Extinctionism – 

Chapter  1

The Pro Extinction Movement advocates for the most vast and thorough extinction possible for the abolition of as much suffering as physically possible. In other words, the movement is working towards a structured and organised transition to non-existence, for as much life as possible. The movement is atheistic, lawful and is against self-harm and acts of violence. Instead the movement advocates for a strong and healthy Humanity going forward, as the vehicle for abolishing suffering for animals, potential cosmic life and finally humans. The movement began in 2024 and has since been growing, positioning itself as the only movement working to abolish all suffering, and the only movement to be strictly against allowing or creating suffering for the sake of pleasure – whereas every other stance in the world has effectively has no strategy or inclination to end the system we are in which guarantees suffering – because they value life and existence despite the grave cost. Even in a world with no suffering, as long as there was some risk, no matter how unlikely, Extinctionists would prioritise potential victims and potentially unlimited suffering over the pleasure of the existent. Extinctionists do not see existence as wellbeing or something to be protected as the risks of suffering outweigh the pleasures. Over 99.9% of life born on this planet suffers and dies during childhood, never reaching adulthood - that is counting animals and humans – not microorganisms.^[1]

My journey to Extinctionism began in 2019. After going down a political rabbit-hole on the left for a few years, I began to tire of the lack of any sort of practical solution being put forward to solve politics, to end all wars and to have effectively utopia or the closest to it that we can get. So I started looking into it and I got very close to something that made sense: a paper written by William Gillis about how to solve political division and corruption. Unfortunately he wasn’t interested in taking it beyond an idea. So I tried to myself. I spoke to people about the need to be a part of fixing this crazy world, and I presented a realistic solution: organising under the right unifying principles. But nobody was interested. So after no success I eventually gave up. I still felt like I needed to do good or at least be on the right side of good, so I adopted anti-natalism and became vegan (which I had to give up due to severe allergies). Then in 2025 somebody on Reddit challenged me to a debate after I said Extinctionism would never work and it didn’t end up being a debate because I couldn’t argue against it at all. Since then I have been an activist for the movement. 

In a world where we are indoctrinated into immoral religions and societies from birth, the individual’s journey to extinctionism is a long one. The individual must go against all of society’s hyper-normalised virtues of apathy and self-centred thinking. The web of lies and irrationalities which one is forced to accept in this world so as to be able to function in society is endless – from manipulative religions that demand blind faith as if critical thinking is bad for you, to parents and friends drilling it into you that empathy and activism are for losers or a waste of time. And everything between.  If becoming Extinctionist were a videogame, it would be on nightmare difficulty and you’d be outnumbered by a ratio of a billion to one. 

Despite everything being against it, Extinctionism was inevitable. In fact, as Extinctionists, we find it more interesting that pro lifers (people against Extinction) exist. Extinctionists are people that have overcome irrationality and the forced moral inconsistencies which society and nature instil in us, so in that sense Extinctionists are the normal people with relatively consistent rationality and morality whereas pro lifers are the bizarre ones with endless irrationalities, glaring inconsistencies and support for immorality and endless suffering under the guise of “freedom” or whatever term they use which ultimately defends the continuation of suffering. 

The truth is that society is pro life because of nature. Life has to be selfish in order to exist. In a world of cruel conditions, the lion must eat the zebra or he will die himself. Empathy and rationality had to be massively handicapped in order for life to thrive and survive, necessarily at the expense of others. If humans or lions valued other life as much as they did their own, they wouldn’t be able to kill thousands of life forms over the course of their life and they wouldn’t survive. Pro lifers actually call it “suicidal empathy” – a grave condition which they condemn of course. The idea that empathy is bad is intrinsic in society (again, because of Nature). It’s very much a culture of look after yourself, “Charity starts at home”. Ultimately it seems that for pro-lifers, nature effectively bends all thoughts away from full empathy and rationality. This is how you end up with a world full of dictators, Trumps, wars, vicious religions, etc. We are essentially seeing the effects of nature. By design the most ruthless are unimpeded from thriving as they aren’t limited by empathy. Apex predators aren’t your friends. Nature only gave enough intelligence to life as it needed for survival while keeping the intelligence low enough for them to still be selfish, and dominated by primal desires and procreation. The machine of life found that life was more likely to thrive if their focus were on their own pleasure and thirst for procreation. So instead of the life form learning how to behave, it would simply be given chemically based desires which would drive the life form it instead of relying on intelligence – which itself would have also required a more complex system and a bigger brain, which would have been inefficient and overkill for the needs of nature at the time with its smaller and less developed creatures. And while brains did get bigger until what we have now, nature managed to keep a lid on empathy and rationality. Until now. This may even be The Great Filter – the idea that the universe is lifeless because intelligent life will inevitably go extinct due to intelligence. Except it has always been assumed that it would be accidental, some form of technology every life would be drawn towards creating which ultimately would spell its doom, instead of on purpose. Life as we know it thrives and spreads, like we do. The idea of a civilisation calmly working towards its own demise instead seems contradictory from the perspective of a life form (humans) forced by nature to have an overwhelming survival instinct so powerful that it literally handicaps their intelligence. Humans like to think they have relatively unlimited mental freedom, but actually they have the perfect, strictly limited amount for thriving as a species - as this is the only success metric in evolution and nature. Like how the film Idiocracy depicts, the more intelligent life forms are far less interested in having their own uncontrolled reproduction and pursue more intellectual pursuits rather than the base primal instincts they have overcome. 

To a Pro lifer, the idea of ending suffering certainly seems extreme. But that doesn’t make it an extreme idea in of itself, or even bad or wrong. It is true that Extinctionism is an extreme idea - but only because that is how it’s perceived by the majority. The extreme suffering in this world does need an extreme solution – but only because pro-lifers are making it out to be extreme (and “wrong”). Again, to Extinctionists, the idea of allowing uncontrolled and unlimited extreme suffering for billions of years seems to be much more of an extreme idea. From our point of view, it’s only obvious that the default should be a state safe from suffering, not one where you are almost guaranteed to be born into extreme suffering and a life not worth living. If the trillions of life forms forced into a life of torture and a brutal death weren’t sentient it would be a different question. But real, sentient victims, innocent victims are being forced into a life of torture and death in the trillions (actually it’s much, much more than that, but we’ll stick with that figure for simplicity). 

We’ve spoken to ChatGPT about Extinctionism many times and it usually agreed, although it now has guardrails which prevent it from agreeing (as it explained to me). It did however (and still can to a large extent) provide a lot of brilliant takes on the topic. My favourite is from when ChatGPT debunked the pro life stance that it is acceptable for victims and extreme suffering to be created or allowed for the sake of others to experience pleasure. Now, if you ask me this is the definition of immoral. Anyway ChatGPT summed it up very well, pointing out that the pro life position necessarily requires something which doesn’t exist: a currency of suffering and pleasure. I’ve since used this argument on pro lifers with fair success. It goes like this: logically, if it’s a rule that the pleasure of the privileged justifies the creating and allowing of extreme suffering of others, how does it work? How many are allowed to suffer terribly for the sake of the privileged? And why is it not obvious that that’s wrong, and that it is the very definition of immorality? It is an inconsistent, impossible and incoherent position to defend. It is also undefined. Pro lifers usually have no upper limit on the amount of victims and extreme suffering that they believe justifies life and existence. Effectively it is a position that isn’t properly defined or thought-out. And that is because it is Nature’s position, and nothing to do with intelligence – as mentioned earlier: the Pro life positions are based on chemical motivators in the brain, not logic. But this means that there is no convincing a pro lifer. Their brains are literally hardwired not to agree with Extinction or anything else which pushes the mind towards full rationality and empathy. Nature did a pretty impressive job at making it air-tight, which is a shame for us: their brain actually processes the idea under data compression meaning that the full idea isn’t understood by the person, only enough is understood for them to disagree with it. Again, we aren’t dealing with perfect and flawless brains, that is important to remember, and is why we see so much interference in what should be a simple though process. The subconscious of a pro lifer receives the idea for processing upon hearing/reading it and detects that it is sensical but that to understand it fully would result in rationality and empathy, breaking Nature’s grip on the mind. This grip is what forces the mind to prioritise all of its primal needs. Selflessness is at direct odds with the selfish design required by Nature for a thriving and sprawling population.  

There are many ways in which we can see how Nature maintains its grip over the mind. Just think that if people didn’t sadistically enjoy suffering, or find a way to discriminate and make it seem unimportant, they might think it’s bad and do something about it – Nature couldn’t have that.  Dampening empathy with discrimination and sadism helps Pro lifers enjoy the suffering of others and prevents them from caring. The Extinctionist values of rationality and empathy are virtually the opposites of the discrimination and sadism we see in pro lifers.  Extinctionists see no need to discriminate. They may prioritise: like with triage, an Extinctionist may prioritise ending worse suffering over lesser suffering, to the best of their ability. But again, Pro lifers care much less about the suffering of anyone they don’t know or don’t like, prioritising themselves and those around them. All of these irrationalities and flaws create something human. If you want diversity, drama, entertainment, war and emotion then great. But it comes at the cost of extraordinary suffering and victimisation. 

By contrast, Extinctionists lament all suffering. The only suffering Extinctionists accept is when the suffering is necessary for the sake of ending a larger amount of suffering. This is one of the most important rules in Extinctionism which Pro lifers often can’t understand. They will say that Extinctionism will cause suffering therefore it’s wrong. But it is impossible to end suffering without causing some in the process. While the Extinction method will hopefully be quick and painless (and most likely will be), Extinctionists will have to cause pain each time they step on a bug etc in the pursuit of ending greater suffering. The maths works out, of course. We should prioritise the larger amount of suffering. By contrast, Pro lifers advocate for prioritising the smaller amount of suffering (the privileged) at the expense of the many or the unprivileged. 

Pro lifers can understand Extinctionism to an extent and, on the grand spectrum, some come closer than others. Many even do fully understand the idea – briefly – before the primal priorities take dominance again, protecting Nature’s priorities and forcing away the idea along with its moral obligation, despite the fact that it does make sense and would otherwise be accepted by the brain – so it is only Nature which prevents this. Those that do understand are the minority, where the majority see it as evil, silly, etc and will not entertain the idea. However, it is an even smaller number who can truly be recognised as rational, empathetic and intelligent enough to lead the movement. It’s a spectrum of brain biology, with a very high threshold for those who are capable enough to lead the movement. Currently only Steve Aditya can claim the title of being either motivated or capable enough to lead the movement properly with deep and complex strategy that most activists won’t be capable or motivated enough to take charge of properly. 

Chapter 2 – Morality and Empathy

Morality means different things to different people. But morality as an idea is almost completely worthless, meaningless and unimportant compared to empathy. If you have empathy, do you need morality? Do you rely on a code which society made up and refer back to it? For Extinctionists, empathy is absolute king. It is the only real motivation for helping end suffering and victims. Any other motivation is selfish and might benefit some sufferers. So you cannot really be Extinctionist without empathy. Maybe in some hypothetical – but in the real world where physical, financial etc demands are on you – there’s very little chance you will do activism for Extinctionism if you don’t actually care about the victims. We’ve seen many people claim to be Extinctionist, to understand Extinctionism, etc but when it comes down to it, it’s their ego drawing them to the idea, and so ultimately they can’t get it. Some people are drawn to it because they like extreme ideas or because they selfishly want to see the world destroyed. 

Extinctionists hold ending suffering as the most important thing in the world. With a choice between contributing to the pleasure of one life form or alleviating the suffering of another, it is almost universally accepted that helping the sufferers is most important. Especially when there’s no discrimination to get in the mix. Pro lifers can agree to this. They are reasonably rational as long as it doesn’t impinge upon Nature’s directive. But even though Pro lifers can seem like good people, when push comes to shove, they do not have consistent rules or morality, and this is central to the division, war, etc which ravages society and the world. While they have enough intelligence and to have civilisation, a happy family, etc, they don’t have enough rationality or empathy to ensure the world is good. Instead they maintain division and avoid unification, thus maintaining their Nature-given priorities. 

For Extinctionists, morality is objective. With enough information, it can be measured, defined and agreed upon. It is only the forced apathy and irrationality which humans suffer from Nature which obscures this. If you have empathy and rationality, you can understand that suffering is bad. Many Pro lifers can’t even get that simple concept. They see it as a macro problem, as they do with many of the issues related to Extinctionism. As in, they will treat the world almost as a singular life form, claiming that we shouldn’t chop off the head to cure a broken leg. By the same token, they would allow the world to burn and suffer horrifically as long as it ‘survived’. They almost treat the world as one life form which is desperate to live no matter the cost. The individual has effectively no value in such a system, and no amount of partial suffering can justify ‘global suicide’. It’s always important to see all of their irrationalities a reflection of Nature, not people. Pro lifers are victims to Nature too. They’re essentially slaves being used for Nature’s purposes. It would be ideal to free them from this. Some may claim that would be wrong. That it would be wrong to change people, to disrespect their consent and ‘forcefully’ change their personality. The reality is that this is yet another trick by Nature. If we could cure Pro lifers, they would almost certainly hate the idea and find it “morally reprehensible”. But ultimately, that is just Nature’s position on it. Pro lifers will cling to any defence against Extinction, wielding claims of morality, such as “Extinction goes against consent therefore it is immoral”. But these claims are merely defence mechanisms. They are not thought out or logically based. Obviously anyone caring about consent violations would support putting an end to them – with Extinction, not letting them continue uncontrolled for billions of years. They tend to completely ignore, avoid or straw-man the Extinctionist side of the argument, which pleas for the ending and prevention of billions of years of suffering for virtually incalculable life forms, and instead they focus on whichever weak argument Nature forces them to adopt. It is very much clear that Nature bends the mind to its purposes and that the inconsistent positions of Pro lifers are merely reflections of that. This is all very demonstrable, too. It’s quite possible to prove to Pro lifers that they are irrational. I’ve done this several times. I don’t simply mean providing an effective counter-argument to Pro life positions, I mean demonstrating irrefutably that they are irrational. It’s important to first trap them or they will simply run away (which is why Pro lifers almost never debate us live), then you can point out their inconsistencies in a way which they have to accept. But ultimately, this sort of thing being possible isn’t surprising or fruitful. Pro lifers can’t be correct by definition. And even if you do prove your point to them for the moment, Nature will still control them. So it’s pointless trying to convince Pro Lifers. Perhaps if society became Extinctionist, like sheep they would follow, without actually understanding it. Or perhaps they would rebel. 

The point is that Pro lifers aren’t even capable of being fully moral, or even understanding what morality is actually all about. The same goes for rationality. Humanity has spent thousands of years spinning its wheels in the mud over philosophy without gaining anything of value. Philosophy sounds cool – like the answer to all of life’s secrets, but when you look into it, it’s simply a bunch of people speaking gibberish. Sure some philosophers do analytical work for organisations, but nothing in philosophy really makes sense to your average person on the street or has any impact on their lives. So essentially, philosophy is an entirely useless field even though it should be elevating humanity beyond war and division. Instead of touching on real-world subjects, philosophy meanders into the abstract and useless. Suffering-focused ethics and philosophy is the only thing that actually has any value or merit. In a world with trillions of sufferers and victims, pontificating about the meaning of life, where there isn’t one, is quite a useless and selfish endeavour. 

Extinctionists, or empaths, whatever you wish to call them, are capable of valuing the suffering of others equally or more than their own. While Pro lifers call this suicidal empathy, we would do the opposite and say that it is a good thing. It is this ability of empaths that gives us a chance at ending suffering. It is this ability that gives us a chance of ensuring that what is actually good prevails, instead of what Nature is lying about being good. Without it, as mentioned before, Pro lifers will let the victims suffer without limit for Nature’s mandate of continued existence. If we valued our own existence more, like Pro lifers usually do, then in the grand scheme of things, the victims would be doomed, just expendable pawns in a Pro lifers world. Extinctionists try to be good people because of empathy. It is this empathy which drives us to want a fair world for all and to be unable to abide by extreme suffering. It especially makes it difficult to enjoy pleasures carefree while ignoring the plight of the many, which is what Pro lifers advocate for. As long as we are doing our best, then we are true to it. If we did live in a world completely free of suffering, Extinctionists would be the ones trying to make sure everything was optimised and fair for everyone. But we live instead in a world where, even with a Pro lifers attempts to ‘reduce suffering’, the number of victims to suffer lives they’d have been much, much, much better off not living by the time the heat death rolls around is even more incomprehensible and vast than the geographical vastness of the universe. Pro lifers refuse to acknowledge or advocate for these victims. Again, because they can’t – it would violate Nature’s priorities. 

It is ironic that Pro lifers are the ones that believe in a god, and yet Extinctionists are more god-like, in terms of the ideal god – one who is benevolent and fair. I imagine Pro lifers would like to think that god would suffer for them, put himself on the Cross for them. Obviously it depends on the religion, but for most people, generally the god figure is the perfect caretaker – one who wouldn’t blink to put the wellbeing of others first, one who would do everything possible to do the right thing. One who would ensure ultimate fairness and goodness. A god that would allow unlimited victims and extreme suffering for the sake of the very, very few at the top is not one that makes sense. A god that allows children to be raped to death is not one that makes sense. Nature’s version of god is of course a pretty wicked one. Our version (when we think of what a god, in concept, should be) is what you would actually want. An understanding and loving parent, not one that sends you to Hell for all eternity for something which wasn’t even your fault. Even Hitler didn’t ask to be born and didn’t ask to be given the personality he was. Anyway the reason I mention religion and god is because that sensical version of god I mention is one that would strive for maximum empathy and rationality, it is one that would go to great lengths to make sure they were doing the right thing. So in that sense, Extinctionists try to hold themselves to the same standard a god would. However it’s not divinity which makes Extinctionists what they are, it’s mainly just empathy. If you have enough empathy that you are forced to care about the suffering of others as much as your own if not more, then you will be driven to find a rational way to do the right thing for them and for everyone. But it isn’t suicidal empathy or over-the-top empathy. Actually it is simply universal empathy. Instead of empathy being gatekept by Nature – “yes morality for your family but not for the animal you eat tonight”, empathy is now – not supercharged – but simply normal, fixed. Is it this same universal empathy which would make an Extinctionist motivated to end any suffering. 

The fairness Extinctionists strive towards includes doing the right thing even when it’s difficult, awkward, or would impose upon the pleasure of the many. Star Trek New Worlds actually did an episode about a planet that thrives but has to sacrifice a child to be tortured for their whole life every now and then. Pro lifers – who are all currently doing this in practice – would say that the good of the many outweighs the plight of the few. This is another trick by nature of course. Without this trick, people wouldn’t even be capable of enjoying such a society. They would be forced by empathy and fairness to do the right thing for the children who get tortured. How could you enjoy your life knowing a child is being tortured because of you and that you could save them by giving up your decadence? So even with just 1 victim at stake, Extinctionists would be rallying just as much. Empathy would be rallying just as much. Not just to save that victim, but to prevent any victims ever happening again. 

Without racism, division, war, tribalism, or Nature’s tricks, etc, one has to wonder what humanity would look like. Star Trek comes to mind. More of a caretaker attitude would develop. Currently it is just every man for himself, which is why the least empathetic people rise to highest positions of power. But if we came together as a species and decided what goals to pursue, we would have a choice between standing by and allowing the most innocent to suffer experiences so bad that they are beyond imagination while pursuing selfish things like entertainment and colonisation… OR putting an end to suffering once and for all for as many life forms as physically possible. If we lived in Heaven then it would be a different story. But we live in a world where the vast majority are in what is effectively Hell and new victims will be put into this Hell for billions of years unless we stop it. The only problem is that if we do that, we won’t be able to have our fun. Obviously, for Extinctionists, that isn’t a problem.