Cultural study and development of the Prime Directive...

[BillJ]

And perhaps someone has a better example of intervention/involvement that was largely good or largely bad...for the sake of this discussion?

Did we go into a situation with a lesser culture with the 'best of intentions' and it go wrong? I can't think of a single time where we didn't go in with our own interests at the heart of the matter.

 

[Warped9]

And perhaps someone has a better example of intervention/involvement that was largely good or largely bad...for the sake of this discussion?

Did we go into a situation with a lesser culture with the 'best of intentions' and it go wrong? I can't think of a single time where we didn't go in with our own interests at the heart of the matter.

Does it have to be mutually exclusive? The end or overall result would be what really matters, no?

 

[sonak]

the PD developed out of the Vietnam War, and as a plot device to make resolutions of plots much more difficult.(you've got a landing party on a planet that hasn't developed phasers, you can't just beam down a security team armed with phasers, rescue the team, and go on your merry way)


Next Gen and modern Trek bastardized the PD beyond recognition to mean a ludicrously neo-isolationist policy of non-interference even in cases where common sense would favor interfering.

The world view has changed somewhat since the 60s...in the 70s there was a big movement in reaction to the "cowboy" mentality of the US for much of previous 200 years...I think there was a realization that the unhindered imperial colonization of the past was detrimental to the cultures that existed. Not much can be done about it now, but it makes sense to apply those lessons to future colonization of space. Unfortunately, TOS was a product of its time, and it still had the tendency to want police the galaxy, something the Vietnam war and other difficult to resolve "brush wars", unconventional, terrorist, ideaological wars have shown to be very difficult to solve conventionally.

Problem is..whose common sense? Common sense for us is not someone else's. There may well be totally alien world views out there, and what good is it applying our values to them? I'm afraid the idea of stopping at every world and deciding what's good FOR them is an outmoded idea already.

RAMA

All I can say is that I disagree strongly with this viewpoint. It smacks of TNG's "baby with the bathwater" approach to the issue of "cultural interference." Colonialism's legacy was much more of a mixed bag than is commonly portrayed. The PD was more of an overreaction to a caricature of Colonialism than it was a serious, mature approach to issues brought up by it.

 

[BillJ]

Problem is..whose common sense? Common sense for us is not someone else's. There may well be totally alien world views out there, and what good is it applying our values to them? I'm afraid the idea of stopping at every world and deciding what's good FOR them is an outmoded idea already.

RAMA

All I can say is that I disagree strongly with this viewpoint. It smacks of TNG's "baby with the bathwater" approach to the issue of "cultural interference." Colonialism's legacy was much more of a mixed bag than is commonly portrayed. The PD was more of an overreaction to a caricature of Colonialism than it was a serious, mature approach to issues brought up by it.

 

[Anwar]

But there should be some rules about pre-warp civilizations, though. TOS had something of an excuse of the Klingons not playing by those rules so the Feds didn't have a choice some of the time, but in situations where there is no second party already interfering?

 

[BillJ]

I think one of the most important questions about the Prime Directive is: when is interference acceptable in a non-interference directive? According to the Voyager episode Infinite Regress there are 47 sub-orders in the body of the Prime Directive.

We've watched all four series captains that were charged with obeying the Prime Directive violate the simple "don't interfere" premise to varying degrees. But all four retained their commands, which leads me to believe that there conditions where interference is acceptable. Either by the current letter of the Prime Directive or in a situation where no one envisioned the scenario facing the captain.

 

[Warped9]

I think one of the most important questions about the Prime Directive is: when is interference acceptable in a non-interference directive? According to the Voyager episode Infinite Regress there are 47 sub-orders in the body of the Prime Directive.

We've watched all four series captains that were charged with obeying the Prime Directive violate the simple "don't interfere" premise to varying degrees. But all four retained their commands, which leads me to believe that there conditions where interference is acceptable. Either by the current letter of the Prime Directive or in a situation where no one envisioned the scenario facing the captain.

I think that's a reasonable view otherwise the only way to eliminate all chance of potential interference is simply to avoid all possible contact.

And in that light it could well mean that anything other than remote survey or study (such as from orbit) would be prohibited. No landing parties (or away teams) could be permitted on the ground because there's too much potential for something to go awry.

 

[sonak]

But there should be some rules about pre-warp civilizations, though. TOS had something of an excuse of the Klingons not playing by those rules so the Feds didn't have a choice some of the time, but in situations where there is no second party already interfering?

that's another point against a rigid PD-The UFP isn't the only major power in the Quadrant. Since none of the other powers apparently have an equivalent to the PD, how much sense does it make for the Federation to tie itself into knots over a guideline that's ignored and undermined by EVERY OTHER POWER?

Much like unilateral disarmament, it's not a very smart policy.

 

[RAMA]

the PD developed out of the Vietnam War, and as a plot device to make resolutions of plots much more difficult.(you've got a landing party on a planet that hasn't developed phasers, you can't just beam down a security team armed with phasers, rescue the team, and go on your merry way)


Next Gen and modern Trek bastardized the PD beyond recognition to mean a ludicrously neo-isolationist policy of non-interference even in cases where common sense would favor interfering.

The world view has changed somewhat since the 60s...in the 70s there was a big movement in reaction to the "cowboy" mentality of the US for much of previous 200 years...I think there was a realization that the unhindered imperial colonization of the past was detrimental to the cultures that existed. Not much can be done about it now, but it makes sense to apply those lessons to future colonization of space. Unfortunately, TOS was a product of its time, and it still had the tendency to want police the galaxy, something the Vietnam war and other difficult to resolve "brush wars", unconventional, terrorist, ideaological wars have shown to be very difficult to solve conventionally.

Problem is..whose common sense? Common sense for us is not someone else's. There may well be totally alien world views out there, and what good is it applying our values to them? I'm afraid the idea of stopping at every world and deciding what's good FOR them is an outmoded idea already.

RAMA

All I can say is that I disagree strongly with this viewpoint. It smacks of TNG's "baby with the bathwater" approach to the issue of "cultural interference." Colonialism's legacy was much more of a mixed bag than is commonly portrayed. The PD was more of an overreaction to a caricature of Colonialism than it was a serious, mature approach to issues brought up by it.

Define overreaction? You mean the fact the every primitive culture on Earth that has been in contact with a more advanced one has suffered in some way? Its not just colonialism, but that's a big part of it. I think if you are an exo-anthropologist, the meaning and origin of the PD would be as plain as the nose on your face. Carl Sagan was already postulating such a rule/guide would be needed if we are to go into space. STNG takes it one step further, creating a demarcation line for who can be contacted, this seems sensible. Its also interesting when other cultures have such laws, the Organians for example have a totally different line. I think any thoughtful race that ventures into space will have to deal with this problem and tread carefully. 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.

RAMA

 

[BillJ]

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.

 

[Anwar]

But there should be some rules about pre-warp civilizations, though. TOS had something of an excuse of the Klingons not playing by those rules so the Feds didn't have a choice some of the time, but in situations where there is no second party already interfering?

that's another point against a rigid PD-The UFP isn't the only major power in the Quadrant. Since none of the other powers apparently have an equivalent to the PD, how much sense does it make for the Federation to tie itself into knots over a guideline that's ignored and undermined by EVERY OTHER POWER?

Much like unilateral disarmament, it's not a very smart policy.

So what should they do, go around handing out warp cores to cavemen?

 

[sonak]

The world view has changed somewhat since the 60s...in the 70s there was a big movement in reaction to the "cowboy" mentality of the US for much of previous 200 years...I think there was a realization that the unhindered imperial colonization of the past was detrimental to the cultures that existed. Not much can be done about it now, but it makes sense to apply those lessons to future colonization of space. Unfortunately, TOS was a product of its time, and it still had the tendency to want police the galaxy, something the Vietnam war and other difficult to resolve "brush wars", unconventional, terrorist, ideaological wars have shown to be very difficult to solve conventionally.

Problem is..whose common sense? Common sense for us is not someone else's. There may well be totally alien world views out there, and what good is it applying our values to them? I'm afraid the idea of stopping at every world and deciding what's good FOR them is an outmoded idea already.

RAMA

All I can say is that I disagree strongly with this viewpoint. It smacks of TNG's "baby with the bathwater" approach to the issue of "cultural interference." Colonialism's legacy was much more of a mixed bag than is commonly portrayed. The PD was more of an overreaction to a caricature of Colonialism than it was a serious, mature approach to issues brought up by it.

Define overreaction? You mean the fact the every primitive culture on Earth that has been in contact with a more advanced one has suffered in some way? Its not just colonialism, but that's a big part of it. I think if you are an exo-anthropologist, the meaning and origin of the PD would be as plain as the nose on your face. Carl Sagan was already postulating such a rule/guide would be needed if we are to go into space. STNG takes it one step further, creating a demarcation line for who can be contacted, this seems sensible. Its also interesting when other cultures have such laws, the Organians for example have a totally different line. I think any thoughtful race that ventures into space will have to deal with this problem and tread carefully. 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.

RAMA

what does "unilateral contact/expansionism" even mean? Why are you conflating attempts at peaceful contact with "expansionism?"(I assume you mean a negative military/imperial expansionism, rather than an increase in the membership of something like the UFP) By TNG, the "heroic" Federation was letting natural disasters devastate civilizations rather than help them, out of some ludicrous notion that theoretical cultural contamination was WORSE than outright physical devastation. THAT is the kind of overreaction I was referring to.

I question your premise that any contact between "more advanced" or "less advanced"(by whose standards?) cultures would mean disaster. Plus, if this were true, it would mean NO CONTACT between planetary civilizations at all!


think about it. It's next to impossible that two civilizations on two random planets would be at the exact same level of technological development. So there's bound to be inequalities between them. In your view, instead of "seeking out new civilizations," they should be actively HIDING from them and avoiding contact, so that vague, theoretical harm may be averted.

 

[sonak]

But there should be some rules about pre-warp civilizations, though. TOS had something of an excuse of the Klingons not playing by those rules so the Feds didn't have a choice some of the time, but in situations where there is no second party already interfering?

that's another point against a rigid PD-The UFP isn't the only major power in the Quadrant. Since none of the other powers apparently have an equivalent to the PD, how much sense does it make for the Federation to tie itself into knots over a guideline that's ignored and undermined by EVERY OTHER POWER?

Much like unilateral disarmament, it's not a very smart policy.

So what should they do, go around handing out warp cores to cavemen?

sigh. You know, there is such a thing as using common sense and pragmatism as a guide. I think the decision regarding contact would be better served with flexible guidelines and a case-by-case mentality rather than an arbitrarily rigid standard.

 

[BillJ]

So what should they do, go around handing out warp cores to cavemen?

I love when Anwar takes it to the looney extreme.

But if you see an asteroid getting ready to hit their planet you can nudge it out of the way if possible.

 

[BillJ]

that's another point against a rigid PD-The UFP isn't the only major power in the Quadrant. Since none of the other powers apparently have an equivalent to the PD, how much sense does it make for the Federation to tie itself into knots over a guideline that's ignored and undermined by EVERY OTHER POWER?

Much like unilateral disarmament, it's not a very smart policy.

So what should they do, go around handing out warp cores to cavemen?

sigh. You know, there is such a thing as using common sense and pragmatism as a guide. I think the decision regarding contact would be better served with flexible guidelines and a case-by-case mentality rather than an arbitrarily rigid standard.

Common sense has no place in a discussion about the Prime Directive.

 

[sonak]

So what should they do, go around handing out warp cores to cavemen?

I love when Anwar takes it to the looney extreme.

But if you see an asteroid getting ready to hit their planet you can nudge it out of the way if possible.

yeah, that's the TOS mentality, and the correct one.


The TNG mentality was "it was nature's plan" for the asteroid to hit.

 

[T'Girl]

Define overreaction? You mean the fact the every primitive culture on Earth that has been in contact with a more advanced one has suffered in some way?

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.

 

[Anwar]

So what should they do, go around handing out warp cores to cavemen?

I love when Anwar takes it to the looney extreme.

But if you see an asteroid getting ready to hit their planet you can nudge it out of the way if possible.

yeah, that's the TOS mentality, and the correct one.


The TNG mentality was "it was nature's plan" for the asteroid to hit.

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

 

[BillJ]

I love when Anwar takes it to the looney extreme.

But if you see an asteroid getting ready to hit their planet you can nudge it out of the way if possible.

yeah, that's the TOS mentality, and the correct one.


The TNG mentality was "it was nature's plan" for the asteroid to hit.

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

What if a group of aliens weren't monitoring the events on Earth in 1968 and we went on to destroy ourselves because our technology outpaced our common-sense (Assignment: Earth)?

Not even Roddenberry (1960's version), like most of us, was sure which way was the correct way.

Once again, a rule that doesn't take compassion and common-sense into account isn't worth having.

 

[sonak]

yeah, that's the TOS mentality, and the correct one.


The TNG mentality was "it was nature's plan" for the asteroid to hit.

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

What if a group of aliens weren't monitoring the events on Earth in 1968 and we went on to destroy ourselves because our technology outpaced our common-sense (Assignment: Earth)?

Not even Roddenberry (1960's version), like most of us, was sure which way was the correct way.

Once again, a rule that doesn't take compassion and common-sense into account isn't worth having.

Loved that last line. It sums up what I'm trying to say: rules are in place to further the interests and progress of people. If they're not doing that, there's no point in following a rule simply because it's a rule.


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

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