A Comprehensive Guide to EFILism
(The Venus Project of Antinatalism)
1. Introduction to EFILism
EFILism (a reversal of the word “life”) is a philosophical stance rooted in the recognition that sentient life inevitably involves significant suffering. EFILists argue that the best course of action to prevent future suffering is to actively work toward ending sentient existence, but they propose this solution without any endorsement of violent or harmful measures. Instead, EFILism is about promoting a compassionate, harm-minimizing approach to existence that prioritizes ending suffering at its roots.
The philosophy emerged as an extension of antinatalism but goes further by questioning not only human reproduction but the existence of all sentient life. EFILism’s ultimate aim is to prevent suffering by advocating for a gradual, peaceful cessation of life rather than a violent or coercive approach.
2. Origins and Philosophical Foundations
EFILism draws from a combination of philosophical schools, including negative utilitarianism and antinatalism. Negative utilitarianism, which argues for minimizing suffering as the highest ethical priority, provides a foundation for EFILism’s emphasis on harm reduction. Additionally, EFILism borrows from existential and ethical arguments about the nature of suffering and the moral implications of creating new sentient beings.
This philosophy first gained traction among online communities discussing the ethics of reproduction and the inherent suffering of life. Although it’s often perceived as radical, EFILism is a logical extension of antinatalist thought, arguing that suffering isn’t just a human problem but a fundamental issue embedded in the condition of all sentient life.
3. Core Principles of EFILism
EFILism is founded on several core principles, each of which builds upon the idea that suffering is inherent to sentient life.
The Problem of Suffering
The primary tenet of EFILism is the recognition that suffering is inextricably linked to life itself. Pain, loss, anxiety, disease, and death are all integral parts of the experience of being alive. This suffering is unavoidable and often exists on an extreme spectrum, from minor inconveniences to intense anguish. According to EFILism, because life inevitably leads to suffering, it is ethically preferable to end the cycle of life to prevent future harm.
Sentience and Moral Considerations
EFILism places particular emphasis on sentience, or the capacity to feel, perceive, and experience subjectively. Sentient beings are capable of suffering, and this capacity forms the basis of moral consideration in EFILism. EFILists argue that it is unethical to bring sentient beings into existence knowing they will inevitably suffer. Therefore, the philosophy advocates against creating new sentient life, as a compassionate response to the problem of suffering.
4. The Asymmetry of Pleasure and Suffering
One of the central arguments of EFILism is the asymmetry between pleasure and suffering. While pleasure is fleeting, often conditional, and difficult to sustain, suffering can be deep, prolonged, and involuntary. EFILism doesn’t deny that pleasure exists, but it contends that the potential for extreme suffering outweighs the benefits of transient pleasure.
For instance, an individual might experience brief moments of happiness, but these are often outweighed by persistent worries, health issues, and existential dread. EFILists argue that even the happiest lives are interwoven with suffering and that the potential for severe suffering, such as trauma, illness, and death, makes existence ethically questionable.
5. EFILism and Harm Reduction
EFILism is deeply rooted in the concept of harm reduction. Rather than attempting to eliminate suffering through temporary or incomplete measures, EFILism proposes a more comprehensive approach by addressing suffering at its source: existence itself. Importantly, EFILism advocates for nonviolent, compassionate means to achieve harm reduction. This can involve promoting awareness of the ethical implications of reproduction, supporting voluntary sterilization, and discouraging actions that perpetuate life.
EFILism’s approach to harm reduction is fundamentally compassionate. It does not advocate for coercive or forceful measures but encourages individuals to consider the ethical dimensions of bringing new life into the world. The goal is to prevent suffering in the most peaceful, voluntary way possible.
6. Ethical Arguments for Life Cessation (Without Violence)
EFILism’s perspective on ending life is often misunderstood as advocating violent or forced extinction. However, EFILism is built on principles of peaceful harm prevention. The philosophy promotes education, dialogue, and voluntary choices as pathways to reducing suffering.
By encouraging individuals and societies to consider the long-term impact of procreation and the perpetuation of sentient life, EFILism aims to create a world where fewer beings are brought into existence. This stance aligns with the peaceful cessation of life and emphasizes that ending suffering doesn’t require any form of violence. Rather, it involves making compassionate choices that prevent new suffering from arising.
7. Addressing Common Misconceptions
EFILism faces several misconceptions, often due to its radical ethical proposals. Addressing these can help clarify the philosophy’s true intentions:
EFILism is not Anti-Life in a Violent Way: EFILism is often accused of advocating harmful measures against life. In reality, it emphasizes compassion and nonviolent approaches to ending suffering.
EFILism is not a Cult: As a philosophical stance, EFILism doesn’t have doctrines, rituals, or centralized leaders. It is a set of ideas based on reasoning about suffering and existence.
EFILism Isn’t Hopeless: While EFILism acknowledges life’s challenges, it proposes a meaningful response: preventing future suffering through ethical choices.
8. EFILism in Context: Comparisons with Other Philosophies
EFILism shares some similarities with other philosophies, yet it stands apart in significant ways:
Antinatalism: While both EFILism and antinatalism discourage procreation, EFILism extends this argument to all sentient life, not just humans.
Negative Utilitarianism: EFILism adopts the negative utilitarian focus on minimizing suffering but applies it universally.
Existential Nihilism: Like existential nihilism, EFILism questions life’s inherent value but differs in its ethical emphasis on harm prevention.
These comparisons illustrate EFILism’s unique position as a philosophy concerned with preventing suffering on a universal scale.
9. Practical Implications and Personal Applications
On a practical level, EFILism advocates for lifestyle choices that reduce harm and discourage the perpetuation of life. This can include:
Supporting Non-Reproductive Lifestyles: EFILism supports choices like adoption, fostering, or choosing not to have children.
Promoting Education on Suffering: Raising awareness about the ethical implications of procreation can lead to more compassionate societal choices.
Fostering Compassionate End-of-Life Care: EFILists advocate for humane policies regarding end-of-life decisions, as part of a broader commitment to reducing suffering.
Individuals who resonate with EFILism may find ways to align their daily choices with the philosophy’s principles, choosing actions that minimize suffering and avoid contributing to the creation of new life.
10. Conclusion: The Future of EFILism and Broader Ethical Questions
EFILism provides a unique and uncompromising response to the ethical questions surrounding existence, suffering, and the perpetuation of life. As a philosophy, it challenges us to reconsider traditional views on the value of life and offers a harm-preventative approach to existence. By advocating for nonviolent, voluntary cessation of life, EFILism presents a vision for a world without suffering—a world where sentient beings no longer endure the unavoidable pains of existence.
EFILism’s future lies in its potential to reshape ethical conversations around suffering and existence. It encourages us to examine the ethical implications of life with clarity, compassion, and a focus on the greater good: the peaceful prevention of suffering for all sentient beings.
References:
Benatar, David. Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence. Oxford University Press, 2006.
Benatar’s work provides foundational arguments for antinatalism and explores the asymmetry between pleasure and suffering, concepts central to EFILism.
Schopenhauer, Arthur. On the Suffering of the World.
Schopenhauer’s pessimistic view on life and suffering laid an early foundation for questioning the ethics of existence, an important precursor to EFIList thought.
Metzinger, Thomas. The Ego Tunnel: The Science of the Mind and the Myth of the Self. Basic Books, 2009.
Metzinger's exploration of consciousness and the subjective experience of suffering aligns with EFILism’s focus on sentience as a basis for ethical consideration.
Doherty, Kevin. “A Philosophical Defense of Negative Utilitarianism.” Philosophia 46, no. 4 (2018): 909-929.
This paper discusses negative utilitarianism, which forms a foundation for EFILism’s commitment to minimizing suffering over promoting pleasure.
Inmendham. Youtube Channel YouTube.
Inmendham (Gary Mosher) is often credited with popularizing EFILism and offers extensive commentary on the philosophy, ethics, and suffering, with numerous videos explaining the core concepts of EFILism.
Gray, John. Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2003.
Gray’s criticism of humanism and exploration of the indifference of nature resonates with EFIList ideas on the inevitability of suffering in life.
Parfit, Derek. Reasons and Persons. Oxford University Press, 1984.
Parfit’s discussions on identity, ethics, and future suffering align with the moral concerns EFILism addresses, especially regarding the ethics of procreation and existence.
Gloor, Lukas J., and Tomasik, Brian. Foundational Research Institute: Suffering-Focused Ethics. Foundational Research Institute.
This organization promotes suffering-focused ethics, a philosophical approach compatible with EFILism’s goals of harm reduction and ethical consideration of all sentient beings.
Pinker, Steven. Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress. Viking, 2018.
While Pinker’s optimistic view of progress contrasts with EFILism, understanding these arguments provides context and counterpoints, helping refine and situate EFILism within broader ethical discourse.
Harman, Elizabeth. “The Ethics of Creating People.” Philosophical Perspectives 18, no. 1 (2004): 207-223.
Harman’s work questions the ethics of creating new lives and provides arguments that can help clarify EFIList concerns about the moral implications of procreation.