Katherine, If you have any follow-up questions, I'm willing to answer a few. I publish under the name Inmendham, and would appreciate being referred to by that name, rather than my legal name. -Gary

1. Tell me a bit about yourself your upbringing, how you view yourself, what you do.

Very briefly ... None of the important questions had reasonable answers, so I have spent my life seeking those reasonable answers.

2. Looking back, is there a principle or habit your parents drilled into you that later evolved into the central ideas of efilism?

My parents were essentially "Stepford" parents ... They existed in a social Borg I had no interest in joining.

3. How, if at all, would you say your family life influenced your philosophical development?

My family life was neither a hindrance, nor a help ... but I certainly would say that having three sisters gave me the capacity to see women as more than something to possess.

4. Can you trace a line from those first hand encounters with bodily suffering to your conclusion that existence, overall, is a negative-sum game?

The conclusion might have existed before the hard evidence ... Children are lied to about Santa Claus, the Easter rabbit, and silver linings. The fact that my parents were making up nonsense mush as answers to real questions made it clear that the honest answers must be too horrible to be spoken.

5. Was there a catalyst episode of suffering your own or someone close that crystallized your later worldview?

I can't say anything crystallized; I just became better at using vocabulary to describe what I see and feel.

6. Was there a particular book, event, or experience that pushed you to develop efilism?

I was always an efilist, in that nature's cruelty is obvious ... The utility of the word is just to make a clear distinction between empathetic philosophies... human-centric versus any- sentient-animal centric.

7. You built Mendham's first civic website and later spent seven years suing town officials for transparency. How did that struggle plant the seeds of the institutional skepticism we hear in your philosophy?

Sadly these experiences taught me nothing beyond forcing the realization that there is no real fair justice or accountability in America.

8. What moment or idea triggered that shift from municipal matters to universal suffering?

There never was any shift of anything ... At 18, I was, in many ways, the same person I am now--I've just become more articulate. There is no origin date embossed in my brain.

9. You created the term efilism life spelled backward to distance yourself from what you saw as logically weak antinatalist arguments. What specific weakness were you aiming to correct?

The weak logic that: feelings are a big brain (only human) event. I think the facts clearly indicate that "feeling" good or bad is a very old evolutionary function that is not more substantively experienced by humans. Stating it with crude brevity: Animals are just less smart humans trapped in a cruel cycle of pointless disease and death.

10. In plain language, how would you draw a sharp boundary between antinatalism, efilism, and promortalism for newcomers?

I don't even know what promortalism is. I don't much like the term natalism. I am clearly anti-creation, anti-imposition, and anti-silly fables, etc.

11. What key nuance do utilitarianism and mainstream antinatalism miss that efilism captures?

The experience of having positive and negative sensations is the core of value in the universe... Things can only mean something if they affect what something will feel. Feelings happen in brains, and lots of animal organisms have brains capable of creating feelings.

12. Who are the philosophical and non-philosophical thinkers that most shaped your view, and how do they surface in efilism?

I don't really have any mentors ... I could acknowledge a few fellow travelers, like Jack Kevorkian. Sadly, most non-religious "natural philosophy" is human-centric wooey mush.

13. Your draftScience/draftPhysics work rests on a model of fields, momentum, and friction.

Probably better stated as very small moving bits of force and small pushable bits of matter (electrons and protons).

14. Could you sketch that picture and explain how it grounds your ethics?

My physics insights haven't had any real effect on my philosophical observations ... You don't need to understand physics to understand the value of suffering, torment, and torture.

15. Would the emergence of true AI consciousness alter any efilist conclusions, and how do you feel about AI more broadly?

No AI will ever feel; it is just well-grammared group think ... Algorithms do not understand concepts; they just know what words people like to put close to each other.

16. From the first handful of subscribers to today's community, what were the key milestones in the online growth of efilism?

I'm not much of a fan of the community thing ... Hard for me to relate to concepts like growth and milestones ... I still only have a handful of subscribers and I'm quite disappointed with my performance. On the other hand, I am gratified that more people are using the term and talking about what it really means to be alive.

17. Which current creators or commentators do you regard as the most rigorous or insightful expositors of efilism and why?

Plain truth is, I wish there was somebody doing what I do better then I do it, so I wouldn't have to do it ... But I would add that channels like Life Sucks, Glynos, and Graytaicho add substantial value and innovation.

18. What about thinkers outside of efilism?

If you're outside of efilism, you can't be much of a thinker.

19. Are there critics or sympathetic outsiders whose pushback has meaningfully refined your arguments?

The critics are pathetically cheap tricksters ... All they have is distortion and Photoshop. Can't say I've ever seen even a couple of sentences of rational counter-argument.

20. Your channels have been terminated and reinstated multiple times. How have those experiences altered your communication style and your trust if any in large platforms?

Not much of a fan of capitalism and being controlled by corporate ethics... There should be a public-option minimum internet where you just pay the real cost to publish your fairly apportioned free speech.

21. Supporters call your rhetoric necessary honesty; critics find it harsh. How do you decide where to set the line on tone and personal attack?

Torture is a very emotional subject... It has taken many years for me to control those emotions enough to prevent unuseful emotional outbursts. The ideal of real can often be badly compromised by too many filters.

22. Online spaces discussing efilism can, though don't necessarily, attract people in crisis. What obligations, if any, does an efilist creator have toward viewers who are suicidal or self-harming, and how do you handle such situations?

It's pretty hard to make real philosophy child safe... People are fooled by scammers everyday, and society doesn't do much to prevent it. Watch some of the advertisements youTube puts on videos ... It's just shameless abuse of the stupid. The fact that the truth won't set you free from your misery isn't something I can fix. The fact that the truth might cause you misery is also something I cannot fix.

23. You've said that, if total suffering could truly end, any means necessary” would be justified. Where is your non-negotiable moral boundary today?

If you could prevent 10 people from having cancer by giving nine people cancer... wouldn't you be rationally obligated to do it. In one day on Earth there is an amount of suffering endured too massive to be imagined ... multiply that by a million or a billion. How could any cure I propose be worse than letting that disease take its course.

24. If society embraced efilist conclusions tomorrow, which first-wave policies would you press for?

Efilism is about prevention ... Some easy social improvements would be removing all the financial subsidies provided to procreators. Force them to pay the freight for their "pets". I envision an efilist future as a graceful decline in human population and then the last few, of the last generation, gracefully disinfect the planet.

25. Looking ten years ahead, which metric birth-rate decline, legislative change, cultural references would most convincingly signal that efilism is succeeding?

High-school educated humans have a birth rate that would inevitably lead to extinction... Poor, uneducated people reproduce at much higher rates, and we should use incentives and disincentives to encourage them to reproduce less recklessly. It should be understood that educated humans are already behaving like efilists, regarding their birth rate.

26. What is the single biggest misunderstanding about efilism, even among sympathetic antinatalists? Do you believe people even accurately define efilism?

It really is this simple... Feelings make value ...Brains make feelings... And animals have brains that feel. The philosophy is not a prescription; it's a diagnosis. There's no reasonable justification for misunderstanding.

27. At a high level, how would you chart the evolution of your own ideas?

The evolution is just more elaborate and colorful verbiage...

28. Finally, what question about your journey or the philosophy itself do you wish interviewers would ask but almost never do?

I wish there wasn't enough misunderstanding to necessitate question asking.

---

Would you be so kind as to share your thoughts about these subjects, on the record please?

I've made some 30,000 public videos over the last 20 years... There isn't a thought I haven't shared.

You have devoted a great deal of time and thought into developing efilism as a philosophy

Yet you patronizingly advise me to think long and hard

and I'm genuinely interested to see how you respond to vigorous questions

And I genuinely doubt your motivations

and, if you do respond, to think long and hard about what you say.

I always think carefully... It's the mindless culture you defend that is reckless in its waste and foolishness. Have you investigated my draftscience YouTube channel?

Before diving into efilism, I have a few personal questions for you.

Not terribly interested in getting personal...but how do you feel about making a living off the tragedy of others? You're just selling bloody popcorn to a hungry crowd of ghouls.

How are you holding up? Have Sophie Tinney' and Guy Bartkus's deaths affected you emotionally? Are other reporters reaching out to you? Have you heard from the FBI? What about Reddit banning threads about efilism what's your reaction to that? Inmendham and efilism are being hammered in online forums, is that tough to take? Do you have a support system for dealing with it all?

All irrelevant mush. I defend fact-based perception of reality; those arguments are not changed by any of this... All causes have bad advocates. LET ME REPEAT THAT IN ALL CAPITALS: ALL CAUSES HAVE BAD ADVOCATES!!!

Lack of consent

A plain, simple decisive argument against procreation--No rational person could call life harmless or void of substantial risk. Imposing such a gift is plainly arrogant and obnoxious to decency.

Efilism places a high value on consent, or lack thereof.

Forcing someone to live your values should require substantial good cause.

How about this: Much of what happens to us happens without our consent.

Correct, that's why you don't initiate the flawed experiment.

For example, I got stuck at a long traffic light this morning - didn't consent to this. Around noon I felt hungry. Again, no consent. It's hotter outside than I would consent to if I were given a choice.

I'm kind of of the opinion that people who trivialize things like pancreatic cancer should get what they deserve.

On what basis does efilism place such a high value on consent, to the point where lack of consent outweighs the creation of human life itself?

You're claiming there is value to creating life? So Mars is in some terribly deprivated state because it doesn't have great white sharks swimming in oceans? I say: preventing suffering is a good... and "preventing" life isn't a bad.

In other words, why do you think consent is so important?

I shouldn't have to explain to an adult why consent is important when imposing risk. If I'm feeling lucky, should I steal your nest egg and go gambling with it in Las Vegas, because "I know" it will be good for you... without your consent?

Guy compared lack of consent to his being born, to a woman being raped when she's unconscious. But humans via the law and innate notions of right and wrong have decided that in the case of an unconscious woman, consent is required.

(Not going to respond to Guy questions)

What if the unconscious woman needed emergency surgery in order to live but was unable to give consent? Should the surgery be withheld, even if she would've wanted it?

Society has partially responded to these dilemmas... Living wills and do not resuscitate bracelets for example. Suppose the woman has cancer, would you impose chemotherapy?

As for consent to being born as an example, my parents made the decision to procreate for their own reasons or urges, such as biological imperative or desire to have a son to carry on the family name.

I did get my parents to admit that they had four kids for no good reason...that they never really considered all the "what if" questions. One of my sisters died at 32 after a long, brutal fight with cancer. My parents admitted that no one, who is rational or decent, gets over it. They admitted it would have been better if they had devoted themselves to traveling the world rather than creating living beings.

Biology,

I had heard of condoms long before I had need to use one.

eons of human practices and traditions,

Eons of mysticism and voodoo... Throwing virgins into volcanoes or Jews into concentration camps. Why don't you do an investigative report on a pig's life... Go interview the dead bull slowly killed for the crowd. We are mired right in the middle of Idiocracy, and you are going to pretend humans have some respectable traditions?

and the law pretty much anywhere in the world granted them the rights to bring a baby into the world,

If someday vegans were 70% of the population, would you concede they would have the right to outlaw animal farming? Slavery was legal for hundreds of years. Let's not pretend that because something was legal, it was rational.

and that baby was me.

Always trying to make things personal... The fact that you're a happy exploitenist glutton doesn't mean much. What if your opposite doppelganger was the product of their love. Would you arrogantly claim his pain is worth it?

Why should my lack of consent outweigh their rights?

The simple argument is: acting without consent requires a degree of certainty... let's say, the highest degree of certainty. You are certain that your life loving is reasonable. You are "certain" that the 10 dead lion cubs are worth the one mature lion (that will die horribly also).

Also, assume for sake of discussion that a vast majority of humans would have given their consent to being born had they been allowed the opportunity. Should the small minority of humans who would not have consented outweigh the rights of the vast majority?

So if something you imposed made 10 people happy (happy like going to Disneyland) and one person violently ill, you would go ahead and do the imposing?

Avoidance of suffering A key ethical underpinning of efilism seems to be avoidance of suffering.

The key underpinning is atheism and a fair recognition that evolution is not an intelligent designer. I would argue the only value in the universe is the welfare of feeling organisms. The ethic is you do not waste suffering. It is clearly reasonable to endure a small misery to prevent a large misery.

Why is this of such importance?

I have to explain why torture is an important concept?

Are you assuming that suffering is per se bad?

Of course it's per se bad... Feelings generally fall into categories good and bad. Your feelings are desirable and undesirable by their elemental nature, not by interpretation. Are you some type of nihilist who doesn't think value, and more specifically, negative/bad value exists?

What if suffering teaches lessons,

It's a sad truth that you can't interview the dead... I would argue that If you honestly contemplate the subject, you would concede, that after a long slow miserable death, many of the dead would be less than enthusiastic regarding doing that again.

enables achievements,

Satisfying needs that don't need to exist is not a net positive accomplishment.

or simply exists because it exists

The fact that something exists doesn't mean it exists for a good reason.

does the fact it's a bummer sometimes to sentient beings mean it's wrong?

Calling things like pancreatic cancer "a bummer"... makes you describable as a glib asshole.

Also, there are degrees of suffering. I've suffered being ill or injured, but the experiences have made me more appreciative of healthy days and empathetic towards others.

What's in doubt here, from my perspective, is any sincerity regarding your empathy for others.

Is all suffering bad or only the worst of suffering? Who decides where that line is drawn?

My philosophical argument is that waste is always waste, and degree is quite irrelevant. You're saying that life, on balance, is a good deal... I'm saying you can't create anything or do anything that is worth imposing cancer on just one child. Your silly delusion that being alive accomplishes something, is just your silly delusion.

On what basis does avoidance of suffering outweigh the value of sentient life?

Without spouting some religious crap, can you explain what "the value of sentient life" is? Clearly the universe doesn't have some negative condition that living things fix... What does your sentient life do to improve the universe?

Would joy and happiness even exist but for the contrast with sadness and suffering? Day and night, life and death, yin and yang - aren't these counterpoints the way of the universe? What basis does efilism have for pronouncing this wrong?

I'll just remake the argument... So if you had to be evolution's Thug and personally had to kick to death 10 lion cubs so one of them could reach sexual maturity... You would have no apprehension in fulfilling your duty.

Unintended consequences Do the actions of Guy and Sophie cause you to question efilism and your efforts to advance the philosophy?

I'll answer the generic question: Should all causes be banned because some members are crazy. Let's prohibit Muslims... Let's prohibit Catholicism (obviously facilitates child molesting). There have been many instances of vegans going too far... So let's ban that too... Etc, etc.

It seems clear that you were an important influence on both Guy and Sophie. Do you feel the philosophy gave them a framework or excuse for, as you might say, acting out? Going forward, do you plan to change anything with your website or videos? Add warnings? Delete anything?

A few abortion doctors have been killed by fanatic Christians... Should we put warning labels on churches?

If people point fingers at you as bearing some measure of ethical responsibility for violent outcomes you didn't intend, how will you respond? Are there latent dangers in efilism for people who are young, weak minded, or how did you say it in Sunday's video crazy?

So you don't think there are any crazy religious people? I don't advocate action, I advocate argument... I do not encourage or incite any social violence.

Here's a final question: Did Guy and Sophie consent to the effect that efilism apparently had on them?

You have no evidence they did not invent their own philosophical perspective from their own personal experience. Do you really think they were "brainwashed" to think they were miserable?

Thank you, and please feel free to call me if you prefer cell or Zoom, either works for me.

Clearly your attitude doesn't work for me... I am always willing to defend my logic and reasoning... I have no obligation to defend someone else's.

Signed, Inmendham (The only name under which I publish philosophical commentary. Please do not identify me using a name that jeopardizes my personal security )