I would have an honest conversation with them and try to promote efilism as best as I can by countering pro-life narratives and teaching them about the facts of life. In my experience, children are more open-minded since their core beliefs have not yet formed. This is why religions and corporations target young children with advertisements—they know that is the best time to win somebody over to their side. If they can indoctrinate children with consumerism and spiritual woo-woo, I think there is nothing wrong with having an honest conversation with children about efilism. Just make sure to bring the arguments down to their level so they can comprehend them better.
Thanks for sharing. It seems fair to offer countering ideas to what is considered normal.
I'd love to see that played out in real time though. How could one convince a child their conscious experience and who they are as a being is a bad thing, without being on the same level as verbal abuse?
> How could one convince a child their conscious experience and who they are as a being is a bad thing, without being on the same level as verbal abuse?
Just like cartoons sometimes get across dark realities of life such as death, disease, and suffering in a mild manner, I think it should be done slowly and in small doses. It can even be conveyed with a touch of humor and playfulness.
That'd be quite the cartoon to playfully hint at the protagonist's existence being a bad thing. Like Superman one day jokes around that he should wipe out the planet and crusade to exterminate all living beings....that'd be a challenge to get studios to accept.
If I had "children" in my circle of influence, I would say, sure, especially if they're 13 or older. Simply talk very honestly, without using excessively harsh words, about my considerations on life and what informs them (systematic torture of animals, suffering in nature, evolution as a pain maximizer, need frustration...). I did AN outreach to two 13-year olds a few days ago and they seemed sympathetic, though I went with a soft messageof "it's better to help those who are here than to throw people who have no need to exist into the world", without throwing a strong "procreation is always a harm" message.
>I did AN outreach to two 13-year olds a few days ago and they seemed sympathetic, though I went with a soft messageof "it's better to help those who are here than to throw people who have no need to exist into the world", without throwing a strong "procreation is always a harm" message.
Interesting. What does that look like? How does one sign up their children for AN outreach? That seems like something a school where I'm from wouldn't want to advertise.
>"it's better to help those who are here than to throw people who have no need to exist into the world",
What does it matter if someone “needs” to exist and do you believe there has ever been anyone who **needed** to exist?
But the problem with the statement is that you’re presenting it as a dichotomy, you’re saying it’s better to do X than Y, and Y is appealing to this idea that some people do need to exist. If it’s as you say, that nobody needs to exist (which I agree with) then that contradicts your dichotomy.
So again no you can’t engage in hypotheticals, but also you don’t even understand the question. The question is a matter of morality, there is no proof that you could possibly have for this because there are no objective moral facts.
Lol, pretty sure you could just start teaching children about efilism, then wait and see if their parents and society will come for you.
It's not hypothetical, its PROVABLE, you just don't wanna try it.
I would have an honest conversation with them and try to promote efilism as best as I can by countering pro-life narratives and teaching them about the facts of life. In my experience, children are more open-minded since their core beliefs have not yet formed. This is why religions and corporations target young children with advertisements—they know that is the best time to win somebody over to their side. If they can indoctrinate children with consumerism and spiritual woo-woo, I think there is nothing wrong with having an honest conversation with children about efilism. Just make sure to bring the arguments down to their level so they can comprehend them better.
Thanks for sharing. It seems fair to offer countering ideas to what is considered normal. I'd love to see that played out in real time though. How could one convince a child their conscious experience and who they are as a being is a bad thing, without being on the same level as verbal abuse?
> How could one convince a child their conscious experience and who they are as a being is a bad thing, without being on the same level as verbal abuse? Just like cartoons sometimes get across dark realities of life such as death, disease, and suffering in a mild manner, I think it should be done slowly and in small doses. It can even be conveyed with a touch of humor and playfulness.
That'd be quite the cartoon to playfully hint at the protagonist's existence being a bad thing. Like Superman one day jokes around that he should wipe out the planet and crusade to exterminate all living beings....that'd be a challenge to get studios to accept.
Title could be somthin like "Superman : The Final Reckoning" lol
If I had "children" in my circle of influence, I would say, sure, especially if they're 13 or older. Simply talk very honestly, without using excessively harsh words, about my considerations on life and what informs them (systematic torture of animals, suffering in nature, evolution as a pain maximizer, need frustration...). I did AN outreach to two 13-year olds a few days ago and they seemed sympathetic, though I went with a soft messageof "it's better to help those who are here than to throw people who have no need to exist into the world", without throwing a strong "procreation is always a harm" message.
>I did AN outreach to two 13-year olds a few days ago and they seemed sympathetic, though I went with a soft messageof "it's better to help those who are here than to throw people who have no need to exist into the world", without throwing a strong "procreation is always a harm" message. Interesting. What does that look like? How does one sign up their children for AN outreach? That seems like something a school where I'm from wouldn't want to advertise.
I was simply doing AN outreach in the street and they happened to walk by.
Ah that makes sense. Thank you for clarifying.
>"it's better to help those who are here than to throw people who have no need to exist into the world", What does it matter if someone “needs” to exist and do you believe there has ever been anyone who **needed** to exist?
No. But that is precisely the point. No one "needs" to exist, but many individuals who are now alive "need" help and suffering alleviation.
But the problem with the statement is that you’re presenting it as a dichotomy, you’re saying it’s better to do X than Y, and Y is appealing to this idea that some people do need to exist. If it’s as you say, that nobody needs to exist (which I agree with) then that contradicts your dichotomy.
Hypothetically, I would not want to get punched and fired and cancelled by the locals. lol
Wise words.
And if none of that would happen?
You can test this out for us? lol
So you can’t engage with the hypothetical?
I prefer actual proof.
So again no you can’t engage in hypotheticals, but also you don’t even understand the question. The question is a matter of morality, there is no proof that you could possibly have for this because there are no objective moral facts.
Lol, pretty sure you could just start teaching children about efilism, then wait and see if their parents and society will come for you. It's not hypothetical, its PROVABLE, you just don't wanna try it.
>it’s not hypothetical Have you considered looking at literally the first word of the title and tell me what it says?
Maybe introducing them to antinatalism would be a good first step.
How would you convince a child their coming into existence is a bad thing?