Well, Sabertooth has only said one thing that I agree with, namely that Aldous Huxley's Brave New World would be a lovely, futuristic society to be in. SB hasn't obviously read the book, though, as the society involved has eugenics and sterilisation featured heavily in it.
SB is also overly optimistic about the effects of technology. People are often negatively affected by modern technology - look at all those modern mines which have stripped entire countryside landscapes rendering them ugly as hell. Then there are all those examples of cyanide from gold mines being washed into rivers by accident, every so often(the Romania/Danube example was one of the worst, as I recall). There is a whole class of people in Japan, the "Hikikomori"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hikikomori who have been negatively affected by changing technology/modern social systems.
Plus, advancing technology has led to more people surviving who would have either died out due to some form of natural selection or been less likely to reproduce , as in past centuries. Plus, intelligent people are having far fewer children, no doubt due to the advent of the welfare state favouring the less intelligent, among many other factors:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DysgenicsAfter the advent of modern medicine, the rate of genetically-inherited health-problems such as heart-defects or cystic fibrosis or haemophilia etc. has risen every single generation thereafter. It wouldn't surprise me if in a few thousand years, virtually all humans end up in societies much like that film "Idiocracy", as a result. Eventually, such a society would become more like EM Forster's novella "The Machine Stops" and such societies would in the end be wholly replaced by primitive HGs without access to technology.
Simply put, technology is only useful if it is properly applied. Advancing technology makes it easier for people to improve their condition as well as to foul things up even more than before.
As for Gene Roddenberry's so-called "vision", I can't imagine a more horrifying dystopia. Never mind, that Star Trek creators had the mindless arrogance to assume that virtually all aliens would just look like humans but just with some pointy ears or odd-shaped bulges on their skulls, but they also had the notion, in almost all episodes, that humans were, as a whole, somehow "morally" superior/more intelligent etc. than most aliens, with the humans usually winning against the aliens in most episodes, which is an unlikely scenario. Star Wreck also tried to peddle Roddenberry's Liberal views, and "naturally"
assumed that all aliens would somehow benefit from having such views as well. Never mind the fact that a truly alien, non-human society would likely neither understand nor even benefit from such a limited Terran viewpoint, let alone any other human political viewpoints.
Even worse, it's clear from Star Wreck's b*ll re "Eugenics Wars" in its fictional history etc. that it is wholly anti-transhuman/anti-posthuman in its beliefs. Which is ridiculous, because one can safely assume that, in order to be able to have a genuine spacefaring culture, one would also need to improve human beings via genetic engineering/cyborganisation etc. so that they could fully compete in such a futuristic society.
I far prefer Blake's 7 which had poorer special effects than Star Wreck, but which was far more realistic about human society and human failings. Babylon 5 was also good in that it sometimes featured powerful and credible non-human aliens in its episodes, although he made the character of Sheridan into a holy Messiah-figure which was ridiculous, among other flaws. Of course, the twisted people at Star Wreck ripped off most of their ideas for DS9 from Babylon 5, and then promptly ruined the story of DS9 anyway, despite their crime. Straczynski should have sued them for billions.
