Do you think the Feds save endangered planets with no sentient races?

[Dale Sams]

If an uninhabited (meaning no sentient species) class M planet is in danger of destruction from natural causes, SURELY the goody-two shoes Federation acts to prevent it don't they? I mean *right now* we bend over backwards to save endangered species. I have to believe that if a planet chock-full of unique species is going to be plastered by an asteroid, the Feds will spare the resources to save the planet, yes? And we know the Feds will help a planet that asks for help from natural causes.

SO...it's only the poor sentient bastards between monkeys and warp-capable (or those aware of space-faring races) people who are effed by the PD. Yeah, that makes sense.

 

[sonak]

Re: Do you think the Feds save endangered planets with no sentient ra

If an uninhabited (meaning no sentient species) class M planet is in danger of destruction from natural causes, SURELY the goody-two shoes Federation acts to prevent it don't they? I mean *right now* we bend over backwards to save endangered species. I have to believe that if a planet chock-full of unique species is going to be plastered by an asteroid, the Feds will spare the resources to save the planet, yes? And we know the Feds will help a planet that asks for help from natural causes.

SO...it's only the poor sentient bastards between monkeys and warp-capable (or those aware of space-faring races) people who are effed by the PD. Yeah, that makes sense.

the post-TOS PD is asinine.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Re: Do you think the Feds save endangered planets with no sentient ra

If Picard wasn't going to save the little girl from "Pen Pals" he sure as hell wouldn't lift a finger to save a load of trees or alien kittens.

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: Do you think the Feds save endangered planets with no sentient ra

Captain Kirk would not have hesitated for a second to save a planet like that if he could. And I like to think that the 24th Century folk would do the same--despite what a couple of silly TNG episodes imply. I like to think of those episodes as momentary lapses that are best ignored--kinda like Warp Ten turning you into a salamander.

 

[Silvercrest]

Re: Do you think the Feds save endangered planets with no sentient ra

Those episodes were actually some of Barclay's holodeck sessions. Treatment of the PD was given artistic license so that the player could step in and save the day.

 

[T'Girl]

Re: Do you think the Feds save endangered planets with no sentient ra

... an uninhabited (meaning no sentient species) class M planet ...

This actually might make it easier to decide to save the planet, because the prime directive would not be a factor.

It's been pointed out that class-m planet are a dime a dozen in the Star Trek universe, still if the planet might make for a good future colony, and Starfleet wasn't occupied elsewhere, AND it wouldn't take too much in terms of assets, then I could see Starfleet preserving the planet.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Re: Do you think the Feds save endangered planets with no sentient ra

If Starfleet finds a class M planet with no sentient species they colonize it.

I tend to think Starfleet saves sentient species too, only Picard flunked his Fundamentals of the Prime Directive class.

 

[Avro Arrow]

Re: Do you think the Feds save endangered planets with no sentient ra

If an uninhabited (meaning no sentient species) class M planet is in danger of destruction from natural causes, SURELY the goody-two shoes Federation acts to prevent it don't they? I mean *right now* we bend over backwards to save endangered species. I have to believe that if a planet chock-full of unique species is going to be plastered by an asteroid, the Feds will spare the resources to save the planet, yes?

I honestly don't know. As others have pointed out, the TNG-era PD is a lot stricter than the TOS-era version ever was. From their perspective, one of those non-sentient species could eventually evolve sentience, and then one of that species' members could become the next Space Hitler(TM). So, yeah, in the TNG era they could consider this "interfering in the natural development of the planet", even if there is no sentient species on said planet at the time.

 

[The Wormhole]

Re: Do you think the Feds save endangered planets with no sentient ra

Even the Abramsverse follows the TNG definition of the Prime Directive. After all, Kirk got chewed out and demoted for saving that tribe from the volcano in STID.

Yeah, I doubt it's looking too good for non-sentient races.

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: Do you think the Feds save endangered planets with no sentient ra

The new movie is ambiguous in that it's unclear if Kirk's violation is saving the planet or just letting the locals see him saving the planet or trying to cover the whole thing up afterwards. If Kirk had discreetly managed to save the natives without exposing himself or the Enterprise, I doubt that Pike would've objected too strongly. (Or at least that's my take on it.)

Me, I prefer the TOS version of the Prime Directive where you don't let killer asteroids smash into Miramanee's planet if you can help it. The whole idea that it's better to let a sentient species be wiped out than bend the Prime Directive is frankly ridiculous.

 

[RunawayStarShip]

Re: Do you think the Feds save endangered planets with no sentient ra

If an uninhabited (meaning no sentient species) class M planet is in danger of destruction from natural causes, SURELY the goody-two shoes Federation acts to prevent it don't they? I mean *right now* we bend over backwards to save endangered species. I have to believe that if a planet chock-full of unique species is going to be plastered by an asteroid, the Feds will spare the resources to save the planet, yes?

The Federation is an interplanetary union, not the Justice League.

If a starship captain sees the threat and takes no action, Starfleet isn't going to care.

At the same time, if a starship captain expends a photon torpedo or two to blow up the hypothetical asteroid, Starfleet isn't going to care.

The Enterprise-D blows up a star by accident in "Half a Life". Starfleet's response: "Meh."

Sisko and the Defiant poison the atmosphere on Solosos III to force out a Maquis colony with the ultimate intent on capturing one man in "For the Uniform". Starfleet's response: "Huh? You what?! ... Eh, whatever."

Starship captains are given a lot of leeway because Starfleet doesn't care.

I honestly don't know. As others have pointed out, the TNG-era PD is a lot stricter than the TOS-era version ever was. From their perspective, one of those non-sentient species could eventually evolve sentience, and then one of that species' members could become the next Space Hitler(TM). So, yeah, in the TNG era they could consider this "interfering in the natural development of the planet", even if there is no sentient species on said planet at the time.

Picard managed to violate it nine times in his first four years as captain of the Enterprise-D (according to "The Drumhead") and was punished by having to continue to captain the Federation flagship (which was full of children, I guess?). It's really more of a "Prime Suggestion" even in the TNG era.

It really seems that it's more of a Picard issue than a Starfleet issue.

Even the Abramsverse follows the TNG definition of the Prime Directive. After all, Kirk got chewed out and demoted for saving that tribe from the volcano in STID.

Yeah, I doubt it's looking too good for non-sentient races.

I prefer the alternative take on this: Pike was pissed that Kirk lied on his report, and on a more personal level, that Kirk didn't trust Pike enough to be truthful. The lecture about the Prime Directive was possibly just Pike being unable to pinpoint the true source of his anger.

In every other incarnation/spin-off of Star Trek, our captains and commanders violate the Prime Directive on numerous occasions. Starfleet seems to not mind too much as long as they demonstrate that they've considered the consequences of their actions.

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: Do you think the Feds save endangered planets with no sentient ra

I prefer the alternative take on this: Pike was pissed that Kirk lied on his report, and on a more personal level, that Kirk didn't trust Pike enough to be truthful. The lecture about the Prime Directive was possibly just Pike being unable to pinpoint the true source of his anger.

That sounds about right . . . .

 

[Darkwing]

Re: Do you think the Feds save endangered planets with no sentient ra

Class-M planets are pretty common. If it's a trust world set aside for a pre-space culture that will need it one day, or it has a useful resource, it might get rescued, depending on the danger - dino-killer asteroids don't end planets, just force evolution to go back to the drawing board for a few million years. Novas are kinda permanent, but also outside the scope of Starfleet to deal with.

 

[desfem79]

Re: Do you think the Feds save endangered planets with no sentient ra

Well Picard didn't fight for the rights of invertebrates, fish, birds and reptiles yet haha..

 

[desfem79]

Re: Do you think the Feds save endangered planets with no sentient ra

That said I agree with the Prime Directive to some degree. I reckon it's not the Federation's place to police the galaxy. Even still, cases should be made in humanitarian issues, like global destruction and/or catastrophe.

 

[Shawnster]

Re: Do you think the Feds save endangered planets with no sentient ra

Even the Abramsverse follows the TNG definition of the Prime Directive. After all, Kirk got chewed out and demoted for saving that tribe from the volcano in STID.

Yeah, I doubt it's looking too good for non-sentient races.

It's one thing to use your advanced starship to save primitive people. It's quite another thing to let those primitive people SEE YOUR FREAKIN ADVANCED STARSHIP.

It's like the GodEntity said in Futurama's Godfellas:

God Entity: Bender, being God isn't easy. If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope. You have to use a light touch, like a safecracker or a pickpocket.
Bender: Or a guy who burns down a bar for the insurance money.
God Entity: Yes, if you make it look like an electrical thing. When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.


God Entity: When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Re: Do you think the Feds save endangered planets with no sentient ra

That said I agree with the Prime Directive to some degree. I reckon it's not the Federation's place to police the galaxy. Even still, cases should be made in humanitarian issues, like global destruction and/or catastrophe.

Police the galaxy, no, but humanitarian and sentient rights issues stand out as the exceptions.

I think Starfleet gives captains a pass because they really agree in those particular situations with Picard's actions but can't officially sanction it even if they unofficially do. If Picard were to go down to some planet and try to sell technology or directly take a side in a civil war, he'd be stripped of his rank. The times he broke it were situationally appropriate.

And you could argue it's hypocritical that Starfleet didn't lift a finger to free Bajor then as soon as the Cardassians left on their own they showed up at their doorstep and said "Hey, wanna join our awesome galactic society?"

 

[Edit_XYZ]

Re: Do you think the Feds save endangered planets with no sentient ra

Captain Kirk would not have hesitated for a second to save a planet like that if he could. And I like to think that the 24th Century folk would do the same--despite what a couple of silly TNG episodes imply. I like to think of those episodes as momentary lapses that are best ignored--kinda like Warp Ten turning you into a salamander.

Not only implied, unfortunately.
More like explicitly and repeatedly hitting you over the head with it, sledge-hammer style. We are all familiar with episodes like 'Homeward' or 'Pen pals': the Prime Directive includes - it's better to let the sapients die rather than them coming to know you exist.

The new movie is ambiguous in that it's unclear if Kirk's violation is saving the planet or just letting the locals see him saving the planet or trying to cover the whole thing up afterwards. If Kirk had discreetly managed to save the natives without exposing himself or the Enterprise, I doubt that Pike would've objected too strongly. (Or at least that's my take on it.)

Me, I prefer the TOS version of the Prime Directive where you don't let killer asteroids smash into Miramanee's planet if you can help it. The whole idea that it's better to let a sentient species be wiped out than bend the Prime Directive is frankly ridiculous.

I didn't find the new movie ambiguous under this respect. The intent of the writers was, again: it's better to let the sapients die rather than them coming to know you exist.

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: Do you think the Feds save endangered planets with no sentient ra

That said I agree with the Prime Directive to some degree. I reckon it's not the Federation's place to police the galaxy. Even still, cases should be made in humanitarian issues, like global destruction and/or catastrophe.

As a general principle, certainly. The TOS version seemed perfectly reasonable: Starfleet personnel should not be teaching alien species how to make fire or practice democracy or whatever, and certainly there's a slippery slope if you start bending the rules too often, but this idea that any sort of cultural contamination is worse than extinction is just unthinking absolutism--and not very dramatically interesting either.

It's the judgement calls, the borderline cases, where the captain has to weigh the pros and cons of interfering, where the best story possibilities lie.

 

[RunawayStarShip]

Re: Do you think the Feds save endangered planets with no sentient ra

Police the galaxy, no, but humanitarian and sentient rights issues stand out as the exceptions.

I think Starfleet gives captains a pass because they really agree in those particular situations with Picard's actions but can't officially sanction it even if they unofficially do. If Picard were to go down to some planet and try to sell technology or directly take a side in a civil war, he'd be stripped of his rank. The times he broke it were situationally appropriate.

Agreed. That's precisely the reason why Starfleet sends starships crewed with people instead of robotic drones. The Prime Directive is just words.

And you could argue it's hypocritical that Starfleet didn't lift a finger to free Bajor then as soon as the Cardassians left on their own they showed up at their doorstep and said "Hey, wanna join our awesome galactic society?"

Not exactly. The Federation provided aid and assistance after the Cardassian withdrawal. When Bajor eventually rejected Federation membership, not much really changed. Bajor retained its sovereignty with regard to foreign policy (which proved critical when the Dominion attacked DS9), but they're essentially allies in every other sense.

Not only implied, unfortunately.

More like explicitly and repeatedly hitting you over the head with it, sledge-hammer style. We are all familiar with episodes like 'Homeward' or 'Pen pals': the Prime Directive includes - it's better to let the sapients die rather than them coming to know you exist.

That's just Picard's own asinine adherence to the "letter of the law" rather than Starfleet.

When Picard eventually did help the indigenous peoples of both worlds (although it was more thanks to Worf's brother and Data respectively), Starfleet didn't do anything to punish Picard... probably because Starfleet Command understands something called the "spirit of the law".

I didn't find the new movie ambiguous under this respect. The intent of the writers was, again: it's better to let the sapients die rather than them coming to know you exist.

Like I said earlier, Pike was just angry at Kirk not trusting him enough to tell him the truth in his report. The crap about the Prime Directive is just Pike blasting Kirk because he was pissed.

(Alternate take: Pike also has an asinine adherence to the letter of the law rather than the spirit.)

That said I agree with the Prime Directive to some degree. I reckon it's not the Federation's place to police the galaxy. Even still, cases should be made in humanitarian issues, like global destruction and/or catastrophe.

As a general principle, certainly. The TOS version seemed perfectly reasonable: Starfleet personnel should not be teaching alien species how to make fire or practice democracy or whatever, and certainly there's a slippery slope if you start bending the rules too often, but this idea that any sort of cultural contamination is worse than extinction is just unthinking absolutism--and not very dramatically interesting either.

It's the judgement calls, the borderline cases, where the captain has to weigh the pros and cons of interfering, where the best story possibilities lie.

For the most part I agree, although I prefer to believe that there's just one version of the Prime Directive, written in the same way in textbooks scattered throughout Starfleet Academy. It's how it's interpreted that is different.

"Unthinking absolutism" perfectly describes what Starfleet wants its officers to avoid. Ironically, Starfleet would have probably preferred Kirk rather than Picard despite Kirk's supposed (and unfair) reputation as a "rule-breaker".

As for the slippery slope, Starfleet Command has people too. Despite my earlier joke about Starfleet not caring, I'm pretty sure that they would act to stop anyone who might be getting carried away.