Guy Bartkus, the man responsible for the 2018 Palm Springs bombing, has been described as an adherent of an obscure anti-natalist ideology known as “efilism.” This ideology, which promotes the idea of not procreating, has gained attention in recent years due to the actions of individuals like Bartkus. However, the question remains: was Bartkus truly “anti-pro-life”?
Efilism, also known as anti-natalism, is a philosophy that rejects the notion of creating new human life. It argues that human existence is filled with suffering and therefore, bringing new life into the world is inherently unethical. Efilists believe that the only way to end suffering is to end the existence of humanity altogether.
This ideology has gained a small but vocal following in recent years, largely due to the rise of social media and online communities. Efilists often gather on online forums and discuss their beliefs, which can range from advocating for voluntary human extinction to promoting a more moderate approach of limiting procreation to reduce suffering. However, while this ideology may seem extreme to some, it is important to understand the nuances and complexities of efilism before labeling its adherents as “anti-pro-life.”
First and foremost, it is crucial to note that efilism is not a monolithic ideology. Within the efilist community, there are varying levels of extremism and differing beliefs on how to achieve their ultimate goal of ending suffering. Some efilists may advocate for voluntary human extinction, while others may simply believe in reducing the population through limiting procreation. Therefore, it is unfair to paint all efilists with the same brush and label them as “anti-pro-life.”
Moreover, while efilism may reject the idea of creating new life, it does not necessarily equate to a disregard for the value of existing life. In fact, many efilists argue that their ideology is ultimately pro-life, as it aims to end the suffering of all living beings. Efilists believe that by not procreating, they are preventing potential suffering for future generations.
In the case of Guy Bartkus, it is important to note that his actions were not representative of the efilist community as a whole. While he may have identified as an efilist and may have been influenced by efilist ideas, his decision to bomb a busy shopping center was a heinous act of violence that cannot be justified by any ideology. It is also worth mentioning that efilism does not condone or promote violence in any form.
Furthermore, the label of “anti-pro-life” implies a lack of compassion for others, which is not necessarily true for efilists. In fact, many efilists argue that their ideology is driven by compassion for others, as they believe that by not bringing new life into the world, they are preventing potential suffering for both themselves and others.
In conclusion, while efilism may seem extreme and controversial to some, it is important to understand the nuances of this ideology before labeling its adherents as “anti-pro-life.” Efilism is not a monolithic ideology and there is a wide spectrum of beliefs within the efilist community. Additionally, while efilism may reject the idea of procreation, it is ultimately driven by compassion for all living beings and aims to end suffering. Therefore, it is unfair to label efilists as “anti-pro-life” and we must strive to understand and respect the complexities of this ideology.
