FAQ

Q: What exactly is Efilism?

 * 1) Efilism is an explicandum and explicans of the entire universe.
 * 2) Efilism is a philosophy of Absolute Antinatalism.

Q: What does that mean?

 * 1) Efilism forms an objective framework for reality, to account for anything relevant that could arise and challenge it.
 * 2) Efilism concludes the case for Antinatalism in absolute terms. Among other things, it does this by freeing Antinatalism from all human-centric, moralistic, subjectivist, normative, anti-realist, dualist, fideist, and deontic constraints. This allows Antinatalism's veracity to be concluded regardless of, and in the face of, every single counter-argument dealing with those concepts.

Q: Where did Efilism originate?
One philosopher, who is under the aliases of Inmendham and DoNotGod and DraftScience, has coined this philosophy & backed it up with 12+ years and 6000+ videos of demonstrations and explanations.

Q: What is the main difference between Efilism and Antinatalism?

 * 1) Literally and conceptually: antinatalism is opposition to life-creation.
 * 2) Philosophically and logically: antinatalism is opposition to life-creation, from realizing the negative value and/or the insanity, which is consequent to and comprised of life-creation.
 * 3) Efilism is the logical conclusion of antinatalism, a model of the universe, and a theory of everything. Antinatalism is just attached as one of Efilism's main hydra heads during this battle of truth against the world, and competing "reality models".

A: It grants Antinatalism immunity to all deontic counter-arguments. Which includes the entire domain of subjectivist and armchair philosophy.
Consider even the vogue sophisticated counter-arguments raised against Antinatalism, like the precious is/ought gap or the naturalistic fallacy. Efilism correctly flips that fallacy onto natalism and closes the case. IE: "Can breed doesn't equal ought to breed, goodbye." There will be no citing of "is/oughts" that allow natalism to squirm free here: https://efilism.fandom.com/wiki/Objective_Truth

A: It grants Antinatalism immunity to myopic and insufficient logic.
This refutes human-centered models of reality and half-baked solutions (such as environmentalism, population management, human extinction, etc.) These theories are a form of hypocrisy and fallacy known as "parochialism" and none of them have made a case for DNA continuance; they are often just a rationalization for DNA negligence: https://efilism.fandom.com/wiki/Philosophy_Arena#Parochialism

A: It bridges an old gap with a much stronger material than ever before.
Crucial distinction has been raised in this whole debate, about how Objective Value is not necessarily tied to Objective Ethics. The suggestion that even if there's a case for Objective Value, that's technically not enough for the case of ethical imperative, or bridging a gap between prescriptive vs descriptive, or actually doing anything about anything.

Efilism surmounts that obstacle for a few prime reasons: To accomplish this, first convert the entire morals/ethics equation into a 3rd-person equation that removes all incoherent and ill-defined baggage that goes with folk conceptions, and also explains what's even happening with any of this on a real universal objective systematic level. Observe the following:
 * 1) Because Efilism can be applied to the DNA predicament in a solution-oriented and harm-conscientious way, that is demonstrably more rational and soluble than any alternative option
 * 2) Because we can guarantee the absolute elimination of life does solve every problem and harm that life could possibly be concerned with
 * 3) We will prove that "actually doing something about anything" is essential to rationality

 First  reduction pass, this entire equation is just a matter of: There's nothing outside or between that, which could be relevant to ethics, morals, or anything else. If something is not problematic or soluble, then it consequently has zero possible relevance to anything. And that is absolutely certain, we can guarantee this and that nobody could challenge it. Because if there's zero reason to do something, or zero method to do something, then it cannot possibly be relevant, because correctly, there's nothing that can be done about it.
 * 1) Creating problems and errors
 * 2) Eliminating problems and errors

 Second  reduction pass, wrap everything into explicandum and explicans: And this is why the obstacle and gap is defeated, because there is also need for Because elimination of error is what rationality is''. As for anything that exists outside of rationality, here is the explanation for that, what exactly constitutes the very fact of error'': https://efilism.fandom.com/wiki/Philosophy_Arena#Objective_Errors_.2F_Objective_Problems
 * 1) Problems and errors, is the explicandum
 * 2) Removing the problems and errors, is the explicans
 * 3) The conscious recognition and solution of a problem, is the closed-concept consequence of rationality 
 * 1) A duty of rationality
 * 2) A prescriptive of rationality

Q: How is it possible to consider anything rational, or to prove it one way or the other?
A: This is the wrong way to phrase the question but close. The real question is: How is it possible for rationality to emerge out of the blunder of chaos? Here is the answer, and it's for the same reason living functions can emerge, despite the fact that living functions are all made 100% from dead elementary particles (meaning protons, chemicals, etc.): https://efilism.fandom.com/wiki/Philosophy_Arena#Analog_Bits_and_Digital_Bits

Q: How is it possible to conclude that elimination of life is an objective solution to an objective problem?
A: Here's a hint:
 * 1) Even needing joy and positives is a problem -- not a solution.
 * 2) Even needing to survive is a problem -- not a solution.
 * 3) And necessarily, if there is no problem-haver, there can be no problem.
 * 4) Here's the rest of the answer:
 * https://efilism.fandom.com/wiki/Objective_Value#Identical.2C_Distinct.2C_and_Static_Value_-_Ethical_Conclusion_of_Life
 * https://efilism.fandom.com/wiki/Objective_Value#Double-Action_Failsafe_and_Solution

Q: I found a contradiction, by eliminating life, you're not just eliminating error, you're also eliminating rationality.
A: On the contrary: Rationality is only useful when there are errors/problems. If you eliminate the errors/problems, then it cannot possibly matter that rationality doesn't exist. Because rationality doesn't do anything but solve errors and it doesn't constitute anything but the solution of errors. This results in the fact that rationality will necessarily disappear when you eliminate the errors corresponding it.

Q: I found a contradiction, by eliminating life, you're not eliminating all error, you're just eliminating the errors of life.
A: Yes, but it's not a contradiction because of this distinction: Life is when innocuous error turns into catastrophic error. Efilism's solution is to eliminate catastrophic error -- because innocuous error is innocuous. Without a technological singularity, absolute universal destablization, or entropic heat-death type of scenario, it's not possible to eliminate all innocuous error. See the following section for a start-to-finish explanation, which also coincides with the previous point about why we can't eliminate catastrophic error without also eliminating rational function: https://efilism.fandom.com/wiki/Philosophy_Arena#Absolute_Antinatalism

Essentially: absolute universal destabilization, permanent universal lockdown, absolute universal void, or *terminal stasis* (nothing ever happening ever again) is the only failsafe way to eliminate all innocuous error. https://efilism.fandom.com/wiki/Objective_Truth#Necessary_Truth

But elimination of catastrophic error is still sufficient, not only because innocuous error is innocuous, but because innocuous error will eliminate itself when the sun expands and eats the rest of Earth, then nomologically and finally, when the universe expands into entropic heat-death or similar destabilization and stasis. See: https://antinatalism.fandom.com/wiki/Antinatalist_arguments#Life_as_a_means_to_an_end

Q: What exactly is a catastrophic error?
A: Any form of anything that:

opens the potential for real harm,

especially to serve a need or fix a problem,

that the system(s) themselves are responsible for by merely existing / by fact of their own existence,

is when innocuous error turns into catastrophic error.

Q: What exactly is "real harm" and why/how can that be concluded to exist in our universe?
See here for the entire story: https://efilism.fandom.com/wiki/Objective_Value
 * 1) Negative Valence - (the apparent experience / recognized existence of real harm) - is the explicans
 * 2) Nociception - (the physical bits of matter and force responsible for creating real harm) - is the explicandum
 * 3) Transparency - (when any system reaches *Transparency*) - is when the closed-concept consequence of real harm officially emerges and gets knotted together in our universe.

Q: Why can't we separate rationality or life from catastrophic error?
For a multitude of reasons, here are Reasons Prime: In other words, rationality is only useful because problems exist, so if you get rid of its domain of problems, then it doesn't matter if rationality also goes with them, because it has no use without them) (Essentially, this entire rationality vs problems predicament is fatally self-defeating. And in the end, we're using meta-rationality to realize this and terminate it.) https://efilism.fandom.com/wiki/Objective_Value#Objective_Value_-_Advanced
 * 1) Security Philosophy (Conscious systems are devoid of a guaranteed failsafe, and do the exact opposite when they begin existing---they open the vault of catastrophe, and leave it hanging open for as long as they exist): https://efilism.fandom.com/wiki/Efilism_Wiki#Utopia_-_The_Final_Fallacy
 * 2) Negative Valence Qualia (Capacity for 'pain/real negatives') is tied to rationality itself. This is because of an ironic circumstance of these systems creating the problems they're trying to solve (realize that when you're trying to escape pain, your brain itself is creating that pain, so in other words, the same brain that causes torture/problems, also causes the need to solve the torture/problems, which then creates the neural computational frequency of rationality to tunnel through and solve it.

Q: Why is all of that important?
A: Functionally, think of Efilism as x-ray vision against logical cheating: Efilism accounts for basically everything. Stacks Antinatalism's case into the stratosphere, ensuring nobody gets away with philosophical fraud. Efilism keeps everything scientific, real, logical, and prevents inconsistencies, flaws, oversights. It makes sure nobody gets carried away with their imagination, but at the same time, accounts for unknown unknowns by using modal logic and meta-logic -- Efilism addresses far-reaching scenarios like technological singularity and universal heat-death that may seem far-fetched for now. Efilism rapidly accelerates conscious understanding and objective models of the universe, by not allowing knowledge progression to be brought down by the logically primitive, obsolete, failed philosophies and failed reality-models of the past.

Q: What is the final conclusion of Efilism?
A: Eliminating all catastrophic error, which is to say failsafing Earth from DNA, DNA being the twisted incident of brainless physics that created untold levels of catastrophe on Earth: https://efilism.fandom.com/wiki/Efilism_Wiki

Q: Isn't there another way? Surely there must be a way to eventually correct DNA life and have it live on.
A: That's been refuted and established as logically impossible, much less empirically plausible. This predicament is probably more grave than you think, and it would require an extraordinary inconceived breakthrough to ever solve the conceptual failure points. And do remember one thing: the longer you hunt the solution while growing technology in this ocean of suffering, the bigger the final "werewolf" form of your technology becomes. (By this we mean "the dual use of technology", the more powerful your technology is, the more dangerous it becomes if it goes catastrophic.) So the whole time, you think you're making progress, meanwhile you could be setting the stage for the worst monstrosity ever conceived. See the following link to learn the logistical flaws, and the fatal plot holes discovered inside the DNA utopia project: https://efilism.fandom.com/wiki/Efilism_Wiki#Efilism_Vs._Positive_Experience_and_The_DNA_Delusion

Q: What premises are necessary before I am open-minded enough to consider/accept Efilism?
Atheism and a basic understanding of psychology, evolution, physics (material determinism), and value.

Q: Why is being an atheist important for this philosophy?
An understanding that the universe was not created by intelligent design, but by crude forces, is prerequisite knowledge that may be indispensable before considering this philosophy. This is because the theological argument of "first cause" is not sufficient in explaining what created the intelligent designer that created the first cause. If the 'intelligent designer always existed', a scientist can simply argue the universe always existed or exists perennially. There is zero evidence of an intelligent designer, but there is factual proof of evolution and crude force chaos.

What do I need to know about evolution?
An analytical look of life reveals life is a replicating DNA molecule. When the molecule replicates, error-copies that are incidentally (not intentionally) congruent with survival and replication will then persist the code into the future. The ones that are incidentally non-congruent with survival/replication, will just be destroyed during this process. Sometimes there are 10,000 life forms birthed and killed for every 1 that actually survives to maturation/replication (like in turtles and octopuses). DNA evolution is not the "survival machine" that you would mistake it for, but is more akin to a ballistic death-machine that just happens to hold together enough cogs to keep this mass-repetition of carnage in motion. All life forms are relatives of the same original replicating molecule. Roughly 520 million years ago sentience developed.

Why is sentience such a noteworthy point?
All value is created by sentience. The capacity to feel, or the implication a thing has on feeling creatures makes a thing valuable. Our complex nervous systems and brains are designed to make value judgments concerning comfort maximization and harm prevention.

Is there really no value without sentience? What about a beautiful mountain on a planet with no life?
Concepts like beauty are filtered through are sense perception and cognition. Without a thing to witness the "beautiful mountain" it couldn't be characterized as beautiful without an observer.

What are implication of unintelligent design and evolution?
Great amounts of suffering will continue to occur if knowledgeable humans do nothing to contain this catastrophic DNA experiment that was woven together by evolutionary chaos.

What are some critical aspects of psychology I need to know about?
A rough examination is as follows: Human brains are designed by evolution essentially as selfish scheming tools. We are designed to be motivated and not satisfied. The desire mechanism is innate and we naturally have an unquenchable thirst for life that allows us to withstand great suffering as our brains model a more preferable future. Strong biological impulses of hunger, basic needs, and sexual satisfaction propel our momentum through life. Pleasure is the powerful motivator which distorts our ability to think rationally about the cost of our gratification. The abundance of optimism bias is well documented. Our ego is greatly tied to our sexual desire but also to our "ambition": which could be characterized as how we are estimated in the eyes of others.

Why is an understanding of determinism important?
It is important to understand that nothing you have done was really your choice. You did not choose your parents, where you were born, your early child education or all the external factors that caused your brain to take adopt the personality you call your own. You could have been any of the other humans on earth - and if you were progressed they did - you would have been them. You could have been any of the animals as well, it is just luck of the draw that you are here, now, human, and capable of reading this writing.

Can't we try to fix this brokenness?
Yes, attempts to make living conditions more tolerable for humans and non-human animals should be made, but ultimately the brokenness of life is at the very core of the universe and reality.

Consider the average life of a mammal in the wild. Their life is one of great struggle and hardship. The brutal hands of nature are indifferent to the cold and hunger that awaits this warm blooded sensitive creature. Its nervous system is very much active and its heart thumps with just as much vigor as a human. Unfortunately it lives its life at the mercy of what nature throws at. There are countless numbers of sentient lives perennially suffering because of the failure of humans to recognize the plight that animals in the wild face, surely you don't think these creature are reading poetry and dancing?

Simply put, pain is pain, regardless of who feels it.

But aren't we at least progressing towards a better future?
It depends how you define progress. Since the industrial revolution there has been an enormous amount of technological progress which has made many lives free of the labor that has characterized the lot of almost all mortals throughout history. Unfortunately when the struggle for necessity ends, psychological struggle arises. Greater wealth and material prosperity does not necessarily lead to happier lives. We are not designed to be satisfied so we remain restless even when we should be content. Also technological advancement has lead to a population explosion. 29.6 million humans are slaves as of 2013 according the global slavery index, this is more then ever before in history. As more powerful technology emerges the fate of human civilization becomes more uncertain. I am not trying to be a sensationalist by any stretch. Future technology could relieve a great deal of suffering but bio-engineered plagues and nuclear weapons could potentially create immense suffering.

What is the chance of civilization collapsing?
According to a 2008 Catastrophic Risk survey Published by Future of Humanity Institute,(Oxford University) by 2100, there is 19% chance of complete human extinction. I would venture to guess that the probability is actually higher then this given the threat of global warming becoming more urgent and the accumulation of low-probability but catastrophic natural disasters like an asteroid or super volcano. Nevertheless, great tragedy's will continue to occur if the standard of suffering that currently exists is tolerated or promoted as being "success." Eventually all life will become extinct it is just a matter of how long until then.

This philosophy is too hopeless for me, i know there is a great deal of suffering, but what can I do, I am just one individual?
The prospects of a better future may be improbable but hope is not illogical. There are many actions you can take in which will have a high probability of reducing suffering. Spreading information about wild animal suffering and speciesism is one place to start. The task of our generation may be to lay the foundation for future generations. All in all, it depends on what type of person you are, what you are interested in and what can make the greatest impact. Some people will be more inclined to hands on humanitarian or activists efforts. Other many be more inclined to the research side of things. Humans are not utility-maximizing machines by and a sense of ego may be attached to your ideal self.

I will have to sacrifice a lot of my personal desires and ambitions, this will be painful! What about my Emmy Award!

It is true that personal sacrifice may be required to fully internalize this philosophy, but one should take note of a few things. If you truly understand the great depth of harm that exists on earth, resisting your desires that cause harm will seem like the least you can do. Also the recognition will dawn upon you that you simply aren't that important and no one will care about your Emmy in a hundred years or so. Adopting this philosophy is like running with the wind because your individual self gratification is minuscule in comparison to the objective good you can do. A transition to a more altruistic self may be painful but I personally think it is necessary for a more passionate existence. There is scientific evidence backing the idea that altruists tend to be happier. I would venture to guess that more familiarity and knowledge of suffering will most likely lead to greater compassion and more comradery with other people and sentience at large.