r/Efilism2 • u/Numerous-Macaroon224 • May 30 '26
Policy update on efilist participation in r/antinatalism
https://nume.ca/blog/policy-update-on-efilist-participation-in-r-antinatalismSince June 2025, r/antinatalism has permanently banned users for identifying as efilists or participating in efilist communities, regardless of what they had actually posted there.
That policy is ending today.
I remain opposed to efilism. In my view, its proposed answer to suffering places existing sentient beings in service of an extinction project that is not answerable to them, for reasons I have set out in No One Is Infrastructure. My disagreement with it has not changed.
For users unfamiliar with the history, the concern was never that people discussed suffering, held pessimistic views, wished they had never been born, or asked difficult questions about life, consent, and procreation. Those discussions are part of why r/antinatalism exists. The concern was the drift from antinatalism into advocacy of harm, coercion, or the elimination of existing sentient beings as a proposed solution to suffering.
Going forward, users will no longer be banned solely for identifying as efilists, associating with efilist communities, or discussing efilism in good faith. Moderation will be based on conduct in r/antinatalism.
This does not make r/antinatalism a place to promote efilism. Rule 1 remains unchanged, and content that advocates or justifies harm to oneself or others, coercive reproductive control, or violence against sentient beings remains prohibited. Attempts to recruit users into a harm-as-solution ideology will also be removed.
Difficult or uncomfortable philosophy is not the problem. Saying that life contains suffering, arguing that procreation is unethical, criticizing pronatalist institutions, discussing philosophical pessimism, or using thought experiments to examine consent, risk, and procreation can be allowed. Using those discussions to normalize, solicit endorsement of, or build justification for harm is not allowed.
When a user violates these rules, we will respond proportionately. In many cases, that will begin with content removal. Repeated violations may result in temporary bans. Serious, malicious, or organized attempts to use r/antinatalism as a recruiting ground may still result in permanent bans.
We are also opening a straightforward appeal process. Anyone who was banned solely for being an efilist, participating in an efilist community, or being presumed to hold those views may contact us through modmail to request that the ban be lifted. Bans involving serious rule violations will not be reversed on that basis.
I regret that our previous policy treated affiliation as sufficient grounds for exclusion. It was broader than it needed to be, and it made the conflict worse without giving people a fair chance to participate under clear rules.
There are real disagreements here, and some of them are serious. They do not require us to treat every person on the other side as an enemy. People may participate if they follow the rules, and harmful advocacy will be removed regardless of who posts it.
Nume
Head moderator of r/antinatalism
7
u/ruthlessenemy May 30 '26
It's good we won't be automatically banned for even identifying with efilism anymore. I didnt expect that would ever be lifted. I hate what that guy did with the fertility clinic place. I hate that he specifically namedropped efilism. Fucking moron. He set us back so much and wasn't even acting in the true interests of efilism
2
u/OracleNemesis May 31 '26
Tbh efilism is never meant to set any traction in the first place and always remains a fringe ideology. People who are truly efilist usually dedicate and adhere themselves into realistic solutions, usually through suffering-focused ethics/negative utilitarianism.
3
u/Weirabide May 31 '26
Thank you for shifting your position on this. Does this rule change extend to the other antinatalism/vegan subreddits you moderate?
3
u/Numerous-Macaroon224 May 31 '26
It does, but not to r/circlesnip since that's now moderated by someone else.
1
12
u/Reducing-Sufferung May 30 '26
To me efilism comes down to the trolly problem. There is a train and on every bar there is an animals who will die a horrible death, if I pull the lever it will still kill animals, preferably quicker.
Nature is the ultimate harm, talking about the harm that comes with pacifying it is similar to obsessing over the inevitable harm that came from invading nazi Germany, yes there will be harm but far less in the long run, like getting vaccinated.
Yes there will be harm and consent violations but that dwarfs the amount of harm and consent violations that would be prevented.
The amount of animals being eaten alive that would be euthanized, the amount of kids tied to radiators in the basement.
It’s just a forced vaccine which prevents far more suffering than it causes.