The Cold War could have easily ended in the extinction of humankind. So make up your mind, is preventing extinction only OK in the case of natural catastrophes and not in the case of cultural ones or what and why the distinction between cultural and natural and what about the cases where you cannot make a distinction between them?
What the frell does that have to do with my comment? I said:
Now, there would be situations where the Feds would be justified in turning down a cry for help, a line where they would say "Sorry, we can't get involved with this." One example would be asking for help in a war that had nothing to do with the Feds.
So, basically, I said sometimes the Feds would be morally and ethically obligated to say no to a request for help. Other times they wouldn't. Your "reply" makes no sense at all. You seem to think I'm equating "cries for help" with extinction-level events. I was referring to two different kinds of scenarios: actual requests for help that do not involve extinction-level events OR extinction-level events with or without requests for help.
I think I'm done with this thread. I'm exhausted of going in circles. To sum up: The PD is a good idea but isn't always right, and a lot of Trek
fans fail to properly understand just why it's a good idea. Letting billions of people die is never a good thing. Saving someone once doesn't render you responsible for their eternal well-being. Hmm...that seems to cover it.
So long, everyone. Have fun.