Criticism of different pro-life ideologies

So this is data given by UNICEF on land use represented by Our World in Data. You see animal agriculture exploits 80% of the total agricultural land (why? because it's farms + fodder) and only feeds 17 percent of the calories needed. Plants on the other hand consume 20 percent of land and feed 83 percent of the world's calorific needs.

What this means is plants require way way way less land to feed way way way more people. 

Wild birds alone are 100 billion in number. When you come from veganism you are taught that wild animals are less than farm animals. This is only true if you talk about big mammals. Wild big mammals are less than farmed animals. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/biomass-vs-abundance-taxa

So if 38 million sq. kilometers of land is freed because of the animal industry's closure, forests will double. Which means at least 100 billion more wild birds. Just imagine how many millions of frogs, reptiles and other animals can live in 1 sq. km forest (and I'm not even including insects).

And these are wild animals that we see. But now imagine in an area you have 10 rats — you think there are only 10 rats but you actually missed the 1000 rats they birthed who died as babies! So if you consider the 99.9% who don't even get to adulthood the measure will be even higher.

And next take the fish in this data. They number in quadrillions. And overfishing is the number one cause of biodiversity loss in the sea. So if you think veganism reduces suffering and we should all be vegan you should advocate for pescatarianism which is reducing even more suffering.

But I would say don't advocate for welfarist measures. China eradicated poverty and so now they are the number 1 animal consumers. If you liberate animals the next problem is wildlife. If you pour concrete and build cities there the next problem is urban animal and more human suffering .

So asking a person to be vegan or non-vegan is like asking a person whether to kill a person with a blue shirt or red shirt. You should be fighting to end this system that inevitably keeps killing both shirts. We accept vegans and non vegans into the movement. Our personal choices do not matter. Vegans let Wild animals suffer and non vegans do the same to farmed animals. We do not accept our activists doing vegan activism because it is an irrational and pro-life/suffering waste of time to convince people to only care about farm animals and to liberate them to continue suffering (vegans don't usually advocate for farm animal extinction). It is contradictory to do vegan activism & extinctionism activism so we do not allow it. 

Both vegans and non-vegans are working for the goal which is eradicating suffering.

Another thing with veganism is that Anti-speciesist animal rights are a complete impossibility. 

And here we are only talking about the right to be free from human exploitation. Obviously animals suffer far more by natural causes that vegans do not even take into consideration.

So animal rights are not merely difficult to achieve. The problem is that equal animal rights are a legal, practical, economic, surveillance, and even hypothetical impossibility.

This argument is specifically directed at anti-speciesist animal rights advocates who want equal rights for every single animal, including the right to life, personhood, and safety. The problem is that the ideology does not work when you actually follow it through to its logical consequences.

The Legal Impossibility:

Consider a simple example. If fish bones are thrown into someone’s garden, would that person have to stand trial for murder? Would the police have to conduct a post-mortem on the fish to determine whether it was murdered or died naturally?

Would the suspect’s computers have to be confiscated and examined? Would their family and friends have to be interrogated? Would there have to be an entire investigation and legal process surrounding a fish discovered in someone’s garden?

Now apply this consistently to every animal.

Every dead dog, raccoon, pigeon, lizard, fish, or other animal found on the street would have to receive a full and thorough post-mortem if that animal genuinely possessed an equal right to life. Every animal bone discovered would potentially have to be investigated.

Nobody is going to accept being imprisoned or fined because a goldfish was found dead in their garden or because a bird fell out of the sky. Yet if animals genuinely possess the same right to life, there would have to be some mechanism for determining whether their deaths were natural or caused by another person.

This is where the ideology becomes legally impossible.

The Economic Impossibility:

The scale of such a system makes it economically impossible as well.

If a country had to conduct post-mortems and investigations on every animal body discovered, the resources required would be enormous. The entire system of policing, forensic investigation, courts, and punishment would have to account for animals on a scale that is completely incompatible with ordinary society.

If every dead animal and every animal bone required investigation, the claim that animals possess equal rights would require an enforcement system that cannot realistically exist.

The Problem of Enforcement:

There is another fundamental problem: if these deaths are not investigated, the rights are not actually equal.

Imagine someone secretly breeding chickens in their basement, killing them, eating them, and throwing away the bones. If questioned, they could simply claim that the chickens died naturally.

Who would know?

Who would report the chickens missing? Who would file a missing-person report for them? Who would even know that the chickens existed?

If there is no way to establish that an animal existed, disappeared, or was killed, then there is no practical way to guarantee that its supposed rights were protected.

Criminals could simply exploit the gaps in the system.

Therefore, if animals genuinely have equal rights, those rights would require a mechanism capable of detecting violations. Without that mechanism, the rights exist only theoretically.

Animals Cannot Report Crimes

Children can already illustrate the difficulty of protecting vulnerable individuals. Children have less ability than adults to communicate and raise the alarm when something happens to them. Yet a child can still tell another person what happened.

Animals cannot do this.

An animal cannot report a crime to the police. It cannot explain that it was kidnapped, abused, bred, imprisoned, or killed. It cannot identify its abuser or provide an account of what happened.

Animals also cannot be reliably accounted for.

If a child goes missing, a guardian can report it. A school can notice the absence. Someone knows that the child existed and that they are missing.

But if someone secretly breeds and kills chickens in their basement, there may be nobody who knows those chickens ever existed.

That creates a fundamental problem for anti-speciesist animal rights: how can you guarantee equal rights for individuals whose existence cannot even be reliably monitored?

The Surveillance Problem:

To even begin enforcing universal animal rights, society would require extraordinary levels of surveillance.

You would need to know what people are doing with animals inside their homes. You would need cameras in houses to determine whether people were breeding, killing, or eating animals. You would need surveillance on boats across the ocean to determine whether people were fishing.

The further you extend the principle of equal rights, the greater the surveillance required to enforce it becomes.

Without that surveillance, people can simply violate animal rights without anyone knowing.

And if protecting some animals requires surveillance while protecting others does not, then the system cannot genuinely guarantee equal protection for every animal.

The Anti-Speciesist Paradox:

This also creates a problem with deciding which animals receive protection.

If someone says that fish deserve fewer rights than dogs because fish are harder to protect, they are making a practical distinction based on the difficulty of protecting the animal.

But that is precisely the problem for anti-speciesism.

There are differences in sentience between different animals. But who gets to make that decision? How is the difference determined? And how can it be made fair to the animals who suffer as a result?

If the animals that are easiest to protect receive the strongest protection while animals that are harder to protect receive less, then equal animal rights have already failed.

If every animal receives equal rights, however, the enforcement problem becomes impossible.

That creates an anti-speciesist paradox.

A Hypothetical Impossibility:

The problem therefore goes beyond whether governments are willing to implement animal rights.

The issue is whether universal, equal animal rights can actually function as a coherent system.

If every animal has a right to life, then every unexplained animal death becomes potentially equivalent to a homicide requiring investigation.

If animals have personhood, their existence would need to be accounted for.

If animals have a right to safety, violations would have to be detected and investigated.

If animals cannot report crimes and cannot be reliably accounted for, enforcement would require enormous surveillance.

And if that surveillance and investigation are not carried out, then the rights are not genuinely equal because countless violations would simply remain undetected.

Therefore, the problem is not merely that animal rights are difficult.

They are legally, practically, economically, and through surveillance impossible to guarantee universally.

The Contradiction:

Anti-speciesist animal rights presents itself as a system designed to provide equal rights to every animal.

But the moment those rights are taken literally, the contradictions become unavoidable.

You cannot have a genuine right to life without a mechanism for determining when that right has been violated.

You cannot have equal protection without being able to protect the individuals who are hardest to monitor.

You cannot guarantee safety to animals whose existence cannot be accounted for.

And you cannot enforce universal animal rights without an enforcement system capable of detecting violations that animals themselves cannot report.

The result is an absolute contradiction: a system claiming to guarantee equal rights to every animal while lacking any realistic means of guaranteeing those rights.

It is a utopian fantasy.

Telling people to “go vegan” does not solve these problems. It does not explain how every animal will be accounted for, how every death will be investigated, how hidden animals will be protected, or how violations will be detected.

The ideology has not been thought through to its logical conclusion.

Only extinction makes actual sense as a means of preventing suffering and guaranteeing the prevention of suffering.

Feminism:
Feminism is not an useful form of activism. This does not mean injustice against women is acceptable. All sentient beings deserve moral consideration. The fundamental flaw is that feminism focuses on a tiny subset of human suffering, while extinctionism addresses suffering across all sentient life.

In many countries, legal equality for women is established through political rights, education, and legal protections. The remaining issues are problems of implementation and individual behavior.

Rape, for example, remains illegal, yet it continues even in countries with severe penalties. Making rape illegal has not reduced its existence to zero. Unreported cases cannot be solved simply by creating more rights.

This highlights the gap between having rights and eliminating suffering. Feminism creates laws against specific injustices, but laws do not eliminate the suffering caused by those injustices. Rape and unequal pay remain possible despite legal framework.

A clear structural example of this limitation is the dynamic surrounding migrant care workers. When middle-class women in developed nations enter the traditional workforce to achieve career equality, they frequently outsource domestic labor to migrant women from lower-income countries. Rather than removing suffering from the world, this dynamic simply transfers the burden onto vulnerable workers who leave their own families behind. Feminism frames this shift as progress, but it merely reorganizes suffering instead of reducing it.

Because of these dynamics, feminism fails to work in harmony with extinctionism. Loyalty cannot belong to both. 

Extinctionism seeks the permanent elimination of all sentient suffering, whereas feminist activism redirects limited time, effort, and resources toward patching up a broken human system. 

If an activist devotes their finite capacity to campaign for local social equality, that energy is actively diverted away from the ultimate objective: ending the existence of sentient suffering entirely. When feminism conflicts with or distracts from this larger goal, an extinctionist must criticize it rather than defend it out of ideological habit.

The argument that feminism is a necessary stepping stone toward broader moral concern is also flawed. People can become extinctionists without first becoming feminists or participating in human-rights activism. There is no required sequence of feminism → veganism → extinctionism.

Everyone capable of being empathetic and rational will come to extinctionism without needing to engage with other activism first.

Furthermore, feminism is strictly speciesist. Feminists focus on human women, while non-human female animals face horrific exploitation eg. in dairy production and brutal conditions in nature. Feminist activism generally ignores this pain as outside its scope. Moral consideration must extend beyond human women to all sentient beings.

Gender conflict is also fundamentally biological rather than purely social. Aggression, sexual competition, and dominance occur across nature—such as praying mantises killing mates or lions killing offspring after taking over a pride. Attempting to permanently end gender-based conflict through feminism cannot overcome the underlying biological drivers of such behavior.

Ultimately, extinctionism does obviously not deny women moral consideration. However, extinction is the only path that permanently eliminates the biological conditions under which misogyny, exploitation, and suffering can occur.

LGBTQ+ Movement:

The same logic used to criticize feminism can be applied to the LGBTQ+ movement from an extinctionist perspective. The argument is not that injustice against LGBTQ+ people should be accepted. The argument is that an extinctionist should not become loyal to a separate human-rights movement when extinction is considered the larger objective.

Human-rights movements focus on particular groups of humans and particular forms of injustice. LGBTQ+ activism focuses specifically on LGBTQ+ people, just as feminism focuses specifically on women. However, moral consideration should extend to all sentient beings rather than stopping at a particular human population.

The important distinction is between opposing an injustice and making that particular movement your activism. An extinctionist can oppose injustice against LGBTQ+ people without becoming an LGBTQ+ activist. The same applies to feminism, racism, slavery, and other human issues. The question is not whether these injustices are wrong; the question is where limited activist effort should be directed.

This is why an extinctionist should not be loyal to the LGBTQ+ movement. Loyalty should be to extinctionism. If an LGBTQ+ position conflicts with extinctionism, an extinctionist should be willing to criticize it rather than defend it because they identify with the movement.

The argument that someone must first become involved in one human-rights movement before progressing toward broader moral concern is also rejected. There is no necessary sequence in which someone must first become a feminist, then support LGBTQ+ rights, then veganism, and finally extinctionism. Someone can move directly toward extinctionism.

The discussion’s broader criticism of human-rights activism is that legal rights do not eliminate suffering. Even where rights and legal protections exist, suffering and injustice can continue. Therefore, continually expanding rights for particular human groups does not address the underlying existence of suffering.

For an extinctionist, this creates a question of priorities. If you have limited time to actively campaign for a cause, why devote that time to LGBTQ+ activism instead of extinctionist activism? Other people will continue to pursue human-rights movements, while extinctionism has comparatively fewer people working toward its larger objective.

Therefore, the extinctionist position is not that LGBTQ+ people should receive no moral consideration. It is that LGBTQ+ activism is not the solution to suffering. An extinctionist should oppose injustice where necessary but should not become loyal to the LGBTQ+ movement or prioritize it over extinctionism when they have the capacity to actively work toward extinction.

So no, you shouldn’t do both (LGBTQ and Extinctionist activism)

Transhumanism:

Transhumanists who say we can just “remove suffering genes” or “upload our brains into a computer” — can be debunked by known logic and science.

1. Removing suffering genes is not a technological unknown or an engineering problem. It's a systems biology impossibility. Suffering is not just physical pain. We have pain, anxiety, depression, anger, boredom, fear, sadness and countless other emotional distress and mental disorders. These involve millions of cells, neurotransmitters, hormones and enzymes which are interconnected in trillions of ways in other conscious and unconscious processes. Removing just one of these has catastrophic effects… But to remove all just means you become a plant. Suffering is woven into sentience itself. People who are born with genetic disorders which make them immune to physical pain are often quoted by transhumanists. But there are cases where babies scratched their own eyes to a point where they had to be amputated. Then when they are grown up they cry about it — what is it if not suffering?

2. There are several other logical flaws like how do you pick up each and every organism and deliver personalized suffering-removal medicine to them? (Such a thing doesn't exist and never will). If you make vegetarian lions aren't you just making goats with extra steps? If you make designer babies who don't feel suffering (again not possible unless they are plants) where will all the natural babies go? If you want to make them extinct why reject extinctionism and make pointless designer babies that could potentially suffer? If you upload your brain into a computer and die you are just dead and AI just operates your memories pointlessly.

A transhumanist world doesn't even exist in imagination. Just imagine your wife is being murdered but she laughs because she can't suffer and you walk in on this event and laugh because you can't suffer either — that's some dark humour.

Right to die:

RTD only focuses on privileged humans. No animal has the ability to get euthanasia, nor does a human child getting raped or starving or having diseases. But the privileged humans are the ones who have the ability to grant the peace of non-existence to everybody by pro-extinction activism, so they have a moral obligation to do so. 

So implementing RTD will decrease the human population and therefore the intelligence to cause extinction. Everybody with the ability to help those who are suffering and who has the ability to do activism has the moral obligation to do so. 

Having humans suffering until we can liberate everyone from suffering and life is therefore a necessary evil.

Environmentalism and Wildlife Conservation:

Environmentalism and wildlife conservation are fundamentally concerned with preserving nature and preventing animals from going extinct.

Environmentalists show pictures of the Earth crying, trees crying, “Mother Nature” crying, and endangered animals looking sad. But the Earth is a rock. Plants cannot feel. “Mother Nature” is not a conscious being.

The beings who actually experience suffering are the sentient beings living in this nature.

And wildlife is not some peaceful paradise. Wild animals experience predation, disease, starvation, accidents, harsh weather, natural disasters, abuse, rape, and other forms of suffering. They constantly have to search for food and water and escape predators.

Yet wildlife conservation treats their continued existence as something inherently valuable.

They say, “Your child won’t be able to see these rhinos.”

But why should a rhino have to exist and experience all of this suffering so that someone’s child can see a rhino?

Why should wildlife populations be preserved so humans can visit them in wildlife reserves?

Why should animals have to continue existing merely because humans find them beautiful?

Wildlife conservation essentially says: “This animal must continue existing because we want to keep seeing it.”

But the animal is the one who has to live the life.

A wildlife reserve does not eliminate the problems of existence. The animal still has to find food and water, escape predators, endure disease and harsh weather, experience accidents and natural disasters, and remain vulnerable to other forms of suffering.

And this is why the problem is not simply that environmentalists want to save one particular species.

They want to prevent extinction itself.

They see extinction as the problem. But extinction is precisely what ends the possibility of that animal experiencing suffering.

Dinosaurs and dodos no longer have to worry about disease, wars, predation, starvation, rape, torture, or abuse.

Their extinction did not create suffering for them. It ended their possibility of experiencing it.

So when environmentalists celebrate conservation, they are celebrating the continuation of wildlife existence without asking whether that existence is actually beneficial to the beings being conserved.

And the same problem applies to environmentalism more broadly.

Climate change is not the only cause of suffering. Making the world greener does not eliminate predation, disease, starvation, accidents, natural disasters, or all the other inevitable sources of suffering that come with existence.

The environmentalist wants to preserve nature.

The wildlife conservationist wants to preserve wildlife.

But the beings capable of suffering are the ones who matter and preserving their existence simply because humans consider wildlife beautiful is disgusting and irrational.

Wildlife conservation protects the continuation of wildlife for aesthetic reasons only.

Extinction ends the suffering that comes with that continuation.

Efilism:

The only thing we have in common with efilism is the recognition that life is inherently bad and should not exist. However, efilism stops there. It remains merely a philosophy rather than a goal-oriented movement.

Additionally, efilism is often irrational and inconsistent. Some efilists sympathize with terrorism, fail to think their ideas through to their logical conclusion, advocate only for voluntary extinction, seek the consent of the privileged, or focus solely on human extinction instead of all sentient life.

Efilists also tend to mix their ideology with antinatalism, right-to-die advocacy, veganism, and similar positions. We have already explained why promoting those ideas is flawed.

Furthermore, efilism is generally opposed to direct action and activism. It is more concerned with lamenting suffering than with actively working toward the end of suffering.