I canât see green anarchism as anything other than a eugenicist ideology. Eugenics is not one of its *goals*, but it will do eugenics as a side-effect, where disabled/chronically ill people are collateral damage. You canât get rid of modern medicine and sanitation without applying âsurvival of the fittestâ to people. Youâd be signing the death warrant for diabetics, asthmatics, people with severe allergies, and other common conditions. Most people with mental health conditions wonât just *get better* if capitalism were to suddenly end; if they could no longer access their medications, theyâd likely self-medicate with alcohol or drugs, or kill themselves, or at least be miserable. Youâd also be harming people with non-lethal disabilities, like being deaf/HoH or low vision/visually impaired, because hearing aids and eyeglasses donât grow on trees. Many of these disabilities are genetic/inherited.
Getting rid of modern medicine and sanitation will genetically select for people who can/are more likely to survive without them, thatâs why itâs eugenics. Itâs not about *intentions*, itâs about *cause and effect*.
Also, I never said that capitalists had our best interests at heart. What theyâre doing is also eugenics, both because they are making the world less habitable (especially in places that *just happen* to be populated with black and brown people) and because the elimination of social programs/safety nets harms and kills disabled people.
Also, historically, capitalists and fascists have been the ones to carry out eugenics programs because capitalists and fascists (influenced by capitalist and fascist âphilosophersâ) were in power at the time. If green anarchists had the same amount of power, they would be doing the eugenics.
We donât need to have capitalism to keep disabled people alive. In fact, capitalism often harms disabled people. It prices people out of treatment/cures (especially since disabled people tend to be poorer), especially in poorer countries. It treats disabled people who need caregivers, especially the elderly, as cash cows. It makes âdeath with dignityâ/elective euthanasia for hospice patients impossible to be ethical, because depending on how expensive you are to keep alive, you will be pressured to choose euthanasia if your needs are expensive and hospice care if the hospice can make more money off of you.
What we need is a system that preserves our modern practice of medicine (or improves it!) without being exploitative of people or the environment. Capitalism is not the answer, and neither is anarchism. Most people would suggest socialism or communism. Most medical innovations are already publicly funded/subsidized anyway.
In any case, even if green anarchism was the best answer and even if eugenics against disabled people was okay, nobody is going to choose that because everybody knows somebody who would die almost immediately under green anarchism, and many more who would suffer greatly. For me, my diabetic uncle and cousin would die, my cousinâs daughter would die the next time she gets stung by a bee, my grandpa would die from kidney failure, my dad would be nearly deaf, my mother and I would slowly go blind from the progression of astigmatism (which progresses more rapidly if you donât wear glasses or if your prescription is too weak), my aunt would die once her current pacemaker runs out of batteries, and my other uncle would suffer and potentially die without his seizure medication. And so, so many women I know would die in childbirth.
We donât throw disabled people under the bus.
2087
kianamaiart
romaincrisis
germansingergirl
blakekathryn
