What is efilism?
Definition
Efilism is a philosophical position that holds that existence is, on balance, a harm and that the best outcome for sentient beings would be the eventual cessation of all life because this would eliminate suffering [3]. The word is simply “life” spelled backward, reflecting the view that the usual affirmative attitude toward life should be inverted.
Origin of the Term
The label emerged in online discussions in the late 2000s and early 2010s, particularly around the YouTube personality known as “Inmendham,” who argued that the problem is not just procreation but the very mechanics of biological life itself [2]. Because the term was coined in informal internet venues, there is no single canonical author.
Relation to Antinatalism
Antinatalism argues that bringing new sentient beings into existence is morally wrong, mainly because of the suffering it entails [2]. Efilism accepts that claim but goes further:
- Antinatalism: focuses on stopping human reproduction.
- Efilism: extends the concern to all sentient life, contending that nature’s reproductive processes inevitably create net suffering, so total extinction of sentient life is considered desirable [2][3].
Key Ideas
- Sentient experience contains more pain than pleasure; therefore coming into existence is always a net harm [3].
- Evolutionary processes guarantee predation, disease, and other harms, making suffering structural rather than accidental [2].
- Because non-existent beings cannot be harmed, ending the chain of reproduction (and eventually all life) would minimize total suffering [2][3].
- Some advocates discuss hypothetical large-scale interventions (e.g., technological self-extinction or cosmic sterilization), though there is no consensus on methods [2].
Public Discourse and Controversies
Efilism remains a fringe view but occasionally enters wider discussion:
- Academic and popular treatments of antinatalism sometimes mention efilism as a “radical” extension [2].
- A 2023 blog post reported that a self-identified efilist attacked a fertility clinic, prompting debate about whether the philosophy encourages violence or was merely invoked by an individual actor [1]. The post condemns the act and notes that most people who use the label do not advocate terrorism, though it questions whether the ideology might inspire extreme deeds.
- Critics argue that efilism undervalues positive experiences and ignores potential future reductions in suffering; supporters reply that even large future gains cannot compensate for unavoidable harms built into biology [2][3].
Because the existing literature is sparse and much of the discussion occurs online, definitions and emphases can vary. The blog source emphasizes the danger of violent interpretation [1], whereas the encyclopedia and lexicon sources present it primarily as a theoretical stance [2][3].
See Also
Antinatalism Negative utilitarianism Extinction ethics
Sources
- default.blog, “An efilist just bombed a fertility clinic” (2023). The post offers a journalistic account and commentary; it portrays efilism as a possible motivator for violence. https://default.blog/p/an-efilist-just-bombed-a-fertility
- Wikipedia, “Antinatalism,” section “Related positions,” sub-section “Efilism.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism
- Wiktionary, “efilism,” definition and etymology. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/efilism
Note on disagreements: Source 1 frames efilism mainly through the lens of a violent incident, implying potential for extremism, while Sources 2 and 3 provide neutral descriptive definitions without linking the philosophy to violence.