Aponism vs. Sentio-Centric Extinctionism: Compassionate Paths Beyond Annihilation

By Omar Formini for The Aponist Society's blog on June 6, 2025

Introduction to Sentio-Centric Extinctionism

Sentio-centric extinctionism is the radical ethical view that all sentient life—human and non-human—should be extinguished to eliminate suffering. This position extends antinatalist thought to its extreme conclusion: not only should humans stop procreating, but every creature capable of feeling pain should cease to exist. In online communities, it is often called “efilism” (life spelled backwards), a term coined by YouTuber Gary Inmendham, who argues that life’s inherent misery justifies eradicating it entirely. Proponents see the eradication of life itself as a moral imperative driven by compassion for the suffering inherent in existence. As The Independent summarized it, “all sentient life should be extinguished to prevent suffering,” pushing beyond traditional antinatalism (which holds that procreation is unethical) toward universal extinction. In their eyes, a world with no beings is a world with no pain—the only truly good state of affairs.

Philosophical Rationale

At the heart of sentio-centric extinctionism lies a philosophical rationale drawn from powerful negative utilitarian and antinatalist arguments. Negative utilitarianism holds that minimizing suffering is the highest (or sole) moral priority—even above producing happiness. Taken literally, negative utilitarianism suggests that if eliminating all suffering requires annihilating sentient beings, then morality demands it. Antinatalism contributes a related insight: coming into existence is inherently harmful, since new sentient beings inevitably endure pain. The asymmetry argument—famously articulated by David Benatar—emphasizes that while bringing someone into existence guarantees some suffering, it does not confer an equivalent good that can justify the harm. Sentio-centric extinctionists combine these stances to conclude that existence itself, for any sentient mind, is an undesirable net-negative state.

The Empirical Case of Suffering

Underpinning these arguments is a stark view of life’s empirical quality. Extinctionists highlight that suffering is pervasive across all species. Human history and daily life are rife with pain—disease, violence, hunger, bereavement, psychological anguish—and for non-human animals it may be even worse. Industrial exploitation inflicts suffering on billions of sentient beings every year: over 92 billion land animals are confined and killed annually for food, a “holocaust of sentient beings on a scale never seen in history,” as our Manifesto insists. In the wild, too, animals face starvation, predation, and disease; many prey species die shortly after birth, experiencing pain without reprieve. Studies observe that suffering in nature is both “common and severe, to the extent that it largely defines the lives of wild animals.” To sentio-centric extinctionists, this massive, unavoidable burden of suffering nullifies whatever modest positives life contains. No amount of fleeting pleasure or “natural beauty” can justify the continual holocaust of feeling beings tortured, devoured, or otherwise harmed.

Extinctionist Proposals

Sentio-centric extinctionists propose a spectrum of actions—from voluntary self-elimination to mass destruction—to eliminate all suffering by ending sentient life. Some groups, like the Church of Euthanasia and online pro-mortalist communities, praise suicide (e.g., “Save the Planet – Kill Yourself”) or lifelong abstention from reproduction as steps toward zero sentient beings, arguing that fewer lives mean less suffering. More radical efilist forums openly discuss using pandemics, nuclear war, or engineered plagues to “sterilize the planet of the disease of life,” even celebrating apocalyptic campaigns and issuing hate speech or threats against those who procreate. They dismiss any ‘lifeboat’ scenario—arguing that no realistically achievable environment can eliminate suffering entirely, since any form of sentient life risks pain—so, in their view, only total eradication guarantees absolute absence of suffering. From that standpoint, they claim omnicide is not only permissible but morally required, since annihilating all life—even by force—prevents incalculable future misery.

Ethical Pitfalls

Yet such arguments reveal deep ethical pitfalls. First, they overlook the intrinsic value life holds for many beings, including humans who find meaning, joy, and purpose despite suffering. By focusing solely on negative experiences, extinctionists underappreciate the positive experiences—curiosity, love, aesthetic appreciation—that, for countless individuals, outweigh periods of pain. Second, the extinctionist framework is inconsistent in its application of compassion: while it rightly condemns animal agriculture and wild-animal suffering, it paradoxically endorses slaughtering entire populations to end suffering, a move that itself inflicts immense violence. Third, their proposals often ignore issues of agency and consent: sentient beings who might choose to live or find their own forms of flourishing are instead coerced into nonexistence.

The Aponist Response

The Aponist response emerges from this critique of sentio-centric extinctionism. Aponism begins with the premise that reducing involuntary suffering is paramount—but it rejects the conclusion that eradicating all life is the only path. Instead, Aponists hold that all currently existing sentient beings have an inviolable claim to life and to compassionate support. From this standpoint, we should combat human-inflicted and wild-animal suffering through interventions and reforms, not destruction. For example, rather than endorsing the immediate slaughter of farmed animals to end their misery, Aponism insists we abolish animal agriculture, promote sanctuaries, and allow animals to live out natural lives with dignity. Over time, domesticated populations would decline as breeding for cruelty stops. This approach preserves life’s positive possibilities while upholding a commitment to ending cruelty.

Expressions of Aponist Ethics

Aponism’s ethical framework is embodied in the following core commitments:

Abolitionist Veganism: Recognizing that humans have no moral license to privilege, convenience, or taste over the basic interests of non-human beings, Aponists call for an immediate end to animal agriculture, vivisection, and all exploitative practices.
Anti-Authoritarianism: No entity—human, corporate, or governmental—has the right to unilaterally decide whose life is worth living or ending. Aponism affirms that coercion, killing, or enslavement violate fundamental moral constraints, even if purportedly aimed at reducing suffering.
Voluntary Antinatalism: To prevent future suffering ethically, Aponists endorse choosing not to reproduce, thereby ensuring no new sentient existences will inevitably confront harm. Crucially, each individual’s decision to forgo parenthood is respected as an exercise of autonomy, rather than imposed as a blanket mandate.

Philosophical Synthesis

Philosophically, Aponism marries elements of negative utilitarianism with deontological and rights-based ethics. From the utilitarian side, it fully acknowledges the moral imperative to minimize suffering—even entertaining extreme measures like ending procreation. From the deontological side, it upholds inviolable rules against using sentient beings as mere means, thereby ruling out killing or coercion as unacceptable instruments for preventing suffering. This synthesis creates an internally coherent moral framework: the “elimination of involuntary suffering” remains the guiding star, but the “elimination of sufferers” is categorically off limits. In academic debates, critics of pure negative utilitarianism often point out that unconstrained negative utilitarian calculus leads directly to world destruction. Aponism exemplifies a constrained approach, showing that one can embrace the spirit of negative utilitarian compassion while preserving a broader ethical context that includes consent, rights, and recognition of life’s potential value.

Conclusion: Compassion over Destruction

Ultimately, sentio-centric extinctionism and Aponism represent two very different responses to suffering: one chooses destruction, the other compassion. Extinctionists—motivated by anguished benevolence—would erase entire ecosystems to eliminate pain, overlooking the ways care, reform, and technology can reduce suffering. In contrast, Aponists believe even the most vulnerable lives—farmed animals, wild creatures in distress, and humans facing injustice—deserve rescue and improvement. By acknowledging life’s capacity for joy, curiosity, and moral agency, Aponism proposes a hopeful, practical path: prevent future suffering by choosing not to bring new humans into existence, embrace veganism to remove the incentive to breed farmed animals, and safeguard existing lives through anti-authoritarian solidarity and rights-respecting compassion. In this way, Aponism preserves a sense of moral vision, reminding us that while life can be full of pain, it also harbors the deepest forms of meaning that make striving for a less cruel world worthwhile.

If you wish to read more about aponism, you can click here to read our Manifesto.