I just finished putting up an answer to this question about a resurrection effect and then went to check the queues to find that it's on the close list as too broad. I've read Dutch's comment about why he thinks it's too broad and while it has merit and actually makes sense, I have a dissenting opinion insofar as while the scope of the question appears broad, the change being implemented is not.
I saw this question as being akin to the introduction of anti-biotics in society. It's a very specific change but it has had broad impacts on our society as a whole as we no longer fear scratches and infections the way we used to. It has seen sweeping changes in the way we treat medical conditions and has had a net benefit to our society and life expectancy, but the actual change was very specific.
I understand and respect Dutch's opinion on the matter and I also accept that this may well be one of those margin calls where subjective assessment applies. That said, my question is Is a question about a specific change that could have broad impacts on a world too broad? I accept that these questions invite long answers that cover a range of different fields, but I think the key difference is that each field should only be impacted in a narrow way. This means that your long answer is really a series of short (but related) answers, each relating to a different field.
My chief concern here is that we end up with a list of questions relating to this change that talk about impacts on economies, culture, religion, etc. and we start to talk about duplicates instead.