Anti-Autistic Omnicide vs. Anti-Neurotypical Omnicide

Attribute	Anti-Autistic Omnicide	Anti-Neurotypical Omnicide
Targeted Group	Autistic individuals	Neurotypical individuals
Motivation	Based on ableism and discrimination against autistic individuals	Based on prejudice and discrimination against neurotypical individuals
Impact	Seeks to harm or eliminate autistic individuals	Seeks to harm or eliminate neurotypical individuals
Advocacy	Opposed by autism advocacy groups and allies	Not a widely recognized concept

Introduction

Omnicide, the destruction of all human life, is a terrifying concept that has been explored in various forms. When discussing omnicide in relation to neurodiversity, two terms that often come up are anti-autistic omnicide and anti-neurotypical omnicide. These terms refer to the hypothetical scenarios where individuals with autism or neurotypical individuals are targeted for extinction. In this article, we will compare the attributes of these two forms of omnicide.

Definition and Motivation

Anti-autistic omnicide is the idea of eradicating all individuals on the autism spectrum, while anti-neurotypical omnicide involves the extinction of neurotypical individuals. The motivations behind these concepts can vary, but they often stem from a belief that one group is inherently superior or inferior to the other. Anti-autistic omnicide may be driven by ableism and a desire for a neurotypical society, while anti-neurotypical omnicide could be fueled by a desire for a world where neurodiversity is the norm.

Impact on Society

The impact of anti-autistic omnicide would be devastating for individuals on the autism spectrum and their families. It would result in the loss of valuable perspectives and contributions to society, as well as the erasure of a unique and diverse population. On the other hand, anti-neurotypical omnicide would have a profound impact on the majority of the population, potentially leading to a loss of certain skills and traits that are common among neurotypical individuals.

Ethical Considerations

From an ethical standpoint, both forms of omnicide raise serious concerns. Targeting a specific group of individuals for extinction based on their neurology is discriminatory and dehumanizing. It goes against the principles of equality and respect for all individuals, regardless of their neurodiversity. Additionally, the idea of eradicating an entire group of people raises questions about the value of human life and the consequences of such actions.

Psychological Impact

The psychological impact of anti-autistic omnicide on individuals with autism would be profound. It would reinforce feelings of marginalization and otherness, further stigmatizing a group that is already vulnerable to discrimination. On the other hand, anti-neurotypical omnicide could create a sense of fear and insecurity among neurotypical individuals, as they face the prospect of being targeted for extinction simply because of their neurology.

Resistance and Advocacy

In response to the threat of omnicide, individuals and organizations advocating for neurodiversity have been vocal in their opposition to both anti-autistic and anti-neurotypical omnicide. They argue for the value of all individuals, regardless of their neurology, and emphasize the importance of acceptance and inclusion. By raising awareness and promoting understanding, these advocates hope to prevent the spread of harmful ideologies that target specific groups for extinction.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the concepts of anti-autistic omnicide and anti-neurotypical omnicide highlight the dangers of discrimination and prejudice based on neurodiversity. Both forms of omnicide have serious ethical implications and would have a profound impact on society. It is essential to recognize the value of all individuals, regardless of their neurology, and work towards a more inclusive and accepting society for everyone.