I agree there’s intention to present optimism and humanism in the face of conflict, but I find the execution to be lackluster. An example that comes to mind is Pike objecting to using mines in season 2 of DIS. He raises the issue directly to Cornwell, saying it’s against Federation values. Then for some reason, the discussion becomes finding out why the Enterprise was diverted away from the Klingon war and ends praising Pike being “the best of Starfleet.” The entire discussion about using unethical weaponry during wartime is sidetracked and left unresolved. The mines are still there on the station, and the responsibility of Starfleet Command for not taking down those Klingon mines is not explored.

Another example is the explanation of the Burn. From interviews I’ve seen, the intention behind the crying Kelpien is to highlight the need to understand and sympathize with people vastly different from you even when the universe is as vast with warp travel impossible. The resolution is Burnham and Saru finding this Kelpien and help him understand his visions and thoughts, calm him down, and make warping safe again. But this Kelpien lacks characterization from the beginning. The audience doesn’t know him that well, and we don’t know why we should sympathize with his personal resolution. It would be much stronger if the cause of the Burn is the Emerald Syndicate, which we have established as a hostile force against the Federation. And we know they have good cause to be suspicious of the Federation from Osyraa’s meeting with Vance. In the show, despite this message of reaching out to the vastly different, the Federation and the Chain never understood each other and resorted to using force. Another good candidate for the cause of the Burn is Ni’Var, which has its reasonable suspicions of the Federation at the time.

We already have Prodigy, Strange New Worlds, and Lower Decks under Kurtzman that are considered “optimistic.” The question is, do kids want optimism?