Two different things. Star Trek is supposed to be set in our future, not some alternate history/reality. That's what it is. So ignore or just don't mention the stuff that contradicts actual events. Replacing or ignoring those events is not replacing the show. Its moving the show forward by adapting it to the times. As a science fiction show, Star Trek is allowed to have warp drive, hybrids and transporters.
What it is to be human is changing, and ever more quickly, even as we speak. Meaning computer-brain interface and brain to brain connection. So in a few years not to have that in a fictional future might seem really weird, like when we read a scifi book written in the 1890s and nobody has cars in the futuristic 1980s. Borg as something terrible might be really laughable to the augmented people watching TNG 10 or 30 years from now. But we still read Verne and Welles and even Bradbury (who has guys smoking on one of his Mars missions, iirc - how stone age!) to gain insight into their conceptions of the future and - more importantly - their conceptions of the human adventure. Which is, after all, only beginning.
This is going to be difficult to understand, but I'll take a stab at it. As I get older, I find that I feel more in touch with people that lived in other times. EX: When you're a kid and read about Mutiny on the Bounty or WW2...those people may as well be aliens. But when you're older, you think "Mutiny on the Bounty was just FOUR of my lifetimes ago. Those people wern't aliens. They had the exact same fears and desire for life that we all do." So when people talk about 'singularities' and how unrecognizable the future soon will be....I'm skeptical.