Picard broke the Prime Directive a number of times, as well as direct orders from Admirals and/or Starfleet Command. In that sense, he was as daring as Kirk.
TOS- Overrated?
- Thread starter AdmiralScreed
- Start date
Picard broke the Prime Directive a number of times, as well as direct orders from Admirals and/or Starfleet Command. In that sense, he was as daring as Kirk.
Except for when it really counted. What Picard and Starfleet allowed to happen in Homeward was equivalent to standing around and allowing a child to get hit by a bus.
Episodes like Homeward, I, Borg and Journey's End really began to sour me on Picard and TNG.
what about "pen pals?" his stance there was pretty bad, too.
But overall, I agree with your point. It's kind of ironic that Picard has this reputation as a pompous speech-making moralist when so often he's really defending positions that make you go "wait, WHAT?"
I tend to give Picard the benefit of the doubt in Pen Pals, because at the end of the day he did the right thing.
In "Homeward" there was nothing they could've done anyways except save a small group of people, and then they'd have to locate a new world, resettle them there and make sure they didn't mess up the environment or get killed by it and leave years of observation teams to make sure their culture survived and thrived.
Once done, it would set a new precedent and in the future Starfleet would have to keep doing the same thing for all worlds in peril. Which would seriously mess up Starfleet's logistics and the Federation economy.
Once done, it would set a new precedent and in the future Starfleet would have to keep doing the same thing for all worlds in peril. Which would seriously mess up Starfleet's logistics and the Federation economy.
You need to stop with the goddamn galactic nanny state nonsense. Does it set a precedent when you save a child from getting ran down by a bus?
Sometimes you simply need to to do the right thing, simply because it's the right thing to do. Saving the Boralaans would've cost Starfleet little in the way of extra effort, especially since they had already expended resources going back and forth.
Since Starfleet is already in the business of doing duck blind missions to spy on lesser cultures, how much effort would it take to use one to continue to study the Boralaans once moved?
Bit of a difference between a kid and an entire species (or as many as can be counted).
And then what? What happens the next time, and the time after that? What makes the Boraalans so much more worthy than any others threatened if anyone objects to intervening?
I'm thinking long-term, big picture.
And just because Picard didn't mention the logistical problems, doesn't mean there wouldn't be any.
One can roughly categorize the opinions here into two camps, those who want Starfleet to be an imperial force as well as a saver of doomed humanoid species vs. those want the Federation to be a peaceful, democratic union and Starfleet to obey their rule number one.
I understand that many people don't understand the Prime Directive and follow their gut feelings but if the Prime Directive were intuitive and common-sensical it wouldn't be as great as it is.
One cannot base interspecies ethics on intraspecies ethics. OK, some species like the Borg or Klingons do it but they aren't the guys you wanna invite for tea.
In the fictional history of Trek humankind was pretty pissed off that the Vulcans did not solve all their problems, that they did not erradicate hunger and war for humankind, that they did not share warp technology. But once the first humans went into deep space they slowed began to understand the Vulcans.
If the "I think with my guts" faction still doesn't understand the Prime Directive, just think about the consequences of some benevolent aliens landing here and forcing us to mothball all our nuclear weapons in order to save us from extinction.
I understand that many people don't understand the Prime Directive and follow their gut feelings but if the Prime Directive were intuitive and common-sensical it wouldn't be as great as it is.
One cannot base interspecies ethics on intraspecies ethics. OK, some species like the Borg or Klingons do it but they aren't the guys you wanna invite for tea.
In the fictional history of Trek humankind was pretty pissed off that the Vulcans did not solve all their problems, that they did not erradicate hunger and war for humankind, that they did not share warp technology. But once the first humans went into deep space they slowed began to understand the Vulcans.
If the "I think with my guts" faction still doesn't understand the Prime Directive, just think about the consequences of some benevolent aliens landing here and forcing us to mothball all our nuclear weapons in order to save us from extinction.
This is apples and oranges comparison and I think you know it. Nuclear weapons are a human folly and something we need to learn from.
But let's take your feelings on the Prime Directive to a possible conclusion...
Would you be opposed to an alien group in, say, 1000 AD deflecting an asteroid on a collision course with Earth? We're growing and learning, yet we haven't yet master the sciences that allow us to save ourselves from an unknown threat. And what exactly do we learn if we're wiped out before ever being allowed to mature as a species?
Star Trek has done it's fair share of time travel. Say Picard finds himself facing the above scenario. Should he obstruct alien interference and allow the human race to die a fiery death simply because they hadn't grown enough to understand the universe around them?
which prime directive are you referring to? The TOS one, the TNG one, Janeway's interpretation of it?
the problem is that Trek fans take the PD WAAAAY more seriously than it deserves. It's nothing more than a plot device to create fake drama and fake dilemmas through artificial obstacles.
think of how short an episode like "homeward" is without the PD.
it's not some kind of enlightened principle, it's the Star Trek equivalent of kryptonite in the Superman comics
Once somebody presses the red button we as a species cannot learn and mature anymore either. So much about apples and oranges. Try again.
Sure we can, as a matter of fact in Star Trek we did survive World War III and we learned and matured from OUR mistakes. For someone who claims to be well versed in Trek you sure do miss alot...
Now solve Picard's ethical dilemma for him.
Then tell us about your interspecies ethics principle. I doubt you can come up with one because you are too lazy or too stupid to even think about interspecies ethics.
Oh wait, I forgot, the imperialism faction has an easy solution: everybody bow to the human will, everybody do as we say and everybody out there follow our ethics.
You know, while we may disagree, people here are talking to you like your an adult. You might want to think about sharing the courtesy.
You did obviously not understand that your evasion attempts have nothing to do with the essence of the Prime Directive and about your stupid dilemma, it is more of a temporal paradox than an actual Prime Directive problem.
Pointless to talk with you, if you don't understand why imperialism is unethical why interspecies ethics cannot be based on intraspecies ethics despite watching Trek I cannot help you.
Someone who advocates imperialism wants to lecture me about courtesy? Give me a break.
It's because you can't solve it. For all those great things the Federation stands for to happen, Picard has to turn the other way while help is given.
And if he turns the other way he is a hypocrite.
Someone who advocates imperialism wants to lecture me about courtesy? Give me a break.
So that's what you've learned from Star Trek?
That others values and views are only important if they line up with your own? That the only people who deserve courtesy are those that agree with you?
Boy, the Great Bird of 1966 or 1987 would be turning in his grave if he thought that was what people were getting out of Star Trek.
Similar threads
