Still holds up.
Only with TV logic can one imagine a future (Star Trek) in which people can create any thing they want any time they want (replicator) and live in a permanently imaginary world without any consequences (holodeck) and expect those same people to not only be not greedy, but socially conscious, egalitarian, and moral.
The theory goes something like this: give someone everything they want and magically they will grow tired of it, and no longer desire it. Or, restraint by indulgence.
It is a particularly odd belief system that proposes one can wean people off their addictions, and avoid others entirely, by offering addicts an endless supply of whatever it is they wanted in the first place.
Apparently, people can only be greedy if they have a limited supply of money, but not an endless supply of whatever it can buy.
Extrapolating further: people are only selfish when resources are finite not infinite, immoral only if there is some expectation they shouldn’t be, or cruel in real situations but not holographic ones.
This is all dismissed under the pretenses of some “enlightenment” but we are never told what the source of that enlightenment is. Like money, it is summarily written off with no explanation. Valuation clearly still exists in the future — it has too — but the economics are, of course, never revealed because they cannot exist, even in fantasy.
I actually like Star Trek, well The Original Series (TOS) before the others, but like everything else, up to and including evolution, the series is wildly and persistently fraudulent (openly deceptive) about the future it presents.
Star Trek as insignificant entertainment can be enjoyed, but its broader philosophical claims are provably false.
One example among dozens: evolution.
Ask any evolutionist — be a good Darwinist and pick one at random — and they will tell you that if you were rewind the “evolutionary clock” to zero and start over, the entire ecology of the Earth (plant and animal) would bear no resemblance to what we enjoy today. In fact, reset the clock five-and-a-half billion years and you lose the very formation of the planet Earth itself far more many times than you would win it. As for life, it would not only be different, it would be wildly different. Start over a million times and you have a million bizarre landscapes, alien species without end, none resembling the other. Or worse, you wouldn’t get any life at all, given how infinitesimal the odds of cellular life are by blind chemistry. Across all those million attempts, you would never see humans emerge again — or dinosaurs, or whales, or birds, or amphibians, or insects. That is the bleak neverscape totally random mutations (real Darwinism) impose.
Yet, Star Trek demands not only did man evolve from primordial goo (against all chemical, genetic and mathematical evidence to the contrary) so did every other humanoid race in the universe.
They try to explain this by some ancestral world-seeding but even that fails in even the most forgiving evolutionary paradigm. But they don’t care: they’re selling evolution, so its actual efficacy is irrelevant. That’s how you know its not a show about science but scientism: philosophy masquerading as science.
Star Trek is really about atheism and technolatry — the worship not of God but of Man and his technology — and once you realize it, you see it for the religious nonsense it is.
The answer all paganism ultimately can ever give is “Because it is!”
It doesn’t matter how implausible a method or impossible a mechanism they hold up, the answer is ultimately “Because it is!” Gaps be damned. And there are a lot of gaps.
All questions cosmological, astronomical, geological, hydrological, chemical, molecular, genetic, anatomical and (even now in our age) economic, sexual, or moral are answered with “Because it is!”
The old scientific dictum that ‘everything kinda needs to make sense in relation to each other’ is now so shot through with colossal evolutionary contradictions, legions of exceptions, ad hoc constraints, and no few paradoxes, only a zealot holds on to it.
We have enough science now, and have had for about a century, to turn its razors on itself.
And that, friends, is a close shave most atheists do not want to have.
No Star Trek or Star Wars fan is angry at either the Star Trek reboot or the Star Wars films The Force Awakens or The Last Jedi because the filmmakers took the material in a new direction…
or because of “diversity”…
or because ILM has gotten so good at their job the special effects bordering on cinemagic…
or because new actors are inhabiting old roles…
or because cherished characters die…
The fans are angry because instead of just doing all these things wisely or reverently…
These new media-hacks willfully desecrated, stomped, gutted and spat on everything that made these franchises great in their day.
They (and you who support them) could have had everything they wanted without the scorn, the sneering or the cheap “crush everything you cherished” shock-treatment these illiterate script-rippers actually mistake as storytelling, character development, and proper franchise management and care.
Star Trek has been reduced to burlesque and caricature (eviscerated of the very intelligence, introspection, science and wit for which it was famous for five decades) while Star Wars has not been expanded at all. On the contrary, it has been ruthlessly crushed down to a parody, a duller counterfeit of itself (first trilogy).
Real filmmakers, real storytellers, real scriptwriters (not plagiarists), and real artists should have been pressed into service to catapult these franchises into their next golden age. These films would have made far more money at the box office, pleased the fans, and expanded both cinematic universes with dignity.
Not films. Not movies. Just media.
That’s all we are left with now.
Disney is the Canto Bight of media.
Aside from the fact they stole the idea for a black female lead in a science fiction show with short black haired named Michael from me…
There is very little redeeming about Star Trek Discovery.
This franchise just had its throat slit.