Re: Do you think the Feds save endangered planets with no sentient ra
There's nothing Picard could have done in "Homeward." By the time they arrived the planet was already dying and the entire atmosphere up and disappeared within hours.
I agree there was nothing that Picard could have done. Where my dislike comes in is how cold he is to the whole situation, just babbling on about the Prime Directive.
Like Pulaski says in "Pen Pals", it seems "very callous and even a little cowardly" to just go on with "abstract intellectualizing" the way Picard does.
This 24th Century Prime Directive is, indeed, exceedingly inhumane. But the only way to present it differently is to pretend a number of episodes/movie doesn't exist.
Picard's interpretation of the Prime Directive is what we're presented with. We don't see any other captain's interpretation, because those are apparently the only two episodes in 24th century Trek that deal with natural disasters and the PD, according to
Memory-Alpha. If I am incorrect and forgetting more episodes, please feel free to embarrass me.
In 'Homeward' and 'Pen pals' part of the Prime Directive is expressed as "it's better to let the sapient species die rather than them coming to know we exist, culturally contaminating them".
In 'Pen pals', it was lucky that Data unkowingly make contact. And that the species could be saved without further contact.
In scene 24 of the "Pen Pals"
script, there are different interpretations of the Prime Directive, which would not be the case if it plainly stated that extinction-level natural disasters cannot be interfered with.
For letting them all die: Picard, Riker, Worf
For saving them all: Data, Pulaski, LaForge, Troi
The Prime Directive appears to be a general non-interference directive (same in both the 23rd and 24th centuries), and Picard takes the opportunity to conflate war and oppressive governments with natural disasters in order to support his viewpoint.
In 'Homeward' Picard didn't even try to beam as many thousands of sapients on his ship as he could. He didn't even try to beam up one - despite having nothing better to do. No one in the 'enlightened' crew commented in the least the decision.
For letting them all die: Picard, Riker, Worf, Troi (traitor!)
For saving who they can: Nikolai, Crusher
Notice that Data and LaForge weren't invited this time.
Dr. Crusher states that the Enterprise crew is
interfering either way. "If we take no action, it's a conscious decision to let the Boraalans die."
As for "enlightened" (another Picard-ism, by the way), I think that Lily in STFC shot that idea out of the sky.
Most damning for any attempted alternate explanation is all the theorizing about the Prime Directive in those episodes - by Picard&crew - making their view-point clear.
See the episodes; then let me know if you can find a chink in all their redundant posturing.
This isn't an alternate explanation. Picard has surrounded himself with mostly like-minded individuals. There's nothing to indicate that the Prime Directive has changed, only the crew that we're following on TV.
Final Tally:
-For letting species die from natural disasters: Picard, Riker, Worf
-Depends on how much chocolate she had before the meeting: Troi
-For saving species from extinction from natural disasters: Data, Pulaski, Crusher, LaForge (bonus: Nikolai)
In STID, Spock was shocked that Kirk saved him by breaking the Prime Directive (letting the natives see the enterprise). Apparently, rather than letting natives see you, you should let them die - and sacrifice members of your crew, as well.
Spock agreed with saving them. It was his device, after all, and he jumped into the volcano. He was willing to die to prevent contamination, but it was his choice. (Kirk just overruled it.)
The scenarists went further down this path in quite a few episodes - such as Ent 'The Communicator', 'Dear doctor', in a few Voy episodes, etc.
In "The Communicator", it was more of a misunderstanding by the aliens, and Archer and Reed refusing to give any information to their captors.
In "Dear Doctor", Archer gives the planet's inhabitants medicine but refuses to give them warp drive technology, which seems fine.
As for the 'reasons' for the 24th century Prime Directive:
Apparently, cultural 'contamination' is irredeemably evil; it's better to sacrifice the natives or yourself, letting the natives remain 'clean', 'uncontaminated'.*
If contact was made without you being at fault - or the species was 'ready' for contact - apparently, disturbing the 'natural' evolution of a species is irredeemably evil.**
Another argument presented for the 24th century Prime Directive is a slippery slope fallacy.
*this is a joke, sociologically speaking. Also, in that death is better than 'contamination'.
**this is a joke, badly misrepresenting darwinian evolution.
That the federation even dared to open a channel to talk - considering their fear of interference in the 'natural' evolution of someone else - is a wonder. As such, the federation's exploration spirit is blatantly contradictory with the Prime Directive.
As I stated, I think that the PD is the same as it always has been. It's how people interpret it that varies.
Cultural contamination has been shown as a bad thing since TOS. Remember the gangster planet and Nazi planet? (At least they were more interesting than the Irish planet and Scottish planet in TNG.)
Federation scientists and Starfleet do take care to not interfere when they don't have to. Exploration without causing a mess is possible.
As for the Federation contacting other worlds when they achieve warp drive and unified world governments, one viewpoint would be that the Federation believes that the world would be sufficiently developed that they would see the Federation as a union of equals rather than an alliance of superior civilizations. A more cynical viewpoint would be that a world would actually be able to contribute to the Federation only after achieving warp drive.
