Efilists Must Be Deplatformed

By Omar Formini for The Aponist Society's blog on July 27, 2025

---

Diagnosing Efilism’s Core Dogma

Efilism is an extreme antinatalist ideology holding that all sentient life should be eliminated to prevent suffering¹. The term “efilism” (literally “life” spelled backwards) was coined in online antinatalist circles around 2011 by Gary “Inmendham” Mosher². Efilism arose as a radical extension of antinatalism: whereas traditional antinatalists argue that procreation is unethical due to life’s inevitable suffering, efilists declare that all life on Earth—human and non-human alike—must be driven into extinction as a moral imperative. This core dogma reframes total omnicide as an act of ultimate compassion, claiming the only way to truly spare beings from harm is to ensure no beings exist to suffer ³.

Intellectual lineage: The efilist worldview taps into a longstanding current of philosophical pessimism. The sentiment that “not to be born is best” can be traced back to ancient Greek tragedy (the wisdom of Silenus in Sophocles’s Oedipus at Colonus) and echoes through Arthur Schopenhauer’s 19th-century pronouncements on the misery of life⁴. Modern antinatalist thought was more recently systematized by figures like David Benatar, who argues that coming into existence is always a net harm (Benatar, 2006)¹². Efilism pushes these ideas to their bleak conclusion: it is not enough to refrain from having children; according to efilists, life’s “sickness” must be cured by ending life entirely. Inmendham and his followers explicitly invoke evolutionary history—“4 billion years of the holocaust of evolution,” as one efilist manifesto phrases it—to contend that sentience was a tragic mistake that ought to be undone. They reduce life to an ugly acronym (“CRAP”: consumption, reproduction, addiction, parasitism) and assert that the universe was better off before the “first ouch” of conscious suffering emerged. By this reasoning, the compassionate duty of the one species capable of understanding this “truth” is to orchestrate a “graceful exit” from the evolutionary stage for all life.

Rhetoric of despair and co-opted compassion: Efilist discourse is suffused with the language of suffering and pity, but it weaponizes compassion into a rationale for destruction. Efilists portray themselves as the only ones truly empathetic enough to “end suffering” at its source. In practice, this means they categorically reject harm alleviation as naïve or counterproductive, insisting that palliative measures merely perpetuate the “crime” of existence. Any attempt to improve or preserve life is seen as sentimentality at best, complicity in prolonging suffering at worst. For example, rather than rescuing or healing a suffering animal, efilist commentary often concludes that the “kindest” course is to swiftly kill the animal to prevent any further pain⁵. Indeed, prominent efilists advocate promortalism – the view that death is preferable to life – to such an extreme that they even share gruesome instructions on how to “humanely” exterminate living beings. One efilist video notoriously advised that “the fastest way to end the life of a small animal is [to] just bash their skull in with a shovel,” epitomizing how purported mercy in efilism translates into literal eradication. This illustrates efilism’s perverse hijacking of compassionate concern: it appeals to the moral impulse to prevent suffering, yet channels that impulse toward total negation rather than relief or care.

Rejection of ameliorative ethics: In positioning extinction as the sole cure, efilism pointedly dismisses all forms of incremental harm reduction or positive intervention. The movement’s rhetoric derides humanitarian or animal-welfare efforts as futile “Band-Aids” on a cosmic cancer. Efilists argue that so long as life continues, suffering in some form is inescapable—therefore no measures short of extinction can truly solve the problem. This absolutist stance leads efilists to scorn even those antinatalists and activists who devote themselves to minimizing suffering within life. As evidence, internal critics from the broader antinatalist community have documented efilists openly mocking or attacking non-efilist antinatalists for merely advocating voluntary non-procreation without endorsing violent “endgame” measures. Efilism’s leading voices explicitly condemn standard antinatalism as insufficient because it “does not engage” in bringing about the final eradication of all sentience. In their view, anything short of actively engineering extinction is “cowardice.” Compassionate acts like caring for children, comforting the distressed, or saving animals are dismissed as sentimental hypocrisy, since efilists believe it is better for those beings never to have existed or to die immediately. This purist rejection of harm mitigation becomes a hallmark of efilist dogma. It hijacks the rhetoric of effective altruism (concern for reducing suffering) but pointedly rejects altruistic action in favor of fatalistic “solutions” that nullify the patient rather than treat the disease. In sum, efilism repurposes empathy as a mandate for annihilation – a doctrine of despair masquerading as moral purity.

Aponist Non-Domination versus Efilist Negation

While efilism embraces a nihilistic negation of life, Aponism offers a diametrically opposed ethical vision rooted in non-domination and compassionate harm-minimization. Aponism, as a developing philosophical movement, integrates antinatalist concern for reducing suffering with a robust commitment to the agency and dignity of sentient beings. Central to Aponist ethics is the principle that no being should dominate or violently impose its will on another – a stance that extends across species boundaries as an “integrated ethic of non-domination.” This framework directly challenges efilism’s authoritarian impulse to decide unilaterally that all lives must end.

Harm reduction and sentient agency: Unlike efilists, Aponists do not seek to negate existence but to alleviate its burdens and injustices. They uphold harm-minimization as a guiding norm: the goal is to reduce suffering as much as possible within the context of continued life, through compassion, care, and systemic change. Crucially, Aponist philosophy emphasizes respecting the agency of sentient individuals – their capacity to have preferences, make choices, and experience goods. Where efilism would strip away all agency by eliminating the subject, Aponism aims to empower subjects while protecting them from harm. For example, an Aponist approach to human and animal suffering might involve providing sanctuary to those in distress, medical interventions to relieve pain, and social arrangements that maximize freedom from coercion. This stands in stark contrast to efilism’s ends-justify-the-means logic. In efilist forums, one can find members deriding concepts like “bodily autonomy” if it conflicts with extinctionist goals – some even suggest that parents have no right to their own reproductive choices if those choices produce new “victims”⁶. Aponism vehemently rejects such coercive attitudes. Its non-domination ethic holds that even benevolent ends (ending suffering) cannot be pursued via tyrannical means that trample on the fundamental rights or wills of others.

Abolitionist vegan praxis and multispecies liberation: The divergence between Aponism and efilism is especially stark in their attitudes toward non-human animals and the environment. Aponism aligns with abolitionist vegan principles that seek to end the exploitation of animals and promote multispecies liberation. In practice, this means Aponists support endeavors like abolishing animal agriculture, establishing sanctuaries, restoring habitats, and developing non-violent alternatives to practices that exploit animals. This abolitionist praxis is rooted in non-domination: humans have no right to oppress other sentient beings, and we must actively work to liberate animals from conditions of domination. Efilists, by contrast, trivialize or even deride such liberation struggles. Since efilism deems all life — including animal life — a “mistake,” efforts to improve animals’ lives or save them from harm are seen as pointless. In some efilist rhetoric, freeing animals from human cruelty is dismissed as delaying the inevitable; the efilist “solution” is to eliminate the animals altogether so they cannot suffer or experience joy. Indeed, the efilist community spun off a fringe idea of “wild animal suffering” elimination that entails eradicating predatory species and sterilizing wildlife populations. Even ostensibly compassionate aims (reducing suffering in nature) are thus channeled into domineering projects to refashion or extinguish ecosystems wholesale. Aponism, by contrast, would approach wild animal suffering through less violent interventions (e.g. habitat enrichment, humane population management, or novel technologies to reduce pain) while respecting the inherent value of wild lives. The latent authoritarianism of efilism becomes evident here: the ideology countenances massive, unilateral interventions — up to and including omnicidal violence — in order to impose its vision of a suffering-free world. Efilist leaders have openly fantasized about humanity “taking power” and using weapons of mass destruction to wipe out life on Earth in the name of ending suffering. Some efilists argue that “any means necessary” are justified to reach a world with zero sentient beings. This is domination of the most extreme kind: a self-appointed vanguard deciding the fate of every creature alive.

Aponism categorically repudiates that approach. Its ethic of non-domination entails that one cannot simply override the interests of existing beings “for their own good” as defined by an elite ideology. Instead, Aponist thought stresses voluntary, consent-based, and peaceful pathways to reducing suffering. For instance, Aponists may share antinatalism’s encouragement of choosing not to procreate (to avoid creating new lives exposed to harm), but it is a voluntary moral choice, not something to be coerced through state or vigilante violence. In Aponist praxis, a human deciding not to have children or an initiative to spay/neuter stray animals to prevent future suffering must always be undertaken with care and without hatred toward those who do procreate or toward existing life. Notably, efilist online culture often seethes with hatred and punitive zeal: efilist forums have referred to children as “crotch goblins” or “cum pets” and advocated that parents of large families “should be sent to concentration camps or murdered” out of blame for perpetuating life. Such dehumanizing, violent rhetoric starkly violates Aponism’s commitment to compassion and non-violent discourse. An Aponist approach would frame even those who disagree as subjects for dialogue or education, not enemies to be eliminated.

In summary, Aponism represents an ethos of life-honoring harm reduction, whereas efilism embodies a doctrine of life-negating harm maximization (in the short term) for a supposed ultimate good. Aponism’s abolitionist vegan practice fights suffering by liberating beings from actual domination (whether by cruel industries or oppressive social systems). Efilism, in grim irony, would impose the most totalizing domination imaginable—ending the very existence of all beings—thereby extinguishing not only suffering but every other value, positive experience, or freedom that life allows. This latent authoritarian streak in efilism, where an elite claims the right to “play God” and terminate the world, betrays the ideology’s fundamental ethical failure. It violates the very principle of respect for sentient beings that any truly compassionate ethic must uphold. As the next sections will explore, when this ideology moves from fringe theory into online advocacy, it produces tangible harms that no ethical society can ignore.

Speech Harm in Digital Ecosystems

Efilism may have begun as a fringe philosophical stance, but the internet has given it an outsized platform and amplifying echo chambers. In online ecosystems, the propagation of efilist discourse is not a benign exchange of ideas; it actively causes harm by fueling despair, encouraging dangerous actions, and polluting constructive dialogues on suffering. Modern social media algorithms and community dynamics tend to amplify extreme content – and efilism’s message of total despair is readily spread in “grim corners” of the internet where vulnerable individuals congregate.

Algorithmic amplification of despair: Social media platforms often prioritize content that engages strong emotional reactions, which inadvertently favors extreme or radical posts. Studies have shown that recommendation algorithms can create a snowball effect, pushing users toward ever more extreme content once a certain interest is detected⁷. In the case of efilism, someone initially searching for antinatalist or depressive content on YouTube or Reddit can be rapidly funnelled into a darker subset of videos and threads espousing hopelessness and violence. For instance, on Reddit the now-banned r/efilism subreddit accrued over 12,000 members and functioned as an echo chamber intensifying its members’ negative worldviews. Within these forums, users continually reinforced one another’s belief that life is a “curse” and that drastic measures (like human extinction or suicide) are logical conclusions. This feedback loop can normalise radical despair. One hallmark of the r/efilism culture was increasingly hateful, vitriolic language (e.g. referring to children and parents in dehumanizing slurs) that became more extreme over time. This escalation fits the pattern identified in broader research: algorithms and insular communities transform initial discontent into full-blown extremist rhetoric by repeatedly exposing users to content focused on anger, blame, and nihilism. In effect, social platforms became inadvertent amplifiers for efilism – a doctrine of self-destruction – presenting it not as a mental health crisis to be addressed, but as just another “philosophical debate” to engage with.

Despair communities and psychological harm: Unlike most political extremisms, efilist ideology explicitly courts not just anger but despair. Online efilist communities can be understood as “despair communities” wherein hopelessness is valorized and encouraged. The psychological risks of such environments are profound. Clinical research on social media and self-harm has found that exposure to content endorsing suicide or self-negation correlates with increased self-harm ideation and behaviors⁸. The efilist creed, by flatly stating that life has no value and urging people to “opt out” of existence, can act as a dangerous trigger for depressed or nihilistic individuals. Indeed, efilist forums often overlap with pro-suicide messaging. The Independent’s investigation into efilism noted that some YouTube channels championed by efilists explicitly encouraged suicide and murder on the premise that “all life is suffering”¹. Thus, an individual struggling with suicidal thoughts who stumbles into an efilist online group may encounter not relief or resources, but affirmation of their worst impulses. This dynamic turns these digital spaces into potential incubators of self-destructive or violent action. Tragically, this concern is no longer hypothetical. In May 2025, an American man steeped in online antinatalist-extinctionist content carried out a car bombing of a fertility clinic in Palm Springs, California⁹. His online manifesto was, by all accounts, “drenched in nihilistic rage,” quoting efilist slogans and even name-checking Inmendham as an inspiration. This attacker described himself as “anti-life” and “pro-mortalist,” and he directly referenced the r/efilism subreddit before committing an act of lethal violence. Investigators later noted that he exhibited the very pattern one would fear: a young man with a “bleak feeling about [his] own life” who came to diagnose all life as hopeless, and thereby rationalized an act of terrorism. Online efilist communities had provided him with validation for the idea that “we’re all doomed” and that extreme action was justified.

Echoes of hate and incitement: Alarmingly, efilist discourse online has shown increasing intersections with hate speech and violent extremism. As the efilist community grew more radical, it began to mirror the toxicity of other extremist movements – even adopting misogynistic and fascistic overtones. Moderators of mainstream antinatalist forums observed this trend: they noted a surge of efilist users espousing fascist ideas, “baby hate,” and eugenics, leading moderators to institute rules like “no fascists, no eugenics, no parent hate” to try to keep the discourse humane. The efilists often violated these rules, resulting in many posts and comments being removed for advocating violence (for example, celebrating the idea of attacking parents for having children). Numerous self-identified efilists have been banned from platforms such as Discord, Facebook, Reddit, and YouTube due to open calls for murder or explicit threats “in the name of the efilist ‘cause’”. In one egregious illustration, efilist rhetoric on Reddit included a user outlining a “plan to turn Earth into Venus 2.0 by pumping the atmosphere full of extreme greenhouse gases” – effectively a proposal for planetary omnicide⁶. Another user in an efilist forum baldly stated that “the end goal is for the truth (Efilism) to win, and once it does, we can finally begin the process of sterilizing this planet of the disease of life”³. This kind of speech is not mere hyperbole; it crosses into incitement of atrocity. The fact that it is shared in public or semi-public online spaces means it can inspire unstable individuals (like the aforementioned bomber) to attempt turning words into deeds.

Amplification meets governance gaps: The emergence of an “anti-life” terrorist in 2025 starkly exposed how online amplification of efilism translates to real-world harm. In response, platforms belatedly took action: Reddit administrators shut down the r/efilism subreddit within hours of the bombing news, and other platforms similarly began purging efilist content. However, this reactive approach underscores the need for more proactive, compassionate design and governance in digital ecosystems. “Compassionate design” refers to building platform features and policies that prioritize user well-being and reduce the spread of harmful content. For example, some social media companies have started intervening when users search for self-harm or suicide-related terms. In a notable case, Pinterest introduced a feature that detects searches involving self-harm and instead of showing results that might reinforce suicidal ideation, the app presents users with supportive exercises and mental health resources¹⁰. This design decision – implemented in consultation with clinical experts – aims to disrupt the validation cycle of harmful content and offer help at a critical moment. The Pinterest co-founder described this shift as moving away from maximizing “engagement” at all costs and toward considering “how someone feels” – in his words, ensuring the platform’s pipes carry “drinking water” instead of “sewage” to users.

Applying compassionate design to efilist content would mean that platforms treat open calls for extinction or self-harm promotion as flags for intervention. Rather than algorithmically promoting an efilist video because it gets clicks, YouTube could adjust its recommendation system to steer viewers of such content toward videos about coping with depression or philosophical perspectives that affirm meaning in life. Online forums could incorporate automatic triggers that, for instance, display mental health hotline information or an invitation to join support communities when users post extreme despairing statements. Governance measures – such as clear content policies and active moderation – are equally crucial. Platforms should explicitly classify advocacy of violence (even under the guise of “ending suffering”) and encouragement of suicide as content that violates community standards, which many already do on paper. Enforcing those rules consistently is vital. The case of r/efilism shows that leaving a “despair cult” to fester can indeed lead to escalation: users in that subreddit moved from dark humor to serious hate speech and ultimately one member moved to terrorism. Governance can also involve promoting counter-speech: elevating voices (like Aponist perspectives or mental health advocates) that offer hopeful alternatives to efilist nihilism. In essence, digital platforms must recognize that efilism is not an abstract philosophical position but a harm-prone extremist discourse. Just as algorithms and policies have been updated to constrain the reach of ISIS propaganda or self-harm forums, so too should “anti-natal extremism” be carefully monitored, deprioritized, and when necessary, removed. By redesigning online ecosystems with compassion and safety in mind, we can curtail the amplification of this doctrine of despair before it claims more minds – or lives.

The Philosophical Case for Deplatforming

Given the demonstrable harms of efilist discourse, a compelling ethical and practical case emerges for deplatforming efilists – that is, actively restricting their ability to spread this ideology on mainstream channels. Removing or limiting efilist content is not about stifling unpopular opinions in a free debate; it is about preventing tangible harm and upholding the integrity of ethical discourse. This section argues that deplatforming efilism is justified as a form of harm prevention in line with established precedents (such as prohibitions on incitement and violent speech), and that it ultimately protects meaningful free expression rather than undermining it.

Harm prevention and the limits of speech: In liberal democracies, freedom of expression is a core value – but it is not absolute. Almost all free speech frameworks acknowledge boundaries when speech crosses into direct harm or incitement of unlawful acts. The classic example is incitement to violence, which is legally unprotected in many jurisdictions (e.g., the U.S. Supreme Court’s Brandenburg standard excludes speech “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action” from First Amendment protection). Efilist propaganda frequently meets or exceeds this threshold. When efilist proponents post messages fantasizing about or explicitly urging the mass extermination of people and animals, they are engaging in what amounts to incitement to violence on a potentially genocidal scale. Indeed, efilist content often reads like exhortation toward crimes against humanity or universal suicide. For instance, consider the statement: “If I killed a billion people tomorrow in a horrible way… I could justify it… if I prevented even more of [that suffering] from happening”⁵. This quote (from Inmendham himself) is a straightforward endorsement of atrocity if it serves the efilist end. Such speech is not a mere thought experiment – it signals and encourages a willingness to commit heinous violence. Allowing it unfettered platform space poses a clear and present danger. From a utilitarian harm principle standpoint (à la John Stuart Mill), speech that poses a serious risk of causing loss of life or other grave harms to others can and should be curtailed. Efilist advocacy, by its nature, aims at ending lives (albeit under the moral guise of “ending suffering”); it squarely conflicts with the rights and safety of others, especially vulnerable targets like children or pregnant women whom efilists have explicitly wished violence upon. Limiting such speech is an act of self-defense by society, analogous to dismantling a hate preacher’s platform or a terrorist recruiter’s forum.

Maintaining an ethical discourse space: Paradoxically, deplatforming efilists can be seen as protecting free expression in the broader sense – by preserving an environment where ethical discourse on suffering and welfare can proceed constructively, without being derailed or chilled by extremist toxicity. When efilist voices dominate a conversation, they tend to poison the well of dialogue. Their presence can intimidate or drive away moderate voices: for example, many philosophers, ethicists, and activists are reluctant to engage in antinatalist or animal welfare discussions online for fear of being associated with or swarmed by efilist zealots who twist the conversation toward morbid extremes. Several antinatalist scholars have explicitly distanced themselves, noting that efilists “tar” the whole field with an aura of fanaticism⁵. By removing efilist content from mainstream platforms, we lower the temperature of the discourse, making it safer for well-intentioned contributors (ethics scholars, animal rights advocates, mental health professionals, etc.) to speak without facing death wishes or nihilistic heckling. In this sense, deplatforming is a corrective that prunes away the most disruptive outliers so that the healthy diversity of debate can flourish. It is akin to weeding a garden: one is not suppressing all growth, only removing the invasive weeds that would choke out every other plant. Without efilism hijacking forums, conversations about reducing suffering (for instance, through policy, technology, or compassionate practices) can be had in good faith. The non-domination principle so central to Aponism also applies here: efilist discourse has repeatedly dominated and silenced other viewpoints through sheer vitriol and shock value. Deplatforming restores a balance of power, ensuring that those who advocate for life and responsible compassion are not shouted down by those advocating death.

Precedent and proportionality: There is ample precedent for deplatforming harmful ideologies once they show real-world danger. Societies routinely outlaw direct incitements to violence, ban hate propaganda, and place limits on speech that significantly endangers public health (such as deliberate disinformation during pandemics). In the case of efilism, its promotion has already led to material violence (the bombing in California) and numerous threats of violence documented in online communities³. It also poses public health concerns vis-à-vis suicide encouragement. By analogy, forums that encourage self-harm or eating disorders are often moderated or shut down out of a duty of care to vulnerable users. Platforms like Facebook and Twitter have policies against “glorifying suicide” or encouraging people to kill themselves; efilism clearly violates such policies by glorifying and urging universal self-destruction. Deplatforming efilists is thus not an arbitrary censorship but the enforcement of norms that already exist. It is a proportionate response considering the extremity of what efilists propose. Some critics worry that removing any ideology, however fringe, is a slippery slope – but we must remember that mainstream services have drawn a line at content like terrorist recruitment or explicit neo-Nazi organizing, typically with broad public support. Efilism, as an eliminationist ideology targeting all life, is arguably as dangerous as jihadist or fascist extremism in its potential for harm. As one commentator observed, both far-right pronatalists and nihilistic antinatalists share a common contempt for others’ autonomy and a will to impose their vision through death and suffering³. Just as we would not permit an open forum for a cult advocating mass suicide or a network inciting genocide, we should not permit efilists to propagate their “death cult” narrative unchallenged on major platforms.

Counterarguments and rebuttals: It is important to address concerns about deplatforming, to ensure that the response to efilism remains principled and effective:

• “Isn’t deplatforming a violation of free expression?” Rebuttal: The right to free expression is not a right to an audience or to use privately run platforms to cause harm. Efilists are free to hold their beliefs, but platforms have no obligation to amplify speech that actively endangers others. When an ideology explicitly promotes existential violence, limiting its spread is a matter of public safety. This is analogous to banning incitements to terrorism; society recognizes that some speech, by its very content, seeks to eliminate the very context in which free discourse can exist. It is hard to imagine a more “anti-speech” position than efilism’s wish to annihilate all speakers permanently. Thus, curtailing efilist propaganda is an act of defending the preconditions of any future discourse (namely, the continued existence of speakers not under constant violent threat). As Popper’s famous paradox of tolerance holds, unlimited tolerance of the utterly intolerant can lead to the destruction of tolerance itself. Efilism is fundamentally intolerant of life – it cannot be given free rein without imperiling all the values that free expression is meant to serve.

• “Could suppressing efilist ideas also suppress legitimate reflection on suffering and pessimism?” Rebuttal: It is entirely possible to discuss the problem of suffering, and even to debate antinatalist philosophy, without amplifying extremist voices. Indeed, productive conversations about suffering have occurred in ethics, literature, and religion for centuries without endorsing efilism. By removing efilist content, we are not removing the topic of suffering from discourse; we are removing a toxic distortion of that topic. Constructive reflection on suffering focuses on alleviation, on finding meaning or balance, or on compassionate policy – none of which require the presence of an extremist faction cheering for extinction. Scholars can still read and critique Schopenhauer, Benatar, or Buddhist dukkha teachings in appropriate venues. What we prevent is the hijacking of those discussions by individuals who turn compassion into calls for death. In practice, efilist rhetoric has not deepened the world’s understanding of suffering; it has mostly served as a shock-jock slogan that “life = pain, so end it,” often drowning out more nuanced perspectives. Removing the bullhorn from efilists simply allows more moderate, nuanced, and hopeful voices to be heard on the subject of suffering – voices that were always there and far outnumber the efilists, but were being trivialized as “naive” in efilist echo chambers. We lose no intellectual richness by sidelining efilism; on the contrary, we restore balance to an important ethical conversation.

• “Won’t deplatforming efilists just drive them underground and possibly radicalize them further?” Rebuttal: This is a common concern with any extremism: that suppression might martify the extremists or scatter them into harder-to-monitor cells. Empirical evidence, however, suggests that deplatforming can significantly reduce an extremist movement’s traction and growth. When Reddit banned r/efilism and related subreddits, the immediate result was a dramatic reduction in the reach of that content – a follow-up forum (r/Efilism2) appeared but was quickly moderated with warnings against violence, indicating a step-down in tone. Broader studies of deplatforming outcomes are instructive. For example, when Reddit in 2015 banned several hate speech communities, researchers found that most of the users did not migrate to other sites en masse; instead, many simply left or ceased their toxic postings, resulting in an at least 80% decrease in hate speech usage by those users who remained on Reddit¹¹. The feared “hydra effect” (cut off one platform, two more extreme ones appear) is often overstated. Certainly, a small core of true believers may retreat to fringe networks (as some efilists might move to obscure forums or encrypted chats), but those spaces have far less capacity to recruit new members or influence the mainstream. Importantly, deplatforming disintegrates the social infrastructure that allowed radicalization in the first place. The casual passerby will no longer stumble upon efilist content in a large public forum; one would have to actively seek it out in the darker corners of the web. This barrier significantly slows the movement’s growth and can reduce the overall number of adherents. Moreover, even if a few remaining efilists become more extreme in isolation, their ability to cause harm is curtailed by their isolation. The Palm Springs bomber, for instance, was radicalized precisely via relatively open platforms (Reddit, YouTube) where the ideas were readily accessible. Had those ideas been harder to find, he might not have adopted them or might have encountered counter-messages sooner. Finally, deplatforming should be coupled with engagement and support for those left in the lurch. Many people drawn to efilism are likely suffering from depression or trauma. Removing the efilist community from their reach can be paired with directing them toward mental health resources or more positive support groups. In the best cases, former efilists can be deradicalized when the reinforcing group influence dissipates – similar to how former members of hate groups often disengage when their community is fractured. In short, deplatforming efilism contains its spread and protects the vulnerable majority. The costs – a minority going further “underground” – are manageable with continued monitoring, whereas the benefit of limiting recruitment and preventing copycat violence is substantial.

In conclusion of this section, the philosophical justification for deplatforming efilists rests on the same foundations as society’s justification for curtailing other deeply harmful speech. Efilist advocacy constitutes incitement of violence (even omnicidal violence) and incitement of self-harm; it undermines the conditions for any ethical community by glorifying that community’s destruction. There is no right to such speech being hosted on platforms that have community standards. On the contrary, there is an ethical imperative to stop the propagation of an ideology that, if taken seriously, would end all moral agents and patients. Deplatforming is a necessary act of defensive ethics: defending both living beings from harm and defending the very concept of compassionate, rational discourse from being drowned out by a suicidal roar.

Cultivating Resilient, Life-Honouring Discourse

Removing efilist influence is not only a negative act of silencing harm; it must be accompanied by a positive project of building resilience and affirming life in our discourse and communities. Deplatforming efilism creates an opportunity – and indeed an obligation – to fill the void with restorative alternatives that address the suffering efilists harp on, but in constructive, non-destructive ways. In the aftermath of ejecting this doctrine of despair, stakeholders ranging from platform policymakers to ethics scholars and mental health professionals can collaborate to foster a discourse that honors life while confronting suffering honestly.

Several restorative strategies can be pursued:

• Promote compassionate communities and mutual aid: Many who flirt with efilism do so out of isolation, grief, or a feeling of powerlessness in the face of pervasive suffering. One antidote is to strengthen communities (online and offline) where people can share pain and find support, rather than stewing in despair. Platforms can encourage peer support forums moderated by mental health experts or trained volunteers. For example, subreddit r/antinatalism has seen members redirect discussions toward supportive advice for those in depression, especially after implementing stricter rules against hate and violence⁶. Beyond online spaces, linking vulnerable individuals to mutual aid networks – groups organized around helping each other with basic needs, emotional support, or crisis intervention – can give a sense of agency and hope. Mutual aid and community care are practical embodiments of Aponism’s ethic: they reduce harm through connection, not through annihilation. When someone struggling sees others actively alleviating each other’s burdens (whether it’s sharing food, assisting with medical access, or simply listening without judgment), it undercuts the efilist narrative that suffering is inescapable and empathy is futile. Instead, it demonstrates that suffering can be meaningfully lessened here and now through solidarity.

• Center the narrative on non-harm and sanctuary: To counter the spectacle of despair that efilism provides, we should highlight success stories of compassion and liberation. This involves elevating sanctuary-based projects and harm-reduction initiatives as inspiring models. Animal sanctuaries, for instance, offer a compelling rebuke to efilism’s claim that death is the only mercy for suffering creatures. In sanctuaries, animals rescued from abuse or neglect get to live out natural lives in peace, with veterinary care and loving attention. Each saved animal is a testament that while we cannot erase all suffering, we can transform individual worlds from misery to comfort. Human analogues include hospice care (bringing dignity and relief at life’s end rather than despair), trauma recovery programs, and violence prevention projects. By publicizing these “life-honoring” efforts, we shift the focus from the abstract magnitude of suffering to the concrete actions that reduce it. For those haunted by the weight of the world’s pain, seeing tangible harm reduction can rekindle a sense of efficacy. The message becomes: Yes, suffering is real and terrible, but look – we can fight it step by step, creature by creature, without resorting to self-destruction. Education and media play a role here; platform algorithms could be tuned to recommend uplifting, solution-focused content to users who have consumed a lot of negative or efilist content (a kind of cognitive counterweight to despair).

• Engage in ethical dialogue and refutation: Academics and philosophers aligned with life-affirming ethics (such as Aponism) should not abandon the field of ideas to efilists; instead, they can actively engage and refute efilist arguments in public forums, from an analytical yet compassionate stance. By writing articles, op-eds, or creating videos that dismantle efilist logic – pointing out its self-defeating contradictions and latent authoritarianism – scholars can inoculate the broader public against simplistic doomist thinking. For example, one could draw on Ben Ware’s critique of anti-natalism’s “emptiness of opting out”⁴, or on humanist philosophies that find meaning in alleviating others’ pain rather than surrendering to it (Frankl, 1984; Singer, 2015). These counter-narratives should be made accessible, not just tucked away in academic journals. Platforms might collaborate by featuring Q&As or AMAs (Ask Me Anything sessions) with ethicists who can address questions about suffering without endorsing despair. The goal is to provide intellectually satisfying and emotionally resonant alternatives to efilist fatalism. If someone is drawn to efilism out of a genuine moral horror at suffering, we must show them there are other philosophical responses – e.g., Aponism, Buddhist compassion paths, deep ecology – that confront suffering but cherish life. In doing so, we recapture the audience that might otherwise be seduced by efilism’s stark narrative.

• Compassionate design and platform policies (continued): As discussed, platforms themselves can integrate features to sustain healthier discourse long-term. Expanding on Pinterest’s model, every major social media site could implement automated checks for despair-laden content. A user posting “I wish I had never been born” or “I want to die” could be gently nudged with a private message offering resources (e.g. “It sounds like you’re in pain. You’re not alone – here are some resources that can help.”). This kind of empathetic interface design treats users as vulnerable humans first, not as content generators. Additionally, content moderation teams should be trained to recognize efilist patterns – the co-opting of humanitarian language to justify harm – so that they do not mistakenly allow such content under the guise of “philosophical discussion” when it actually violates anti-incitement rules. By remaining vigilant and proactive, platforms act not as censors of legitimate debate but as guardians against known harm trajectories. The case of r/efilism’s banning is instructive: it was only after the worst outcome occurred that action was taken. In the future, applying predictive governance could lead to earlier intervention when smaller warning signs (e.g. a spike in violent rhetoric in a community) appear, thus preventing tragedies rather than reacting afterward.

Ultimately, fostering resilient, life-affirming discourse means changing the incentive structures online and offline. We need to valorize hope and kindness with the same energy that efilists have valorized cynicism and despair. This can be done by celebrating those who make positive contributions – e.g., platform awards or badges for users who consistently provide supportive, insightful responses on difficult topics. Just as negativity can go viral, so can positivity, if engineered thoughtfully.

Conclusion

In the integrated vision of Aponism, the measure of an ethic is its orientation toward non-harm and liberation. Efilism fails that measure on every count: it demands domination (in the form of imposed extinction), it generates harm (psychological despair, encouragement of violence), and it offers no path forward for the living. To protect both the vulnerable and the very possibility of ethical progress, efilist discourse must be robustly challenged and removed from megaphones of influence. Deplatforming efilists is a necessary step – not as a repression of dissent, but as a rescue of the despairing and a defense of life’s value. In the space opened up by that removal, we can cultivate conversations and communities that face suffering squarely yet choose compassion over nihilism. By “de-platforming” death, we give voice to hope. The result will be a discourse environment where non-domination, care, and rational optimism have a chance to flourish, guiding us toward solutions that reduce harm while honoring the precious experiment that is life itself.

---

References

---

If you wish to read more about Aponism, you can click here to visit our home page.