Philosophies & Movements
Pro-extinctionism
The position that human extinction would be acceptable, or even good. It splits two ways that get confused constantly. One says humanity should simply end, leaving no successors — argued from philosophical pessimism, antinatalism, radical environmentalism or plain misanthropy. The other says humanity should be replaced by something better, usually digital or posthuman minds, which is the version that turns up in some AI circles. A softer nearby stance, “extinction neutralism,” says our survival into a posthuman era simply does not matter morally — which in practice amounts to the same thing.
Origin · no single documented coiner
There is no documented coiner; the word is built from “pro-” plus “extinction” and is mostly applied by critics rather than claimed by anyone. The clearest scholarly mapping of what it can mean is Émile P. Torres’s paper “Should Humanity Go Extinct? Exploring the Arguments for Traditional and Silicon Valley Pro-extinctionism,” in The Journal of Value Inquiry, published 26 December 2025, which is also where the traditional/Silicon Valley split comes from. Related nearby work includes Todd May’s book “Should We Go Extinct?” (2024). The paper’s abstract is free; the full text sits behind a paywall, so it is not in the library here.