Talk:Antinatalism

Palm Springs Bombing

I believe this page should reference the following page: 2025 Palm Springs fertility clinic bombing somehow as Antinatalism was specifically referenced in the bombers manifesto. But I’m honestly not sure how to do it to make everyone happy. Any ideas would be appreciated. ~~ Nweil (talk) 05:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

The referenced manifesto has not yet been verified, and is not included in the primary article for a reason. Until an explicit connection is made by an RS, no mention should be made. Mason7512 (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

This NBC News article mentions "efilism" and a 10,000-member Reddit community, among others, that are being scrutinized or shut down following the bombing: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/reddit-bans-anti-natalists-palm-springs-explosion-rcna207677 White 720 (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I mean this line from the article is pretty cut and dried to me: “The suspect in the explosion, Guy Edward Bartkus, 25, held “anti-natalist” views, according to two senior law enforcement officials” Nweil (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

By the way, the “motive” on the bombing page links to this page (labeled as Antinatalism) with three sources Nweil (talk) 03:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

The bomber's manifesto referred to antinatalism as "efilism," and I've created (actually RE-created) the redirect here. Maybe create a short section about it, and link to the bombing page as the main article? Shankar Sivarajan (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

The Palm Springs bomber didn’t like antinatlists, like most efilists. He was anti life, anti value, etc. most people who are under the antinatalist label tend to only care about human procreation. Indiana6724 (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

You got an RS for that? Mason7512 (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think that's accurate. That claim honestly sounds like gate keeping. In my experience, most Efilists are very affectionate of antinatalists and they tend to identify strongly with antinatalism as a sort of big tent. The only efilists who I've ever seen who don't like antinatalists are the extremely hard-core, gate-keeping, purity-spiraling moralists.

I think it would be far more accurate to say that there are many (maybe even most?) antinatalists who don't like efilists. Zero Contradictions (talk) 10:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Greetings, everyone -- I would like to share my opinions regarding this subject.

To start with, "Efilism" was never systematically defined as a philosophy by Inmendham (pseudonym of Gary Mosher).

However, its main advocate has constantly emphasized, over thousands of videos on Youtube, that efilism's main points are sentiocentric antinatalism and, more importantly, "promortalism" (the view that it is always better to cease to be; or, more famously, the "big red button" thought experiment, wherein one, according to efilism, should press a button that would instantly eliminate all sentient beings in order to spare them from suffering). Such thought experiment, in more academic-styled philosophy, can be found here.

On the contrary, antinatalism as a philosophical position of its own, does not imply promortalism (or, in fact, anything else): it only implies one's abstinence from procreation. Even etymologically speaking, there is no reason or evidence to think that antinatalism could mean anything else. See, for example: 1, 2, 3, 4. Notice how none of these sources mention anything remotely resembling violence?

I shall also cite a translated quote from a Portuguese book (pages 55-56) regarding antinatalism that I find to be relevant and directly concerns what I just tried to communicate in the last paragraph.

"Ab initio, the concept of antinatalism is not to be confused with euthanasia, suicide, abortion, homicide or any of the other categories (and relative studies) of natural or caused deaths.

Initially, we can say that antinatalism is characterized by a position of omission, i.e. it is not something that is done, but rather something that is not done, and that it is therefore similar to atheism, which is also a “negative” position, in the sense that it is only a disbelief in one (or more) god(s), and it is not possible to make any kind of inference about the personality or other beliefs of an atheist simply because of this fact.

To some degree, this is similar to the phrase “X doesn't like eating potatoes”. If a person X doesn't like potatoes, eating potatoes is something they don't do, such that it is an omissive stance, which is precisely that of not eating potatoes. This implies that this person will eat other things, although the nature of these other things cannot be inferred from the phrase “I don't like eating potatoes”. It's the same with atheism and antinatalism."

The journalists who mentioned "antinatalism" as a motivation for the perpetrator's acts obviously have little to no awareness of these philosophical nuances and details. Even if the perpretator himself mentions antinatalism as a motivation, it is not difficult to perceive that he himself misunderstood the philosophy as I tried to outline above.

See, anyone can commit a crime and cite a particular philosophy, ideology, religion, political position, etc., as a motivation for their actions -- and thus cause such position to be misrepresented and stigmatized). The end result? The journalists themselves, as if by osmosis, absorbed Guy Edward Bartkus's misunderstanding of antinatalism and spread it as if it were a philosophical gospel. And, let's be frank, journalists don't really tend to have any training in philosophy (and much less in unpopular philosophical positions such as antinatalism, efilism and promortalism) to be able to aptly talk about them -- besides loving to sensationalize subjects in order to obtain further readership and clicks.

In conclusion, I see no reason for efilism to be mentioned in this article, as it is a fringe internet movement whose creator has no academic ties and is an idea that does not even have its own Wikipedia page (just as promortalism does not -- which is the most controversial and notable point of efilism that actually motivated the incident, with promortalism itself actually being academically addressed not by Inmendham himself, but in 2018 by South-Korean philosopher Jiwoon Hwang, who himself asserts the following: "My pro-mortalism does not imply that it is obligatory or even permissible to kill other people without their consent, even painlessly and with good intent. There may be many reasons for this, such as autonomy[42] and right to life)." Cinnamon342 (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "systematically defined". Inmendham also has a website, efilism.com where he describes or summarizes the philosophy. Even if Inmendhams descriptions of Efilism over thousands of videos and his website aren't systematic enough, the archived Efilism Wiki surely defines Efilism systematically.

I strongly agree with you that antinatalism does not necessarily imply promortalism or violence for killing people without their consent. I've only skimmed this talk page's archive and the recent discussions, but everybody seems to agree on this, from what I've seen.

However, I don't agree that antinatalism is inherently against promortalism. In Efilist philosophy, promortalism and violence are instrumental values for achieving antinatalism, and they are justified on the basis that they help to achieve antinatalism and the extinction of all life.

I don't think it's accurate to say that the perpetrator of the Palm Springs Bombing misunderstood antinatalism and the related philosophy. He specifically chose to commit the attack near an IVF clinic and he could've killed people, which could've stopped people from giving birth to new humans, which he viewed to be unethical.

Fortunately, the bomber didn't succeed in killing anybody but himself. But if he succeeded in killing people who would've given birth to people in the future, then killing them would've been instrumental to his antinatalist values. While Antinatalism would have been one of the main goals here, I personally think this would be better described as Efilism.

I also strongly suspect that the journalists who mentioned antinatalism in articles related to the bombing probably aren't experts in antinatalism, efilism, or any of the related philosophy and concepts. However, I don't think anyone could know for certain what their knowledge about antinatalism and related topics is unless they ask or interview them.

As you stated at the beginning of your reply, you were just sharing your opinions on this subject. It's possible that some journalists may have sensationalized the articles about the bombing, but that's probably unlikely if those news outlets are considered reliable sources. I haven't read every article about this event, but most of the articles that mention antinatalism were only reporting on what the bomber described as his beliefs and motives. If you believe that the journalists were misrepresentating or stigmatizing antinatalism, then you have to have one or more WP:reliable sources to support your opinions.

I've said before that I would strongly prefer that Wikipedia has a separate page for Efilism, if there are enough reliable sources to justify creating one. However, Efilism is currently a redirect for Antinatalism. So that's a second good reason why it's not justified to avoid mentioning Efilism in this article.

The creator of Efilism has no academic credentials, but that's not really relevant. I was unaware of this until I skimmed the talk page archive, but Efilism has been mentioned in books and/or academic literature before by professors Patricia MacCormack and Masahiro Morioka. As such, I haven't seen or read any of these writings myself. However, @Laen1: claimed that both of these professors described "efilism" as a variety of antinatalism in their publications.

You also mentioned the benevolent world-exploder academic thought-experiment in your comment, which is strongly related to Efilism. As far as I know, there may be more reliable sources out there that talk about Efilism and its related philosophy that I'm simply unaware of. Efilism has also received at least some attention by reliable news sources as a result of the Palm Springs Bombing. For all these reasons, I don't think it's accurate to describe Efilism as a fringe Internet movement.

Adam Lanza, the perpetrator of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting also mentioned both antinatalism and efilism in some audio recordings on a YouTube channel known as "CulturalPhilistine", but his YouTube channel was deleted shortly after it was discovered several years after the shooting. Adam Lanza identified as an antinatalist, and he had a similar philosophy to Efilism, but it was also substantially different. Lanza called his philosophy "Eulavism" (derived from "value" spelled backwards). Unfortunately, the philosophical motives of Adam Lanza has not received significant attention from the media or other reliable sources, but if it ever does, then these would be worth citing in a Wikipedia article about Efilism.

Although Jiwoon Hwang may be an academic promortalist who opposes killing people, he was clearly speaking about his own views and values in the quote that you provided, not necessarily the views of all promortalists, and certainly not the views of the Palm Springs bomber.

With all of this being said, your edit was not justified when it removed text from the article mentioning efilism and concerns that antinatalism may lead to further violence. All of those sentences cited reliable sources and they had good information, so I am going to revert your edit.

If you want Wikipedia to emphasize that the antinatalism specifically condemns violence, then I think it would be more productive to search for sources and quotes to support that claim, in addition to the quote by Brian Levin that you removed. If anybody has the time and motivation, I would also recommend that they search for reliable sources that talk about Efilism and create a proper Efilism article and explain how Efilism is different from Antinatalism. Zero Contradictions (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for the detailed, kind and thoughtful response, Zero Contradictions.

I shall state on the outset that I do not have the energy nor the patience to engage in any kind of edit warring on Wikipedia; I shall simply, once again, state my opinions on this subject which happens to be of interest for both of us -- and leave it for the rest of the readers of this talk page to reach their own consensus regarding how the article on antinatalism should best be structured. I do not much worry about having the "last word" towards this exchange of ideas (or any exchange of ideas, in truth).

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "systematically defined".

This is what I mean: take any work of one of the "major philosophers" of the Western tradition such as Spinoza's description of God in his Ethics, Schopenhauer's description of the Will in WWR, or Kant's distinction between phenomena and noumena in the CPR -- all of those concepts are carefully and precisely defined over pages and pages.

No such similar thing happens with inmendham's ideas towards Efilism; they are dispersed over thousands of videos that span over more than a decade; and although he himself could have written a book (in fact, he had plans to do so) which would define the bases of Efilism with more accuracy, he purposely never did so.

As such, not only did he never engage with academic philosophy, but he also never bothered to interact with the the history of ideas within philosophy itself or use philosophical terminology to more solidly ground his ideas within common and understandable philosophical discourse. What is the result? This lends to his ideas (as expressed in the thousands of videos he uploaded) a style of argumentation that is purely audiovisual lyricism often filled with vague metaphors (just look at the user graytaich0's videos on Youtube and you will undestand what I mean). Could this be called "philosophy"? I would wager that most academics would say: no.

You mention that the Efilism wiki "defines" Efilism systematically. Let us grant this, for the sake of the argument. However, the wiki was not written by inmendham himself, but by a user named "TheLordSatanX" (who years ago also wrote a book named "Ever Deeper Honesty"). As such, this by itself lends a veil of doubt towards such a Wiki being a "correct" or "definitive" representation of inmendham's ideas (if there can ever be one).

Secondly, the text of the wiki also suffers from the same problems regarding the lack of engagement with philosophical traditions, authors and philosophical terminology mentioned in the previous paragraph (with but minor exceptions such as "Utilitarianism" and "David Benatar"). Therefore, there does not seem to me to be much "precision" or "systematicity" in the ideas communicated in the Efilism wiki either, but once again vague ideas and even neologisms such as "uselessitarianism"

However, I don't agree that antinatalism is inherently against promortalism. In Efilist philosophy, promortalism and violence are instrumental values for achieving antinatalism.

Antinatalism ≠ Efilism.

I have already tried to explain in my post above that antinatalism, etymologically speaking, means nothing more than refraining from procreation -- it does not imply Efilism, pro-mortalism, or even philosophical pessimism (as one could refrain from procreating for purely deontological reasons and not consequentialist ones, for example). That Efilism, on the other hand, implies antinatalism and pro-mortalism, seems to me to much easier to argue for.

I don't think it's accurate to say that the perpetrator of the Palm Springs Bombing misunderstood antinatalism and the related philosophy. He specifically chose to commit the attack near an IVF clinic and he could've killed people, which could've stopped people from giving birth to new humans, which he viewed to be unethical.

If you personally infer that "abstaining from procreating is ethical" (antinatalism) is the same as or indistinguishable from "killing people such that it will prevent new births is ethical" (Efilism and/or pro-mortalism), then I am sorry but this exchange of ideas is fruitless as we seem to have fundamentally incompatible understandings of what these concepts mean.

But if he succeeded in killing people who would've given birth to people in the future, then killing them would've been instrumental to his antinatalist values.

I am sorry, but no -- it wouldn't. I am not sure how much you understand or have read about antinatalist philosophers (be they contemporary or not), but antinatalists unanimously did not advocate the idea that "murdering people such that it will prevent new births is ethical". I already tried to explain this with the very etymology of antinatalism, and the most popular contemporary antinatalist (David Benatar) does not condone murder -- the same thing can be said of every antinatalist mentioned on the article (they are not promortalists or Efilists).

If you believe that the journalists were misrepresentating or stigmatizing antinatalism

They were.

All the "WP:reliable sources" I could need to mention are already in the article. But if you strictly need me to be explicit about it, then just remember that antinatalists such as David Benatar, Julio Cabrera, Karim Akerma, Petter Wessel Zapffe, Thomas Ligotti, Emil Cioran, Giacomo Leopardi, Théophile de Giraud and Arthur Schopenhauer never condoned murder in any of their writings.

As such, yes: antinatalism was misrepresented by journalists who most likely had no idea what they were talking about as they had to write about the incident as quickly as possible and as such could not possibly have had any time to accurately write about philosophical topics or the ideas of all the mentioned authors above who range from the 19th century to the 21st century (with some expressions of antinatalism by other authors being even older in history).

What the journalists did was simply take the easier and quicker path for journalism: read that the perpetrator mentioned the word "antinatalism" as a motivator, as thus write in an uncompromisingly confident tone that antinatalism thus favors homicide "to prevent future births".

I've said before that I would strongly prefer that Wikipedia has a separate page for Efilism, if there are enough reliable sources to justify creating one.

I don't think there ever will be one; attempts have been made in the past, but none of them succeeded (for better or for worse).

For all these reasons, I don't think it's accurate to describe Efilism as a fringe Internet movement.

Sure, it's a fair point that if people continue to commit acts of violence and mention Efilism as the motivator, the perhaps it's really "not just a fringe Internet movement". But again: antinatalism, both historically and etymologically speaking, has had nothing to do with promortalism.

he was clearly speaking about his own views and values in the quote that you provided, not necessarily the views of all promortalists

Yes, that's fair. There can be varieties of pro-mortalism just as there are varieties of antinatalism and philosophical pessimism.

If you want Wikipedia to emphasize that the antinatalism specifically condemns violence, then I think it would be more productive to search for sources and quotes to support that claim.

To reiterate: "antinatalism, both historically and etymologically speaking, has nothing to do with promortalism."

If you need sources or references, they have already always been available on the Wikipedia page for antinatalism, the Wikiquote page for antinatalism, and of course, the books written by antinatalists themselves. Honestly, I am not sure how many works by antinatalists or even philosophical pessimists you have read, but it seems that if you did, they have been few and far between.

Anyway, I am done with this. As I said, I shall personally not revert your edit as I simply have no patience for edit wars. Cinnamon342 (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I also appreciate that you make a discussion this on the talk page, unlike newcomers who make edits without explaining their reasoning for what they did. I don't like edit wars either, and I've never engaged in one.

I'm surprised to hear that Inmendham had plans to write a book. If I'm not mistaken, one reason why he never wrote a book was because he has arthritis and some other reason. I am also doubtful that he has the attention span to write a coherent book, instead of just talking about whatever is on his mind.

I personally believe that most academic philosophy is misguided and clouded in word games and fallacies. I am not bothered that Inmendham never tried to reference academic philosophy. If I'm not mistaken, I believe that he has used some words that have a widely accepted meaning, among both academic philosophers and the general public. I'd also agree that Inmendham has occassionally said things that contradict other statements he's made.

I don't think that "TheLordSatanX" wrote "Ever Deeper Honesty". I think that he simply made artificially generated audio for narrating that book on his YouTube channel. I'm pretty sure there's a line in that book claiming that the author is anonymous and never wished to reveal his or her identity.

Anyway, I don't think it matters that the Efilism Fandom Wiki was never written by Inmendham. I'm pretty sure that virtually all Efilists would agree with a majority of the text on the wiki, including Inmendham himself. I've written Wikipedia articles despite never having authored any authoritative subjects about the article's topics, but that doesn't mean that the Wikipedia articles that I wrote or contributed to don't have accurate or representative information on those subjects. The Efilism Wiki may also not engage with academic philosophy, but there also plenty of notable philosophers who never engaged in academic philosophy either.

I'm pretty sure that I already made my beliefs and reasoning clear in my previous reply, but I'll reiterate them for clarity. I agree that Antinatalism is not the same thing as Efilism. I agree that Antinatalism doesn't necessarily imply Efilism. I agree that Efilism usually implies Antinatalism. And as I previously said, I believe that Antinatalism can imply Promortalism and Efilism, depending on what other values a person adopts in their theory of value. But once again, Antinatalism does not have to imply Promortalism nor Efilism. There are indeed many Antinatalists who are staunchly opposed to both Promortalism and Efilism.

From everything that I've seen, I stand by the lead section of the Antinatalism article: Antinatalism is a value judgment that deems procreation to be unethical or unjustifiable. While all Antinatalists oppose their own procreation, there are also many Antinatalists who oppose the procreation of other people. I believe that the lead sentence is consistent with this observation, and vice versa.

I am not surprised that all the most well-known and academic antinatalists, like David Benatar, oppose killing people to achieve antinatalist goals. If they did support killing people, they would probably lose their credentials and fail to ever achieve their notability. However, academics and notable antinatalists are not representative of the average Antinatalist nor the entire Antinatalist population. I believe there are indeed many self-identified Antinatalists who are okay or supportive of killing people. Most of them are self-identified Efilists, but some of them are or were not, like Adam Lanza, whom I mentioned before.

I disagree that there will never be an Efilism article on English Wikipedia. There is already es:Efilism, but it should be edited since it uses biased, activist language, and does not use enough reliable sources. I also know and I acknowledged that past attempts to create an Efilism article failed, but like I said, that's simply because those Efilist activists don't understand how Wikipedia works.

I have an interest in both Antinatalism and Efilism, even though I don't support either of those philosophies or values. On a personal level, I don't mind Antinatalists who are of the views that you have described. I vehemently oppose Efilists and I condemn Efilist values, but I am still strongly commited to obeying WP:NPOV to provide neutral coverage on the subject. That being said, I started an Efilism draft in my own user space (User:Zero Contradictions/Efilism), and I am gathering all the reliable sources that I can find and think of to create it. You are welcome to help me write it, if you want to.

If you want to edit the article state something like: "Antinatalism, both historically and etymologically speaking, has nothing to do with promortalism", then I will support you on that 100%, as long as you cite a reliable source(s) for that claim. I believe that that is a true and correct claim, but I unfortunately cannot make that edit myself, since I've never read any academic or notable antinatalist literature. I only know about Efilism and Antinatalism from YouTube and Reddit, and I've known about them for 5-7 years, respectively. You are correct that I have not read much notable antinatalist or philosophical pessimist literature.

Once again, I have never engaged in an edit war with another editor, and I hope that I will never get involved in one either. I believe that you are a good-faith editor who is open to rationality and compromise. I will not delete, oppose, or revert any text that you want to add to the article, as long as you state factually correct information and cite a reliable source. Zero Contradictions (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I just made an edit to improve a source citation that emphasizes that much of the Antinatalism movement does not support nor condone violence. This demonstrates that I fully support adding quotes to the Antinatalism article to show that most Antinatalists are not violent people, provided that they exist within reliable sources. Zero Contradictions (talk) 07:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I have created a draft for Efilism in my user space: User:Zero Contradictions/Efilism. I encourage anyone who's interested in this topic to find reliable sources that could be cited in an Efilism Wikipedia article. Zero Contradictions (talk) 00:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Ilyenkov and Hartmann

@Indiana6724, you reverted my addition of Ilyenkov and Hartmann to "see also", saying that they were totally unrelated to antinatalism or something. I'm willing to be wrong, but my understanding is that Ilyenkov and Hartmann both saw the extinction of the human race as the ultimate heroic act. BeatrixGodard (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Believing that human extinction is a heroic act is not the same as applying a negative value to procreation. Did Illyenkov and Hartmann believe that procreation has negative value? Indiana6724 (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Good question. I don't know. I'll look into it more. BeatrixGodard (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Yea - you should probably do more research. When you make an edit, make sure it is completely bulletproof. Indiana6724 (talk) 01:42, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. BeatrixGodard (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Yea, you really needed it. Indiana6724 (talk) 13:34, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Related crimes

Main thread started by blocked user. Collapsed by 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 17:49, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm adding this topic because it's clearly a point of contention, and discussion of the issue seems to bleeding into Talk:2025 Palm Springs fertility clinic bombing and my talk page, instead of the actual talk-page for the article that is the point of contention. BeatrixGodard (talk) 02:00, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

This comment is a continuation of a discussion on User talk:BeatrixGodard#2025 Palm Spring fertility clinic bombing.

I made a great counter-argument against your claim that Efilism and Promortalism seem to me to be inherently anti-natalist. Gary Mosher is relevant to this discussion because you claimed that promortalism implies antinatalism, and he is a great counterexample for demonstrating why that's not true.

The video is very clear that Gary Inmendham supports wild animal breeding programs, which are a form of natalism. The 2021 antinatalism community open letter is very clear that Antinatalism International is actually run by efilists, not antinatalists. Zero Contradictions (talk) 02:26, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Collapsed comment

::Okay. I'll try to read that entire 26-page document at some point, though it would help if you told me what specific pages you mean to cite, because a lot of it is about random stuff like the Holocaust and feminism that I don't think is at all related to the question at hand, which, to remind everyone, is:

Were Adam Lanza and Guy Bartkus motivated by anti-natalism to commit crimes?

You said:

"[....] promortalism is not necessarily antinatalist by itself. Indeed, there are some promortalists and even some efilists who condone natalism under some circumstances."

That may be true, but do you have any evidence that Guy Bartkus or Adam Lanza did? If you don't, then that's not an argument.

As for your "great counter-argument", as you so humbly put it:

The video you shared is a one-minute long clip with almost no context given in which this Gary Mosher guy seems to say (though he's barely coherent and he doesn't seem to be speaking in complete sentences) that breeding wild animals to replace ones that man has killed is "something to think about." So when you say he supports, "wild animal breeding programs", you're just lying.

By the way: to say that one thing "implies" another, as I did, is different from saying that one thing "entails" another. You seem to be conflating the two terms. Even if you had explicit evidence that this Mosher guy supports birth, which you don't, that wouldn't disprove that promortalism implies anti-natalism. It would only prove that it doesn't entail it. Perhaps this confusion on your part is the source of the issue you've been taking with much of what I and others have been saying on this subject.

But all this stuff about Mosher and breeding turtles and stuff is all kind of beside the point. There are sources, which I believe Wikipedia generally considers reliable, which name Lanza and Bartkus as anti-natalists, and anti-natalism as a motivating factor, too, so not even your allegations of WP:SYNTH, which I honestly thought were your best bet, stand up. BeatrixGodard (talk) 03:23, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I personally believe that the 26-page 2021 antinatalism community open letter is a great document with a professional tone that was written with journalist-level competence and accurate, high-quality information. Alas, it technically does not qualify for WP:Acceptable sources, since the author(s) is anonymous. People have even emailed the author using the address provided at the end of the letter to ask if they would be willing to disclose their identity, but they are still insistent on anonymity. For this reason, many of my citations to the 2021 open letter in User:Zero Contradictions/Efilism are invalid. This is a major reason why the Efilism draft was rejected for becoming an article.

Anyway, I indicated on User talk:BeatrixGodard#2025 Palm Spring fertility clinic bombing that Gary Mosher does not identify as an antinatalist on page 7. It have been easy to overlook, but I used Template:rp to indicate the page number.

Yes, I clearly stated the academic consensus on promortalism and its relation to antinatalism on Antinatalism#Promortalism. Promortalism does not imply antinatalism. Again, this discussion would be more productive if people focused on addressing the academic consensus that antinatalism does not imply promortalism (or killing life) by itself.

No, I was not lying when I said that Gary Inmendham supports wild animal breeding programs. That is a fact. If anything, you lied when you said that there is "almost no context" provided in the video that I linked. The video description of the video that I shared included a link to an Inmendham video with a timestamp where Inmendham expressed his support for wild animal breeding programs. It's not my fault that you lack the competence to find the video's context in the video description.

Adam Lanza's shooting was not motivated by Antinatalism. I used the highest quality sources available to explain this on User:Zero Contradictions/Efilism:

Van Allen believes that eulavism influenced Lanza's decision to commit mass murder.[10] However, Van Allen also believes Lanza had other motives for the shooting as well, since he believes that the philosophy described by Lanza alone does not imply murder.[10] Van Allen and a report from the Office of the Child Advocate in Connecticut have suggested that Lanza's mother's intention to sell the house[47] aggravated Lanza to kill himself, since selling the house would have required evicting Lanza from his bedroom.[47][10][48]

Basically, Lanza's main motive for the shooting was suicide, not antinatalism. I know that you edited Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting to state that antinatalism was one of Lanza's motives. However, your edit will probably soon be reverted by other editors who are watching that page. None of the official investigation report or other reports made by relevant government agencies support describing Lanza's motive as antinatalism.

You have not provided any clear distinction between "imply" or "entail". They are synonyms. You know what meant. I was talking about value judgments.

I already explained in Talk:2025 Palm Springs fertility clinic bombing that my position is based on the academic consensus. I judge the academic consensus to be far more reliable than the statements made by the journalists who reported on the bombing who probably don't have any philosophical background. Most of them have probably never heard of efilism, promortalism, or antinatalism until after they listened and read the bomber's audio recording and manifesto, the latter of which does not mention antinatalism. I don't see any reason why the descriptions about antinatalism written by the journalists should be ranked as equally reliable to the academic descriptions. If anything, the academic descriptions about antinatalism are more reliable than the uneducated journalist descriptions.

The journalists violated WP:SYNTH when they were writing about the primary sources. Antinatalism does not imply nor entail promortalism, per the academic consensus. Zero Contradictions (talk) 03:56, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Collapsed comment

::::"I indicated on User talk:BeatrixGodard#2025 Palm Spring fertility clinic bombing that Gary Mosher does not identify as an antinatalist on page 7. It have been easy to overlook, but I used Template:rp to indicate the page number."

Thank you for clearing that up. Sorry I missed it. But I don't believe that the fact that a guy named Gary Mosher does not consider himself to be an antinatalist proves that Lanza and Bartkus were not motivated by antinatalism. Why would it?

"this discussion would be more productive if people focused on addressing the academic consensus that antinatalism does not imply promortalism (or killing life) by itself."

Why? Why would we do that? Why would we benefit from changing the subject of this discussion to something entirely unrelated?

Van Allen, the "highest source available" that you used to discredit my claim, seems to be a self-published author on Amazon.

Imply and entail are not synonyms. When A implies B, that means that it suggests B, but not necessarily. When A entails B, that means A necessarily means B. Again, your inability to understand this may explain a lot of the difficulty we've been having communicating.

The "context" you sent me is a video of this Mosher guy rambling about current political developments in his small New Jersey hometown. Then he says something about how it's "something to think about" whether his town should try to breed wild animals to replace the ones they killed. You are literally lying. And even if you weren't, what does this have to do with whether or not Adam Lanza or Guy Bartkus were motivated by anti-natalism?

Antinatalism does not imply nor entail promortalism, per the academic consensus."

Zero Contradiction, this is not what I've been saying. I don't know if any of the people you've been arguing with on various articles have been saying this. I don't know if any of the sources have. I don't know where you're getting this. You're trying to refute something that no one ever posited and that's irrelevant to the discussion.

You seem reticent to discuss the actual issue (if Adam Lanza and Bartkus were motivated by antinatalism), and instead seem to want to move the discussion to issues you're more comfortable with, like this Gary Mosher guy, or whether all antinatalists kill people, which no one ever said. BeatrixGodard (talk) 04:47, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

You're still missing the point. I never said that as an argument that Bartkus or Lanza were not antinatalists. You were arguing that promortalism implies antinatalism, so I gave a notable counter-example. Even though it's meant to be a counter-example and nothing more, you keep misconstruing it as an argument that Bartkus or Lanza were not antinatalists, even though I never said that.

The academic sources are absolutely relevant to this discussion. I've explained why.

Van Allen's books on Amazon are self-published, but that does not necessarily invalidate their reliability because there are three other considerations for what counts as a reliable source (WP:SOURCE) that have to be taken into account as well. Van Allen is a Canadian philosopher and biologist.

The way how I used "imply" was perfectly valid. I recommend reading about logical implications. My usage of the "imply" is also consistent with wikt:imply.

Again, you're violating WP:AGF by claiming that I'm lying. Gary Mosher supports wild animal breeding programs for animals that he likes. That's what he implied.

Again, I never denied that Bartkus or Lanza were antinatalists. The point is that you want to extrapolate that antinatalism was the motive for their crimes. That violates WP:SYNTH. And as I already said before, the talk page consensus on Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting does not support describing Adam Lanza as an antinatalist, much less that he was motivated by antinatalism. That's why User:Ianmacm just reverted your edit. That's why you cannot state that Lanza is an antinatalist on Antinatalism or 2025 Palm Springs fertility clinic bombing either.

BeatrixGoddard, I am tired of your repeated violations of WP:AGF, WP:CIR, and your attempts to persistent confoundings and misinterpretations of things that I've said. I have sought a WP:3O and I will leave a comment on your talk page warning you about your repeated violations of WP:AGF and other rules. If problems regarding your conduct and rude behavior persist, then I will start a discussion at WP:ANI. Zero Contradictions (talk) 06:00, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Collapsed comment

::::::I'm familiar with words in their normal English usage, but unfortunately not the Wiktionary. To "imply" in English can mean "to contain potentially", which is not something that "entail" can mean. I think that your confusion regarding this may be the source of some of the disputes that you're having with other editors on these subjects, though I'm not really sure at this point whether it's these words or the logical relations that they describe which are tripping you up.

I do not have to assume good faith when you tell me one thing and the video you cite as proof says another, but, according to you, "implies" what you initially said it meant. Saying, "whether the town should breed these animals is something to think about," is not, "I support my town breeding these animals," though you seem to desperately want it to be the latter, for purely rhetorical reasons that are almost so far divorced from the subject of this article as to be almost irrelevant.

I don't know why I have to say this, but a statement is not a violation of WP:SYNTH if it's taken directly from a secondary source. This is a very ironic and, dare I say, contradictory thing to say for an editor who is trying to use a YouTube video about turtle breeding in New Jersey to prove that the bombing of an IVF clinic in California was not at all motivated by a desire to stop babies from being born.

the talk page consensus on Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting does not support describing Adam Lanza as an antinatalist,

There is no mention of "anti-natalism" on the Sandy Hook talk-age. I searched the entire page.

I know you consider the use of the word "lying" to be a breach of WP:AGF, so I will put it this way: Why are you not telling the truth? I could assume good faith and give you the benefit of the doubt, in that perhaps you misspoke and meant "Eulavism". I saw that there was a discussion in which you suggested including "Eulavism," Lanza's idiosyncratic spin off, in the article, which I would support. I'm honestly very sorry to see that you didn't succeed. But if this is what you meant, that would mean that you yourself were conflating antinatalism with "Eulavism", the very thing you've been accusing the rest of us of doing, which, dare I say, is a contradiction. BeatrixGodard (talk) 09:17, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

My usage of the word "imply" fits the first sense of the word, i.e. the most common sense. Your idea of "imply" fits the second sense, a less a common usage, hence why it's listed second. I am not confusing anything. If there is nothing wrong with my language, then there is no point in you making a big deal out of it. We are done discussing this matter.

Yes, editors must always assume good faith. I already explained the implicature behind what Inmendham said in the video clip on Talk:2025 Palm Springs fertility clinic bombing#Repeated removal of antinatalism, "anti-pro-life" from motives. No, I am not "desperate" to believe that it proves that Inmendham supports natalism. The video supports my claim, and I explained why. Once again, Inmendham even insisted that he is not an antinatalist. I already cited my source on this on the other page.

Again, you are still misconstruing my counter-examples against things that you said as arguments for a more specific and unrelated matter. When I'm explaining Inmendham's views on antinatalism, that doesn't imply anything about Bartkus's views on antinatalism. I've never said or argued anything contrary to that, so you really need to stop re-hashing this over and over again.

I am telling the truth. When User:Ianmacm reverted your edit, he wrote in his edit summary that your cited sources are invalid because the claims about Lanza's antinatalist views are based on the idea that Adam Lanza had a YouTube channel. Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting already reached a consensus a few years ago that there are no reliable sources that can support the claims about Lanza's YouTube channel.

Yes, I'm aware of my past involvement on that talk page. No, I did not conflate Eulavism with antinatalism. Eulavism is a philosophy, whereas antinatalism is a value judgment, so they're clearly not the same thing. I've never said anything to suggest that they are either. It is precisely due to my past involvement on that talk page that I am aware of why no Wikipedia article can state that Adam Lanza had antinatalist views. This is what I was trying to warn you about. You can read that talk page for more information.

Once again, you are obligated to WP:Read before commenting. If you really did read the talk page and material what we're talking about, then you would know that the Sandy Hook talk page consensus that I was talking about pertained to Adam Lanza's supposed YouTube channel. All claims that Lanza was antinatalist are ultimately based on his YouTube channel, including the ones that you attempted to cite in the Sandy Hook and Antinatalism articles. Since you did not know what I was talking about, this heavily suggests that you did not read before commenting.

By the way, when you asked me, "Why are you not telling the truth?", you directly implied that I am not telling the truth. Otherwise, you would not have asked that question. This is yet another violation of the WP:AGF. I am really tired of warning you not to violate that policy. I shouldn't have to repeatedly remind you about how to interact with other editors on Wikipedia. Zero Contradictions (talk)