[happytoexplain]

>[if] most of the population finds itself without money. there are other ways to live with very little money.

This is even more hideous than expressions of approval for individual violence. This is a dystopian acquiescence.

[leaves83829]

examples include: Great depression, third world countries like ghana, south africa, etc (and countries that have collapsed like syria), also the hazda tribe and other native tribes untouched by technology, as well as other similar to human mammalian species that share our planet like monkeys, apes, chenobos, all are able to survive without money albeit with more favorable climate/physiology.

[happytoexplain]

I might not really understand this response - are you trying to justify a dystopia by describing how it can be literally survived? I.e. imminent physical death is your bar for where revolting is "allowed"? I'm reeling trying to understand how this can be what you're doing.

[tavavex]

Because the parent accused you of acquiescence and you just replied with a list of examples to follow, I don't think you understood what they meant.

In the worst-case world, there is still more than enough wealth and work done to provide the bare minimum quality of life to everyone. The automation of most occupations would lower the bar of creating the simplest food supplies and homes even more. But, in that horrific world, the elite class would say "lol no" and use that wealth to live in paradise, away from everyone else, while the rest are left with almost nothing. The parent is saying that your immediate reaction is depressing, because instead of anger or even disapproval, your instinct is to put your head down and reason that you and all the future generations should just live like a monkey, forever.