There's a similar issue involving Dark Shadows
and Dan Curtis.
Mind you, I think several seeming contradictions can be resolved when when considers the Temporal Cold War.
Returning to topic--apart from the surface details, I myself think what makes something Star Trek
has much to do with what Grendelsbane. It lies in an attitude towards the universe, an essential hopefulness coupled with a benevolent curiosity. Call it a belief that "progress" can indeed happen, in its most idealistic sense. Not automatically! But through the sincere effort of imperfect people.
Craig Ferguson did a lovely bit
describing Doctor Who
, where he accurately described that show as about "the triumph of intellect and romance over brute force and cynicism
." Which seems a pretty good paradigm to me--standing for something and against something else.
By that take, I'd suggest ST is all the background stuff (Vulcans, warp drive, the Federation, etc.) along with reason
. These seem the primary virtues getting most of the focus, and they specifically tend to counter those two specific vices.
Consider for example the vast majority of regular "enemies" in the series (and books and films, etc.):
Klingons, Romulans, Cardassians, Ferengi, Borg, So'na--doesn't it seem each of these are defined in terms of what makes them enemies
by both greed and prejudice? Each intends to grab what they want, to accumulate more and more regardless of consequences. More, they all regard others as so much less important than themselves. Even Section 31. Or the Captain of the Exeter
. The builders of the Doomsday Machine.