New Sci Fi Setting Seeds

[Astromancer]

Relative poverty is a real thing. So the Elites could live in godlike splendor, and the Masses in comfort and even modest, but substantial, luxury. The Masses would still feel poor.

Also key resources could be held only by the rich. Picture a society were the average Joe or Josie has magnificent healthcare paid for by taxes, but only the Elites have immortality.

It's not only what you have, it's also what you lack and can never have.

[AlexanderHowl]

Absolute poverty is a real thing as well though.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Absolute poverty is a real thing as well though.

Painfully real. But I was pointing out that absolute poverty was not needed for pain, degradation, or class conflict.

[PTTG]

Might be interesting to play a bunch of hard-bitten rebels who have to make do with delicious food, free healthcare, superb education, full-immersion virtual reality, and free income, while the ruling class has access to superlative food, full-body replacement bio-cybernetics, direct memory skill transfer, easy space travel, and 10% higher free income.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by PTTG

Might be interesting to play a bunch of hard-bitten rebels who have to make do with delicious food, free healthcare, superb education, full-immersion virtual reality, and free income, while the ruling class has access to superlative food, full-body replacement bio-cybernetics, direct memory skill transfer, easy space travel, and 10% higher free income.

Not implausible either historically. It is amusing how well off many famous revolutionaries were but it makes sense when you look at it sideways because the really poor are to weak to rebel and to busy suffering.

[tshiggins]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Not implausible either historically. It is amusing how well off many famous revolutionaries were but it makes sense when you look at it sideways because the really poor are to weak to rebel and to busy suffering.

It's not implausible, in any way. Poor people fight in revolutions, die in them, and occasionally even benefit from them. But revolutions are led by people who are doing well in the existing system, but who believe they'd do even better if they broke the (frequently corrupt) lock on power held by those who currently exercise governmental power and authority.

Successful revolutions need people who understand finance, supply logistics, strategy and tactics, and human persuasion. Those people tend to have educational backgrounds that serve them well, under almost any circumstances. They're also seldom poor, and not deprived of much in the way of material needs.

Because such people already have the skill and motivation to lead effectively, any system that allows social mobility and a rise to authority by peaceful means will seldom experience successful revolutions, but will regularly endure economic, cultural, social and political change.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by tshiggins

It's not implausible, in any way. Poor people fight in revolutions, die in them, and occasionally even benefit from them. But revolutions are led by people who are doing well in the existing system, but who believe they'd do even better if they broke the (frequently corrupt) lock on power held by those who currently exercise governmental power and authority.

Successful revolutions need people who understand finance, supply logistics, strategy and tactics, and human persuasion. Those people tend to have educational backgrounds that serve them well, under almost any circumstances. They're also seldom poor, and not deprived of much in the way of material needs.

Because such people already have the skill and motivation to lead effectively, any system that allows social mobility and a rise to authority by peaceful means will seldom experience successful revolutions, but will regularly endure economic, cultural, social and political change.

Which is why paranoia is a false security as it leads to a brittle boned regime.

That is actually relevant to sci fi and not just to the allegorical subgenre. Rob S. Pierre wasn't exactly poor and while Victor Cachet grew up in the Havenite equiv of the projects he was not there any more.

Equally to the point the Havenite revolutionary government fell through force of paranoia. They overdid internal security to the point of hurting military capacity and then paradoxically provoked the very thing they were trying to prevent which was a military coup.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by PTTG

Might be interesting to play a bunch of hard-bitten rebels who have to make do with delicious food, free healthcare, superb education, full-immersion virtual reality, and free income, while the ruling class has access to superlative food, full-body replacement bio-cybernetics, direct memory skill transfer, easy space travel, and 10% higher free income.

Class and status can and do lead to bitter feuds and brutal vendettas. Remember that small stakes can lead to nasty fighting.

[Flyndaran]

"I want; you have." is the cause of many a violent act by individuals and groups.
Couple that with our weird tendency to attach personal identity and worth with external factors like wealth and cultural window-dressing, and war over petty sh*t is inevitable.

Rallying cries rarely have much to do with all the resentment and anger that actually fuels rebellions and wars, I think.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

"I want; you have." is the cause of many a violent act by individuals and groups.
Couple that with our weird tendency to attach personal identity and worth with external factors like wealth and cultural window-dressing, and war over petty sh*t is inevitable.

Rallying cries rarely have much to do with all the resentment and anger that actually fuels rebellions and wars, I think.

One would have to think about that. It is to common to make blanket statements about the cause of violence and there is always a, "Whatabout this" hanging around throw a wrench into whatever theory you make. The best one can say is that envy is at least a strong factor.