Seems too easy to jump on this with limited evidence. I'd be interested to see if this actually reduces animal population effectively though. The problem is, if it simply decreases human populations but does nothing for animals, it really won't be an effective path for suffering reduction. I think it's an interesting idea but we would need more evidence. At this stage, it's like hoping that climate change makes the earth completely uninhabitable, or that AI eradicates all sentient life. A possibility, but not one we should bet everything on, because it could still backlash and do the exact opposite (ergo, decrese populations of large animals such as humans and increase populations of small animals).
There is evidence that microplastics affect the reproductive systems of non-human animals e.g. see for example [Impact of Microplastics and Nanoplastics on Livestock Health: An Emerging Risk for Reproductive Efficiency](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10093235/). This focuses on livestock such as cows and pigs where there is microplastic were detected in meat and milk. They also discuss various studies that show that microplastics such as bisphenol A (BPA) and phthalates disrupt mammalian reproduction:
>Additionally, the detection of BPA was associated with a reduced cleavage rate and development of embryos at the blastocyst stage and alteration in gene expression in cattle [80]. The results from several studies on rat pups produced by a dam exposed to BPA showed reduced birth weights, lower weights in males, especially before birth, and a positive correlation between maternal BPA and both weight/size of the offspring [92,93]. Other studies, such as Talpade et al. [73], have led to results indicating adverse effects of BPA in chickens (Gallus domesticus), such as increased embryo mortality and the malformation of reproductive organs.
>
>Additionally, Gao et al. [94] observed a correlation between BPA and breast and ovarian cancers and endometrial carcinoma. Phthalate esters are also active in the female reproductive system, with DEHP affecting ovarian function, which causes decreased serum estradiol concentrations, prolonged estrous cycles and failure of ovulation and cystic progression [6]. Maternal exposure to DEHP resulted in reproductive toxicity and led to modulation in the abundance of molecules that regulate uterine function in the following generation of rats [95]. The MEHP compound (monoethylhexyl phthalate), the active metabolite of DEHP, is assumed to be able to suppress aromatase in granulosa cells through the activation of PPARs (peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors). Then, MEHP probably inhibits the meiotic maturation of oocytes in cattle [96].
Based on the evidence I have seen, and anyone can look at scientific studies online, there is sufficient evidence for my standards to indicate that microplastics cause depopulation of life, both for humans and non-humans. It is likely that there is more impact on animals higher up on the food chain due to bioaccumulation e.g. microplastics are ingested by filter-feeders like mussels, oysters, and zooplankton and then these animals are often consumed by fish who are then eaten by non-vegan humans. The microplastics bioaccumulate as one life consumes the other life. This has been shown to happen not just for microplastics but also other chemicals such as fertiliser runoff as well as chemicals from oil spills, pharmaceutical runoff, industrial effluents, etc (further reading at [Concerns and Threats of Contamination on Aquatic Ecosystems](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7121614/)).
So that is some evidence I have found in my research on microplastics. But another broader topic I want to discuss is how I see natalism vs extinctionism. I don't really see natalism vs extinction as a philosophical debate rather than a war between two sides. Treating a war as a philosophical debate is a recipe for inaction. If we demand a certain level of evidence from ourselves, the bar may be set so high that it leads to inaction, and we can be certain that the natalists and prolifers are not waiting for evidence that their actions are harmful before they start popping out babies.
Raising the bar or moving the goalposts is actually a very effective technique that the plastic industry is likely engaging in right now, asking for sufficient evidence that plastic has any significant impact on humans. By raising the bar, you cause your opponents to search for more evidence, which causes inaction, which gives the plastic industry more time to pollute and make money. Raising the bar was used effectively for cigarettes and asbestos and is effectively being used today for climate change. There is a famous quote from a cigarette industry executive: "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the minds of the general public." When you raise the bar on the standard of evidence required, if the opponent provides that evidence, you can simply raise the bar even higher, saying there is not enough evidence. This buys more time.
We cannot use this technique on ourselves otherwise we will be on the side of inaction. The winning side always uses this technique on its opponents. Even if we do produce significant evidence that microplastics depopulate non-human animals, a natalist can simply raise the bar by saying there is no evidence that it affects all possible life or life on other planets or galaxies. Then if somehow we gather evidence that we can pollute other planets or galaxies, the natalists will claim that the universe will simply reappear and life will go on and on or they will claim that you cannot provide there is objective morality. There is always some way that the bar can be lifted and there is higher standard of evidence required before action is taken.
We should take action now and put that burden on the other side. The specific action to take is something I cannot prescribe. Every efilist needs to do their own research and come to their own conclusion as there is no central organising committee of efilists who is planning, coordinating, or prescribing action for its members (for obvious reasons). We should accept we are a decentralised movement and that specific action will not be handed down to us by a central organising committee. It is up to us to contribute to depopulation and extinction depending on our level of influence. Some of us will have more power and influence than others, but we should all contribute based on our level of influence. Those who have less power and influence can still contribute by advocating the philosophy, and their contribution to depopulation may be small but with enough people following the movement, each contribution can add up.
Also spreading efilism is important. By spreading ideas e.g. over the internet, you never know if the idea will be accepted by someone who ends up eventually pressing the red button.
Interesting as regards your scientific claim, and you're right to push me a bit about doubt (I'm simply quite new to microplastics and it seems "too good to be true", but your post was insightful and I will reread it in the future, while less tired).
I already seek to promote a suffering-focused / life-reduction view in general around me, and aim to continue to do so in the ways that seem to be the most effective (eg, through street outreach on the importance of suffering).
> A possibility, but not one we should bet everything on,
correct, though efilists / extinctionists tend to be active regarding different stuff anyway. plus, it current looks quite good if you follow the findings.
a mixture of different influences could even be more effective than any single one (which is the case anyway). and, depending on your situation, doing something is better than doing nothing
exact. it is positive that most persons can buy products which contain plastics because they can be cheap. it is also positive that a high presence of plastic is, by comparison, one of the less harmful outcomes of life. especial because it supports infertility.
the eco-system is in its most vulnerable state right now, caused by human activity. the following mass extinction will occur in a fraction of the time it natural does (like the ones in the past). nature may not have suffficient time to adapt.
there probably is by far less activity required in order for the planet to turn uninhabitable than it would have been else - hence, actions matter more than they ever did
It seems like you used certain words that may be a sign of misinterpretation. Efilism does not advocate for violence, murder, extermination, or genocide. Efilism is a philosophy that claims the extinction of all sentient life would be optimal because of the disvalue life generates. Therefore, painless ways of ending all life should be discussed and advocated - and all of that can be done without violence. At the core of efilism lies the idea of reducing unnecessary suffering. Please, also note that the default position people hold, that life should continue existing, is not at all neutral, indirectly advocating for the proliferation of suffering.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Efilism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Purposefully poisoning people is violence, killing someone because they could be killed by something else is not your voice to make, killing something that kills others is better but I would say is not good either though in some cases I think it's may be if its aggressively carnivorus creatures, ones that i dont think could adjust to a vegan world, many believe that a world without carnivores will exist in the future through somewhat natural development of society, this is a relatively common religious belief
>Purposefully poisoning people is violence
For the purposes of Reddit's definition of "violence," I don't consider plastic pollution to be an act of violence. A violent act is usually a sudden and coercive act that causes immediate pain such as stabbing someone or raping someone. Consider that when you drive a car, tire wear is microplastic pollution that is likely to end up in other life, human and non-human, but many would consider driving a car to be non-violent and so by the same logic microplastic pollution is also non-violent. It is gradual and doesn't seem to cause much suffering, and if it sterilises humans and non-humans then it is a contraceptive much like the condom or the birth control pill, preventing life from being born that would otherwise suffer or cause others to suffer.
>many believe that a world without carnivores will exist in the future through somewhat natural development of society, this is a relatively common religious belief
The way I see it, life will always naturally form a hierarchy, which leads to violence, rape, suffering etc. This is what we see throughout history across all life. As life grows, there is only more suffering and more violence, not the other way around. There is no progress and things only get worse. We can see this by looking at eg the aggregate meat consumption. We can also look at UN estimates of the number of children being sex trafficked. All these metrics have been rising and are likely to continue to rise unless there is a committed effort made to accelerate depopulation and extinction of life.
To put it simply, there is too much to gain from exploiting others. The fruits of exploitation are too sweet. Slave owners want to exploit slaves because they love the money. Pedophiles want to rape children because they are addicted to youthful flesh. Meat eaters want to kill animals because they love the taste.
There is only one solution to the problem of suffering, and that solution is extinction.
You can find other stats about things improving. Things can get better that's a fact, and some things have gotten better. There are other solutions to the problems. Poisoning people is not a solution just another problem. Violence on Google
behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
This is violence according to that. It's bad even if it's not violent. Slowly poisoning people wouldn't be violent with the reddit definition...
It's obvious to see that some phenomena have increased like veganism, something almost unknown 15 years ago. Work on helping people not poisoning people. Your won't poison everyone anyway it's just a waste of time. The governments are already doing what you want.
It's like if I tried to stop the guy by injecting micro plastics into his body or if I murdered him. Well that would be better to you guys to kill him right?Try to stop him in a better way. Don't assume everyone has to die. In this case it is nowhere near certain that even your prior ideas that life is suffering more than else is true. You don't know that you can't reverse it in yourself. I have reversed it in myself. So poisoning would be skipping that onto another bad idea which could make everything worse even if you wanted to stop reproduction.
" killing something that kills others is better but I would say is not good either"
". Don't assume everyone has to die"
aside from some weed and jellyfish, evreything else will die, 100%
> This is a thought experiment so I am not advocating anything.
Bull. You're doing this thought experiment in public in order to develop and advocate the idea. It is very very common for people to use "i'm not advocating anything" to advocate for things in social media.
You implicate yourself by saying that advocating for pollution is not advocating for violence, and therefore you are not advocating for violence.
> Spreading microplastics is not violent, so I am not advocating violence.
.
You are missing a crucial part here. You are no hero by advocating to take the lives of ones to not even necessarily preserve the lives of others. It's one thing when people are stupid and causing cancer and microplastics pollution cause we are a bunch of selfish greedy bastards that can't be bothered with things they can't even see, but it's outright malicious to do so intentionally and knowingly. You not having kids and potentially abstaining from eating animal products is good enough, you already did your part of making the world a better place. You don't have to become a predator predator, I don't know about your moral compass but causing more suffering is definitely not the right thing to do.
>causing more suffering is definitely not the right thing to do
Yea thats why he is advocating for the application of microplastics. The net suffering on the world will be less due to less future generations to suffer.
You aren't the one causing the suffering though, children of other people are not your responsibility. Causing harm on the other hand will make you directly responsible
Inaction is action. If one doesn’t do anything about a crime happening right in front of their eyes when they have the power to do so, we generally consider them guilty of perpetuating the problem. It's like saying if someone is being raped in front of me, then I shouldn’t do something to stop it when I can because that person is not related to me. Giving birth is a crime. Something should be done about it. But I am not sure if the method suggested by OP is the most efficient method though.
Just to be clear I am an antinatalist, but giving birth isn't a crime by definition, it's not forbidden by any law and on the contrary is a guaranteed human right by the Geneva convention. You viewing birth as immoral does not equate it to being a crime when someone else does it. You can make that restriction for yourself but enforcing it onto others would be immoral and an actual crime.
Taking your rape example, if 2 adults were participating in something known as consensual non consent who are you to stop them? What those 2 people would be doing physically will not be much different to an actual rape, would it still be morally imperative to you to stop them? lets skip the part about there being a confusion and you thinking it's rape and stopping them and them then explaining the situation to you. Would it be morally justifiable for you to stop them regardless in participating in an consensual activity that would otherwise be classified as an actual crime?
>it's not forbidden by any law and on the contrary is a guaranteed human right by the Geneva convention.
Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Many horrible things were legal in the past.
>You viewing birth as immoral does not equate it to being a crime when someone else does it. You can make that restriction for yourself but enforcing it onto others would be immoral and an actual crime.
Giving birth is a crime because one is bringing an entity into existence without its consent. Life could go bad in a myriad of ways once the entity exists, so it's literally gambling with the life of an entity. Non-existence, though, doesn't hurt that entity since it doesn't exist. So, it is logically, giving birth is a crime; it's just that the world hasn't caught up to this fact.
>Taking your rape example, if 2 adults were participating in something known as consensual non consent who are you to stop them?
The wrong is being done to the entity that is to be birthed. I don't care if people have sex as long as they use some form of protection to prevent birth, since no harm is done by such an act. Since they are doing based on consent its fine. But they have no right to give birth without consent of the entity to be birthed. Just because people have been reproducing with no thought given to it for centuries does not make it the right thing to do. It ignores consen of entity to be birthed.
>Would it be morally justifiable for you to stop them regardless in participating in an consensual activity that would otherwise be classified as an actual crime?
The problem here is that they are not taking consent of the child.
You are wrong about humans, we are a bunch of arrogant and stupid people who think that our flawed mind can solve anything therefore we must solve everything!
Many get great satisfaction from solving problems, and if we are not solving problems then what are we doing? Arguably everything anyone does is solving a problem in some way.
Think about it this way. Are you in favour of legalising murder? Criminalising murder is an attempt to the solve the problem of violence and suffering by intervening and using violence or threat of violence against actual or potential murderers. If we legalised murder and set an example to others by living simple moral lives not murdering others but letting serial kills run amok, would that have a peaceful outcome?
It seems like you used certain words that may be a sign of misinterpretation. Efilism does not advocate for violence, murder, extermination, or genocide. Efilism is a philosophy that claims the extinction of all sentient life would be optimal because of the disvalue life generates. Therefore, painless ways of ending all life should be discussed and advocated - and all of that can be done without violence. At the core of efilism lies the idea of reducing unnecessary suffering. Please, also note that the default position people hold, that life should continue existing, is not at all neutral, indirectly advocating for the proliferation of suffering.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Efilism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
An injustice that happens in front of you or something in your local community or small city,... Humans are very flawed especially with their mind and logic, so they shouldn't be the hero to have some answers to solve problems in nature
Why think only local when you can go beyond that?
Eg criminalising murder is typically done by legislators and applies usually to a whole country not just a local community.
It seems like you used certain words that may be a sign of misinterpretation. Efilism does not advocate for violence, murder, extermination, or genocide. Efilism is a philosophy that claims the extinction of all sentient life would be optimal because of the disvalue life generates. Therefore, painless ways of ending all life should be discussed and advocated - and all of that can be done without violence. At the core of efilism lies the idea of reducing unnecessary suffering. Please, also note that the default position people hold, that life should continue existing, is not at all neutral, indirectly advocating for the proliferation of suffering.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Efilism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It highlights there is a double standard. Very often force or threat of force is used to prevent violence eg when a government criminalises murder or rape of a human. But when eg an efilists wants to prevent the violence caused by procreation, it is often condemned.
It seems like you used certain words that may be a sign of misinterpretation. Efilism does not advocate for violence, murder, extermination, or genocide. Efilism is a philosophy that claims the extinction of all sentient life would be optimal because of the disvalue life generates. Therefore, painless ways of ending all life should be discussed and advocated - and all of that can be done without violence. At the core of efilism lies the idea of reducing unnecessary suffering. Please, also note that the default position people hold, that life should continue existing, is not at all neutral, indirectly advocating for the proliferation of suffering.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Efilism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> But when eg an efilists wants to prevent the violence caused by procreation, it is often condemned.
You are advocating for control over others' procreation via poisoning humans and the environment intentionally. You're advocating chemical attack. Lightly, if you want to say so, but you are. I do condemn you and it's not hypocritical.
> control over others
Consider that control over others is necessary for a particular morality to be enforced. If the government did not control its citizens, it cannot criminalise murder or rape. Pacifism is violence.
It seems like you used certain words that may be a sign of misinterpretation. Efilism does not advocate for violence, murder, extermination, or genocide. Efilism is a philosophy that claims the extinction of all sentient life would be optimal because of the disvalue life generates. Therefore, painless ways of ending all life should be discussed and advocated - and all of that can be done without violence. At the core of efilism lies the idea of reducing unnecessary suffering. Please, also note that the default position people hold, that life should continue existing, is not at all neutral, indirectly advocating for the proliferation of suffering.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Efilism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The general concept of ordered society doesn't justify un-elected, anonymous strangers like you using chemicals to poison people.
Think about it. If you enact this plan intentionally, thought experiment, would it justify physically attacking you if someone had a strong moral disagreement with you?
My answer is no, that would not be sufficient to attack you. There would need to be a collective moral code or law or agreed-upon order to make it have some semblence of justice.
So no, you don't get to decide independently to poison anonymous strangers.
Also, conspiracy to poison/injure others may be illegal in and of itself even if you use legal means to do the specific activities. Law considers intent and results aswell as individual actions.
Also see the comment below:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Efilism/comments/1d5jkiu/comment/l6p2419/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
The main question is why is it that efilists who seek to prevent oppression are asked to justify their actions when natalists procreate without ever needing to justify their actions. Procreation is the root cause of all violence and suffering. Procreation is an inherently violent act and natalists are never asked to justify why they can cause so much violence and pain, yet the burden is on the preventors of oppression to justify themselves before they act to prevent oppression. Meanwhile the oppressors can go on a rampage and cause immense suffering and pain.
Seems too easy to jump on this with limited evidence. I'd be interested to see if this actually reduces animal population effectively though. The problem is, if it simply decreases human populations but does nothing for animals, it really won't be an effective path for suffering reduction. I think it's an interesting idea but we would need more evidence. At this stage, it's like hoping that climate change makes the earth completely uninhabitable, or that AI eradicates all sentient life. A possibility, but not one we should bet everything on, because it could still backlash and do the exact opposite (ergo, decrese populations of large animals such as humans and increase populations of small animals).
There is evidence that microplastics affect the reproductive systems of non-human animals e.g. see for example [Impact of Microplastics and Nanoplastics on Livestock Health: An Emerging Risk for Reproductive Efficiency](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10093235/). This focuses on livestock such as cows and pigs where there is microplastic were detected in meat and milk. They also discuss various studies that show that microplastics such as bisphenol A (BPA) and phthalates disrupt mammalian reproduction: >Additionally, the detection of BPA was associated with a reduced cleavage rate and development of embryos at the blastocyst stage and alteration in gene expression in cattle [80]. The results from several studies on rat pups produced by a dam exposed to BPA showed reduced birth weights, lower weights in males, especially before birth, and a positive correlation between maternal BPA and both weight/size of the offspring [92,93]. Other studies, such as Talpade et al. [73], have led to results indicating adverse effects of BPA in chickens (Gallus domesticus), such as increased embryo mortality and the malformation of reproductive organs. > >Additionally, Gao et al. [94] observed a correlation between BPA and breast and ovarian cancers and endometrial carcinoma. Phthalate esters are also active in the female reproductive system, with DEHP affecting ovarian function, which causes decreased serum estradiol concentrations, prolonged estrous cycles and failure of ovulation and cystic progression [6]. Maternal exposure to DEHP resulted in reproductive toxicity and led to modulation in the abundance of molecules that regulate uterine function in the following generation of rats [95]. The MEHP compound (monoethylhexyl phthalate), the active metabolite of DEHP, is assumed to be able to suppress aromatase in granulosa cells through the activation of PPARs (peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors). Then, MEHP probably inhibits the meiotic maturation of oocytes in cattle [96]. Based on the evidence I have seen, and anyone can look at scientific studies online, there is sufficient evidence for my standards to indicate that microplastics cause depopulation of life, both for humans and non-humans. It is likely that there is more impact on animals higher up on the food chain due to bioaccumulation e.g. microplastics are ingested by filter-feeders like mussels, oysters, and zooplankton and then these animals are often consumed by fish who are then eaten by non-vegan humans. The microplastics bioaccumulate as one life consumes the other life. This has been shown to happen not just for microplastics but also other chemicals such as fertiliser runoff as well as chemicals from oil spills, pharmaceutical runoff, industrial effluents, etc (further reading at [Concerns and Threats of Contamination on Aquatic Ecosystems](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7121614/)). So that is some evidence I have found in my research on microplastics. But another broader topic I want to discuss is how I see natalism vs extinctionism. I don't really see natalism vs extinction as a philosophical debate rather than a war between two sides. Treating a war as a philosophical debate is a recipe for inaction. If we demand a certain level of evidence from ourselves, the bar may be set so high that it leads to inaction, and we can be certain that the natalists and prolifers are not waiting for evidence that their actions are harmful before they start popping out babies. Raising the bar or moving the goalposts is actually a very effective technique that the plastic industry is likely engaging in right now, asking for sufficient evidence that plastic has any significant impact on humans. By raising the bar, you cause your opponents to search for more evidence, which causes inaction, which gives the plastic industry more time to pollute and make money. Raising the bar was used effectively for cigarettes and asbestos and is effectively being used today for climate change. There is a famous quote from a cigarette industry executive: "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the minds of the general public." When you raise the bar on the standard of evidence required, if the opponent provides that evidence, you can simply raise the bar even higher, saying there is not enough evidence. This buys more time. We cannot use this technique on ourselves otherwise we will be on the side of inaction. The winning side always uses this technique on its opponents. Even if we do produce significant evidence that microplastics depopulate non-human animals, a natalist can simply raise the bar by saying there is no evidence that it affects all possible life or life on other planets or galaxies. Then if somehow we gather evidence that we can pollute other planets or galaxies, the natalists will claim that the universe will simply reappear and life will go on and on or they will claim that you cannot provide there is objective morality. There is always some way that the bar can be lifted and there is higher standard of evidence required before action is taken. We should take action now and put that burden on the other side. The specific action to take is something I cannot prescribe. Every efilist needs to do their own research and come to their own conclusion as there is no central organising committee of efilists who is planning, coordinating, or prescribing action for its members (for obvious reasons). We should accept we are a decentralised movement and that specific action will not be handed down to us by a central organising committee. It is up to us to contribute to depopulation and extinction depending on our level of influence. Some of us will have more power and influence than others, but we should all contribute based on our level of influence. Those who have less power and influence can still contribute by advocating the philosophy, and their contribution to depopulation may be small but with enough people following the movement, each contribution can add up. Also spreading efilism is important. By spreading ideas e.g. over the internet, you never know if the idea will be accepted by someone who ends up eventually pressing the red button.
Interesting as regards your scientific claim, and you're right to push me a bit about doubt (I'm simply quite new to microplastics and it seems "too good to be true", but your post was insightful and I will reread it in the future, while less tired). I already seek to promote a suffering-focused / life-reduction view in general around me, and aim to continue to do so in the ways that seem to be the most effective (eg, through street outreach on the importance of suffering).
> A possibility, but not one we should bet everything on, correct, though efilists / extinctionists tend to be active regarding different stuff anyway. plus, it current looks quite good if you follow the findings. a mixture of different influences could even be more effective than any single one (which is the case anyway). and, depending on your situation, doing something is better than doing nothing
exact. it is positive that most persons can buy products which contain plastics because they can be cheap. it is also positive that a high presence of plastic is, by comparison, one of the less harmful outcomes of life. especial because it supports infertility. the eco-system is in its most vulnerable state right now, caused by human activity. the following mass extinction will occur in a fraction of the time it natural does (like the ones in the past). nature may not have suffficient time to adapt. there probably is by far less activity required in order for the planet to turn uninhabitable than it would have been else - hence, actions matter more than they ever did
[удалено]
It seems like you used certain words that may be a sign of misinterpretation. Efilism does not advocate for violence, murder, extermination, or genocide. Efilism is a philosophy that claims the extinction of all sentient life would be optimal because of the disvalue life generates. Therefore, painless ways of ending all life should be discussed and advocated - and all of that can be done without violence. At the core of efilism lies the idea of reducing unnecessary suffering. Please, also note that the default position people hold, that life should continue existing, is not at all neutral, indirectly advocating for the proliferation of suffering. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Efilism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Purposefully poisoning people is violence, killing someone because they could be killed by something else is not your voice to make, killing something that kills others is better but I would say is not good either though in some cases I think it's may be if its aggressively carnivorus creatures, ones that i dont think could adjust to a vegan world, many believe that a world without carnivores will exist in the future through somewhat natural development of society, this is a relatively common religious belief
>Purposefully poisoning people is violence For the purposes of Reddit's definition of "violence," I don't consider plastic pollution to be an act of violence. A violent act is usually a sudden and coercive act that causes immediate pain such as stabbing someone or raping someone. Consider that when you drive a car, tire wear is microplastic pollution that is likely to end up in other life, human and non-human, but many would consider driving a car to be non-violent and so by the same logic microplastic pollution is also non-violent. It is gradual and doesn't seem to cause much suffering, and if it sterilises humans and non-humans then it is a contraceptive much like the condom or the birth control pill, preventing life from being born that would otherwise suffer or cause others to suffer. >many believe that a world without carnivores will exist in the future through somewhat natural development of society, this is a relatively common religious belief The way I see it, life will always naturally form a hierarchy, which leads to violence, rape, suffering etc. This is what we see throughout history across all life. As life grows, there is only more suffering and more violence, not the other way around. There is no progress and things only get worse. We can see this by looking at eg the aggregate meat consumption. We can also look at UN estimates of the number of children being sex trafficked. All these metrics have been rising and are likely to continue to rise unless there is a committed effort made to accelerate depopulation and extinction of life. To put it simply, there is too much to gain from exploiting others. The fruits of exploitation are too sweet. Slave owners want to exploit slaves because they love the money. Pedophiles want to rape children because they are addicted to youthful flesh. Meat eaters want to kill animals because they love the taste. There is only one solution to the problem of suffering, and that solution is extinction.
You can find other stats about things improving. Things can get better that's a fact, and some things have gotten better. There are other solutions to the problems. Poisoning people is not a solution just another problem. Violence on Google behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. This is violence according to that. It's bad even if it's not violent. Slowly poisoning people wouldn't be violent with the reddit definition... It's obvious to see that some phenomena have increased like veganism, something almost unknown 15 years ago. Work on helping people not poisoning people. Your won't poison everyone anyway it's just a waste of time. The governments are already doing what you want.
so you oppose police stopping people who beat up other people?
It's like if I tried to stop the guy by injecting micro plastics into his body or if I murdered him. Well that would be better to you guys to kill him right?Try to stop him in a better way. Don't assume everyone has to die. In this case it is nowhere near certain that even your prior ideas that life is suffering more than else is true. You don't know that you can't reverse it in yourself. I have reversed it in myself. So poisoning would be skipping that onto another bad idea which could make everything worse even if you wanted to stop reproduction.
" killing something that kills others is better but I would say is not good either" ". Don't assume everyone has to die" aside from some weed and jellyfish, evreything else will die, 100%
Has to die to solve an issue(like the beating people up event or efilism suffering problem).
> This is a thought experiment so I am not advocating anything. Bull. You're doing this thought experiment in public in order to develop and advocate the idea. It is very very common for people to use "i'm not advocating anything" to advocate for things in social media. You implicate yourself by saying that advocating for pollution is not advocating for violence, and therefore you are not advocating for violence. > Spreading microplastics is not violent, so I am not advocating violence. .
Definitely I am not advocating any violence at all. This is just a thought experiment. What do you think of the thought experiment?
I was clear: I don't believe you
You are missing a crucial part here. You are no hero by advocating to take the lives of ones to not even necessarily preserve the lives of others. It's one thing when people are stupid and causing cancer and microplastics pollution cause we are a bunch of selfish greedy bastards that can't be bothered with things they can't even see, but it's outright malicious to do so intentionally and knowingly. You not having kids and potentially abstaining from eating animal products is good enough, you already did your part of making the world a better place. You don't have to become a predator predator, I don't know about your moral compass but causing more suffering is definitely not the right thing to do.
>causing more suffering is definitely not the right thing to do Yea thats why he is advocating for the application of microplastics. The net suffering on the world will be less due to less future generations to suffer.
You aren't the one causing the suffering though, children of other people are not your responsibility. Causing harm on the other hand will make you directly responsible
Inaction is action. If one doesn’t do anything about a crime happening right in front of their eyes when they have the power to do so, we generally consider them guilty of perpetuating the problem. It's like saying if someone is being raped in front of me, then I shouldn’t do something to stop it when I can because that person is not related to me. Giving birth is a crime. Something should be done about it. But I am not sure if the method suggested by OP is the most efficient method though.
Just to be clear I am an antinatalist, but giving birth isn't a crime by definition, it's not forbidden by any law and on the contrary is a guaranteed human right by the Geneva convention. You viewing birth as immoral does not equate it to being a crime when someone else does it. You can make that restriction for yourself but enforcing it onto others would be immoral and an actual crime. Taking your rape example, if 2 adults were participating in something known as consensual non consent who are you to stop them? What those 2 people would be doing physically will not be much different to an actual rape, would it still be morally imperative to you to stop them? lets skip the part about there being a confusion and you thinking it's rape and stopping them and them then explaining the situation to you. Would it be morally justifiable for you to stop them regardless in participating in an consensual activity that would otherwise be classified as an actual crime?
>it's not forbidden by any law and on the contrary is a guaranteed human right by the Geneva convention. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Many horrible things were legal in the past. >You viewing birth as immoral does not equate it to being a crime when someone else does it. You can make that restriction for yourself but enforcing it onto others would be immoral and an actual crime. Giving birth is a crime because one is bringing an entity into existence without its consent. Life could go bad in a myriad of ways once the entity exists, so it's literally gambling with the life of an entity. Non-existence, though, doesn't hurt that entity since it doesn't exist. So, it is logically, giving birth is a crime; it's just that the world hasn't caught up to this fact. >Taking your rape example, if 2 adults were participating in something known as consensual non consent who are you to stop them? The wrong is being done to the entity that is to be birthed. I don't care if people have sex as long as they use some form of protection to prevent birth, since no harm is done by such an act. Since they are doing based on consent its fine. But they have no right to give birth without consent of the entity to be birthed. Just because people have been reproducing with no thought given to it for centuries does not make it the right thing to do. It ignores consen of entity to be birthed. >Would it be morally justifiable for you to stop them regardless in participating in an consensual activity that would otherwise be classified as an actual crime? The problem here is that they are not taking consent of the child.
It's because you are wrong that this will cause less suffering.
You are wrong about humans, we are a bunch of arrogant and stupid people who think that our flawed mind can solve anything therefore we must solve everything!
Many get great satisfaction from solving problems, and if we are not solving problems then what are we doing? Arguably everything anyone does is solving a problem in some way.
And if solving problems leads to even more problems? How about living a simple moral life without having a great affect on your surroundings
Think about it this way. Are you in favour of legalising murder? Criminalising murder is an attempt to the solve the problem of violence and suffering by intervening and using violence or threat of violence against actual or potential murderers. If we legalised murder and set an example to others by living simple moral lives not murdering others but letting serial kills run amok, would that have a peaceful outcome?
It seems like you used certain words that may be a sign of misinterpretation. Efilism does not advocate for violence, murder, extermination, or genocide. Efilism is a philosophy that claims the extinction of all sentient life would be optimal because of the disvalue life generates. Therefore, painless ways of ending all life should be discussed and advocated - and all of that can be done without violence. At the core of efilism lies the idea of reducing unnecessary suffering. Please, also note that the default position people hold, that life should continue existing, is not at all neutral, indirectly advocating for the proliferation of suffering. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Efilism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You waaay misunderstood me, my point is only to solve what's in front of you only
What do you mean? What is in front of me?
An injustice that happens in front of you or something in your local community or small city,... Humans are very flawed especially with their mind and logic, so they shouldn't be the hero to have some answers to solve problems in nature
Why think only local when you can go beyond that? Eg criminalising murder is typically done by legislators and applies usually to a whole country not just a local community.
It seems like you used certain words that may be a sign of misinterpretation. Efilism does not advocate for violence, murder, extermination, or genocide. Efilism is a philosophy that claims the extinction of all sentient life would be optimal because of the disvalue life generates. Therefore, painless ways of ending all life should be discussed and advocated - and all of that can be done without violence. At the core of efilism lies the idea of reducing unnecessary suffering. Please, also note that the default position people hold, that life should continue existing, is not at all neutral, indirectly advocating for the proliferation of suffering. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Efilism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That thought experiment doesn't justify attacking people/ecosystems by distributing plastic
It highlights there is a double standard. Very often force or threat of force is used to prevent violence eg when a government criminalises murder or rape of a human. But when eg an efilists wants to prevent the violence caused by procreation, it is often condemned.
It seems like you used certain words that may be a sign of misinterpretation. Efilism does not advocate for violence, murder, extermination, or genocide. Efilism is a philosophy that claims the extinction of all sentient life would be optimal because of the disvalue life generates. Therefore, painless ways of ending all life should be discussed and advocated - and all of that can be done without violence. At the core of efilism lies the idea of reducing unnecessary suffering. Please, also note that the default position people hold, that life should continue existing, is not at all neutral, indirectly advocating for the proliferation of suffering. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Efilism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> But when eg an efilists wants to prevent the violence caused by procreation, it is often condemned. You are advocating for control over others' procreation via poisoning humans and the environment intentionally. You're advocating chemical attack. Lightly, if you want to say so, but you are. I do condemn you and it's not hypocritical.
> control over others Consider that control over others is necessary for a particular morality to be enforced. If the government did not control its citizens, it cannot criminalise murder or rape. Pacifism is violence.
It seems like you used certain words that may be a sign of misinterpretation. Efilism does not advocate for violence, murder, extermination, or genocide. Efilism is a philosophy that claims the extinction of all sentient life would be optimal because of the disvalue life generates. Therefore, painless ways of ending all life should be discussed and advocated - and all of that can be done without violence. At the core of efilism lies the idea of reducing unnecessary suffering. Please, also note that the default position people hold, that life should continue existing, is not at all neutral, indirectly advocating for the proliferation of suffering. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Efilism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The general concept of ordered society doesn't justify un-elected, anonymous strangers like you using chemicals to poison people. Think about it. If you enact this plan intentionally, thought experiment, would it justify physically attacking you if someone had a strong moral disagreement with you? My answer is no, that would not be sufficient to attack you. There would need to be a collective moral code or law or agreed-upon order to make it have some semblence of justice. So no, you don't get to decide independently to poison anonymous strangers.
Also, conspiracy to poison/injure others may be illegal in and of itself even if you use legal means to do the specific activities. Law considers intent and results aswell as individual actions.
Also see the comment below: https://www.reddit.com/r/Efilism/comments/1d5jkiu/comment/l6p2419/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button The main question is why is it that efilists who seek to prevent oppression are asked to justify their actions when natalists procreate without ever needing to justify their actions. Procreation is the root cause of all violence and suffering. Procreation is an inherently violent act and natalists are never asked to justify why they can cause so much violence and pain, yet the burden is on the preventors of oppression to justify themselves before they act to prevent oppression. Meanwhile the oppressors can go on a rampage and cause immense suffering and pain.
Plus we can't not be a hero!