Angelomorphism & Antinatalism V 2.0

Although angelomorphism advocates the creation of angelomorphic children within the framework of rational natalism (as opposed to unconditional natalism), this applies only to ethically correct life forms, and does not affect those that are not intelligent enough to remedy their situation on their own. The goals of angelomorphism and antinatalism are the same - ending the suffering of biological life. And we agree that animals on Earth suffer from their existence and we should not allow it, but we do not think that this rule is relevant for all mankind, capable of qualitative changes in themselves and their environment in a short time. However, both antinatalism and its more extreme form efilism, which advocates the annihilation of biological life, are initially based on absolutely pessimistic and materialistic positions, while angelomorphism is based more on the positions of meliorism and neutral monism. The difference in ontologies similarly dictates different methods of escaping suffering. If efilist abandon crude materialism, they will have to adopt the position of angelomorphism, since outside the context of their ontology, the annihilation of life is impossible. If, for example, we turn to idealistic extreme Gnosticism, which asserts that nothing can be changed in an inherently bad world, while taking away the idea of personal salvation, we get an even more pessimistic picture: You can't leave the damn world, you can't change it, you can't destroy the existence of life, you'll just suffer forever, coming back here with myriad eyes. In sum, while angelomorphism is consistent with efilism in that life is certainly suffering, we allow for the possibility of ethical forms of life that circumvent this and a gradual improvement in the quality of existence, nor do we believe that destroying life on Earth would in any way solve the problem of life's existence as such. There is no reason to believe that destroying life on a single planet will help in any way, because life can arise elsewhere. We cannot destroy sentient life if it emerges emergent as a consequence of the properties of the matter of this world, or if life is in some other sense a property of the world rather than a mere accident. So even if we destroy all life we reach for - still someone will continue to suffer. Efilism tells us “the world is so bad that all life must disappear, life is a creation of the world, there are no other habitable planets in the galaxy, we must destroy the Earth, thus solving the problem of existence”. The world is certainly a terrible place, but destroying the planet will not solve the problem of existence. As the Efilists themselves say, humanity cannot surpass itself, ethical life is impossible, but here they claim that everything that man as a species can do is provided for by his nature, by evolution, it is provided for by DNA: “man can create robots because it is a feature of his biological nature, nothing more”. However, here etheists step on their own rake, because if the creation of robots was provided by the DNA of man, then there is a possibility that the creation of angelic civilization and ethically perfect life is also determined by it. By creating an angelic civilization, we will create cosmic policemen of ethical life; this single ethically perfect form of life in our visible universe could make adjustments in those worlds where life has just begun its emergence. We should expect that one day a super-intelligent civilization will change the very foundations of the universe and then any life here will be inherently ethical.