In keeping with the theme of bad ST episodes that present what we could call "enforced" or "learned" helplessness, we have the 2nd season episode (only nominally better than "Spock's Brain" the first installment in this set) entitled "The Apple"
In this episode, Jim and company run into "Vahl" an immense machine that takes care of all of the necessities of life for a small number of people in a red back lit sound stage full of papier mache' stones, and poison dart shootin' craft store flowers.
Vahl also protects the sound stage inhabitants from all possible threats. It brews up very kitch lightning to kill red-shirts, and injure Spock. It also reaches out via tractor beam, to drag the Enterprise or any other possible threat to her (or its) demise.
Vahl controls the weather. 'Taint too difficult' you might say, 'in the confined space of a sound stage.' You would be right of course. But that aint all Vahl can do:
According to Akuta, 'the eyes and ears of Vahl' (a man tuned in by My Favorite Martian antennae to the computer, deep in the bowels of the planet) there is no need for children ("replacements") and Vahl has forbidden love and sex. Heck, the Vahlians don't even know what these are. Somehow their biological drives have been turned off. "So much for paradise" McCoy quips.
In an interesting little debate (settled for practical purposes by Jim later in the episode) we see our intrepid crew has a bit of an ethical dilemma on their hands: Spock Jim and Bones are secretly watching the Vahlians feed Vahl. Vahl is fed through a very large papier mache' dinosaur head into which they pitch foodstuffs. This somehow fuels the machine. We see that it is not very energy efficient, and needs more or less constant feeding (kind of like the federal government, but more on that later). It dawns on Bones that the Vahlian's only 'function' in life is to feed Vahl.
This raises an interesting question that readers of Mill would recognize from his "On Liberty." One can defend such schemes as this, or schemes of voluntary slavery on the grounds that they are, after all, freely chosen. Mill asks: Morally speaking, should one freely choose to forever give up ones freedom, and therefore ones subsequent ability to retract that very choice? He thinks not. For, you give up your autonomy, something uniquely human. To attempt to do this is tantamount to degradation. So, morally, you should not do this.