a certain kind of people), but he is an animal antinatalist.

Brian Tomasik

He has posted a whole manifesto on how to reduce the amount of life that occurs on Earth. He advocates for focusing only on animals, not humans.

He advocates for wiping out a large amount of plants or insects (because they are at the bottom of the food chain, and becuase he thinks insects might suffer).

 

All these philosophies are based on an "asymmetry argument".

Negative feelings are bad for someone

Positive feelings are good for someone

There are no negative feelings when there is no-one to experience it

There is no desire for positive when there is no-one to experience it

Therefore the conscious being should not exist.

 

!

Moderator Note

This seems to be the opposite of what was presented in the original post. Let’s get back on topic.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Implications said:

I claim the letter itself does not, itself, contain feelings, it is an intentional object, you can experience feelings about the letter.

Do you mean the "latter", as in the last example you gave ("wanted, attractive, positive valence, or towards preference"), opposite of "former", THAT latter? 

If you mean "the letter", I don't know what that is. Sorry.

1 hour ago, Implications said:

I am not trying to argue FOR the philosophy.

It really seemed like you were. You claimed the proponents of it were "interesting", and then laid out their proposals. If you're not arguing for these down-with-life stances, what did you want to discuss?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you put too much emphasis on labels, and trying to characterize people according to those labels.
People don't live their lives according to one specific philosophy, rather, they pick and choose differing philosophies to apply to different aspects of their lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, MigL said:

I think you put too much emphasis on labels, and trying to characterize people according to those labels.
People don't live their lives according to one specific philosophy, rather, they pick and choose differing philosophies to apply to different aspects of their lives.

Indeed so in a nutshell. +1

Just add too much emphasis on fancy words.

Edited by studiot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/16/2021 at 4:27 AM, Implications said:

Hello. I have come to heavily doubt my Efilist and promortalist stance.

Is anybody here an ex-efilist, an ex-animal-antinatalist or ex-promortalist?

How did you get into it, how did you leave?

This is a call for help, I feel trapped by this philosophy. I need to know if there are others like me.

EDIT:

I am mainly looking for people who have held these stances and have now changed. But I suppose I might as well let others join in.

Efil is life spelled backwards. It represents a stance of "anti-life". Efilists are universal antinatalists ,which means they want to sterilise the planet, and are generally promortalists.

Promortalists attaches a negative value to life, it is a philosophical stance is that it is better for you to cease to exist than continue to be.

 

 

Explore other philosophies.

These ones could just as  accurately be described anti-free will. The ability to decide  measurement of being, or values.

Value is always subjective.

This objective application is based on belief, not philosophy.

By applying subjective value beyond the margins of  the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  The philosophy seems to be nihilism as interpreted by the most self-loathing.  With a paradox at the center:  If adherents self-apply the core doctrine,  then they may well increase the suffering of family and friends,  which would then contradict their stated goal.  If they destroy animals and forests, then they increase human suffering,  which again contradicts their goal.   Any philosophy that can only be successfully implemented by a total holocaust is not worth your time.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/19/2021 at 4:06 PM, TheVat said:

  The philosophy seems to be nihilism as interpreted by the most self-loathing.  With a paradox at the center:  If adherents self-apply the core doctrine,  then they may well increase the suffering of family and friends,  which would then contradict their stated goal.  If they destroy animals and forests, then they increase human suffering,  which again contradicts their goal.   Any philosophy that can only be successfully implemented by a total holocaust is not worth your time.   

Indeed +1, it reminds me of "The catcher in the rye" something one has to grow out of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks.   It's been a half century since my reading Catcher in the Rye,  so I may have to dig around to get what you're referring to.  You are referring to the loss of innocence - as in the Burns poem - I gather.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, TheVat said:

Thanks.   It's been a half century since my reading Catcher in the Rye,  so I may have to dig around to get what you're referring to.  You are referring to the loss of innocence - as in the Burns poem - I gather.   

Nothing so deep, I just thought he was a whiny little bi-atch... 😁

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The impression I'm getting is that this idea regards suffering as so abhorrent, that it would be better to erase anything with the capacity to suffer. 

It's an incredibly stupid idea, as bourne out by the fact that many individuals CHOOSE to suffer, in order to achieve something. I suffer from chronic pain, I could erase it with the right drugs, but I would rather suffer, than be dependent on the drugs. 

Other people put themselves through torture, just for the chance of an olympic medal, or to better support their kids, or even just to try to look skinny. 

I make my own decisions about my own suffering, and I wouldn't presume to decide for every other person or organism on the planet. That's best left up to them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I make my own decisions about my own suffering, and I wouldn't presume to decide for every other person or organism on the planet. That's best left up to them. 

This is the real key, isn't it? This exfilist/antinatialist/promortalist stance assumes all suffering is the same, rather than on a spectrum like most human conditions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.