Efilism

What do lains think about efilism? https://efilism.fandom.com/wiki/Efilism_Wiki

Writer starts with life is an accident free of intent but then he continues to make subjective value judgements claiming to be correct. Also all suicide cults are self-defeating. Of course only pro life remain. The others are already dead.

>>31359 Well, you could point where author is wrong if you think so. Efilism is not about suicide, although most efilists support right to die. It is clear that suicide does not solve the problem and someone has to do some work to make a change.

The article you posted reads like it was written by a high school student... It doesnt even explain why the "dna experiment" needs a reason to continue. Seems like some cheap aesthetics glued onto anti-natalism for people to supplement their empty lives with, i bet they even have a d**ord where young men posts memes and jerk off to how radially anti-dna they are.

First world problems. Imagine being triggered by sentience.

>>31355 This seems like VHEMT but with a philosophical rather than environmentalist bent.

>assigning morality to nature This is about where I gave up. like other lains have said, it sounds like a very immature wordview to have. Nature is neither moral nor immoral as morality is associated with sociocultural norms. from the page >Nature is more sadistic than every slaughterhouse, mass murderer, animal holocauster, serial rapist, factory farm, concentration camp, psychotic dictator & torturer in history combined, by a margin of "trillions of trillions". I genuinely chuckled at this, the way I see it, nature is indifferent. The world will go on despite the existence of soykafty people. Likewise soykafty people are not a result of "nature" but rather as a result of how their bilogical and social needs are met or not met by their communities. The sea does not care if a man is drowning, it simply continues its motion until the sun will burn out and the earth ceases to exist. EFILism seems to imply that the sea would have malicious intent to harm a drowning man, and thus the suffering is a result of a "sadistic nature." It sounds like nihilism/antinatalism rooted in scientific doom scenarios which are somehow supposed to imply that life itself was a mistake. As far as the right to death thing goes, Asherspace (ASHers) summarized it better- society creates compulsory life, and people are compelled to "not die" instead of being presented with the option to live or die of their own free will.

Not a fan. EFILism has always seemed to me to be a poor attempt at making antinatalist philosophy grounded in science and backed by observations in biology, and thus paint it as "objectively correct". EFILism's approach is flawed for reasons that others have already pointed out in the thread. That said, I support antinatalism. Keeping the discussion on the ethics of having children to the realm of philosophy and relying on logical arguments is a much better way to go around doing things.

>>31378 I wish aliens came here and genocided humanity

Sounds like it could potentially become like a suicide or death cult. I mean what's the cure for sentience? Getting lobotomized perhaps?

I like how it is written "The God is dead" in the very first paragraph of article and then author proceeds to judge whole Universe from the point of view of Christian morality, talking about what's good and what's bad, best and worst. Though he points at Nietzsche and seems to deny there is any "good" or "bad" in life, he still uses the very same concept to judge other morals and religion to finally come to the conclusion that "life is bad", using synonyms like "life is a nightmare", i.e "life is bad" because it causes you to suffer. "To make the madness stop", what is even madness, can't author see it's a very subjective definition? For the DNA being so stupid and mad he still trusts it to write this article and promote his worldview to others? Even continuing to play author's game, his solution is to "build ourselves a graceful exit". If life is so awful, won't we build ourselves an exit sooner or later, and since we definitely will or will simply cease to exist, what's the point of accelerating it, why won't you cease your own life and be done with it? For the sake of others? Why does author care about others so much, though, if there is no value in life and we are the mistake? Why author cares about harm? What is a harm if a harm only exists in our minds, and our minds are a mistake? It's self-defeating and utterly stupid, because it's based on the contradiction to itself. It's all just layers of sophisms piled up on each other into a great wall of text.

>>31387 >I mean what's the cure for sentience? Getting lobotomized perhaps? SSRIs. You can't go to work with a lobotomy.

Kind of interesting, but juvenile. And ultimately it's just posturing. Literally nobody is ever going to succeed at this. DNA might not have a purpose or conscious, goal-oriented design, but the code that's still around is very very good at one thing and one thing only: keeping itself around and making copies. No philosopher has any hope of ever convincing it not to. Sorry, your symbolic language doesn't override the real chemical language our bodies are built of and designed to obey. Maybe you'll kill yourself, maybe even convince a few followers to—but that's fuarrrkin nothing, drop in the ocean. Goodbye. >>31359 Exactly; suicide cults leave the survivors who didn't have the defective meme. The others continue on as they always have. This mirrors the way DNA works too: the survivors, by definition and not design, don't have the defective gene. The others continue on. To make a value judgement about the teenage epiphany that life doesn't really have any meaning is just such a lame, baby-brained take. Yeah, you are correct. But it's not useful in any way and it doesn't interest people (at least not ones who have graduated high school) and it doesn't make anyone happy. So nobody's going to be on board dude, sorry.

>>31355 The author's right, it's horrific that we're all just slaves to DNA but it's also the fact of reality. if Idiocracy scares you, and you kill yourself without reproducing, you are doing everything in your power to maximally contribute to it by selecting the next generation against people who don't want it. See also >>31413 and https://squirrelinhell.blogspot.com/2017/05/philosophical-parenthood.html suicide cults defeat their ideals at the mere timescale of 100y, unless they have mitigations against doing so (which I don't see in mr anti-DNA's plans)

>>31414 why the focus on DNA? Even DNA is just the result of the laws of physics that manifested in the universes creation. Why not agonize over the principle of energy conservation?

>>31414 Just read the article, and I'm still digesting it. Part of this argument reminds me of why the childfree lifestyle feels like a form of memetic suicide. Aside from the question of lineage, a properly raised family can be used as a vector for ideas, and it's pretty much the only way a person can have a real "legacy" without being famous. Rather than simply the idea "smart people must outbreed stupid people" it's more that "smart people must spread their ideas, which is more easily done through family" and "stupid people having kids will easily pass on regressive or malformed ideas". Though obviously simply being childfree isn't as harmful as a suicide cult (the latter is actively harmful to others and can instantly discredit every single on of your ideas for most people), but both do stunt the memetic potential for most people.

>>31355 A lack of reason for existence is immaterial. Reason is a tool, and I don't need to use it if I don't want to. I'm going to eventually die, but if others want to die or otherwise get out of my way to make my own pursuit, however mindless it may be, easier, then I welcome it to the extent it doesn't cause me problems.

>>31388 thank you for summarizing >>31564 I'm in complete agreement, pic related