Cultural study and development of the Prime Directive...

[BillJ]

How would you define suffering then?

Longer life spans, lower infant mortality rates, the ability to read and write, democracy where there was none, a justice system.

Europeans received mathematics from the (in that area) more advance eastern civilizations, Japanese received equal rights for woman from the (more advance in that area) Americans, native americans received longer life spans and lower infant mortality rates from the (more advance in that area) western civilization.

Your "in some way" covers a lot of ground, there is a up side to the contact.

Bronze age people in north-western India first came up with reading and writing ... maybe they should have kept it to themselves.

that's why BillJ's example works better. Earth 1968 WAS home to an intelligent, self-aware civilization.

I actually think T'Girl sums up the issues with the Prime Directive pretty well. Many times interference can kick-start growth. While it's not always in the best interest to kick-start that growth, there are times it can be necessary.

Not only do I see Assignment: Earth as a subtle rebuke of the Prime Directive, I think the same of The Paradise Syndrome.

 

[Anwar]

Paradise Syndrome wouldn't have happened in the first place if the Preservers hadn't interfered and brought the people there to begin with. They were in danger DIRECTLY because of those prior aliens.

As for "Assignment Earth", it didn't do much good seeing how nuclear war ended up happening anyways about 80 years later. I don't remember any aliens stopping THAT from happening.

I do think that the PD works best as a "don't just introduce yourselves willy-nilly to cave-people" and in cases where cultural interference is inevitable on their world and not out in space (TOS, the Klingons constant interference) the PD doesn't even apply anymore.

But if it's a natural disaster that happens regularly on their world, or a war of their own making, leave them to it. After all, folks who never endure any hardships aren't going to learn anything.

 

[BillJ]

As for "Assignment Earth", it didn't do much good seeing how nuclear war ended up happening anyways about 80 years later. I don't remember any aliens stopping THAT from happening.

Six hundred million dead points to a very limited exchange of weapons.

But if it's a natural disaster that happens regularly on their world, or a war of their own making, leave them to it. After all, folks who never endure any hardships aren't going to learn anything.

I can agree with this if it is limited to internal hardships that don't threaten the entire species. Natural disasters (internal/external) that threaten the existence of a species are a different matter. If you can help... you should (and even then there are limits to the help being offered, I'm not advocating relocating entire planetary populations). There's nothing for them to learn if they no longer exist due to the calamity.

 

[Warped9]

The idea of what's out there may be somewhat different than what we understand today. Candidly we've got enough resources within our own solar system to last us who knows how long assuming the means to get to it and exploit it. The asteroid belt alone could prove a practically endless supply of raw materials. If you assume other star systems to be similar then why go to other worlds?

In TOS we get the sense that what's explained in TNG is already happening---that material possessions don't have the same value anymore and life is more about improving oneself. In extent why explore space but to seek out knowledge and understanding to build upon what you already have. And from that you might seek out other intelligence to expand and share knowledge.

If we also assume that ideal Class M worlds may not be all that plentiful then you might seek out suitable worlds for potential future colonization so as to possibly avoid overcrowding and overpopulation that strained Earth's and other worlds' resources. Also seeding your species throughout the galaxy means your race has a better chance at long term survival since all your eggs aren't in one basket should a calamity arise to destroy one or more of your worlds.

And beyond seeking out new life and new civilizations for the sake of expanding and sharing of knowledge then what other practical considerations are there, particularly if you're promoting membership in an interstellar alliance (or Federation) of some sort? There is security and the curbing of crime for one thing because the trade routes are patrolled and kept mostly clear of piracy, smuggling, exploitation of weak borders and general criminality. There is also the security of common defense because if one member is menaced by some outside threat then it's nice to be backed up by a lot of friends and allies. And within all that is the sharing and trade of goods, culture and knowledge of all kinds.

We have no idea how large the Federation and in extent Starfleet is in TOS' era or how long it's been in existence. Perhaps only a few decades if that from some of the subtext we get from the show. And in extent the Prime Directive itself may be relatively new---perhaps about twenty years?---and hence the teething problems of implementing, tweaking and enforcing it.

Of course another practical reason for approaching a new world we've seen in some episodes. In "A Taste Of Armageddon" the Federation wants a treaty port in that sector for some unspecified security reason. Approaching the Melkotians in "Spectre Of The Gun" may have been for a similar reason. Even if a race is reputedly reclusive who really knows why...until you ask them? Maybe they just didn't meet anyone they liked talking to before. Or perhaps they had a bad experience in the past and now they're shy. But you won't know until you ask them and there's no harm in asking. A Prime Directive violation doesn't happen unless you refuse to take no for an answer, just as you could face a harassment charge if you persist after the girl keeps saying "no" and you won't listen. Note Kirk was ready to leave the Eminians alone ("A Taste Of Armageddon") as well as bug out when things started to go weird in "Spectre Of The Gun," but in the first case he was overridden by higher authority and in the second he was prevented from leaving.

In real terms our future in space exploration and possibly far future colonization isn't likely to be much like Star Trek's, but we have to try looking at things the way they're depicted within the context of the Trek universe to have some understanding of the why things are the way the are. How else can we rationalize them?

 

[T'Girl]

And what if aliens had decided to save the Dinosaurs from the great impact, do you think humans today would be grateful for that?

that's not a great analogy because dinosaurs weren't part of an intelligent, self-aware civilization.

To tell you all the truth, if I witnessed a asteroid about to strike a life bearing planet and my ship had the capacity to avert the impact, even if I knew for a fact that there were no intelligent, self-aware people living there, I believe I would.

Again if I could.

But if it's a natural disaster that happens regularly on their world, or a war of their own making, leave them to it. After all, folks who never endure any hardships aren't going to learn anything.

Hard to learn from your mistakes, if the result of said mistake is your death.

Put it this way, if a little old lady has a flat tire along side the road, do you personally stop to assist her?

Or, do you drive on by confidant that she will learn something important from the experience?

.

 

[Warped9]

This was in another thread, but I think it fits here too.

“Arena” - Kirk is certainly not breaking the Prime Directive by going after the Gorns with intent to destroy because the Gorns had already destroyed Cestus III. The only reason he was stopped was because they crossed into the Metron star system.

“The Return Of The Archons” - If Kirk could have left the planet with an explanation for what happened to Sulu and O'Neal and the Enterprise had not been attacked then he probably would have left Beta III as is for Federation sociologists to return to and study. The inhabitants already knew about "Archons" and themselves were already trying to resist Landru in their own limited fashion.

“A Taste Of Armageddon” - Kirk approaches Eminiar 7 under protest and he would have gladly left the two warring planets to themselves and their war until Eminiar tries to destroy Kirk, his crew and his ship and thereby drag the Federation into their interplanetary conflict. I don't think the Prime Directive is going to hold a lot of water when it comes to open aggression from an advanced space faring culture.

“Friday’s Child” - No Prime Directive violation since the natives were already aware of and trading with "Earth men." And Kirk didn't try to interfere in how they managed their affairs, but just tried to survive until the Enterprise returned. He might have overstepped in not leaving Eleen behind to face her fate.

“The Apple” - Kirk is ready to bug out and leave the planet except that Vaal has no intention of letting them leave...alive. Kirk also had orders to contact the inhabitants if dictated. Unfortunately no information is given in this episode to explain how the natives had gotten into their situation with Vaal, but it's evident enough that an advanced someone had put them there. And it's been said enough that the Prime Directive applies to a growing and developing culture...which the natives certainly were not.

“Bread And Circuses” - All Kirk and company do here is survive and escape. And Merrick didn't so much influence the inhabitants but rather just surrendered to them. And it seems the Proconsul and what few others may have know something about where these strangers came from were keeping a lid on it themselves.

“A Private Little War” - It's supposed to be a "hands off" planet by Federation/Klingon treaty and yet the Klingons are certainly violating it. Kirk certainly doesn't like having to get involved, but the end result is clear if nothing is done: the hill people are going to be wiped out by the villagers with the Klingons behind it all. Kirk could just report it, but before that he decides to level the playing field for the hill people. What he doesn't do is introduce superior technology. I'd say this is Kirk's closest instance of putting his foot in it, but evidently the Federation lets him off and retain his command and career. But sadly we never hear what happens afterward to the people of Neral.

“The Gamesters Of Triskelion” - The Providers, an advanced species, forcibly kidnap Kirk's landing party and intend to destroy the Enterprise. They're certainly, and admittedly, not interested in fostering a developed society until Kirk challenges them. And they still could have gone back on their word and destroyed Kirk and the Enterprise. I certainly don't think the PD applies here.

“A Piece Of The Action” - Never mind this is something of a silly episode. The Horizon had already contaminated the planet most likely long before the Prime Directive existed. I suspect if Kirk had been able to ascertain the situation and leave peaceably to report what he'd found he would of. But once again the landing party is taken hostage and threatened. In this case, though, it seems to say that the Federation is taking responsibility for what happened to the Iotians and Kirk's action is the first step in trying to minimize or partially reverse the Horizon's contamination...whether you agree or not with his idea.

“Patterns Of Force” - They're trying to find out what happened to John Gill and later do learn what happened to him and that Gill had violated the Prime Directive. Kirk's intent throughout seems mainly to be to find Gill and bug out, but when he learns what's happened he manages to help Gill call off the attack on Zaon just before Gill is killed. They leave immediately after. And note that the Ekosians already seem to have some awareness of other worlds beyond theirs and Zaon.

“The Omega Glory” - Tracey has already violated the Prime Directive by introducing advanced weaponry into killing thousands of Kohms. Kirk is just trying to survive yet without doing the same thing. The question is whether Krik violated the Prime Directive by simply explaining the meaning of the Yangs' own sacred text.

“Spock’s Brain” - It may seem silly, but is there really a Prime Directive violation for retrieving Spock's brain back from the Morg women after they had stolen it?

“For The World Is Hollow And I Have Touched The Sky” - Kirk is trying to put Yonada back on course and reveals a "truth" that the Yonadans had sadly forgotten, but would have been revealed again once they reached their destination.

"The Cloud Minders" For me the real question is how can the Federation allow membership to a world which clearly exploits some of its own people. Anyway the episode raises the question as to whether Kirk oversteps into Ardanan jurisdiction by offering the Troglodites filter masks. Evidently the Ardanans aren't "doing all they can" to secure the zenite and fulfill their responsibilities to another Federation member world.

“One Of Our Planets Is Missing” - The message here seems to be take a really good look before you eat another planet."

“The Infinite Vulcan” - The Phylosians were about to launch an interstellar war out of exaggerated gratitude to Stavos Keniclius for saving them from a disease or something. And the Phylosians evidently knew about alien life and other worlds.

“BEM” - Kirk just wanted to bug out, but Ambassador Bem kept screwing things up. If anything Bem is to one who should be on the hot seat.


The issue seems to come down to:
- what constitutes interference and when does it apply?
- what is reasonable and accepted action in the event of evident prior interference or contamination?
- when and where does non-interference apply?

The Prime Directive is evidently not an absolute blanket policy with no exceptions. If this is drafted up by politicians and legal minds, no matter how well meaning, then it's most likely going to have a lot of room for interpretation. The whole idea seems to be extrapolated from past encounters in our own history where less advanced cultures were grossly exploited by more advanced ones, in terms of technologically advanced and not necessarily ethically advanced. But on a planet where there's no where else to go it's inevitable that cultures will clash on some level. Putting this on an interstellar scale obviously you've got a lot more room to play with, but there are likely still going to be instances of cultural conflict. In the end much is going to depend upon the value ascribed to a given species and culture.

The Klingons certainly have no qualms about contaminating another world because they see themselves as having a manifest destiny to conquer and rule because they are strong and aggressive by nature. To them it's self-evident. In some respects the Klingons are much like past cultures on Earth such as the Romans and others. Same for the Romulans. And it's probably partly why the Federation is bothered by them because the Klingons remind them of what they used to be like and in many ways could still be just under the surface. Kor was actually quite right in his own way.

The Prime Directive (as it seems to exist in the TOS era) appears to be the first steps in trying to curb exploitation of other species and cultures, an effort not to repeat the mistakes of the past. I don't think it's meant to eliminate all interaction, but primarily to minimize detrimental interaction.

If a species is isolated and has absolutely no knowledge of other worlds and other life, and even if they are actively looking out into space and listening (as we are), and even making their first forays off planet (as we are) then the idea seems to be to still not reveal yourself to them. The idea of subspace radio also seems to suggest that it isn't something that could be easily tapped into without a sufficiently advanced technology. Subspace radio is not only convenient (and necessary) for interstellar activity, but it has a side benefit of keeping you hidden from less advanced cultures. I'd say even if they manage early warp flight I'd think it best if they find you on their own rather than you going to their home world to announce yourself. A race could still feel quite threatened by someone with really advanced technology suddenly showing up on their doorstep. TNG's episode "First Contact" seems to show that well enough. I also think the Vulcans showing up as they do in the TNG film First Contact wasn't that bright an idea. I guess they didn't yet have a version of the Prime Directive---not very enlightened I'd say.

Now if you do happen to encounter primitive or less advance inhabitants then you seem to have to make a genuine effort not to reveal who you really are and where you come from. The exceptions to this seem to apply to those worlds that where contact already existed before the Prime Directive policy was introduced. If prior contamination is evident then you appear to have some latitude to reverse or minimize the contamination.

If you encounter a sufficiently advanced culture who don't conform to Federation standards and principles you're still not supposed to interfere in their affairs. But that doesn't mean you have to sacrifice yourself to them. You are authorized to take reasonable measures for self-defense and self-preservation.

Under normal circumstances you're not to interfere in the internal affairs of a Federation member world. But what if that member world's internal affairs are adversely influencing or affecting another member? Where do their rights end and another's begin? And this issue gets into the area of what are the standards for Federation membership, but that's another discussion.

All life has value, but the questions arise when it comes to how much value a species or culture is given. Certainly the Federation worlds have value and a right to exist just as much as less advanced worlds. How much is the Federation supposed or expected to sacrifice in the name of protecting another culture?

And finally what exactly are the conditions where a Starfleet or starship commander must be willing to sacrifice himself, his ship and his crew to uphold the Prime Directive? This is never really spelled out in Star Trek as far as I know.

 

[Anwar]

Hard to learn from your mistakes, if the result of said mistake is your death.

Like nuclear war meant certain death for humanity?

Put it this way, if a little old lady has a flat tire along side the road, do you personally stop to assist her?

Or, do you drive on by confidant that she will learn something important from the experience?

You can't use helping a senior human as an analogy, our laws dictate the exact OPPOSITE for that situation.

 

[sonak]

Hard to learn from your mistakes, if the result of said mistake is your death.

Like nuclear war meant certain death for humanity?

Put it this way, if a little old lady has a flat tire along side the road, do you personally stop to assist her?

Or, do you drive on by confidant that she will learn something important from the experience?

You can't use helping a senior human as an analogy, our laws dictate the exact OPPOSITE for that situation.

so they do, but why do they? Is it because laws, in theory are supposed to comport themselves with morality? And morality generally means helping, if criteria like practicality and avoiding potential harm to the one or ones providing assistance work out.


Yet the PD, which is a law, sets morality aside and defines not "interfering" as some kind of superior good. It defines up to be down, and down to be up.

 

[T'Girl]

Hard to learn from your mistakes, if the result of said mistake is your death.

Like nuclear war meant certain death for humanity?

In the case of Star Trek's third world war, for those Humans killed by atomic weapons, it did mean certain death.

Subsequent to their deaths, they would have been incapable of learning anything.

Because they were dead.

 

[RAMA]

Contrary to your statement this is the mature approach, not wild unilateral contact/expansionism for the sake of it, with no concern for other beings.

Not even Roddenberry was sure which approach was best... see Assignment: Earth. Where the whole premise is about aliens making sure we make it through our growing process.

Like in Sagan's "Contact" the aliens may guide less advanced planets over a long period of time, but in very small increments...its a kind of Prime Directive...not giving too much too soon. Now I'm not going to say the Prime Directive will actually happen in all it's idealism, so maybe there are plenty of advanced species who use the incremental method, and maybe that's the best that can be hoped for as a compromise.

RAMA

 

[Anwar]

so they do, but why do they? Is it because laws, in theory are supposed to comport themselves with morality?

They have just as much to do with order. And you seem to think that contact with unprepared primitives will always be beneficial.

Yet the PD, which is a law, sets morality aside and defines not "interfering" as some kind of superior good. It defines up to be down, and down to be up.

How is non-interference completely amoral, in every situation?

 

[sonak]

so they do, but why do they? Is it because laws, in theory are supposed to comport themselves with morality?

They have just as much to do with order. And you seem to think that contact with unprepared primitives will always be beneficial.

Yet the PD, which is a law, sets morality aside and defines not "interfering" as some kind of superior good. It defines up to be down, and down to be up.

How is non-interference completely amoral, in every situation?

you just love to take every argument to extremes, don't you? I don't believe that contact between more and less technologically advanced cultures will always be beneficial, but I don't think it leads INEVITABLY to disaster like the PD would imply. Nor do I think non-interference is necessarily amoral, but there are definite examples in Trek where non-interference was immoral.

What happened was they elevated non-interference to some kind of theological principle. When laws are irrationally rigid, like the PD became in TNG, they no longer serve useful purposes. It's ironic, because they kind of made that same point in TNG's "Justice," but ignored it in the case of the PD.

 

[Anwar]

At least in "Justice" they had the built-in excuse of the Edo "God" not letting them just take Wesley away.

 

[RAMA]

Ethics of the Prime Directive, a short story, from Philosophy Now.

http://www.philosophynow.org/issue39/The_Prime_Directive



http://philosophyofscienceportal.blogspot.com/2008/03/gene-roddenberry.html

Interesting Philosophy of Science blog

Maybe any one approach is too simplistic here...but once you start helping whole planets, where does it stop? Do you go and help with some alien child's homework, then zip to the next planet and save a continent? What if you have to leave a deserving planet off your list, like some sort of UN Santa Claus? How do you consider all the likely permutations? If you save a planet and they turn into the Klingons, was it ethical to have saved them in the first place? With the likely outcomes so uncertain, and the situations almost infinite, it would be very difficult to turn the PD into cosmic interference. Even with the UFP, the interference will come with a price...in TOS there were several cases where this led to outcomes benefical to the UFP..what if the UFP becomes corrupt? What then?

RAMA

 

[BillJ]

Maybe any one approach is too simplistic here...but once you start helping whole planets, where does it stop? Do you go and help with some alien child's homework, then zip to the next planet and save a continent? What if you have to leave a deserving planet off your list, like some sort of UN Santa Claus? How do you consider all the likely permutations? If you save a planet and they turn into the Klingons, was it ethical to have saved them in the first place? With the likely outcomes so uncertain, and the situations almost infinite, it would be very difficult to turn the PD into cosmic interference. Even with the UFP, the interference will come with a price...in TOS there were several cases where this led to outcomes benefical to the UFP..what if the UFP becomes corrupt? What then?

This is just so full of horseshit that I don't know where to begin...

Name one time where the "Prime Directive" is violated that is beneficial to the UFP.

I also call bullshit on the 'doing alien childrens homework', it's really tough to take any points you may actually be trying to make when you introduce lunacies like this into the argument.

Should we not help remote villages in Africa, that are less advanced than us, feed their children on the off chance one might grow up to be Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot?

Essentially your endorsing the Prime Directive as the "every man/alien for himself" directive which I find quite sickening.

 

[RAMA]

Maybe any one approach is too simplistic here...but once you start helping whole planets, where does it stop? Do you go and help with some alien child's homework, then zip to the next planet and save a continent? What if you have to leave a deserving planet off your list, like some sort of UN Santa Claus? How do you consider all the likely permutations? If you save a planet and they turn into the Klingons, was it ethical to have saved them in the first place? With the likely outcomes so uncertain, and the situations almost infinite, it would be very difficult to turn the PD into cosmic interference. Even with the UFP, the interference will come with a price...in TOS there were several cases where this led to outcomes benefical to the UFP..what if the UFP becomes corrupt? What then?

This is just so full of horseshit that I don't know where to begin...

Name one time where the "Prime Directive" is violated that is beneficial to the UFP.

I also call bullshit on the 'doing alien childrens homework', it's really tough to take any points you may actually be trying to make when you introduce lunacies like this into the argument.

Should we not help remote villages in Africa, that are less advanced than us, feed their children on the off chance one might grow up to be Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot?

Essentially your endorsing the Prime Directive as the "every man/alien for himself" directive which I find quite sickening.

In order to gain a "Treaty Port"; as a base against the Klingons in their cold war; for supplies and raw materials for the same war; territory?? Any of this ring a bell? It should. One could say the UFP was already corrupt in A Taste of Armageddon, ST: INsurrection, DS9's Homefront, STNG's Preemptive Strike and a handful of other episodes.

Wow, I guess you didn't like the injection of humor into the subject. Touchy!

Africa is on our planet, and yes we can help them, but there also many cases of more advanced cultures trying to change them...I wouldn't want to live like those tribes, but they have a right to exist, and many cases these tribes have gained homeostatic levels in their society (sound familiar?) before they were changed.

Yes I am sure you find it "sickening" since you'd jsut love to go off and invade any country that disagrees with us probably, like Iraq, North Korea...

RAMA

 

[BillJ]

Yes I am sure you find it "sickening" since you'd jsut love to go off and invade any country that disagrees with us probably, like Iraq, North Korea...

I actually a lefty Democrat and don't promote anyone being invaded. Can't help that you don't know the difference between helping someone and invading them.

 

[sonak]

Yes I am sure you find it "sickening" since you'd jsut love to go off and invade any country that disagrees with us probably, like Iraq, North Korea...

I actually a lefty Democrat and don't promote anyone being invaded. Can't help that you don't know the difference between helping someone and invading them.

RAMA really needs to look into "false dichotomies." The opposite of non-interference is not war. Do you really think anytime someone is willing to help that they have an ulterior motive of exploitation and domination in mind?


that's a fairly paranoid viewpoint.

 

[Gary7]

The fact of the matter is that on a given world, the various nations upon it influence each other, either directly or indirectly. Did you know that there are native cultures living in remote regions (like the Amazon region) that have no clue about the modern world outside it? That they do not have contact with technologically equipped humans? They are interesting examples of "primitive humans". They've been pretty much left alone because of biology (we are carriers of diseases that our immune systems keep in check, but would devastate these people because they have no immunity). There has been some contamination, via accidentally dropped air cargo (see "cargo cult"). Do we intervene and help them progress, or leave them alone? Very similar to this "prime directive" concept. (click HERE for an interesting article about encountering a remote Amazon tribe).

There are two main reasons to intervene:
1) The species has advanced to the point where they would easily survive the shock value of being visited by extraterrestrial beings. They are made aware and given the choice of whether to remain isolated or join the Federation.
2) A species showing much promise* or positive potential is suffering from a catastrophe that is not too difficult for the observing beings to correct.

* - what really constitutes "promise"? That's the difficult point to ponder. Is the species stagnant in their ways, or perpetually continuing conflicts with other inhabitants of their world? It has to be determined on a case-by-case basis.


Eventually those remote natives on Earth will find themselves at the doorstep of the modern world. Do we build a wall around them or do we invite them in? Do we allow our contamination to eventually kill them (and it will), or do we deliberately boost their immune systems to make them compatible with the world? If we're able to communicate and then fill them in gradually... "Hey, you've been living in an isolated part of the world. We have a huge global community. If you were to be a part of it, there are a number of things you must do (A, B, C... X, Y, Z). If you are OK with that, let us know and we'll help you adapt." They think about it, then in a few months we contact them and they want no part of it. That is their choice. But unless they are OK with staying within a predefined "reservation" zone, they will bump up against our community and be contaminated. Disease, bacteria, and viruses will get to them and many will perish, because of their unwillingness to adapt.

Separate worlds are a different story, though similar. A planet has its own independent biosphere. If the indigenous beings remain planet-bound, they'd never even know an external multi-species community existed. But... what if they were on the edge of the Romulan Neutral Zone? Or Klingon Space? Those species do not have any Prime Directive policies... Do we warn them of the dangers? I believe they have that right to know, even if it means disrupting their community (it will eventually be disrupted anyway, and in a way where they have no choice in the matter).

 

[Captain Robert April]

I think that For the World is Hollow... is a great test problem for the Prime Directive. Two worlds threatened by each other, one advanced and with a high population the other not so much with far less people. What if the only way to save the advanced world is to destroy the lesser one? Do you move the people off the lesser one exposing them to other life and technology or do you allow them to die because they weren't aware of the impending danger?

Actually, the choice is much more clear cut, since Deneb V is a Federation planet; Yonada needs to be either diverted, stopped, or destroyed. The little chat with the admiral implies that Starfleet will be perfectly happy to blow it into space gravel if that turns out to be the only option, and to hell with the Fabrini culture.