A critique of Anarcho-primitivism

I want to preface by saying that I critique this ideology not to dismiss it out of hand or be a hater, but because there are aspects of it that I simply don't understand. I would love to have a conversation about this with someone, maybe they can convince me, maybe they can't. Either way I want to add to the discourse and learn through dialogue. 

To begin is a critique of the phrase. While this is not my main concern, it's worth noting. Any critique I have about the phrase itself almost goes without saying. "Anarcho-primitivism" is presumptuous, condescending, seems to fit within the idea of the "mystic native" and other white supremacist tropes. It's all around inaccurate and cringe by assuming that societies people look to as "primitive" today are indeed primitive. I have to disagree. I think Anarcho-primitivists can come up with a better and more accurate word for their ideology.

Now, on to my main concern about the ideology itself. The way I see it, anarcho-primitivists are okay sacrificing most disabled people if it means living in the ideal, "primitive" society. People who need glasses or medication to function, for example, would simply suffer and die in an Anarcho-primitivist society. To me, this genuinely feels like eugenics. 

I understand the key difference here is that eugenics goes "you do not have the right to live / reproduce and therefore we are going to ensure that is the case" verses Anarcho-primitivism going "you do not have the ability to live / reproduce, and we do not have the responsibility to help you" as in the anarcho-primitivists eyes, we are all suffering and sacrificing ourselves due to the all-encompassing effects of modern science and industrialization. 

But I don't know... Anarcho-primitivism seems almost extreme for the sake of extremism here. I believe that the only acceptable societies are truly opt-in societies, where people can engage in science and technology so long as the science and technology do not effect those living outside of the societies. In this case people would be able to opt-in to existing in a society with meds, glasses, mobility aids etc., or opt-out and try to make it on their own.

I also feel hung up on where the usage of tech begins and ends for anarcho-primitivists. I assume they usually accept technology like stone tools, bows and arrows, clothing, vessels for keeping food / water, and fire. They seem to not accept/ hope to abandon all industrial factories, computers, TVs, etc., but what about (for example) plumbing, or small forges? Wood stoves? I think this is probably different for everyone, but it's something I think about a lot. 

Anyway, these are some of my thoughts on the ideology. I guess to wrap it up, I'm into anarchism because I love people and I don't think anyone deserves undue suffering and harm from oppression. I think many anarcho-primitivists come at anarchism more from an interest in individualism, which is why I struggle to see their point of view.

Also I literally just woke up so if I have weird typos and grammar it's because my brain is still getting started