TNG was far more progressive than TOS. TOS had a strong captain who flaunted the rules and was a womanizer. But he was a just leader and relatively “open minded”. TNG liked to explore social issues and those storylines were somewhat boring. Some things made no sense- for instance a supposedly egalitarian world where miraculously nobody needs money (which literally means nobody has any earnings), but Picard’s brother has a small estate and a vineyard.
The concept that Star Trek embraced where everything in society was based upon merit is an anathema to erasing financial considerations.
You can never, ever, I don’t care that aliens show up, erase the desire for more. More power, more money, more women, more drink/food etc.
Enemies at the Gate pretty much summed it up when the political officer sacrificed himself for Zaitsev. Men will always be richer in some areas, in that case the love/devotion of a woman that didn’t love him back.
If you can never erase the desire for more, for competition, for love and affection you cannot erase the concept of money.
Yes, it’s nice that people in Star Trek would be free to be the best curler without having to work at Home Depot for minimum wage and living in a trailer.
However you could never turn off the human nature that drives a Hitler, Putin, Jobs, Gates, Rockefeller or Carnegie.
i always thought it was silly how in TNG they had progressed beyond the need for money, but whenever they were playing poker, the table was covered with chips. what exactly did the chips represent, if not money? and what’s the point of playing poker for meaningless chips that have no value anyway?
i thought the prequel Enterprise was the most interesting of the lot. DS9 had too much political intrigue and wooden acting. TOS was too hokey. TNG has it’s moments. only Enterprise had a fresh take on the “universe”.
All animals are equal... Warf was conservative. How odd the “minority” was the only real character of the bunch.