One of the arguments I make for it is that it goes in depth to the idea that consciousness is inherently suffering. The very act of being conscious of your existence and thus the existence of others is suffering especially when there is so much more suffering than there is hope. Now one can cherry pick scenerios where hope is the prevailing sentiment, but I argue for every 5 people, 2 within them will be suffering in some way, the others will deny they are suffering but that goes to the idea that many humans and conscious beings avoid or attempt to layer over their suffering with anything they possibly can to feel as though they aren't. My belief is that we as conscious beings are always suffering, in every aspect of the day, we are suffering in some way, this by just existing and thus, to end that suffering, eradicating all conscious life on this planet is the only way to truly rid ourselves of this suffering. Does that extend to say plants? Possibly, if one can prove plants are conscious things then absolutely, but unless that can be proved, I believe the philosophy is limited to just conscious beings.
I agree with you also, this is an inherently selfish philosophy, but I believe selfish philosophies aren't exactly out of the realm. Nihilism is selfish. Antinatalism is selfish. Absurdism is selfish. I mean the list can go on.
My point was just that, I think as an ephilist - I detest the word "efilist" as it was coined by some charlatan on YouTube and prefer to just call it ephilism - that while I do not subscribe to the belief that I have the power to end all suffering by way of extremist or radical behavior, I think it's imperative for me to help others understand what it means and that it's not a poor line of thought, but one that is extreme and one that is not easily digested by a layperson or even an intellectual but should not just be cast aside as a fringe ideology like the 4b movement for example.
Anyways, just my thoughts. I'm writing a screenplay about it so I'm just looking for people who understand what it is.
Again though- this is from a purely human perspective. There are 8.7 million other species on earth. None of us can envisage what it's really like to live as a sloth, giraffe, leopard, grasshopper, whatever. Are they even conscious about the suffering of others? Do they experience suffering themselves in the same way? How do you know? How many animals and plants have existential crises? I agree, life has to be tough as an animal but then, why don't we see more suicides amongst them?
I wouldn't agree that antinatilism is selfish in the same way. It could be of course. Someone may feel they don't want to give of their time or money to raise a child. A lot though, refrain because they don't want to expose their potential offspring to suffering. But- that's making a decision for a being that doesn't exist yet (according to beliefs). It's not making a decision on behalf of a being that already exists and is capable of making that decision for themselves.
Absurdism doesn't have to be selfish either. It surely just acknowledges that there doesn't seem to be an underlying meaning to life so- it recognises that people make their own meanings. What those meanings are can of course be selfish. They can just as well be altruistic though.
Really though- for both those examples, you probably get varying intensities of belief. Some people will be anti-natilist/ absurdist for themselves but still recognise that others have different beliefs. I do have anti-natilist beliefs myself. I'm more likely to speak honestly about them now, because I'm giving less of a shit about everything. I doubt it's going to put anyone off procreating though. I suppose, if we could get people to consider the ramifications of bringing life here more deeply, then that would be good but ultimately, I think people do what they want.
Sorry, I got the term wrong- I just quickly Googled it. I suppose it's the connection to pro-mortalism though, I struggle with. In terms of practicalities anyway. It's genocide effectively. Even as an anti-natilist, I don't think mass sterilisation could be brought in. I think it's something it's important we decide for ourselves. I guess mass murder isn't so bad if every living thing dies at the same time but, even then, it just doesn't seem right.
Regarding spreading the word though- to what end? To encourage a scientist to work out how to destroy all life? Will they be able to do it simultaneously? If the message is to reduce suffering though- then, surely things like veganism, antinatilism might be more practical.
I'm not so sure that antinatilism is seen as quite so extreme now. Plenty of people cite global warming, financial collapse as a reasonable reason not to have children. But, killing everything in sight I imagine is a step too far for a lot. Anyhow, good luck with the screenplay.
