I came up with a term “strict antinatalism”, in an attempt to address the “inconsistency problem” regarding promortalism.

[SpiritualDeath]

Promortalism is the view that it is always in the best interest of any existing sentient being to cease to exist. I've heard plenty of times that people say "Those who truly hold the belief of promortalism would have been dead already. Those who claim that they are promortalists but are still alive are all inconsistent, therefore this philosophy should not be taken seriously." In my opinion it's far from the truth. This article aims at debunking this logic and addressing the problem that is raised in this argument.

The most direct refutation of this argument is that anyone who thinks suicide is easy knows nothing about suicide. A sooner death that promortalists aim for in most cases makes suicide a necessary process to go through, but suicide is far more complicated than just saying a few words. I believe this is obvious to the people here, but with the intention of being more persuasive, I'll still list a few reasons for this.

1. When people say "why don't you just die", they're with the assumption that it's easy to die and you have all the freedom to do so, but in reality it's not the case. You don't really have a choice. You're controlled by DNA and brain chemicals, built in nature to be addicted to life, to strive for survival and procreation, instead of self-termination. These are all imposed on you from birth. I call this "pro-life programming that's in you." Promortalism is only a philosophical view that's derived from logic. It has no magic power to suddenly undo all the biological pro-life programming. Again, when people say that a real promortalist would be dead already, they're with the assumption that promortalism is able to do this to you.

Some pro-lifers use this to defend being pro-life, saying something like "Your SI made you fail your last attempt, therefore suicide is bad","You're coded to survive, therefore death is bad, and you should live no matter what", "You need to give birth and pass on your DNA because the meaning of life is to continue it", etc. I see no logic in such statements. The fact that it's a thing you're programmed to do/ it's a thing that the majority of people are doing is insufficient to prove that it's a good thing / it's worth doing. If anything such statements are actually against their pro-life stance - they imply that the majority of people are just following the code, doing what they're programmed to do, instead of actively choosing life over death with their own free will.

2. Assisted suicide is way better than conventional suicide methods. However, given how pro-life this world is, this is not an option for the majority of people.

3. No current suicide method guarantees success. There are risks to it. It's terminating yourself after all, which means that a botched suicide could lead to real serious destruction instead of death. The risk factor is always something to consider when making the decision. At the end of the day it comes down to a question of when the risk is worth taking. This makes the decision rather complicated and personal. Often more than one factor needs to be taken into consideration, and a philosophical standpoint alone is usually not enough. However, a promortalist does differ from others in certain ways when making this analysis, and I will get to this point later on in this article.

All in all, it's only a philosophical standpoint, not a religion, and does not have doctrines that demand you to follow. What I find very interesting is, no one says to the religious people that if they, as individuals, are not living exactly as their scriptures instruct, they're inconsistent and their religions should not be taken seriously, because people know it's not a logical conclusion to be drawn, and it's quite disrespectful. I don't understand why it has to be different in the case of promortalism.

I define the promortalist as people:
1. Whose attitude towards life is full rejection (the reasons for this have been discussed many times in various theories of philosophical pessimism). This makes them different from the nihilist, who are often indifferent when it comes to attitude .

2. Who has no intention of staying if a safe, painless, available, 100% guaranteed method is provided (or at least believes that in this case it's in the best interest of a person/sentient being to use the method and leave). This makes them different from the efilist, who often choose to live so that they can spread the idea and make a contribution to achieving the goal of efilism ("the efilist janitor" as Amanda Sukenick described in her short film The EFIList (2016)[1] ).

David Benatar, in his book Better Never to Have Been (2006)[2], said that all his arguments are only used to evaluate if it's worth bringing a non-existent child here, instead of evaluating if existing life is worth continuing, which explicitly drew a line between his version of antinatalism and promortalism. That's why I came up with the term "strict antinatalism", in addition to the current version of antinatalism, which I think is fully in line with promortalism. I believe it has the potential to address the "living promortalist" inconsistency problem.

"Strict antinatalism" implies a goal of rejecting life to the greatest extent when the option of directly rejecting life (death/suicide) is not feasible at the current moment. Indeed, the other way of doing this is through preventing life to be born, and ending other existing life in acceptable ways, without causing significant extra harm. It's a stricter version of antinatalism because it not only includes not having biological offspring, but may also include things like:

1. Refusing to have PIV sex (specifically with the purpose of totally preventing pregnancy). It may sound weird but it's actually quite significant. Ironically just like suicide, no current method of contraception is not bothersome and is 100% failsafe. This may be considered more important by assigned female promortalists, since they're the ones with the ability to get pregnant, at risk of getting harmed in the process of abortion, and most importantly, cannot speak for their pregnant self at the current moment (again, pro-life programming and life addiction mean that you cannot be sure you will still think this rationally and not do irrational things like keeping the baby when you're under the influence of hormones).

2. Refusing to donate/sell sperms/eggs, that will be used by others to assist procreation.

3. Not owning "life toys" aka pets, and not breeding pet animals for profit.

4. Not breeding animals for food (doesn't have to be vegan).

5. Supporting sterilization/euthanasia of stray dogs/cats, and wild animals.

6. Supporting unconditional right to die (with no age restriction).

7. Being pro-choice (OR pro-death) on the topic of suicide.

8. Being pro-abortion (doesn't have to be pro forced abortion/forced sterilization) on the topic of abortion (when a pregnancy has already taken place).

9. Etc.

These things are done with the intention that, when the person dies (even if it's a natural death), the concept of life completely dies with them. I.e., they want to do their best not to continue/ pass on life. Since none of these things are the norm, they indicate an active choice of death over life even without suicide involved, and are therefore fully in line with the philosophy of promortalism.

It's very worth noting that, what I mentioned are not the only beliefs that may be held by a "strict antinatalist", or "living promortalist". Also, none of what I mentioned is a rule/dogma/demand that people should follow to make the philosophy consistent. The philosophy is consistent on its own terms, and the specific personal circumstances of the promortalist are often far more complicated, and should be considered more important when making analysis and judgement.

This brings us back to the question of when the risk of suicide is worth taking. The philosophy of promortalism plays a role, although to different extents, in the decision of a promortalist, which indeed makes them more prone to attempting suicide. In general, things that are often seen as acceptable or "normal" by other people can be enough reasons for them to just use what they have and exit. Some people believe that there doesn't even need to be a reason or an analysis since by staying alive you're always in harms way, and they'll check out as soon as they can get a relatively good method on hand. Some people believe it's okay to live until they die (being indifferent) but if they're forced to procreate/pass on life to others then they must attempt to check out before this really happens. Personally I would say that the risk of suicide is worth taking simply when life gets boring enough and will predictably continue being boring.

Please feel free to leave any thoughts and comments.

Reference:
[1] Benatar, D. (2006) Better never to have been. Available at: https://docdro.id/pPhmtci
[2] Amanda "Oldphan" Sukenick (2016), The EFIList. Available at: http://www.efilism.com/


(I just can't have a proper conversation with people outside this forum, without them telling me I'm "rationalizing my depression"
so I thought fuck let's rationalize my depression then lol.)

 

[Forever Sleep]

Interesting. I can't say I'm a promortalist but I comply with a lot of the strict anti-natilist guidelines. I'd disagree on the vegan one though. I'm only vegetarian myself but I think- to be truly and strictly anti-natilist- someone should be vegan. By using animal products of any kind- we are funding the industries that require animals to be bred (and slaughtered.) We may not be breeding them and killing them ourselves but we are paying others to do it for us- not a big distinction really. It's like saying you didn't have that child but you paid someone to be a surrogate. It's still supporting birth... and death.

Still- like I say- I'm not terribly strict anything. I think it's important to hold opinions for ourselves. It's not up to me to decide for other people. Especially when it comes to promortalism. Thinking death is the best thing for everyone could potentially lead to homicide/genocide if you happen to be psychotic as well. Not to say I think anyone here is but, I just think pro-choice is the healthier and more empathetic attitude. There are people out there who don't want to die! I think it's important to empathise with them too. It tends to be murderers who don't...

 

[SpiritualDeath]

I'm only vegetarian myself but I think- to be truly and strictly anti-natilist- someone should be vegan. By using animal products of any kind- we are funding the industries that require animals to be bred (and slaughtered.)

Strictly speaking, eating meat/using animal products is not the only form of exploitation here. Because of how pro-life this society is, if you're paying tax you're paying for those pro-life societal projects, encouraging childbirth etc. Just by living your everyday life and buying everyday necessities you're paying to perpetuate the slave-driving system. There're plenty of slaves that have no choice but to work dead end shit jobs in shit places such as sweatshops to provide a life for you. If you feel like your life is worth living, it just means that you're privileged enough to not have to work those shit jobs. Strictly speaking being an antinatalist or a vegan is never enough, and it does require you to cease to exist if you're really keen on stopping suffering, since that's the only way you can completely stop being a part of this perpetuation of suffering, and also get yourself rid of the risk of future suffering.

I'm not speaking against veganism. I would encourage everyone to be vegan and stop using animal product, if they can of course. I'm just saying it's not enough, and I see no logical reasons to not treat all suffering and exploitation as equally unacceptable. It's just not reasonable to me to only focus on one type of suffering and exploitation, but be okay with all other types.

I know it's very hard to take in. Personally I often have this sense of guilt of being a promortalist but also so much of a coward that I can't throw myself down a cliff or something. Like it's so fucked up and hypocritical of me to not just attempt. I know pro-lifers and suicide prevention are so much to blame on this one, and whether a promortalist attempts or not should be irrelevant (it's not reasonable to invalidate the message by only focusing on the messenger), but it's still a dilemma you're going to find yourself in if you want to truly understand promortalism. It doesn't feel comfortable - and of course it's always easier to just agree with the pro-lifers and do what they're doing. This alone is enough to deter people from intellectually understanding the concept. That's why I try to get around this dilemma by proving that it's possible to be consistent as a promortalist even if you don't ctb. I'm trying to relax the standards while preserving logical consistency (if you continue to live you'll have to relax standards lol) when I say vegan is not a "prerequisite" kind of thing.

Thinking death is the best thing for everyone could potentially lead to homicide/genocide if you happen to be psychotic as well

ANY philosophy or ideology can be dangerous if taken to the extreme. Religions are much worse imo - they have existed for centuries and caused so much evil and suffering, in forms of holy wars, genocide, slavery, indoctrination, deprivation of bodily autonomy, prolonged suffering in life etc. All of these have truly happened in the past, are happening right now, and I have no doubt that they are going to continue happening. All done for the sake of religions alone, with religions being directly brought out to justify the behaviors. Promortalists are and will be the minority indeed. It's a suicidal philosophy indeed. I have seen a few promortalists on the internet who have ctbed, but all they did was doing the philosophy and ctb. I have yet to know anyone that really committed murder and using promortalism to justify it lol. Despite all of these it's still a mainstream cultural consensus that you treat people with religious beliefs with respect. I just don't see why it suddenly has to be so different in the case of promortalism. People just ostracize you and treat you like shit if they find out you're one lol. Like, I just don't understand why people here hate funeral cry so much when all she's doing is just venting on a suicide forum.

I would agree that you probably shouldn't be too faithful to an ideology lol. It's just this how this shit world operates and everything can be bad and harmful in some way. There's just no truth and the efforts to search for truth will be in vain. Blind faith is stupid and harmful in general. It's irrelevant if it's promortalism or other things tho.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Strictly speaking, eating meat/using animal products is not the only form of exploitation here. Because of how pro-life this society is, if you're paying tax you're paying for those pro-life societal projects, encouraging childbirth etc. Just by living your everyday life and buying everyday necessities you're paying to perpetuate the slave-driving system. There're plenty of slaves that have no choice but to work dead end shit jobs in shit places such as sweatshops to provide a life for you. If you feel like your life is worth living, it just means that you're privileged enough to not have to work those shit jobs. Strictly speaking being an antinatalist or a vegan is never enough, and it does require you to cease to exist if you're really keen on stopping suffering, since that's the only way you can completely stop being a part of this perpetuation of suffering, and also get yourself rid of the risk of future suffering.

I'm not speaking against veganism. I would encourage everyone to be vegan and stop using animal product, if they can of course. I'm just saying it's not enough, and I see no logical reasons to not treat all suffering and exploitation as equally unacceptable. It's just not reasonable to me to only focus on one type of suffering and exploitation, but be okay with all other types.

I know it's very hard to take in. Personally I often have this sense of guilt of being a promortalist but also so much of a coward that I can't throw myself down a cliff or something. Like it's so fucked up and hypocritical of me to not just attempt. I know pro-lifers and suicide prevention are so much to blame on this one, and whether a promortalist attempts or not should be irrelevant (it's not reasonable to invalidate the message by only focusing on the messenger), but it's still a dilemma you're going to find yourself in if you want to truly understand promortalism. It doesn't feel comfortable - and of course it's always easier to just agree with the pro-lifers and do what they're doing. This alone is enough to deter people from intellectually understanding the concept. That's why I try to get around this dilemma by proving that it's possible to be consistent as a promortalist even if you don't ctb. I'm trying to relax the standards while preserving logical consistency (if you continue to live you'll have to relax standards lol) when I say vegan is not a "prerequisite" kind of thing.

ANY philosophy or ideology can be dangerous if taken to the extreme. Religions are much worse imo - they have existed for centuries and caused so much evil and suffering, in forms of holy wars, genocide, slavery, indoctrination, deprivation of bodily autonomy, prolonged suffering in life etc. All of these have truly happened in the past, are happening right now, and I have no doubt that they are going to continue happening. All done for the sake of religions alone, with religions being directly brought out to justify the behaviors. Promortalists are and will be the minority indeed. It's a suicidal philosophy indeed. I have seen a few promortalists on the internet who have ctbed, but all they did was doing the philosophy and ctb. I have yet to know anyone that really committed murder and using promortalism to justify it lol. Despite all of these it's still a mainstream cultural consensus that you treat people with religious beliefs with respect. I just don't see why it suddenly has to be so different in the case of promortalism. People just ostracize you and treat you like shit if they find out you're one lol. Like, I just don't understand why people here hate funeral cry so much when all she's doing is just venting on a suicide forum.

I would agree that you probably shouldn't be too faithful to an ideology lol. It's just this how this shit world operates and everything can be bad and harmful in some way. There's just no truth and the efforts to search for truth will be in vain. Blind faith is stupid and harmful in general. It's irrelevant if it's promortalism or other things tho.

Yeah, to be fair- murderes rarely kill people out of pity. Most do it to satisfy their own ends- which are usually selfish- monetry or romantic gains. Or, satisfying some sadistic or sexual urge. Promortalists are more likely to go for some sort of euthanasia programme- mass genocide- if they could.

The problem I have with promortalists is this thing of deciding for everyone what is best for them. As a concept- I can't argue with it. But- we aren't just things to be contolled by other people's decisions. Enough of that goes on already! Seems like God level thinking to me. I think our ability and right to choose our own destiny is the most important gift we have. We don't have it now of course either but just killing everyone whether they want to die or not doesn't play into this. When enough time passes- everything is going to die anyway on this planet- when the sun explodes. We'll probably have gone extinct by our own steam by then though.

As for posts by FuneralCry, I do understand her viewpoint but I do struggle sometimes with the absoluteness of it. I guess because I try to see things from other people's viewpoints- even pro-lifers. I think that's important as a society- if we are ever going to get things like assisted suicide legalised, it's not the promortalists we need to convince to bring it in. It might be understandable, but simply feeling 'disgusted' by anyone who doesn't share your views just keeps us locked in where we are. That whole 'us and them' deal. We need to be able to have calm discussions where we all listen to one another if we are ever going to have any hope of changing things. (In my view.)

I do believe in free speech and she has a right to hold and express her views. Still, people openly speaking about how everyone- including children should have unrestricted access to nembutal paints a great big target on this site. People who oppose it are going to be all over comments like that. From an extremely selfish point of view, I really value this site. When it is attacked- it's those kind of quotes that get mentioned and presumably, worried parents think it is representative of everyone's views on here most probably. Which- they really aren't. I'm not saying she shouldn't be allowed to express her views but I'd say if anything- it's healthy to have some opposition here to them. If we all wholeheartedly agreed with all her posts- sorry but I think this place would start living up to its reputation as a promortalist death cult. That's just my opinion. I'm entitled to it as much as you or her. Of course- that's no excuse to be rude. I do often disagree with her but I try to be civil in how I do it.

 

[SpiritualDeath]

But- we aren't just things to be contolled by other people's decisions. Enough of that goes on already! Seems like God level thinking to me. I think our ability and right to choose our own destiny is the most important gift we have. We don't have it now of course either but just killing everyone whether they want to die or not doesn't play into this. When enough time passes- everything is going to die anyway on this planet- when the sun explodes. We'll probably have gone extinct by our own steam by then though.

Yeah you have a point here. That's why I'm not pro forced euthanasia or forced sterilization either. People have to see it for themselves, if they don't see it there's no use in forcing anything on them. Like, in practice you're not gonna come up with a perfect failsafe plan for such act, and if people don't understand they'll resist, and there will be a war. It's probably gonna end up like any other historical drama that humans got themselves into: just end when it ends, no meaning, no winners, just blood, torture and a lot of suffering.

As a concept- I can't argue with it

Exactly. The concept is objectively true. That's why I'm a promortalist in the sense of seeing how much less suffering everyone would have to endure if people could just accept this fate and stop being so pro-life. They don't even need to choose death. So many problems would stop being problems if they just admit that this is true and stop perpetuating the lies. Of course I understand it's hard to take in if someone's saying that your whole life is a lie and you're actually better off to cease to exist, but I would say that it's the lies that is to blame, not the truth.

Still, people openly speaking about how everyone- including children should have unrestricted access to nembutal paints a great big target on this site

I believe that everyone - including children should have unrestricted access to nembutal as well. If you think that it's wrong for promortalists to play god then no parents have the right to play god as well. Parents are playing a more powerful (and therefore more evil) kind of god here. They just bring children here to suffer and naturally get the power to dictate how children live their lives at least for the first 16 years of their lives. It's a worse kind of playing god. I just keep these opinions to myself instead of speaking about it openly I guess because I'm aware how I would get kicked.

When it is attacked- it's those kind of quotes that get mentioned and presumably, worried parents think it is representative of everyone's views on here most probably. Which- they really aren't.

You have a point here as well. I don't care much about bad publicity so this is usually not what I think of first. But do you really think it's funeralcry to blame? I feel it's natural that if a suicide forum like this exist, it's gonna attract people like funeralcry. Is it her fault that people out there are so stupid that they just believe in whatever they're told without thinking for themselves and checking if the information is true by themselves?

I'm not saying she shouldn't be allowed to express her views but I'd say if anything- it's healthy to have some opposition here to them. If we all wholeheartedly agreed with all her posts- sorry but I think this place would start living up to its reputation as a promortalist death cult.

I'm obviously talking about the trolls and personal attack towards her. I have absolutely no problems with people opposing the view in a civil way of course. But is this kind of hate really necessary?

 

[Forever Sleep]

Yeah you have a point here. That's why I'm not pro forced euthanasia or forced sterilization either. People have to see it for themselves, if they don't see it there's no use in forcing anything on them. Like, in practice you're not gonna come up with a perfect failsafe plan for such act, and if people don't understand they'll resist, and there will be a war. It's probably gonna end up like any other historical drama that humans got themselves into: just end when it ends, no meaning, no winners, just blood, torture and a lot of suffering.

Exactly. The concept is objectively true. That's why I'm a promortalist in the sense of seeing how much less suffering everyone would have to endure if people could just accept this fate and stop being so pro-life. They don't even need to choose death. So many problems would stop being problems if they just admit that this is true and stop perpetuating the lies. Of course I understand it's hard to take in if someone's saying that your whole life is a lie and you're actually better off to cease to exist, but I would say that it's the lies that is to blame, not the truth.

I believe that everyone - including children should have unrestricted access to nembutal as well. If you think that it's wrong for promortalists to play god then no parents have the right to play god as well. Parents are playing a more powerful (and therefore more evil) kind of god here. They just bring children here to suffer and naturally get the power to dictate how children live their lives at least for the first 16 years of their lives. It's a worse kind of playing god. I just keep these opinions to myself instead of speaking about it openly I guess because I'm aware how I would get kicked.

You have a point here as well. I don't care much about bad publicity so this is usually not what I think of first. But do you really think it's funeralcry to blame? I feel it's natural that if a suicide forum like this exist, it's gonna attract people like funeralcry. Is it her fault that people out there are so stupid that they just believe in whatever they're told without thinking for themselves and checking if the information is true by themselves?

I'm obviously talking about the trolls and personal attack towards her. I have absolutely no problems with people opposing the view in a civil way of course. But is this kind of hate really necessary?

I agree with a lot of your points and no- I don't think it's FuneralCrys 'fault'. This website would get criticism either way because it provides access to method information and is pro-choice. It's inevitable really that people who want to paint it in an extreme light will choose the most extreme quotes to post- not only hers of course. I appreciate the fact that you don't see them as extreme- and- that's fine. They don't represent everyone here though by any means.

I think this website gets a bad reputation as an echo-chamber where people suggesting recovery get bullied out. I think there is some truth to that. I think there needs to be a balance personally. I think people who push their unsolicited advice on others excessively certainly need to be told it isn't welcome but personally- I think the level of pessimism FuneralCry really wants would be detrimental. Not all people come here loathing existence and seeing death as the holy grail. Some people are still undecided over how they feel. Some even still desperately want to live but can't find a way to make it work.

Personally, I get the impression she doesn't want to read any positivity on anyone's threads- not just her own. Personally- I think that's going too much the other way. Do I think she's to blame for the criticism levelled here? No. But- if she got her way and this place became as promortalist as I think she would like- then- yes, I think it would be fair enough even to label it a death cult- if no other opinions were allowed. As it is- it isn't. It's a bunch of people openly expressing their views- which I think is essential.

 

[SpiritualDeath]

I agree with a lot of your points and no- I don't think it's FuneralCrys 'fault'. This website would get criticism either way because it provides access to method information and is pro-choice. It's inevitable really that people who want to paint it in an extreme light will choose the most extreme quotes to post- not only hers of course. I appreciate the fact that you don't see them as extreme- and- that's fine. They don't represent everyone here though by any means.

I think this website gets a bad reputation as an echo-chamber where people suggesting recovery get bullied out. I think there is some truth to that. I think there needs to be a balance personally. I think people who push their unsolicited advice on others excessively certainly need to be told it isn't welcome but personally- I think the level of pessimism FuneralCry really wants would be detrimental. Not all people come here loathing existence and seeing death as the holy grail. Some people are still undecided over how they feel. Some even still desperately want to live but can't find a way to make it work.

Personally, I get the impression she doesn't want to read any positivity on anyone's threads- not just her own. Personally- I think that's going too much the other way. Do I think she's to blame for the criticism levelled here? No. But- if she got her way and this place became as promortalist as I think she would like- then- yes, I think it would be fair enough even to label it a death cult- if no other opinions were allowed. As it is- it isn't. It's a bunch of people openly expressing their views- which I think is essential.

I get what you're saying.

It may as well be a matter of personal perspective, and indeed, I don't see her posts as extreme.

I never check the recovery section here bc I feel that even that is too pro-life for me. I must admit that I share some funeralcry's sense of frustration lol. I see people are suffering so much just because they still operate on that kind of "pro-life" logic (like how people suffer because they feel that it's very important to have success, have money, be loved, be intelligent, be good-looking, etc., but they can't achieve these in reality), and they're still seeing this as positive and encourage others to be "positive" no matter how much suffering this causes in reality. I just feel that this is so wrong. I get frustrated when I see such posts as well. I guess the difference is that I keep this frustration to myself, because as you said people have the right to their own opinions and mostly because I don't want to start a pointless fight with people, while funeralcry wants to express each and every single thought and feeling.

Yeah people are very different from each others here. As someone here (I can't remember the name) once said, there's really not much similarity among us other than being pro-choice, and we're just like a bunch of rabbits chilling on a rabbit island lol.