Not the softened version. Where we actually stand, and what to do about it.
Yes. Not "when convenient," not "mostly." Farming an animal means breeding it into confinement and killing it on a schedule that has nothing to do with what it wants. Tens of billions of land animals a year, more aquatic animals than can be counted precisely. There's no version of that we're neutral on.
Do this: Stop funding it. Read how domestic animal extinction actually happens, and support breeding bans over welfare labels.
Yes. A competent adult gets to decide when their own suffering has become unbearable and how their life ends — not a legislature, not a religion, not a relative. That's the whole position. It applies only to the person making the choice about their own body. It does not extend to anyone else, ever, under any framing — that line is not negotiable.
Do this: Find out what death-with-dignity law exists where you live, and who's currently trying to expand or block it. Read how death-with-dignity actually works.
No. "More wild nature" sounds unambiguously good in a fundraising email. It isn't. Every additional animal born into the wild is one more animal whose most likely death is starvation, being eaten alive, or dying slowly of disease — see why rewilding increases suffering. Conservation treats population growth as the win condition. We don't.
Do this: Stop donating to habitat-expansion campaigns that don't mention animal welfare at all. Ask the orgs you already support to fund non-lethal reproductive and population-control research — the kind that reduces future births, not just campaigns that grow headcounts.
No. Never. Not as a hedge, not as fine print — it's the actual foundation of the position. Every stance on this page is about not creating new suffering. None of them is about harming anyone who already exists.
Four things, in order of where we are right now:
1. Build local communities. City-level groups where people who've reached these conclusions can find each other, organize, and support one another — the same model any advocacy movement uses to go from an idea to a network.
2. Public advocacy and education. Essays, social content, and public conversation aimed at making extinctionist and anti-speciesist arguments legible to people encountering them for the first time — not just preaching to people who already agree.
3. Legislative advocacy. Pushing, through ordinary democratic and legal channels, for policies like bans on breeding animals for exploitation (farming, backyard breeding, entertainment), and for conservation funding to be conditioned on non-lethal population-control research rather than population growth alone.
4. Funding real research. Supporting non-lethal reproductive and population-control science — immunocontraception, fertility management, and similar non-invasive methods already used in wildlife management — aimed directly at reducing future births rather than just measuring suffering within a system that keeps producing more of it. This is a genuine, existing scientific field, not a hypothetical one.
What this doesn't include, ever: harming any animal currently living, destroying ecosystems, or building anything whose purpose is causing death. Every one of the four things above targets breeding and policy, not a living animal.
The same way any advocacy movement earns credibility: rigorous, sourced writing that doesn't overstate its case, engaging honestly with the strongest counterarguments instead of strawmanning them, and showing up in the same spaces those fields already take seriously — wildlife population-management conferences, welfare biology research, effective altruism forums, animal ethics journals. Scientists and public figures follow evidence and reputation, not persuasion scripts. If the arguments are good, that's what does the convincing.
Right now, honestly: this is one project, not yet a coordinated global network. Anti-speciesist and animal-extinction thinking exists in scattered pockets worldwide — independent writers, podcasts, forums, local groups — but there's no single organized international body tying them together, and we're not going to pretend one exists.
What we want to build is real coordination: a way for groups and individuals in different countries working toward the same goal to find each other, share resources, and push in the same direction instead of duplicating effort in isolation.
Reach out through our Linktree or @extinctionism_uprising. If you're running a local group, a podcast, or a publication working toward domestic or wild animal extinction anywhere in the world, tell us — real contributions, real names, real links. We'll feature them accurately once they're verified, not before.