Comprehensive Answers to FaQs

1. Is Extinction even possible?

It's not impossible; it's just a matter of optimizing and causing the best extinction possible — i.e., as vast, thorough, and peaceful as possible. It's a matter of engineering and science. As a society, we already have the methods to cause extinction on Earth; it's just a matter of engineering. On a cosmic level, an even more far-reaching extinction is a question of science. If there is a disease like cancer and some scientist is working on a cure, it's absurd to tell them “It doesn't exist so stop working on it.” They are working on it to make it exist.

But what is really impossible? Solving suffering without non-existence. What is really unacceptable? Child rapes and predations happening inevitably again and again pointlessly. So the only question now is how to make non-existence possible, how to make peace possible, and how to be optimal at that without discrimination.

Besides, what else is there? You can either do meaningless stuff, enjoy life, join the pro-life gang and shamelessly defend suffering. Or you can participate in the only meaningful movement which aims to end all the otherwise inevitable sufferings like child rape, predation, starvation, animal torture, cancer, etc.

2. What about consent?

If you really care about consent, then you should know Nature violates the consent of life. It keeps violating it — we don't consent to be born… Just imagine if you ask a puppy before it's born, giving some information that it's going to be tortured by a sadist for days and killed — would the puppy consent to be born? No! But we are forced into this existence when we are born.

And when we die, do we consent to it? Why do old people run to hospitals? Why does a starving baby move towards food? Nobody consents to natural death. So is it valid to use consent as an argument to keep this literal consent-violation machine called life running?

Life keeps violating consent. Extinction prevents all consent violations. 

Another thing is that consent is directly anchored to intellectual capability. If you cut off the limbs of an animal, it still tries to move and survive; it is still afraid of death. But you are a human who is aware. You can anticipate that the animal is going to suffer more, so you should euthanize the animal. Babies don't consent to a bath, so what — giving a bath to a crying baby is a violation of consent? You have the intellectual capability to know what's the greater good; you take the decision.

The consent is not yours to give in the first place. It's like I don't consent to slaves being freed. And even some slaves consent to being slaves — they cannot say others should too.

3. What about optimism?

Optimism is bad and so is pessimism. Realism is the best way of thinking because it's realism! You can't argue against it.

We have a nature-given tendency to look at the bright side. We say stuff like “use suffering as a teacher” but stop and think! What does a child in the child porn industry have to learn from their suffering? What does a chicken who spends its entire life in a battery cage have to learn? What did a baby zebra who just got born and got eaten by hyenas learn? That's just some motivational bull shit we tell ourselves.

4. Wouldn't things get better? Look at where we are from 100 years ago!

No they wouldn't! This is not pessimism; this is the law of nature. The weak suffer and the strong survive. It always will be.

Either the zebra gets ripped apart or the lion starves — that's the basic rule here. The basic design.

Things are better from 100 years ago for certain humans! But only for the strong because we live by oppressing the weak! For example, what have we done in 100 years? We have enslaved 70 billion farmed animals annually, to torture and kill them, and we have made a great corporate business out of exploiting the reproductive organs of animals to produce milk and eggs. We are kind of the strongest lion in the jungle, the fastest cheetah who never knew suffering because we can make the rest suffer for ourselves to be happy.

And even if you look at human sufferings, we have invented new sufferings! Sure, child abuse happened in this world before! Now we have a camera to film it and now we have the internet to post it and sell it for bitcoins! That child abuse wasn't a criminal industry before! Now it is! Suffering just changes forms — you prevent starvation, next problem is obesity. You stop wars using heavy artillery, the next problem is a virus which you won't even know was an act of war. There is no stopping suffering without extinction. 

5. What about God and his plans?

People worship God from religions and even dedicate their entire lives to God! But if I were God, I wouldn't create a world where animals have to kill each other to live! I wouldn't put a pedophile and a child in the same world! I wouldn't give man the free will to commit enslavement or genocide! Any intelligent being doesn't have the necessity to do so! Also, magic doesn't exist! Before we invented microscopes we called jaundice a “yellow demon” but they don't exist!

What sort of grand plan can justify one child rape?! Nothing!

6. People will never agree to this!

They may not unless intelligence and ethics keep evolving! If they don't, the entire societal growth itself is a dead end — that's another issue! But for now there are clear signs of improvement in rationality and ethics… 200 years ago writing an atheist book would land you in the guillotine… But now they are best sellers. The world is even starting to give moral consideration to animals moving into the 21st century. Because as long as there is suffering, empaths will keep fighting against it! And ultimately they have to realise the only way to eradicate suffering is extinction and they will realise how pointless but extreme an event like a child rape or animal abuse is and how inevitable.

People who disagree with extinction and preventing forced existence and suffering are essentially agreeing with extreme sufferings like child rape and animal torture and predation continuing forever!

Anyways, an activist should never think “will people agree to it” — if you decide something is wrong you should only keep thinking about how to make it happen until it does!

7. What about life’s meaning? What about our purpose?

What meaning? What purpose? Because whatever you think of it can be easily broken down by pointing at a random suffering in this world! Whatever grand purpose you think humans have — can it justify boiling puppies alive?

You are just born, you go to school, a job, get married and have kids, force them to do the same and die! That's what we have done all along! And you just kid yourself that you are doing something meaningful! Whatever you did is nothing compared to the abolish-suffering agenda! Because ultimately whatever you did cannot justify existence and cannot justify 1 child rape or other suffering!

8. Why do you interfere in nature?

The question is why are you a hypocrite? Building civilizations, laws, inventing farming, guns and living completely protected from nature’s harsh weather, predators, famine etc. is fine because it's humans! But wild animals can rot in nature’s hell because well they are animals? Whether something happens to you or not, suffering is suffering! The zebra and hyenas don't deserve to take part in the pointless cycle of being hunted and starved for millions of years!

Nature doesn't feel anything! But the victims — wild animals — do! Causing suffering to sentient beings in the name of something that is not sentient is not different from what religious terrorists do! Nature worship = religious terrorism!

9. Isn't Extinctionism just your opinion?

Extinctionism is just facts:

1. All suffering is bad and suffering is the only bad. And extreme sufferings exist.

2. Suffering is inevitable as long as sentient beings exist.

3. Suffering cannot be justified with pleasures… Extreme inevitable sufferings like kidnapping and raping children, or getting torn apart alive or starving or being tortured cannot be justified by an orgasm or playing a video game or any other good things or pleasures.

4. Only non-existence can guarantee 0 suffering.

These are not opinions — they are facts; they are the very nature of our existence like the sun and the moon!

10.  Do extinctionists support individual acts of sterilization or euthanasia? 

No we don't and there is a good reason for that. If we euthanize a single dog there is gonna be one more dog replacing it! Why? Because the population of beings is dependent on resources like availability of food, water etc… If there are 10 dogs in an area that means there are resources for 10 dogs. If you euthanize one of them another dog which was supposed to die young just gets some space and survives and suffers for more days and dies. Same goes for sterilization. Sterilize one and the others reproduce in place of that one.

11. How can Nonexistence be "better" if no one is left to enjoy it? Who actually benefits?

The idea that a world has to have someone standing in it to count as "better" is a logical trap. You don't need a living person to celebrate a state of total safety for that safety to be a superior outcome.                                                                                                                                                                   We measure the value of extinction by looking at what it prevents. Think of it as a clean, practical comparison:

Scenario A (Continued Existence): The machine of life keeps running. This means tomorrow, next year, and for thousands of generations to come, billions of humans, animals and extraterrestrial life will inevitably experience brutal violence, starvation, rape, severe illness, and terrifying natural deaths. That is a massive, ongoing pile of real victims.

Scenario B (Extinction): The cycle is stopped. The machine turns off.                                                                                                                             When you compare the two, Scenario B is the only one that offers a 100% guarantee of zero victims.                                                                                So, who benefits? Every single potential future victim who was spared from ever having to bleed, cry, or starve.                                                              We use this preventative logic in the real world all the time:

If a building is structurally unsafe and guaranteed to collapse, the safest move is to ensure no one enters it. We don't say, "Well, since the building is empty, no one is in there to feel happy about not being crushed." We just glad nobody got hurt. 

A closed, empty, previously used torture room is a victory, even if no one is sitting inside it to clap.

Extinction isn't about making a ghost town where people are sad because they are missing out on the party. Those people don't exist, so they lack absolutely nothing. Extinction is the ultimate act of solving and preventing suffering permanently — so that the cycle of suffering is broken, and no more victims can ever be forced into a meaningless life of pure hell.

12.  What about species extinction?

We can't discriminate by choosing to only help certain species. Let's say naturally or artificially all the dogs go extinct — then are they replaced by cats or squirrels… Cats are sentient too… The suffering just transfers to another species which doesn't make it less bad! White rhinos are extinct but black rhinos took their place! What changed really? Only skin colour. Again the population of animals in nature depends on resources (availability of food water etc) one species going extinct will be replaced by another.

13.  Do you support not reproducing / anti-natalism?

The problem with anti-natalism is it's completely useless:

1. Not everyone is gonna be convinced of one singular ideology — even 10000 years later there will be some theists clinging around, some people supporting suffering and reproduction. Voluntary movements are self-defeating.

2. Anti-natalism is a discriminatory ideology that doesn't consider animals. 

3. Being an anti-natalist means more suffering because humans consume more resources than animals. We need cars, houses, furniture etc. which requires fuel, mining, water, land etc. If human population is less, wild animal populations replace and take our resources (and more in number) — probably 100000 wild animals can live on the amount of resources I consume… And they are gonna suffer from nature.

4. We need to reproduce till we cause the most vast and thorough extinction possible. Yes reproducing is evil but 99.9 percent of sufferers are animals. And allowing them to suffer and not searching for a more vast solution means allowing greater evil.

14.  Does Extinctionism mean killing someone is alright?

Extinctionism is against any action of violence especially individual acts of violence. It in fact increases suffering. Just going into a forest and killing a deer means they just reproduce and create one more deer because population of beings depends on resources. You kill a human — he is replaced with another human or wild animals; the resources go to another individual that's gonna suffer. And killing this individual also caused suffering and pain to this individual and the beings around because of emotional trauma. So this increases suffering. Only total extinction makes sense.

Another thing is that this is a project that's supposed to end all harm, all deaths and all suffering forever. We need a functional capable society to accomplish and achieve success in the project. Things like murder and killing will destabilize the society and will push the project away in time.

15.  Do you support suicide?

Everyone capable of helping others has a moral obligation to do so. Suffering is bad not just for you. Whether suffering happens in my body or another child’s body or a dog’s body — it's bad and deserves to be stopped!

Why is it our moral obligation to help the cause? Because we are the only species that can help others! No other species can.

16.  Morality is subjective… Everyone can have their opinions?

Another self-defeating concept. Subjectivists are hypocrites. They believe morality is fake... right up until someone hurts them — then suddenly they believe in "Rights," "Justice," and "Fairness" very strongly.

Morality is subjective? Really — how can moral subjectivists use determinism as an excuse for that. If you be like that even moral subjectivity is subjective and since Christians and Muslims are majority morality is objective. I mean everyone believing slavery is okay doesn't make it okay... It's always wrong just some dumb animals exist that don't see it yet. Earth wasn't flat in 500 BC — dumb animals didn't have that much science. Christianity and Islam don't make God real. They are just rationally blind. Same way a person who supports slavery is ethically blind.

The Tribe: "Only my family matters." (Factually wrong: Other families feel pain too). The Nation: "Only my race matters." (Factually wrong: Other races feel pain too). The Species: "Only humans matter." (Factually wrong: Animals feel pain too). The Sentience: "Only things that may suffer matter." (Factually Correct).

If morality is a subject that deals with good and bad, we clearly know suffering is bad and deserves to be stopped whether others believe in it or not — it's a fact. Even if people don't exist and a planet just has some foxes and rabbits in a perpetual cycle of killing each other or starving — still the fact remains that suffering is undeserved and pointless and would be better to not exist. 

17.  Can technology solve suffering?

No it can't. Take the internet for example: We invented it to solve some suffering. And it did! Farmers can now get access to guides for free, animal activists have a platform to speak up and spread ethics faster, people can get jobs easier. But at the same time child-rape exists on the same internet! Yeah child abuse happened before but it wasn't a criminal industry before! So technologies while they solve some suffering they cause new sufferings too… We end up with new problems. Suffering just changes forms and is never solved as long as sentience exists. If you invent gun it can be used by both police and the criminal. 

18.  What about transhumanism? Technological optimism?

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. 

19.  Isn't extinctionism also technological optimism?

Eradicating suffering without extinction is impossible and can be debunked with current known science. Smaller levels of extinction are already very possible. Humanity has made several species extinct. The upper limits of the most vast and thorough extinction possible just come under the unknown science for now. It's a practical project not an arrogant false claim. Extinctionists won't irrationally hold belief in a questionable method being eventually possible. For example, we won't tell you that it will definitely be possible to cause extinction in the entire universe, but we will check it out. We commit to developing the methods. It's a matter of engineering and research, not a delusion.

20.  But isn't life meaningful?

Whatever meaning you can bring I can debunk with one extreme inevitable suffering. What is meaning? Is there a grand purpose? Can you name a grand purpose that can justify one child rape much less ten thousand that happen every day? Is being an astronaut enough to justify puppies being tortured or animals being dragged for kilometers behind cars by people who have a sadism mental disorder? What meaning can justify these?

Being a firefighter is only meaningful because burning alive exists. It doesn't have to… Nobody has to keep burning alive for me to keep saving. Prevention is the best medicine.

What are we doing really? We are born we go to school then job then reproduce and force our kids to do the same before we die and delude ourselves with stuff like meaning. If you look at animal lives, the pointlessness of existence should be even more obvious. A pig just spent its entire life in a battery cage, got raped and assaulted just so that it could be murdered and end up in your plate for a 20 minute meal which you probably didn't even give a thought about. A newborn zebra gets ripped apart alive by starving hyenas — didn't know why it was born, didn't know why this happened to it. What great purpose? Right?

Whatever meaning you can think of now or in future can be easily debunked by sufferings. Eradicating sufferings is the only meaning you have in a pointless existence full of suffering.

21.   What about an afterlife?

Afterlife is a stupid unscientific concept. Science has already proved that you are a body operated by your brain. If your brain dies you die. Those cells rot. Just like files in a damaged USB-drive don't have an after-drive life. If it does the burden of proof falls on you. Science doesn't have to disprove the 1000s of claims irrational people keep. Science doesn't have to disprove that miniature worlds exist in protons and electrons of atoms. It doesn't have to disprove the flying spaghetti monster. It doesn't even have to add a rule saying that the flying spaghetti monster is not scientifically allowed — that would be funny. You have to understand science and be rational. Just like having a deep sleep doesn't require an after-sleep life — death doesn't either. It's just nothingness.

The thought of afterlife comes when you fear nothingness. People imagine a dark lonely void where you are suspended forever alone with your thoughts. But that's not the case. You experience nothingness everyday when you have deep dreamless sleep. You aren't lonely — in fact that's the only time you don't have to think about your depression or job stress or your breakups. Non-existence is bliss, peace and safety. 

22.   We shouldn't interfere with nature though?

You already did. You exited nature starting from 10000 BC or even before. You made clothes and blankets and shelters to protect yourself from the cold. You built guns to protect yourself from predators. You built civilizations and societies to protect yourself from infighting and rape. You invented technologies to even avoid the slightest discomforts caused by nature.

But imagine wild animals! Abandoning their own children because they are slow (humans did it too in nature). Getting raped, torn apart alive. Starving and dehydrated in hot deserts, freezing and drowning in cold ice lakes!

People think that if they are suffering then it's okay to interfere with nature but if wild animals are then it's fine and we shouldn't interfere! This isn't an argument — it's hypocrisy, it's bigotry. Suffering is suffering.

The Appeal-to-Nature fallacy becomes very real when it comes to rapists and sadists too. A rapist can claim it's natural. An animal abuser can claim it's natural. It's perfectly natural for someone to come into your home beat you up rape your wife and steal everything. That doesn't make it moral.

We have the ability to think. Think! Nature is just a set of laws by which existence works. It's not a sentient suffering being which can deserve moral consideration — only sentient beings do. 

23.   But what about the “good” people who have good lives who want to exist?

In other words privileged pro-lifers who oppose extinction! Are they really good? These are the people that allow suffering! They want thousands of children to get raped everyday. These are the same people who wouldn't care about puppies being tortured on a daily basis. Because they want pleasure these people are comparable to sadists who derive pleasure out of suffering.

This is the ultimate evil we are fighting but pro-lifers will claim that they are not responsible for a child rape they aren't causing. I'll debunk this with an example. Someone is beating a kid up on the road (child abuse). You walk by and don't stop him or even call the police. Now this suffering happened because of two reasons: the abuser did it and because you didn't stop it! Inaction is also an action. You chose not to act so that suffering happened. And the sufferer doesn't care why his suffering happened. He didn't want it. Only the victim's perspective matters when it comes to suffering. You did the same thing as the abuser. Your hands aren't bloody the same way Hitler's hands aren't.

Same way if you get all the knowledge of inevitable extreme sufferings and still oppose extinction it means you want trillions of animals abused, thousands of children raped, quintillions suffering in nature's Hell for your pleasures that clearly don't justify these. That is the very form of immorality and selfishness the movement is fighting. You aren't good. You are more evil than any tyrant or genocide maniac in history. These pro-lifers are standing in the doorway to a burning building and blocking the exit while saying “burning alive is beautiful". They need to be pushed past. 

24.   What about the good? The pleasures?

Name one thing in this world that can justify torturing a puppy to death? Raping a little child? Or starvation? Or getting baby animals eaten alive by ants?

Can video games justify starvation? Can sex justify children getting raped? There is a huge obvious asymmetry here you are just not willing to look.

No amount of pleasures can justify any of the inevitable horrors of existence.

25.   What if life comes back?

This is a valid question only if extinction is natural, as in "what if life bounces back after an asteroid strike or extreme climate change?" But the entire point of the peaceful extinction project is to be as thorough as possible. So, "what if life comes back?" Well, we are causing extinction — it's our responsibility to make sure it doesn't. Whether we place an AI to continuously monitor the situation or we discover something like vacuum decay, it's up to AGI and future extinctionists. Science is not at a point to answer what the “as thorough as possible” is.

Simply the answer is: you have to make sure it doesn't.

26.   What if we just reduce suffering?

That's an ignorant and immoral question to ask. If 10 children are getting raped and if you reduce it to just one child in a pedophile’s basement — that's still one child in Hell! You are saying just let one child get raped so that the rest of us can enjoy while you have an option to have 0 child rape.

And throughout history one thing is clear: suffering has just changed forms and has never definitely reduced. It has only increased with population. Maybe you solve all wars tomorrow — the next problem is bio-engineered weapons that you won't even know are acts of war! You solve starvation — next problem is obesity! You invent guns — criminals get them too! You invent the internet — you have a dark web on your hands!

It's really unacceptable to say "I don't care if a cat has to be ripped apart alive in a blender because I want to exist.” Who are you to make or allow others to suffer for your benefit?

27.  Extinction is accepting defeat! We should strive for a better world!

I'll put it simply. Utopia is impossible! It's an optimistically biased delusion. Just think about a few questions. Can you solve crimes ever? Can you solve accidents ever? Can you solve predation ever? Can you solve diseases ever? Can you solve disasters ever? Can you solve rapes ever? Can you solve animal abuse ever? Can you solve starvation ever? The answer is no.

Game theory and probability theory and other science and mathematics can debunk you if you say yes. History can debunk you. 0% risk of suffering for 100% of all life is impossible without extinction. 

28.  Extinction is an extreme overreaction. If you stub your toe would you amputate your leg?

If stubbing your toe once in a while was the only inevitable problem in existence I probably wouldn't be an extinctionist. But the real problems are so extreme! Beings burning alive! Innocent children raped! Predators go around ripping apart a pregnant prey who is alive and eating the foetus because it's starving! These sufferings happen in trillions every day! They are inevitable! The correct analogy would be your foot being infected beyond repair! Yes — the answer is amputation!

Life is extreme. Extinction ends it!

29.  What about will to live?

Yes, will to live does matter! Fear of death is a huge suffering! Which life violates!

Animals don't consent to natural death either. But what these animals are gonna do is keep reproducing so that life keeps violating the will to live of next generations again and again. Who is worse? Extinction (the suffering and death preventer) or life (perpetual suffering and death machine).

Life is not so black and white — sometimes you might have to cause some suffering in order to solve greater suffering. It's a basic trolley problem. Letting the greater evil happen is the greater evil!

30.  Are you extinctionist because you are depressed?

Me the author writing this is not depressed — I just speak for the depressed and other victims! But what if some extinctionists are? Depressed people’s opinions don't matter? They shouldn't have voting rights?

They are the direct victims of existence and have every right to speak up. They would only be wrong if they say “I'm depressed, please help only me and not others!” If they are considering every other being, it's not out of their depression — it's out of empathy. And those who are badly suffering yet standing up for others selflessly are commendable.

31.  What about rights-based ethics? Would you rape an unconscious woman?

Rights as a concept came into existence to combat suffering. But it fails because natural sufferings dominate this world. Why did people think black people needed rights? It's because they saw them suffering. Why do you think animals need rights? Because staying in a cage is suffering.

Would you rape an unconscious woman? Hah — she doesn't suffer but rights is the one thing stopping you! This is a completely shit analogy. What about a banana stem? If I rape it would you call me rapist? You probably will say I'm a clown but would never say I'm a rapist. So what is the difference? Why not plant rights? Plant bodily autonomy? The difference is the woman is sentient i.e. can suffer. Potential suffering is also bad — not just suffering. The suffering or uncomfortable feeling caused to you imagining this analogy with a fellow sentient human being is also bad. The suffering it causes me knowing that woman is a sentient being is also bad.

32.  What if extinction is painful?

Nothing is more painful than life. The 20 quintillion sentient beings that exist right now are going to die horrible natural deaths but not before creating more beings and continuing life and suffering. The cycle is indefinite. So extinction prevents literally indefinite amounts of suffering.

Even if extinction is painful (which it wouldn't be) no method of extinction can be as painful and as slow as natural death. But even if it was — it literally prevents indefinite numbers of sentient beings. It's not even 1 vs 5 — it's 1 vs infinite suffering prevention.

33.  Can't we sterilize animals instead of euthanizing them?

Sterilization is animal abuse.

a) It's impossible to pick up and sterilize each and every being on earth. 

b) Importantly euthanasia is totally advantageous over the horrible slow natural death and suffering that comes till then. 

c) Animals who are neutered undergo health problems due to loss of hormones.

34. Why can't we support veganism activism? (see graphic & explanation below) 

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 mammals. Wild 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 there the next problem is urban animals.

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 into the movement but they only if they acknowledge that they are contributing to extreme wild animal suffering. Some of our activists are currently plant-based but acknowledge that it may be causing worse suffering. It is their overwhelming preference not to eat meat but they they are still doing correct activism. 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.

35.  If the world is deterministic then we have to be fair and we can't blame or judge the rapist? Right?

Neurobiological determinism is not a list of do’s and don'ts. It's just an explanation of human behaviour. It says that some people have better brains to understand math but some don't. If some people look at E=mc² and don't understand it, that doesn't make it wrong. Some people are better equipped with intelligence, rationality and empathy. Which gives them actually even more right to say that the rapist is wrong.

36.  You aren't doing anything that actually affects or reduces suffering right now.

We are making progress towards the non-discriminatory end of all suffering. Every activist, scientist, donors add to our movement bit by bit. They contribute their part until all this effort combines together to achieve our goals.

Dismissing progress and asking what you did right now is like saying all the 1000 years of activism against slavery were all in vain. And only the activism done the particular day slave liberation was achieved did something. So all the activists who fought against slavery until that day should have given up and gone to treating the injuries of slaves instead of progressing activism towards rooting out slavery entirely. Treating slave’s injuries from whiplashes is a completely inefficient waste of time though it feels like immediate relief and action, long term slavery needs to end. 

That is what all other movements are animal rights/rescue, feminism, right to die, feeding the starving, fighting against child labour are doing. They are treating injuries of slaves who had whip lashes and not rooting out slavery. It has immediate impact but long term consequences of wasting time. Our movement attacks suffering at its root cause. And we spend our resources there.

37. But what about balance? It is the natural balance!

This is the stupidest pseudo argument against extinctionism. It's not even an argument but still people randomly blurt this out in debates against us.

Yeah suffering is how nature balances itself! It controls the population and maintains ecological balance through starvation, diseases and  predation. But nature doesn't suffer. Animals suffer from nature. Should you focus on Nature (which is just a concept) which doesn't suffer or focus on conscious victims who suffer? The answer is obvious. Your animal brain just values Nature over the actual wellbeing of the life forms inside it, and that's selfish and wrong. "What about the beauty?" is also a disgusting question which gives zero moral consideration to the victims who are suffering terribly.

38. Whats the difference to 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.