Are the Prime Directive/G.O. 1/Temporal Accords meant to last?

[NewHeavensNewEarth]

From a writing perspective, Star Trek is the result of late 20th century thinking & philosophy (which has mostly carried into the early 21st). We have the embodiment of some of those philosophies enshrined in Star Trek rules called The Prime Directive / General Order One and the Temporal Accords.

In the past 50 years, Western thought has changed its mind about how it should interact with cultures that haven't had exposure to "the outside world" before. Previously it was all about imperialism - with disastrous & horrific results. Now it's all about leaving them completely alone and untouched. Are things now at a balance, or is the pendulum swinging from one extreme to another extreme?

Since Western thought has only embraced the current philosophy for 50 years or so (out of all human history), would we expect the Star Trek universe to uphold the Prime Directive and Temporal Accords forever? The evolution of thought on these matters is constantly changing, and it would seem likely that some changes might occur over the ST centuries, too.

Within ST lore, it's a little hypocritical to sign on to the Temporal Accords, given that humanity had benefited so much from temporal incursions. According to VOY ("Future's End"), the whole microchip/tech revolution of the 20th century was the result of a crashed time ship. Did Temporal Agents go back to correct that? No. Also in VOY, Q/Quinn spelled out several ways that he had intervened in human history over the course of centuries. Picard saved all of humanity through time travel in "All Good Things." And what about those nice whales in "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home"?

Is there some middle ground that learns from the previous mistakes of "sins of commission" while not making new mistakes through "sins of omission"? Genocide by action is the darkest of evils. What about genocide/extinction as a result of inaction? Having mentioned Voyager a couple of times, it's fitting to also mention that Robert Beltran, who played Commander Chakotay on VOY, called the Prime Directive "fascist crap." There are lots of wrong ways to do it, but is there a way that avoids the pendulum's extremes?

 

[Herbert]

A conscious decision to not interfere in the cultural development of other cultures is "fascist crap?" Okay, Robert, okay Why don't you continue to complain about Star Trek while still reaping the benefits from it.
What was that line by Picard (I think it was him) who said that whenever cultures were interfered with it invariably led to disaster. One only needs to look at the history of Colonialism to see what harm can be done.

 

[NewHeavensNewEarth]

A conscious decision to not interfere in the cultural development of other cultures is "fascist crap?" Okay, Robert, okay Why don't you continue to complain about Star Trek while still reaping the benefits from it.
What was that line by Picard (I think it was him) who said that whenever cultures were invariably led to disaster. One only needs to look at the history of Colonialism to see what harm can be done.

Right, and that's why I cite colonialism as what NOT to do. But in seeking a different approach, a hello is not the same as conquest. Assistance like what we saw at the start of "Into Darkness" is not the same as imperialism. In that example from "Into Darkness," inaction would've led to extinction. Is extinction preferable over intervention? In practice, we all know the lines get blurred very quickly for gain and self-interest when intervention is used. But in believing that extinction-by-inaction is not a positive outcome, perhaps a better way can be sought.

 

[suarezguy]

Is there some middle ground that learns from the previous mistakes of "sins of commission" while not making new mistakes through "sins of omission"?

Given that any group can't and won't act everywhere, it's pretty likely that the group will instead actually only intervene in selective cases, cases where they are acting as much or more for their own benefit at the expense of the people they are supposedly helping; that the other group could go extinct without intervention can be a pretext for far too much, including conquering and subduing a society so it doesn't suffer prolonged civil war.

There can even be situations where a more advanced society does give both substantial help and substantial harm to the less-advanced one and while the benefits shouldn't just be completely ignored it would be callous to try to say that the benefits just outweigh the harms.

Power does tend to corrupt so avoiding power imbalances in interactions between societies seems a good idea. As for assistance like in ID, it seems like captains have some leeway to give some assistance (though how much and when is controversial), they should just strive to do so without revealing their existence (and if they fail in that they will face some consequences and their decision to intervene in general will face more controversy and scrutiny).

 

[Herbert]

Right, and that's why I cite colonialism as what NOT to do. But in seeking a different approach, a hello is not the same as conquest. Assistance like what we saw at the start of "Into Darkness" is not the same as imperialism. In that example from "Into Darkness," inaction would've led to extinction. Is extinction preferable over intervention? In practice, we all know the lines get blurred very quickly for gain and self-interest when intervention is used. But in believing that extinction-by-inaction is not a positive outcome, perhaps a better way can be sought.

Just saying hello can be dangerous as well. I'll cite the TNG episode, First Contact as evidence of that. There are other episodes that illustrate the dangers of contact. Who Watches the Watchers, That one with Paul Sorvino as Worf's brother and then also Data with Sarjenka. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

As far as extinction is concerned, what if that's nature's plan, god's plan, the cosmic plan, fate, etc. What right would we have to interfere with that and if we did prevent an extinction what would be the ramifications of that? It's good to prevent the extinction of a species right? But what if that species evolves into the Borg? Perhaps it's better to leave well enough alone.

In Return of the Archons, Kirk "helps" by destroying Landru. Was that a good thing? Ultimately, I don't know. I have no idea what that society would look like in a few decades as a result of that. What about A Private Little War? What about Admiral Jameson in Too Short A Season?

It's stuff like this that makes Prime Directive talk so sticky.

 

[NewHeavensNewEarth]

Given that any group can't and won't act everywhere, it's pretty likely that the group will instead actually only intervene in selective cases, cases where they are acting as much or more for their own benefit at the expense of the people they are supposedly helping; that the other group could go extinct without intervention can be a pretext for far too much, including conquering and subduing a society so it doesn't suffer prolonged civil war.

There can even be situations where a more advanced society does give both substantial help and substantial harm to the less-advanced one and while the benefits shouldn't just be completely ignored it would be callous to try to say that the benefits just outweigh the harms.

Power does tend to corrupt so avoiding power imbalances in interactions between societies seems a good idea. As for assistance like in ID, it seems like captains have some leeway to give some assistance (though how much and when is controversial), they should just strive to do so without revealing their existence (and if they fail in that they will face some consequences and their decision to intervene in general will face more controversy and scrutiny).

I think, though, a lot of people see going from "hello" to conquest is like one step - going from A to B. But it's more like going from A to J. In between, there can be all kinds of oversight, checks, balances and so on which would make ill intentions less able to infiltrate the good that's happening.

"Callous" is a potent word, and I guess my question is whether it's more callous to accomplish good at some risk, versus doing no good and allowing for extermination of a species. We usually picture ourselves as the species that's looking on, but if Earth were going to be destroyed and there were a bunch of folks who could help out, I'd prefer that they help us out rather than stand on the sidelines. To me, cold inaction is what's callous - and an odd contradiction of being unprincipled in order to uphold a made-up principle.

In "Into Darkness," there was no leeway. Both Spock and Kirk were reprimanded for breaking the Prime Directive. But as discussed with Temporal Accords, Earth had already been the beneficiary of alien intervention over & over again which saved countless lives throughout the centuries, and it's a little ironic that the same human-led club would be so callous towards allowing other species the same benefit that Earth received. If we put ourselves on that side of the scenario, it becomes a little harder to justify extinction.