This post contains spoilers for the latest episode of "Strange New Worlds".....
.
.
.
.
I was going to write something about how that episode closely imitates the plot of Ursula LeGuin's classic SF story "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas." But looks like many other viewers had the same thought. This piece is a good explanation of the parallels.
I actually think the episode is much better than this commentator does. It effectively captures the dilemmas involved, and shows some of the appeal of the case FOR Omelas. And, Alura's retort is more powerful than this reviewer gives it credit for: "Can you honestly say that no child suffers for the benefit of your Federation? That no child lives in poverty or squalor while those who enjoy abundance look away? The only difference is that we don’t look away.”
If the Federation really does have children who live in poverty and squalor, that further undercuts the traditional depiction of the Federation as a Utopia that has abolished poverty. And, whatever is true of the Federation, in the real world even the best societies accept substantial suffering and privation, because they think it would be too difficult and/or costly to get rid of it. LeGuin (in her story) and Pike (in this episode) implicitly suggest it's worse when you deliberately institutionalize the suffering, than just indirectly accept it as a fact of life. That may be true. But there's certainly a case the other way.
The real case for the Federation, if there is one, is that it tolerates a lot less pain, suffering, and oppression than the available alternatives (I set aside, here, the Federation's socialism and other dubious qualities highlighted in some episodes of DS 9). That's also the case for liberal democracy in the real world. But that does mean the Federation - and we - have more in common with Omelas than we like to admit.