RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,887
Posts: 5,329,880
Members: 24,557
Currently online: 555
Newest member: Mgroup Video

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Inquisition
By: Michelle on Jul 12

Cubify Star Trek 3DMe Mini Figurines
By: T'Bonz on Jul 11

Latest Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Jul 10

Seven of Nine Bobble Head
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

Pegg The Prankster
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

More Trek Stars Join Unbelievable!!!!!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

Star Trek #35 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

New ThinkGeek Trek Apparel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Star Trek Movie Prop Auction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Drexler: NX Engineering Room Construction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek TV Series > The Next Generation

The Next Generation All Good Things come to an end...but not here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 11 2012, 02:52 PM   #16
Start Wreck
Fleet Captain
 
Start Wreck's Avatar
 
Re: Prime Directive problem with "Homeward"

I think you're supposed to have a problem with the prime directive in this episode.
__________________
Fallen Star - My home-made sci-fi TV show
Start Wreck - My Star Trek spoof web comic
Doctor Who From The Start - A n00b does a blog
Start Wreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11 2012, 03:11 PM   #17
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Prime Directive problem with "Homeward"

Start Wreck wrote: View Post
I think you're supposed to have a problem with the prime directive in this episode.
I don't think so. Because we have the ending where Picard waxes philosophical about the tragedy of the Boralaan dying alone because of what Nikolai had done. But I always thought the guy died knowing his village was saved.
__________________
"When I first heard about it (the Enterprise underwater), my inner Trekkie was in a rage. When I saw it, my inner kid beat up my inner Trekkie and made him go sit in the corner." - Bill Jasper
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11 2012, 03:54 PM   #18
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: Prime Directive problem with "Homeward"

Mr_Homn wrote: View Post
Dream wrote: View Post
I think at some point you have to ask is the Federation going to save every humanoid species that is in danger and relocate them to new homes? That would take massive manpower, we are talking about billions of people per planet. Who gets to choose who lives and who dies? How many starships would be required for this? Would the Federation only be saving those in Federation space? What about their own territory, are they just suppose to ignore their own homes?

I think the whole thing becomes too big.

If they are capable of FTL, they can save themselves. The Federation wouldn't have any issues helping them through the process.

As far as we know the Q Continuum are omnipotent, but you don't see them going around saving cultures.

I agree. I agree with the prime directive in this case. If a primitive culture is doomed due to the natural way of things, it's not the federation's obligation to save them.

so...do you oppose trying to cure "natural" diseases as well? After all, disease is the "natural way of things."

What makes it different about being a primitive culture, as long as the Federation has the resources and knowledge to save them?
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11 2012, 04:03 PM   #19
R. Star
Rear Admiral
 
R. Star's Avatar
 
Location: Shangri-La
Re: Prime Directive problem with "Homeward"

Another episode with this concept is Pen Pals. While the same conclusion is reached that it's basically Federation doctorine to let a primitive species doomed to natural extinction die out rather than intervene, the main characters actually do debate the morality of it rather than just accept it.
__________________
"I was never a Star Trek fan." J.J. Abrams
R. Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11 2012, 04:24 PM   #20
Dream
Admiral
 
Dream's Avatar
 
Re: Prime Directive problem with "Homeward"

R. Star wrote: View Post
Another episode with this concept is Pen Pals. While the same conclusion is reached that it's basically Federation doctorine to let a primitive species doomed to natural extinction die out rather than intervene, the main characters actually do debate the morality of it rather than just accept it.
"The Prime Directive is not just a set of rules; it is a philosophy... and a very correct one. History has proven again and again that whenever mankind interferes with a less developed civilization, no matter how well intentioned that interference may be, the results are invariably disastrous."

Picard's own words in Pen Pals.

He was going to leave the system until of course Data decided to play the message from the little girl. I wouldn't be surprised if Picard somehow forgot to note his actions in his logs.
__________________
=)
Dream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11 2012, 04:34 PM   #21
R. Star
Rear Admiral
 
R. Star's Avatar
 
Location: Shangri-La
Re: Prime Directive problem with "Homeward"

When Janeway threw that one out to a doomed species Paris retored with, "They're all going to die. What can be worse than that?"

As far as I can see it's a good question.
__________________
"I was never a Star Trek fan." J.J. Abrams
R. Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11 2012, 05:55 PM   #22
Jonas Grumby
Vice Admiral
 
Jonas Grumby's Avatar
 
Location: Somewhere in the South Pacific
Re: Prime Directive problem with "Homeward"

I think TNG consistently handled the Prime Directive pretty badly, but "Homeward" is definitely the most vomit-inducing episode of the bunch.

Actually, I think TOS had the better idea of how to use the Prime Directive (although I know those who want to nail down all things Trek won't like it): Keep it vague, and only trot it out when you need an excuse to tie the heroes' hands.
__________________
"There are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats." - Albert Schweitzer

Last edited by Jonas Grumby; September 11 2012 at 07:21 PM.
Jonas Grumby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11 2012, 06:04 PM   #23
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Prime Directive problem with "Homeward"

I there's alien life out there, and if Earth was going to be devastated by disaster tomorrow, I don't expect them to help us.

So I don't see a problem with the Prime Directive forbidding it. It creates more problems than it solves. It's shown in Homeward. One guy was so overwhelmed by the Enterprise that he killed himself.

"The Prime Directive is not just a set of rules; it is a philosophy... and a very correct one. History has proven again and again that whenever mankind interferes with a less developed civilization, no matter how well intentioned that interference may be, the results are invariably disastrous."
He says an even more important thing: the Prime Directive is supposed to protect THEM. Whatever they do, eventually they are responsible for the fate of the civilization.
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11 2012, 06:22 PM   #24
R. Star
Rear Admiral
 
R. Star's Avatar
 
Location: Shangri-La
Re: Prime Directive problem with "Homeward"

Yeah I never got why the Trek writers went this direction with it. It's meant to stop the Federation from becoming the exploiters, even with the best of intentions. It's not meant as some catchall absolution of any responsibility whatsoever. TNG did this a few times and Voyager went crazy with using the Prime Directive as an excuse to let people die.

Literally the way they cite it, if I see a pregnant woman hanging from a cliff about to fall, I should let her fall because her baby might grow up to be Hitler.
__________________
"I was never a Star Trek fan." J.J. Abrams
R. Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11 2012, 07:15 PM   #25
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Prime Directive problem with "Homeward"

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
I there's alien life out there, and if Earth was going to be devastated by disaster tomorrow, I don't expect them to help us.

So I don't see a problem with the Prime Directive forbidding it. It creates more problems than it solves. It's shown in Homeward. One guy was so overwhelmed by the Enterprise that he killed himself.

"The Prime Directive is not just a set of rules; it is a philosophy... and a very correct one. History has proven again and again that whenever mankind interferes with a less developed civilization, no matter how well intentioned that interference may be, the results are invariably disastrous."
He says an even more important thing: the Prime Directive is supposed to protect THEM. Whatever they do, eventually they are responsible for the fate of the civilization.
Then the Federation shouldn't be invading the space and infiltrating the societies of those less advanced.
__________________
"When I first heard about it (the Enterprise underwater), my inner Trekkie was in a rage. When I saw it, my inner kid beat up my inner Trekkie and made him go sit in the corner." - Bill Jasper
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11 2012, 08:44 PM   #26
Holdfast
Procul, O procul este profani!
 
Holdfast's Avatar
 
Location: 17 Cherry Tree Lane
Re: Prime Directive problem with "Homeward"

I like the principle of the Prime Directive, partly because without it, you have no end of situations Starfleet could potentially get involved in.

It essentially asks, "what is humanity's role in the universe?"

Or, to what extent should humanity (or at least, Starfleet as a quasi-military branch of the UFP) be responsible for other races and what should be left to chance/fate/design/whatever-you-call-it?

Personally, I do not like the idea of humanity assuming responsibility for junior races development, as this results in unpredictable moral obligations and practical consequences. Should Starfleet have to constantly have to deal with this, potentially creating economic impacts on the UFP?

(yeah, yeah, they allegedly don't use money, but clearly they still have resource limitations: despite fusion & transporter tech, it is still possible to fight a war of attrition against them viz. the Dominion War.)

The PD is a (by and large) ethical, practical & common-sense way of restricting what situations Starfleet officers - as a proxy of the UFP government - assume such potentially unending responsibilities. Of course, there are situations where individual Captains can breach it at their discretion. They then have to later justify it to Starfleet/UFP and such a breach is noted as part of their personal record (I'm sure several eps across the various series either imply or outright say that).

I think Picard handled the situation in Homeward appropriately, given the circumstances he was placed in.
Holdfast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11 2012, 08:50 PM   #27
Jeyl
Commodore
 
Jeyl's Avatar
 
Location: Asheville, NC
Re: Prime Directive problem with "Homeward"

chrinFinity wrote: View Post
I don't follow what you mean about "Dear Doctor," there is no Prime Directive during the time of Enterprise.
Archer: "Someday my people are going to come up with some sort of a doctrine: something that tells us what we can and can't do out here – should and shouldn't do. But until somebody tells me that they've drafted that directive, I'm going to have to remind myself every day that we didn't come out here to play God."

Just as bad.
Jeyl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11 2012, 09:07 PM   #28
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: Prime Directive problem with "Homeward"

Jeyl wrote: View Post
chrinFinity wrote: View Post
I don't follow what you mean about "Dear Doctor," there is no Prime Directive during the time of Enterprise.
Archer: "Someday my people are going to come up with some sort of a doctrine: something that tells us what we can and can't do out here – should and shouldn't do. But until somebody tells me that they've drafted that directive, I'm going to have to remind myself every day that we didn't come out here to play God."

Just as bad.

not only that, but you had the irony of having characters who WERE playing God by deciding that one of the species was somehow destined to become the "superior" one or something, use the excuse of NOT wanting to play God to "justify" their actions.
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11 2012, 09:09 PM   #29
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Prime Directive problem with "Homeward"

NASA is breaking the Prime Directive right now. They didn't sterilize Curiosity properly, potentially contaminating Mars.
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11 2012, 09:27 PM   #30
Holdfast
Procul, O procul este profani!
 
Holdfast's Avatar
 
Location: 17 Cherry Tree Lane
Re: Prime Directive problem with "Homeward"

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
NASA is breaking the Prime Directive right now. They didn't sterilize Curiosity properly, potentially contaminating Mars.
We need to kill the tripods.
Holdfast is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:53 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.