A lot of his critiques are based on the assumption that technology is the main driving factor in human development and behavior. If I apply his logic to the rea

A lot of his critiques are based on the assumption that technology is the main driving factor in human development and behavior. If I apply his logic to the real world here's some of the questions I would have: -If lightweight body armor is available, why do our soldiers not have access to it? -If the technology for filtering clean drinking water is available then why does half the world not have clean drinking water? -If plastic surgery can improve or change our appearance why doesn't everyone use it? He completely glosses over the fact that economic factors play a huge role in how technologies are used and adopted. That very fact is blatantly obvious in the film itself, you even have a main character who can't walk, for no other reason than the fact that he can't afford to pay to get his legs fixed. The whole movie is about a company that is trying to maximize profits. Why would we expect them to buy top of the line gear for every single soldier if they can get away with cheaper stuff? My argument is supported over and over again in the film: the only reason the protagonist was even involved was because the company was unwilling to lose money by wasting an avatar.