Origin stories don't need drama, they need plausibility.
They need both
. There's no point in telling a plausible but uncompelling story.
Real life doesn't work like a TV show, that origin idea is good because
it's so plausible.
Of course it doesn't.
But Star Trek
is not real life, nor has it ever been particularly Realistic/Naturalistic. Star Trek
, at its best, is a well-written Melodrama. And there's nothing wrong with that or dramatically inferior about that; Realism/Naturalism is not inherently superior to Melodrama.
But Trek's first obligation is to tell a good story, not to end up sounding like a newspaper article.
Personally, I like this a lot better than the origin in Destiny. It's far more interesting. The origin in Destiny is more like the origin of a supervillain.
I don't think that's an accurate characterization. It's not the origin of a supervillain so much as it is an examination of how existential angst can mutate into pure nihilism because of our choices. There's a reason the Borg were born in the unforgiving winter of an arctic circle -- it's about the loneliness of facing your own imminent death and how you choose to react to it.
Do you accept that all things, even yourself, must come to an end? Or do you cling to life against all else, putting aside questions of morality or honesty or decency or compassion? Do you recognize that it is better to die alone but with integrity, or do you choose to victimize others in an attempt to cling to life and avoid the loneliness that results from that choice?
For my money, that's far more meaningful than yet another tired allegory about the dangers of society abusing technology that I've seen five million versions of.