The major theological difference between Therâvada Buddhism and Mahâyâna Buddhism, and its implications for antinatalist praxis.

In the more conservative tradition, the emphasis is on personal enlightenment. It is rather individualistic in that the texts and traditions are oriented towards liberating oneself from the cycle of dukkha. But if one were to attain enlightenment, would it not be more helpful to spread it?

Mahâyâna Buddhism elaborates on this by focusing on universal compassion. Though I am extremely conservative when it comes to Hindu theology, I cannot dispute the pragmatic superiority of Mahâyâna over Theravâda Buddhism.

And I cannot help but draw parallels between this theological distinction and the distinction between antinatalism and efilism. (Though efilism is more elegant because it is contained in the rationale for antinatalism.) Antinatalism will not only fail because it is less philosophically rigid than efilism and devoid of practicality, but because its adherents are individualistic. They only care about their personal choice to not reproduce and approach the problem from an anthropocentric perspective. Frankly, being a pregnant woman pales in comparison to being a pregnant kiwi bird.

Now I think that Mahâyâna Buddhism doesn't go far enough. Why not cease the suffering of all living beings, sentient or not? That is the crux of efilism. We better spread those xenoestrogens (via oral/dermal/inhalation means) and contrive other ways of inducing involuntary infertility. If DDT can show up in Antarctic wildlife despite being banned in the USA for decades, it wouldn't take much additional effort to chemically spay rural populations as well as urban ones.