Is the Prime Directive a bad idea, even in concept?

[Sci]

Indeed, there is big difference between studying an alien civilization via duck-blind missions and spying on them in order to gain military intelligence.

There's a clear difference of intent, but that doesn't mean the actions are any different. Nor does it mean the subjects of such surveillance would perceive any such distinction if the surveillance were to be uncovered, because, really, how the hell do they know what the Federation intends to do with the information it gathers?

As for the idea that "we" (which I presume means, white folks) have destroyed every less-advanced civilization we've encountered:

Well, no. Just a majority of them. But apart from the spread of horrific depopulating diseases as an inadvertent result of contact with European diseases, Europeans didn't destroy those civilizations by accident. European cultures set upon the world with a deliberate imperialistic intent. The English decided to wipe out the nations of Central North America. The Spanish set out to conquer and enslave the natives of South America. The French and the Germans and the British all set out to conquer and oppress India and Africa. These were deliberate choices.

By contrast, Europe itself had been a backwater peninsula that was hopelessly behind the technological developments of the Islamic world and of Asia for many centuries when its contacts with those cultures led to European nations acquiring their technologies. Europeans were then able to build upon those technologies and then launch their own empires. So for Europe's case, contact with more technologically advanced cultures was beneficial.

So it really all depends on your intent. Contact with a less technologically advanced species won't automatically lead to oppression -- if you're careful not to be doing any oppressing. If the Prime Directive has a purpose, then, it's essentially about saying, "Listen, we ourselves are not morally advanced enough yet as a culture to be trustworthy in making contact with less technologically advanced cultures without dominating and oppressing them. This isn't about them being inferior to us, this is about us not being mature enough yet."

 

[Vanyel]

There is also the possibility that, like the Klingons and the Humans in Voyager's The 37's, that the contacted race might learn a little too much from the Federation and be able to over throw it and possibly become a race bent on conquest.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

Heh, if the 19th century British had been believers in a ST style prime directive, widows would still be getting burned alive in India.

In the middle ages, they burned witches in Europe. What changed that?

Our ancestors changed that - they figured out it is morally wrong and stopped it. And then they spread this new knowledge to other cultures, which would have needed a LOT more time to discover this knowledge on their own (if they ever did).

It's a VERY arrogant presumption that our influence alone changed some things for the better in other cultures. It could have changed without any outside influence.

About the british in India - and a LOT of other cases - they're not assumptions, they're historical facts. Feel free to look them up.


The "other cultures" would have changed on their own?
Many cultures were spared centuries/millenia of poverty/oppression/ignorance, frog-leapped in decades over such misery due to the 'intervention' from other cultures.

The negative influence is far greater than the positive influence.

Not really. Especially when the intent is to help, as opposed to destroying the other cultures.

 

[Captain Rob]

Reading all of this makes me wish that someday soon some idiotic spacetraders like the Pakleds, might show up and trade spacefaring technology with us. All for the price of a couple of truckloads of beer and the recipe for Hooters buffalo wings.

 

[JarodRussell]

Many cultures were spared centuries/millenia of poverty/oppression/ignorance, frog-leapped in decades over such misery due to the 'intervention' from other cultures

And exactly that is one of the big problems.

 

[MacLeod]

Indeed, there is big difference between studying an alien civilization via duck-blind missions and spying on them in order to gain military intelligence.

As for the idea that "we" (which I presume means, white folks) have destroyed every less-advanced civilization we've encountered:

Well, no. Just a majority of them. But apart from the spread of horrific depopulating diseases as an inadvertent result of contact with European diseases, Europeans didn't destroy those civilizations by accident. European cultures set upon the world with a deliberate imperialistic intent. The English decided to wipe out the nations of Central North America. The Spanish set out to conquer and enslave the natives of South America. The French and the Germans and the British all set out to conquer and oppress India and Africa. These were deliberate choices.

Please European nations aren't alone in this, what about the American westward expansion that affected the native population?

Or was that not imperialism?

 

[sonak]

Heh, if the 19th century British had been believers in a ST style prime directive, widows would still be getting burned alive in India.

In the middle ages, they burned witches in Europe. What changed that?

It's a VERY arrogant presumption that our influence alone changed some things for the better in other cultures. It could have changed without any outside influence.


The negative influence is far greater than the positive influence.

Anij's accusation the Federation would "spy" on other cultures was also hilarious. It's not spying, stupid, it's studying your culture without ANY interference so that you can move on, without outside influence.

er, why is that "hilarious?"

Usually, we consider that if a person or group is watching us for long periods of time, recording data on us, observing our movements, etc. without our being aware of it, that would indeed be "spying." So Anij was basically right, even if you prefer a euphemism.

Spying is the acquisition of data for a harmful goal, to get an advantage over the other. The Federation is only curious about other cultures, but means no harm to them (the Insurrection incident being the exception).

Negative. A man spying on a woman in the shower may only be doing it to see her naked and to ... well, insert your own euphemism for a certain activity.

He may mean her no harm, and if she doesn't discover it, there's not even any psychological harm to her either.


So... he's not spying on her, according to you?

 

[Mage]

Anij's accusation the Federation would "spy" on other cultures was also hilarious. It's not spying, stupid, it's studying your culture without ANY interference so that you can move on, without outside influence.

That's how the Federation views it. The studied however, might think differently. Basicly, the Federation desided to study a species, without caring how THEY might feel about it. Kinda messed up really, when you think about.

 

[Sci]

Indeed, there is big difference between studying an alien civilization via duck-blind missions and spying on them in order to gain military intelligence.

As for the idea that "we" (which I presume means, white folks) have destroyed every less-advanced civilization we've encountered:

Well, no. Just a majority of them. But apart from the spread of horrific depopulating diseases as an inadvertent result of contact with European diseases, Europeans didn't destroy those civilizations by accident. European cultures set upon the world with a deliberate imperialistic intent. The English decided to wipe out the nations of Central North America. The Spanish set out to conquer and enslave the natives of South America. The French and the Germans and the British all set out to conquer and oppress India and Africa. These were deliberate choices.

Please European nations aren't alone in this, what about the American westward expansion that affected the native population?

Or was that not imperialism?

Of course it was! I wasn't trying to imply that Americans are innocent -- if anything, I was assuming the reader would understand that I was including Americans and their imperialist policies in with the list. Indian Removal and the American conquest of Central North America was in essence a continuation of English policies towards the Native American nations.

 

[Gary7]

Context is most important here. Talking about how various nations on Earth have in a sense violated the prime directive in their meddling with nations possessing lesser tech is not relevant to Star Trek. Why? Because it's a very different time frame in social development (UN versus UFP) and a vastly different scope--nation to nation versus world to world.

There is a very fine line with the Prime Directive, whereas circumstantial influences will weigh heavily upon whether a captain will abide by the PD or take liberties around it. Picard violated it nine times, with documented decisions as to why he considered this the prudent choice.

So, why doesn't the PD have some additional clauses to deal with more common reasons to side step it? Because the more complicated the laws, the more difficult it is to understand and follow them. One would think that by the 24th century, human nature has evolved a bit more whereas most people aren't inherently greedy and have a genuine interest in doing the right thing over personal gain or satisfaction. But we still saw examples of some people who have gone astray, even at higher levels of Starfleet authority. Perhaps they are few and far between. In any case, provisions must be made to help keep temptation at bay.


The only real dangling question that is difficult to resolve is this issue with a pre-warp culture facing extinction by either natural or artificially induced means, and if a Starfleet vessel should intervene to save the people. The conservative minded approach to say "no", and let "nature" take it's course is questionable. Starfleet will rapidly deploy to save any member planets of the Federation from severe trouble, but is supposed to sit idly by as a pre-warp civilization faces its doom *if* the rescue cannot be done without exposing Federation involvement. I can't remember where I'd heard it... but I'm pretty sure that somewhere in Star Trek it has been said that all life is valuable. Isn't it better to have a species survive with a little confusion about what saved them versus dying off completely?

As I see it, the Prime Directive is meant to help prevent the Federation from exploiting and assuming casual control over lesser cultures, in addition to causing disruptive changes to the course of their development. But I think a clause to deal with catastrophes is necessary, that a world in need of help to stave off extinction or mass destruction should be helped, with the express intent to keep the benefaction from the Federation as hidden as possible. If exposed without just cause or excuse, then there would be punitive ramifications.

 

[horatio83]

Anij's accusation the Federation would "spy" on other cultures was also hilarious. It's not spying, stupid, it's studying your culture without ANY interference so that you can move on, without outside influence.

That's how the Federation views it. The studied however, might think differently. Basicly, the Federation desided to study a species, without caring how THEY might feel about it. Kinda messed up really, when you think about.

Duck-blind missions are the safest way to gain information about a pre-warp civilization. Direct interaction is far more dangerous so the only other option is to study them from orbit or not at all.

 

[sonak]

Anij's accusation the Federation would "spy" on other cultures was also hilarious. It's not spying, stupid, it's studying your culture without ANY interference so that you can move on, without outside influence.

That's how the Federation views it. The studied however, might think differently. Basicly, the Federation desided to study a species, without caring how THEY might feel about it. Kinda messed up really, when you think about.

Duck-blind missions are the safest way to gain information about a pre-warp civilization. Direct interaction is far more dangerous so the only other option is to study them from orbit or not at all.

that may very well be. It's still spying, by any reasonable understanding of the word. They are secretly gathering info on day-to-day activities, watching them as they conduct their affairs, etc. In other words, "spying."

 

[Gary7]

that may very well be. It's still spying, by any reasonable understanding of the word. They are secretly gathering info on day-to-day activities, watching them as they conduct their affairs, etc. In other words, "spying."

"Spying" and "observing" are related in practice but with different intentions.

Spying - to watch secretly for hostile purposes.
Observing - to watch carefully, especially with attention to details or behavior for the purpose of arriving at a judgment.


The Duck Blind mission is intended to collect information for academic purposes, not with the intent to subvert or gain advantage over the subject being watched. Thus, I think it more appropriate to say the activity is observing, not spying.

 

[horatio83]

that may very well be. It's still spying, by any reasonable understanding of the word. They are secretly gathering info on day-to-day activities, watching them as they conduct their affairs, etc. In other words, "spying."

Not really. As Jarod and Gary have already pointed out, spying implies hostile intentions or an abuse of the information you gather.
Obviously the Feds do not have either in mind. By your wrong application of the term a mere sensor sweep of a planet would constitute an act of spying. Stay at home or be a spy.

Obviously such an inflationary misuse of a word would undo its very meaning.

To spy on strange on world, to spy on new world and new civilizations, to boldly spy where no man has gone before.

 

[Sci]

that may very well be. It's still spying, by any reasonable understanding of the word. They are secretly gathering info on day-to-day activities, watching them as they conduct their affairs, etc. In other words, "spying."

"Spying" and "observing" are related in practice but with different intentions.

Spying - to watch secretly for hostile purposes.
Observing - to watch carefully, especially with attention to details or behavior for the purpose of arriving at a judgment.


The Duck Blind mission is intended to collect information for academic purposes, not with the intent to subvert or gain advantage over the subject being watched. Thus, I think it more appropriate to say the activity is observing, not spying.

Which is all well and good, but why should the people being surveilled trust the Federation to have non-hostile purposes in its surveillance?

 

[horatio83]

That's indeed the main problem. When objectively harmless observation missions became known in Who Watches The Watchers or The Communicator it ended in a serious mess. Just more reason to stick to the PD and be extremely cautious, establish safety nets and so on when observing another culture not merely out of orbit.

 

[CoveTom]

Not really. As Jarod and Gary have already pointed out, spying implies hostile intentions or an abuse of the information you gather.

Not really, no. Dictionary.com gives one definition of spying as "to observe secretly or furtively with hostile intent" but another, equally valid, definition as simply "to search for or examine something closely or carefully".

Merriam Webster offers a definition of "to observe or search for something".

The term "spying" does not necessarily imply hostile intent.

 

[Count Zero]

Well, the example originally brought up in relation to the observing/spying thing was the Federation mission to the Baku homeworld. And in that case, the Federation did have hostile purposes. So Anij was instinctively right to call it spying.

 

[Sci]

Then there's also the fact that even if surveillance is undertaken without current hostile intent, information gathered from such missions can be used later with hostile intent.

Let's put it another way:

I don't think any reasonable person would argue that the State of Israel has any hostile intent towards the United States, but that doesn't mean that Jonathan Pollard and Ban-ami Kadish were not spies.

 

[sonak]

that may very well be. It's still spying, by any reasonable understanding of the word. They are secretly gathering info on day-to-day activities, watching them as they conduct their affairs, etc. In other words, "spying."

Not really. As Jarod and Gary have already pointed out, spying implies hostile intentions or an abuse of the information you gather.
Obviously the Feds do not have either in mind. By your wrong application of the term a mere sensor sweep of a planet would constitute an act of spying. Stay at home or be a spy.

Obviously such an inflationary misuse of a word would undo its very meaning.

To spy on strange on world, to spy on new world and new civilizations, to boldly spy where no man has gone before.

As others have pointed out, the definition you have chosen to prefer is too narrow. Further, there is a huge difference between casual sensor sweeps, and up-close secret observation of day to day life. Finally, as the argument began about the Baku, the UFP DID plan to remove them so spying would STILL be the correct term for what they were doing.


And as I wrote before, your definition would literally mean that a "peeping tom" is NOT spying, as he (1) means no harm, and (2) is gathering information.(what the woman looks like nude). The only harm is her loss of privacy, which she might not find out about.

Ergo, peeping toms are not spying. Nor are any voyeurs as long as they don't plan on making their pictures/videos public.


That's why I prefer my definition. Yours leads to absurd implications.