Elias Vaughn wrote:
For me, the optimism of Trek isn't due to lack of conflict, so much as the way that those conflicts are resolved. In Trek conflicts aren't solved by wiping out an enemy, but by finding a way to come to some kind of an understanding.
For an optimistic, positive view of the future, this is a pretty shallow one, rather superficial:
Choosing to eschew more pointless war and instead choosing to try and understand your opponents and compromise with them, to understand them... is shallow and superficial
I do not think those words mean what you think they mean.
Next time, do try to read my entire post - including the 'why so' part - instead of ignoring what you don't want to read and assuming some "wait [...]" will cover up the fact you failed to even address my point:
"For an optimistic, positive view of the future, this is a pretty shallow one, rather superficial:
The method of resolving the conflicts changes absolutely nothing to all the death, suffering and destruction endured through the wars.
And the next large scale war/disaster/etc is always around the corner in trek lit these days."
As far as the claim that the novels are depicting the Federation as facing too many violent crises...
For the record, TNG and DSN very firmly established that between 2293 and 2369, the Federation:
Mind you, this is just what's established in the canon for the TNG era.
This was TV TNG - and yes, it did depict a positive, optimistic future.
Now - do name the conflicts/disasters/etc portrayed in 24 century trek lit.