>>149312948
>if there's sick and disabled people in that setting it's due to societal or economic reasons. disenfranchised people will always exist in any society.
But the degree of disenfranchisement and from what is dependent on the base line level of resources in a society.
As an example, it would not make sense for a society set on earth to have people deprived of *air* because air is ubiquitous. It would genuinely cost more to deny people access to it than for it to be freely available.
If, and I'm just spit-balling here, a super genius came up with a nanotech that gives everyone minor shapeshifting, enhanced physical and mental abilities, and a healing factor, and that nano-technology could be spread like a virus, then it would not make sense for a lot of bad shit to exist in that setting past the development of that tech. You'd literally require convoluted bullshit like the super genius is magically compelled to be evil and somehow able to remotely control expression of that shit for that to even be possible. And then if that super genius ever stopped being evil, what happens to the tech? Do they just forget they made it?
Collective disenfranchisement fundamentally cannot require more resources than enfranchisement unless all the most powerful people in a society that could change that, whether economic, military, magical, scientific, cultural, or political are cartoon villains or imbeciles. If that isn't the case, then the writers themselves are imbeciles.
>But in the real world
We have a lot of cartoon villains and imbeciles.
