Came across this article, and it’s a very interesting take on how Star Trek has changed with the times, and how modern audiences seem to have a harder time trusting institutions or imagining Trek’s utopia.
Came across this article, and it’s a very interesting take on how Star Trek has changed with the times, and how modern audiences seem to have a harder time trusting institutions or imagining Trek’s utopia.
This presumes that that sort of stoicism is particularly aspirational or healthy, and I don’t think there’s anything close to universal consensus on that one.
I think something that gets missed in discussions of “utopia” is that it’s not real. Utopia is not attainable, because there is no universal definition of what that would look like. It exists as a dream of the future, but that’s all.
At least to me, I find it pretty aspirational. But I can see how others would differ on that regard.
Regardless, I appreciate that this is still seen through a few different lenses. The Klingon for example are like… notably emotional. A Klingon being quick to anger is one of their defining traits. Yet they’re still very “respectful” in their own way, with that code of honor being very key to their society.
Yeah, there’s a singular implied “universal morality” throughout Star Trek of accepting diversity and learning to not impose on other civilizations or each other on the basis of one’s biological differences or culture, even for Klingons! I’d say the rest is hard to define and subjective, as @ValueSubtracted@startrek.website said above, but post-scarcity and free agency in life to follow your passions has to be pretty close!
And even this is the central conflict of many TNG episodes - it’s a little more indirect, but the eternal question of “how do we navigate the Prime Directive” is essentially a conflict between the characters and Starfleet (it’s their rule, after all).