I think you have to differentiate between personal behaviour and systemic problems. The CEO of BP isn't evil, he just followed the rules of the game. Roddenberry might have been a greedy bastard but he also imagined a world in which this behaviour was basically inexistant ... perhaps precisely because he was aware of his flaws?
I don't give a shit about people which is precisely why I want stuff like hunger and so on to be solved systemically. The opposite of this is a conservative pro-charity attitude, don't solve anything systemically, let the goodwill of people save the poor. Oscar Wilde pointed out why this cannot work:
They try to solve the problem of poverty, for instance, by keeping the poor alive; or, in the case of a very advanced school, by amusing the poor.
But this is not a solution: it is an aggravation of the difficulty. The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible. And the altruistic virtues have really prevented the carrying out of this aim.
"charity is a cold, gray loveless thing. If a rich man wants to help a poor man, he ought to pay his taxes gladly, not dole out money on a whim."
isn't it ironic that "conservatives," with their supposed cynical view of Human nature, believe that people, acting out of the goodness of their hearts, will solve poverty through giving money voluntarily out of their pockets and volunteering at soup kitchens?
if consistent, they should view Trek's utopian society as realistic, since their solution to poverty is equally utopian.