Too many dystopias - the world needs utopian Star Trek

[Squiggy]

You're inventing a lot of contradictions and false imperatives here. Just because there are problems and evil people now doesn't mean it's a contradiction to suggest that in the future they may not.

The contradiction is in wanting to see an idealized world portrayed while demanding that the stories comment on real-world problems.

You know, the problems that don't exist for the characters in the idealized fictional world.

That was pretty clear the first time.

In any event, I've no interest in seeing a return of modern Trek/24th century "evolved humanity." Give me the contemporary people living in the future that TOS portrayed - stories that recognized the existence of every kind of contemporary human failing, pettiness and evil and in fact depended upon those things in order to tell stories.

Fortunately, I doubt that Kurtzman wants to dig up the '80's/'90's approach to the Franchise.

Which is why I'm psyched for this series, even if I have to buy the Blu-Ray boxed set because I can't get the streaming service here in Canada. And it's set in the universe of the new movies, so I'm twice happy.

It will be distributed internationally.

 

[Drone]

Unless you're suggesting that we in the west (where feminism and gay rights have made an impact) are somehow just... you know... better than the people in countries where the impact has not been as strong. Isn't that Picard's argument? "Hello humans of the past, we're better than you. We just are."

No, I don't think it's a coincidence, but at the same time has nothing to do with the lack of technology or prevalence of poverty in these areas. I believe the reason for the non-acceptance of these trends is rooted in long held cultural, religious, and sociological values.

I'm not sure I've ever heard so much gash. And what of the long-held cultural, religious and sociological values of the west? Why did we overcome them while they apparently can't?

Again, we're on very shaky ground here of suggesting that... there is just something better about us in the west. We're just "more evolved."

No, we got lucky. We developed technogies that benefited us and produced a prosperous, affluent society. In turn, our societies changed.



Except for the fact that this is exactly what happened in the west. Again, why are we special? Why can we do what they can't?

] A Number of African nations right now have a very high percentage of their citizens who own and utilize cell phones and more, if the existing infrastructure will support it.

But do they make mobile phones? Do they see the enormous wealth of that technolgy flooding into their countries? Are they at the vanguard of that technology?

Pakistan has a very significant middle class, to say nothing, obviously of India, and Saudi Arabia, as well as most of the other affluent Gulf states, where hypocrisy of personal practices abroad is legion but does not conceal a genuine belief in the liberalization of societally restrictive and controlling norms, that are so conspicuous in their absence at home, are all examples where the connection that you are advocating doesn't seem to adhere.

Again, they're not at the forefront of the technology though; they sit waiting for the west to send it over. Most of the affluence in those examples is not societal, it is a select minority where the trickle effect doesn't occur. Secondly, I think those oil-rich countries are the ones that are most likely to struggle to maintain that culture. Their wealth, combined with the Internet is forcing those countries to embrace new ideas.

The difference in the West, and obviously not everywhere covered in that general appellation, is that the traditions of democracy, and what that form of government portend for the stable succession of leaders, freedom of thought and expression, the rule of law (as you pointed out), the ability to make the benefits of an economy available sufficiently so that a viable middle class can grow, the possibility of seeing past previously unquestioned notions of intolerance and bigotry, etc were accepted by the general populations of these countries as the logical and progressive means to reach such goals. Obviously, this course has not been without major exceptions, the fascist regimes of WWII, the longstanding authoritarianism that existed in Spain and Portugal, and perhaps more notably Argentina, amongst others. At the same time, the impact of religious doctrine has long been witnessed as declining in Western Europe and to an increasing degree in the United States. People are making the free decision to walk with their feet from traditions that no longer seem integral to their ability to navigate their lives or have found other foundations that might answer questions once reflexively ceded to religion.

In contrast, the countries/societies that I mentioned and so many others, have never had the example of such a construct in their history and age old ties of tribalism, sectism, racism, or military led repression have prevented the individual citizen, to the extent that a majority of them would even countenance such a disruption in the rhythm of their existence, to effectively have working forums that could brace and prepare the historically dominant power structures, whether centralized or not, to consider willingly surrendering the often near absolute control of their subjects. Of course, there have been revolutions and wars waged internally and regionally to ostensibly redefine the parameters upon which corporate and individual decisions can be made, but all too often result in the same dynamic with just a different name at the helm, or alternately, simple chaos.

Has the Arab Spring led to any fundamental changes in these yet early days, even in countries that already had sizable middle classes present? We've seen essentially instances of the status quo retaining or returning to power, dissolution, or the most notable case, near national destruction. Iraq too, had a large middle class and the assumption was that with the removal of the dictator, a flowering of meaningful and impactful democratic change would surely be embraced. Not much to be said there, needless to say. The struggle in the Gulf countries to progress is present in a nascent stage, but one wonders ultimately if corrupt monarchies will allow substantive change short of being removed.

Indeed, nearly anywhere there has been no tradition meaningfully allowed to establish a base of experience or acceptance of democratic forms, do we see a widespread fervor for its adoption. That's not to say there isn't dissension in Russia, where there is a consumerist culture present, but the Soviet style of repression has merely been replaced with the tyranny of the rampant criminal element and the siren song of nationalism, that resonates with so many people there with the promise of the return of near imperial power, but no change implicit in the fundamental rights of the individual. The strong history of xenophobia also plays its role in fating the population to reject progressive "foreign" ideals in favor of the comfort of the known. Would you point to China as a growing bastion of never experienced democratic adoption? Hardly, the controlling regime, which has become an exemplar of a statist economic model, is no more prone to allow anything but apparent changes in the social order.The unprecedented growth of the ability to achieve startling individual wealth and status, while obviously not universally shared, is the goal that those in power hold up to subvert any popular movement off center. The immense developments in science and technology has not enabled the vast majority of citizens to unambiguously see other possibilities as the state so effectively sanctions modern communications to avoid foreign "contamination".

Whether unquestionably subservient to accepted truths that has stifled even the impulse of democratic or progressive thought with the retention of a deeply habituated power base , whatever their stripe of repression, or as the victims of imposed "alleged" democracies that as the result of the dissolution of colonialism, often are artificially imposed amalgams of disparate cultures that has proved to only enhance the reality of internecine conflict, the world is replete with vast numbers of individuals who have not progressed morally, ethically, or spiritually despite the presence of a level of economic improvement that would have seemed illusory to even imagine a generation or two ago.

 

[hux]

The difference in the West, and obviously not everywhere covered in that general appellation, is that the traditions of democracy, and what that form of government portend for the stable succession of leaders, freedom of thought and expression, the rule of law (as you pointed out), the ability to make the benefits of an economy available sufficiently so that a viable middle class can grow, the possibility of seeing past previously unquestioned notions of intolerance and bigotry, etc were accepted by the general populations of these countries as the logical and progressive means to reach such goals.

Again, you're making assumptions about western civilisation. That we're somehow capable of breaking away from our tribal traditions while others aren't; that we can struggle towards progressive thoughts and radical societal changing concepts while other parts of the world cannot. This is very dangerous thinking. The west had exactly the same cultural issues and social conventions as everyone else. We burned non-believers, we enslaved people, we oppressed women, we imprisoned gays etc. The idea that this changed because we suddenly re-discovered out long-held values and beliefs in democracy, truth and the American way is simply... well frankly, it's racist thinking.

The process of attacking bigotry and small-mindedness took root in the west when it began to dominate the world through wealth and power. That wealth (often accrued through entirely immoral actions) lead to innovation, technology, continued improved living conditions, increased life expectancy and greater opportunities. In turn, those changes lead to debate, discussion, ideas, free-thought, scienctific exploration (often leading to ever more wealth).

We evolved, we bettered ourselves.

Yet whenever that affluence has collapsed, how have we responded? You mentioned World War II and fascism; that's a good example of exactly how we have traditionally responded.

Take our affluence away and have us experience serious long term desperation and trauma and see what happens. I have absolutely no doubt that we would instantly abandon gay rights, instantly treat women as child-rearing fuck-toys and quickly find a way to blame for our problems, anyone who looks even just slightly different to us.

Picard tries to pretend that the same shit is true of future man. "It's not our profoundly comfortable lives that have changed us, it's that we're better people."

Picard makes a speech about doing things purely to better ourselves whilst simultaneously forgetting that there are waiters down in Ten-Forward serving drinks to spotty ensigns.

 

[Kor]

I don't think some big cultural shift toward openness *necessarily* follows right away from increased technology and wealth.

There are technologically advanced and affluent countries outside of the West that are still more socially conservative and much less tolerant toward differences from the traditional mainstream culture.

Kor

 

[Drone]

I don't think some big cultural shift toward openness *necessarily* follows right away from increased technology and wealth.

There are technologically advanced and affluent countries outside of the West that are still more socially conservative and much less tolerant toward differences from the traditional mainstream culture.

Kor

Yes, that's exactly the point I was trying to communicate above. It's not about American or Western culture's exceptionalism at all. The depredations that have occurred here, of limiting or negating many peoples' opportunities or even persecuting them until death, occurred during periods that the United States was certainly a very prosperous country compared with the rest of the world. The change to these explicit values did not come about because of any re-discovery of lost democratic ideals or a greater share of the the world's aggregate wealth. They came about slowly, grudgingly, glacially sometimes because the accession of democratic values, after a century and a half of colonial rule, came through a common determination of the vast majority of its inhabitants that this process was the one that would best insure freedom from constraint and material improvement. This acceptance allowed the framework of institutions, social interest groups, and many ordinary individuals to agitate for change. The fact that America's wealth and influence increased immensely after the World Wars didn't spread some kind of magic pixie dust that accelerated acceptance of progressive ideas. It was the fact that the common choice to have this country act as a republic, that permitted dissent, spurred awareness, and finally, in most cases resulted in action.

That people in other areas of the world that share in an appreciable level of affluence, but have not realized similar gains that are possible in a nominally free society, have nothing to do with any difference in their inherent capacity or capability to communicate, be productive, or act rationally, has nothing to do with racial distinctions, which have largely been show by science to be illusory or a chimera anyway.

The difference is that people that are native to these countries have, in many cases, no history of their own of a democratic tradition or sometimes even much cognizance of the practical impacts such a system might bring. They have purposely been made to be inured to accept the dictates of autocrats, tribal leaders, military dictatorships, potentates, or a religious hierarchy that have always claimed to instinctively know what is in the best interests of their citizens. Religious leaders can be very effective advocates in pointing out the dangers of modernity to the functioning of all encompassing systems whose practice has informed nearly all parts of life for centuries. Nativism and xenophobia are also modes of control that minimize the validity of more progressive strains of thought. The fact that some of these countries have prosperous levels of living for a sizable number of their people does not level the playing field. There simply have been no power structures in place that have condoned the acceptance and growth of thinking that in any way threatens the primacy of the state. It's not the lack of aggregate wealth that keeps these countries in a static condition, but rather the lack of a popularly agreed upon political model that will seed the ground with practices of free speech and association that can, if such changes come to be desired by the populace, allow movement and independence of thought to give such progressive impulses the ability to see the light of day.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

Again, you're making assumptions about western civilisation.

I've heard quite compelling scholarly arguments both ways.

On the one hand, the west, from the time of Thales positing that the world could be explained without Gods (maybe matter just exists, and wasn't designed by anyone?), to Socrates arguing that received wisdom gets in the way of truthful analysis (maybe professed experts don't know all the answers?), to the renaissance and enlightenment rejecting dogma (maybe pagans were just another religion, not the spawn of the devil, and secular philosophy is worthwhile?), to the rejection of traditional family coercion (maybe when my parents hit me, and tell me they are doing it for my own good, they might have selfish reasons?), gender prejudice and other forms of intimidation... the west seems to have liberated itself precisely because it held tradition in contempt, to a degree that some others haven't manifested the capacity for. Lost in such obsessive respect for elders, priests and familial ties, the middle east has a relationship with authority like the victim of an abusive relationship - the more it is hurt by a religion that 'loves' it, the more it looks to these self-same traditions and says 'I'm sorry, I wasn't faithful enough to you', and justifies itself to others by saying that it's abuser is 'good at heart really'. The west has become truly universal, no longer just western, but also Japanese and Indian and Chinese and African. More steadfastly 'respectful' societies are stuck trying to justify things that were never half as clever or noble to begin with as they think. Where is the Arab Sartre or Pakistani Dawkins or Somali Marx? That you can't have an open discussion about theology without risking offending someone in any of those societies - that the Buddha and Jesus were non-militant and Mohamed was expressly so - that Socrates was Greek and not Persian - coincidence or cause?

Or... perhaps all civilizations would experience equal development given affluence, and inter-subjective ideas like religion and ideology don't matter? Perhaps, given 1,000 years of the same development and scientific advancement that the west experienced, Aztec Mexico would have evolved into the Europe of the world, sending out colonists to five continents, charting the oceans, contacting Pacific Islands, having "In Quetzalcoatl we trust." printed on their Federal Reserve building, and sending Jaguar 1 to the Moon?

The jury is still out I guess. It's not like we can measure these things quantitatively. I am not a supremacist, but I do believe human cultures need to reject certain things to move forward, and that not all cultures are equally open. Obviously Gene Roddenbury thought that some things need to be positively rejected to move forward, or he wouldn't have depicted an Earth where religion, nation, ethncity and other things had fallen away.

And they say utopian fiction isn't radical or controversial?

 

[Anwar]

This whole notion that it's wrong for Picard and co to think they're better than others they encounter is contrary to real life. People from their current time will always see themselves as better than their predecessors and/or others.

I mean, go to a random person from today and they'd see themselves as a superior type of person to how people were 400 years ago (or what they think people were like 400 years ago). It's a normal and believable action.

With TOS, it was just that they were usually on the receiving end. It was always either Spock taking potshots at Humanity (with no one ever rubbing Vulcan's violent past in his face) or whatever advanced alien they met up with telling them how worthless and primitive they were.

 

[T'Girl]

This whole notion that it's wrong for Picard and co to think they're better than others they encounter is contrary to real life.

No, it is outside the norm for Picard to think that the technology and material trappings that he is surrounded with make him (as a person) somehow "better" than someone who lacks such. When Picard is talking to the 20th century businessman he mentions no hunger, needs, wants.

Picard is not a better or superior person owing to lack of these things.

People from their current time will always see themselves as better than their predecessors and/or others

No people don't for the most part, because it was those very same predecessors that did the hard work of creating the society that you and I benefit from today, they (and not the ancestor) assembled the pieces that in time were put into place.

I mean, go to a random person from today and they'd see themselves as a superior type of person to how people were 400 years ago

I disagree about "superior," more comfortable certainly.

Gene Roddenbury thought that some things need to be positively rejected to move forward, or he wouldn't have depicted an Earth where religion, nation, ethnicity and other things had fallen away

Hmm, Scotty in a kilt, Chekov attributing things to Russia, Angela kneeling in prayer in Balance of Terror and Kirk's monotheism in Who Mourns.

Lost in such obsessive respect for elders, priests and familial ties

Losing who we are, and where we come from should not be seen as a desirable objective. Hopefully the Human future won't be a single monoculture.

 

[hux]

I mean, go to a random person from today and they'd see themselves as a superior type of person to how people were 400 years ago (or what they think people were like 400 years ago).

I don't think anyone would think that. Most people would (correctly) assume that they're just from a more technologically advanced and privileged era which in turn has had an impact on their modern sensibilities.

When Picard is talking to the 20th century businessman he mentions no hunger, needs, wants.

Picard is not a better or superior person owing to lack of these things.

Yeah, I really hate that scene. Again, it's because he talks about those achievements as though they're entirely independent of the technology. Imagine going to some poverty stricken nation and telling the people there that..."we don't have as much poverty in our country because we're better than you."

That whole scene was a smug mistake.

 

[T'Girl]

It would be like going to someone from a thousand years ago and stating that "My people routinely fly to far off lands, because we're so superior as people."

Yeah, no technology there.

 

[Anwar]

I don't think anyone would think that. Most people would (correctly) assume that they're just from a more technologically advanced and privileged era which in turn has had an impact on their modern sensibilities.

Okay, let me put this another way.

A lot of people dislike the bit where Picard talks to Q about the "costumes" that Soldiers used to wear (Q being dressed in a US Army uniform) and feel it's disrespectful.

If a guy (let's say an American from the South, just to be stereotypical) saw how French Aristocrats used to dress like a few hundred years ago (the white faces, make-up, poofy outfits) he'd probably think "Wow, those frogs sure dressed funny!" and never stop to think that in the future people might have different fashion sense and think the same thing about how HE dressed.

As for the "We're better than you" attitude, no one minded it whenever Spock did it.

 

[Makarov]

To say progress is all due to privileged people having technology just trivializes all the work done by people to get there. A lot of progress in the US came from people fighting for their rights, not just communication tech. It isn't just luck that we happen to be born now into a less oppressive society - people worked for it. And who would argue that we're not better for it, compared to the past?

The people in the federation's past had the technology to solve issues but they didn't use it. The future Picard describes has the benefit of all the work that made them able to finally work together and stop blowing each other up. Otherwise you're kind of trivializing all the progress even Lily's society worked towards by making a ship instead of another weapon.

Not to mention the entire point of TNG with Q judging the progress of humanity... which would be pretty much pointless if you apply that less optimistic view of progress to Trek.

 

[T'Girl]

If a guy (let's say an American from the South, just to be stereotypical) saw how French Aristocrats used to dress like a few hundred years ago (the white faces, make-up, poofy outfits) he'd probably think ....

Wow, he must be some kind of rock and roll star!!!

 

[Trekkin]

I don't think anyone would think that. Most people would (correctly) assume that they're just from a more technologically advanced and privileged era which in turn has had an impact on their modern sensibilities.

...As for the "We're better than you" attitude, no one minded it whenever Spock did it.

Because the other characters didn't let it slide without putting a pin in his little digs, and Spock actually had a character arc where he learned he was wrong.

Also, a bulk of the criticism I've seen for Picard's 'costume' comment is that they're some mighty big words, coming from a character who is wearing a military uniform. The accusation is that the writers are unintentional hypocrites.

 

[Anwar]

I don't think anyone would think that. Most people would (correctly) assume that they're just from a more technologically advanced and privileged era which in turn has had an impact on their modern sensibilities.

...As for the "We're better than you" attitude, no one minded it whenever Spock did it.

Because the other characters didn't let it slide without putting a pin in his little digs,

Actually, a lot of the time they didn't bother trying to counter what he said and the best McCoy could muster was a racist swipe.

and Spock actually had a character arc where he learned he was wrong.

? Are you talking about when he realizes that maybe there's nothing wrong with his Human half in TMP? Even from WOK to TUC he still has the Vulcan "Humans are Inferior in every way" attitude, just a bit more subdued than usual.

Also, a bulk of the criticism I've seen for Picard's 'costume' comment is that they're some mighty big words, coming from a character who is wearing a military uniform. The accusation is that the writers are unintentional hypocrites.

And like I said, people today who criticize past fashions as silly never stop to think that in the future someone will think the same of them.

 

[T'Girl]

...As for the "We're better than you" attitude, no one minded it whenever Spock did it.

To say progress is all due to privileged people having technology ...

Take out the word "privileged," and you're about there. The technology gives the people the ability to make changes to their environment and situations. In some cases it was pretty simply tech too. Accumulation of skills and knowledge come into play as well, reading and writing being one example, a way of storing information.

... just trivializes all the work done by people to get there.

Looking at what our ancestors did, it more of a celebration. The technology didn't come into being all by itself, it was invented and improved through the years by those ancestors.

A lot of progress in the US came from people fighting for their rights, not just communication tech. It isn't just luck that we happen to be born now into a less oppressive society - people worked for it.

But they did that for equal rights and equal treatment, not so they could then be considered "superior" to others.

And who would argue that we're not better for it, compared to the past?

Our situation is better than our predecessors, that's for sure, however we are not intrinsically different than the people who existed just prior to the obtainment of those rights.

Remember, many of those who fought for those rights didn't have them initially, did they somehow become superior people afterwards? Or were they essentially the very same people, but now with more rights and protections?

The people in the federation's past had the technology to solve issues but they didn't use it.

How so?

The future Picard describes has the benefit of all the work that made them able to finally work together and stop blowing each other up.

They still blow others up.

Otherwise you're kind of trivializing all the progress even Lily's society worked towards by making a ship instead of another weapon.

And how long after that first ship was it before we started mounting weapons of the follow on ships?

... which would be pretty much pointless if you apply that less optimistic view of progress to Trek.

Oh don't get me wrong, it is optimistic, in so far as we have survived, and grown, and prospered. People do live longer, and they don't go hungry, and things are pretty nice in the gated community that is Earth.

At the same time, just outside the walls of that gated community there is near constant war, yes it's usually far away, and often it was started by someone else, but it is war.

 

[Nightdiamond]

When someone calls Starfleet uniforms a "child's uniform", Picard (and some others) always seems to get mad.

Although Picard probably thought he wasn't wearing a military uniform, but an explorer's uniform.

Data: They are the most unusual Humans I have ever encountered.

Riker: Well, from what I've seen of our guests, there's not much to redeem them. Makes one wonder how our species survived the 21st century.

In a way, Riker is right.

If we encountered someone from the 19th american south and just let them spit out their views, most likely, almost 100% certain, a normal person would reach the same conclusion.

And yet his view comes off as pretty arrogant. Especially since the humans he encountered didn't seem that bad. It was an exaggeration.

 

[Trekkin]

Actually, a lot of the time they didn't bother trying to counter what he said and the best McCoy could muster was a racist swipe.

? Are you talking about when he realizes that maybe there's nothing wrong with his Human half in TMP? Even from WOK to TUC he still has the Vulcan "Humans are Inferior in every way" attitude, just a bit more subdued than usual.

McCoy wasn't the only one who let him know they thought he was full of crap - Kirk, Chapel, and Uhura (in WNMHGB) did too.

Spock: It is illogical for a communications officer to resent the word "frequency."
Uhura: Then I'm an illogical woman <snip>
Spock: Vulcan has no moon, Miss Uhura.
Uhura: I'm not surprised.

Kirk: Have I ever mentioned you play a very irritating game of chess, Mr. Spock?
Spock: Irritating? [smiling] Ah, yes. One of your Earth emotions.
(Spock gets irritated)
Kirk: Certain you don't know what irritation is?
Spock: The fact one of my ancestors married a human female...
Kirk: Terrible having bad blood like that

The 'green-blooded hobgoblin...' comments usually came at the tail-end of the arguements, after McCoy had lost his temper and Spock had made a few swipes at humans himself.

McCoy:...Would you care for a drink, Mr. Spock?
Spock: My father's race was spared the dubious benefits of alcohol.
McCoy: Oh. Now I know why they were conquered.

Which McCoy seems to eventually realise is wrong:

McCoy: It's a song, you green-blooded (*beat*) Vulcan. You sing it. The words aren't important. What's important is that you have a good time singing it.

I'm curious what you're evidence of Spock's 'attitude' in TWOK was (outside of his comment to Saavik that 'no one is perfect' - a statement that includes Vulcans). However, I was actually thinking of his appearences in TUC, TNG and 09. Going from this back in TOS:

MCCOY: Vulcan dignity? How can I grant you what I don't understand?
SPOCK: Then employ one of your own superstitions. Wish me luck.

To this:

Spock: You lied.
Spock Prime: Aww... I... I implied.
Spock: A gamble.
Spock Prime: An act of faith. One I hope that you will repeat in your future in Starfleet...Spock, in this case, do yourself a favor: Put aside logic. Do what feels right...Good luck.

I swear, I'm never using the damn quote function again!

 

[Makarov]

Looking at what our ancestors did, it more of a celebration. The technology didn't come into being all by itself, it was invented and improved through the years by those ancestors.

A celebration of our achievements technology maybe, but with that view we're still just cavemen with more advanced sticks. Which is completely against TNG's point with Q's judgment of humanity.

But they did that for equal rights and equal treatment, not so they could then be considered "superior" to others.

Our situation is better than our predecessors, that's for sure, however we are not intrinsically different than the people who existed just prior to the obtainment of those rights.

Remember, many of those who fought for those rights didn't have them initially, did they somehow become superior people afterwards? Or were they essentially the very same people, but now with more rights and protections?

There's still problems but people would definitely consider themselves living in a superior society due to those years of struggling. Picard doesn't think he's personally better than the people in Lily's time, just that society in the future has achieved more "evolved" sensibilities, which it has. Unless you think greed and fighting over resources is just as advanced as people living to better themselves. Granted it's fictional and I'm not sure that kind of progress could ever reach that level.

How so?

Even in modern day we have tech that could feed a lot of the population, but we're not working together to the extent that Trek's fictional future is shown to be.

They still blow others up.

But exploration is shown to be the point of their mission, not war. And Trek goes out of it's way to make the war minded guys the villains.

 

[fireproof78]

Looking at what our ancestors did, it more of a celebration. The technology didn't come into being all by itself, it was invented and improved through the years by those ancestors.

A celebration of our achievements technology maybe, but with that view we're still just cavemen with more advanced sticks. Which is completely against TNG's point with Q's judgment of humanity.

But they did that for equal rights and equal treatment, not so they could then be considered "superior" to others.

Our situation is better than our predecessors, that's for sure, however we are not intrinsically different than the people who existed just prior to the obtainment of those rights.

Remember, many of those who fought for those rights didn't have them initially, did they somehow become superior people afterwards? Or were they essentially the very same people, but now with more rights and protections?

There's still problems but people would definitely consider themselves living in a superior society due to those years of struggling. Picard doesn't think he's personally better than the people in Lily's time, just that society in the future has achieved more "evolved" sensibilities, which it has. Unless you think greed and fighting over resources is just as advanced as people living to better themselves. Granted it's fictional and I'm not sure that kind of progress could ever reach that level.

How so?

Even in modern day we have tech that could feed a lot of the population, but we're not working together to the extent that Trek's fictional future is shown to be.

They still blow others up.

But exploration is shown to be the point of their mission, not war. And Trek goes out of it's way to make the war minded guys the villains.

Until Sisko.