Bullshit. Trek is an optimistic sci-fi franchise in which humankind has defeated hunger, poverty, war and united to explore space, meet new people and encounter new challenges ... and no, there wasn't any paradigm shift between TOS and TNG. You cannot play the postmodern game of "Trek is whatever you want it to be" unless you confuse preferences with facts. There aren't any famines on Earth or any Imperial Federation warships cruising the Klingon border.
But TOS wasn't set on Earth. It was set out on the rugged final frontier, where, yes, there were famines and epidemics and massacres and border skirmishes. Heck, every other episode in Season 3 had the Enterprise
rushing to deliver vital medical supplies to some endangered colony or planet that was being devastated by Denebian neural fever or something. Earth may or may not have been a utopia back then, but Star Trek
wasn't about Earth. There wasn't a single episode set on Earth that didn't involve time-travel to the Great Depression or the Cold War. We never
saw 23rd century Earth--ever.
And what about all those episodes I mentioned by name before? Are you denying those aren't part of Trek--or typical of TOS?
And I was referring to the fact that different fans can have very different ideas of what the "core" of Trek is. Some people watch it for the characters. Some people watch it for the science and hardware. Some people think it's all about a set of principles. All of them are right . . . and no two Trekkies are going to have the same priorities--as this board proves every day!