How Messed Up is the Prime Directive?
- Thread starter Tallguy
- Start date
"Don't mess with functioning cultures even if you think they're doing it wrong." Fair. Going by the Orville clip you just showed they decided to muck with this world because they felt like it. "They have to grow out of it." (With a certain degree of "if they can" thrown in.)
But Star Trek stretches that to "Global annihilation and extinction is preferable to certain or even possible cultural contamination."
There have been a couple of stories with 20th century level or better (but pre-warp) societies. First Contact. Strange New Worlds. But most of the time we're talking pre-technological. Farmers and herdsman and the like. "I saw a Great Bird in the sky and it is a sign that the harvest shall be bountiful" and so on.
Your planet is about to be destroyed and you're a bunch of farmers with temples. "They have to grow out of it. Ooh, I just realized I'm supposed to be on Risa for polo."
TOS offered the situation where "What if there is another advanced society that doesn't HAVE a such advanced notions of non-interference?" To maintain our own ideals we must leave you poor primitive sods to the tender mercies of the Klingon Empire. (I suppose the really cynical play would be to let the Klingons level them up and then once they're either space-faring or just extinct then you can engage with the Empire then.)
Also the analogies to real world global policies (then or now) is particularly reprehensible. It is the ultimate "You are not like Us. Someday you might be. But your culture must run its natural course. No, you can't come play with our toys."
BABYLON 5 touched on this, too, when the Vorlons left with the First Ones. The Vorlon homeworld was booby trapped, essentially, and no one would be allowed there until they were advanced enough.
I actually agree with this, for a very simple reason. THE ORVILLE said it best... going in with good intentions, but you still can't guarantee those people will do the right thing with what you give them.
If you aren't smart enough to come up with the technology on your own, you aren't wise enough to handle all the consequences of it.
Look at humans today. You really think that if any country or group of countries gets a big technological leap by aliens, it won't be used in a bad way on others? We aren't wise enough to handle our own advances very well, much less if it was given to us by aliens. We aren't grown up yet.
By the same token, we aren't wise enough to just hand out technology to primitive societies (or just show up, completely disrupting any beliefs or anything already in place) and know exactly what will happen.
We don't have the right to play god. Even the races in ST that have godlike powers typically don't go around messing with societies... Organians, Metrons, Thasians, Q.
And even if we did suddenly give a primitive society technological upgrades... we'd have to stick around for years, maybe decades (or even longer) to assure that they don't blow themselves up. Basically, forcing yourself to be a parent until those children grow up. And that, invariably, is a bad idea because you can't help but instill your own values, beliefs, and systems onto a world that may not fundamentally agree with much of what you teach.
And regarding those times like "Homeward"... sadly, extinction does happen to some species, whether naturally or by artificial means. (Orbital attack by another race, bombing each other out of existence, etc.)
I'm not a fan of that, but interfering causes a vast amount of problems we aren't wise enough to handle.
I actually agree with this, for a very simple reason. THE ORVILLE said it best... going in with good intentions, but you still can't guarantee those people will do the right thing with what you give them.
If you aren't smart enough to come up with the technology on your own, you aren't wise enough to handle all the consequences of it.
Look at humans today. You really think that if any country or group of countries gets a big technological leap by aliens, it won't be used in a bad way on others? We aren't wise enough to handle our own advances very well, much less if it was given to us by aliens. We aren't grown up yet.
By the same token, we aren't wise enough to just hand out technology to primitive societies (or just show up, completely disrupting any beliefs or anything already in place) and know exactly what will happen.
We don't have the right to play god. Even the races in ST that have godlike powers typically don't go around messing with societies... Organians, Metrons, Thasians, Q.
And even if we did suddenly give a primitive society technological upgrades... we'd have to stick around for years, maybe decades (or even longer) to assure that they don't blow themselves up. Basically, forcing yourself to be a parent until those children grow up. And that, invariably, is a bad idea because you can't help but instill your own values, beliefs, and systems onto a world that may not fundamentally agree with much of what you teach.
And regarding those times like "Homeward"... sadly, extinction does happen to some species, whether naturally or by artificial means. (Orbital attack by another race, bombing each other out of existence, etc.)
I'm not a fan of that, but interfering causes a vast amount of problems we aren't wise enough to handle.
The Prime Directive is one of those things that sounds really good on paper, while at times used for really off the wall thinking in Star Trek. "Pen Pals" was the first one were everyone was like, "Nope, they are fated to die." And it was a beautiful example of "One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic." They were unmoved until they heard Data's pen pal cry for help. Similarly, Paris and Janeway end up back in time on a planet that they know is about to be destroyed. Paris is aghast at Janeway's insistence that they cannot warn these people of impending doom just because they don't know what the consequences might be if they survive. Not even, "They'll know about aliens from another world, or technology they shouldn't have." Just that they couldn't warn them.
To me that's not a good directive.
To me that's not a good directive.
Last edited:
So death of an entire species is somehow the preferred option? That makes me a bit sick to my stomach and one of the reasons, as I got older, that I’ve drifted away from Star Trek.
It is really fucked up that a show that has built its reputation on humans getting better, somehow thinks that allowing entire races to die is enlightened.
Organians: Stayed out of things until we started making life difficult for THEM. The war was okay until it offended THEIR sensibilities.
Metrons: Couldn't bear the idea of TWO SHIPS shooting at each other and somehow thought it a good idea having two captains try to kill each other one on one and would then OBLITERATE the dead captain's crew.
Thasians: Immediately stepped in to save the orphaned Charles Evans. Then rushed out to bring him home when he started wreaking havoc.
Q: Q?!?
Apparently non-interference isn't a very advanced trait after all.
I mean, the whole Continuum regularly avoided contact with lessers. Those who did (Q, Quinn, Amanda Roger's parents) were considered deviants.
I've berated Homeward several times on this forum already, so I'm not going to do that again this time.
I see the Prime Directive as basically: 'well, we don't know exactly what we're doing when we mess with pre-warp cultures (or cultures unaware of the interstellar community), therefore we choose not to do so'
The Federation (read: space humanity) has been at it only for a short time after all, 200-300 years or so. Perhaps, after they've gained much more experience with how alien cultures of all kinds work, after, say, 10.000 years or so they'll have learned how to interact with such cultures without the risk of damaging them. But for now, a hands-off approach will be best.
It's telling that several of the 'more advanced' (God-like) species don't seem to have too many qualms about interacting with humans (though of course we'll never know how many of such species won't by their own version of the Prime Directive).
I see the Prime Directive as basically: 'well, we don't know exactly what we're doing when we mess with pre-warp cultures (or cultures unaware of the interstellar community), therefore we choose not to do so'
The Federation (read: space humanity) has been at it only for a short time after all, 200-300 years or so. Perhaps, after they've gained much more experience with how alien cultures of all kinds work, after, say, 10.000 years or so they'll have learned how to interact with such cultures without the risk of damaging them. But for now, a hands-off approach will be best.
It's telling that several of the 'more advanced' (God-like) species don't seem to have too many qualms about interacting with humans (though of course we'll never know how many of such species won't by their own version of the Prime Directive).
Time Lords.
I was thinking of a different universe featuring a more advanced culture than the Federation (though not a god -like species), The Culture (Ian Banks). They have thousands of years of experience, and don't hesitate to interfere on more primitive worlds when they see fit.
Probably they would see the Federation as a well-intentioned, but still immature culture that perhaps takes itself a bit too seriously when it tries to assume responsibility. They might think the Prime Directive is a good idea for the Federation, though.
Now I wonder what it would be like to have a species whose Prime Directive is that they must interfere, not just when it's for the good of all involved, but whenever, whyever, wherever, with whomever and however they feel like it. Just as long as they do.
The Metrons - the Gorn and the Enterprise were flying in their territory, and they didn't like that they were about to have a battle in their backyard. I don't know about you, but if a group of people decided to have a brawl in my yard, I'd be pissed and do what I can to get them off my property.
Thasians - they were ultimately responsible for Charlie's actions because they gave him those powers, so it was a fix that needed to happen.
Q - a vast majority of the Continuum doesn't bother with lesser beings. Quinn, de Lancie Q, etc. are rare exceptions.
Organians - again, the Federation and Klingons were about to go to war over their home planet. They had every right to stop them on their own territory.
And by the way, those beings weren't messing with entire societies, they were interfering with individuals/small groups. (With the exception of the Organians.)
Last edited:
TNG's "Homeward" is usually the example people use for criticizing the Prime Directive. It's a natural disaster and people feel the Federation should make an exception to save the Boraalans.
If people feel that's "messed up" and wrong, I'm just curious to what ends people think the Federation should go to "save" a species? Do people feel the Federation is responsible for every species it comes in contact with? That's in some ways a scarier concept than non-interference. Because if we go with the idea that the Federation should intervene whenever they feel a species is under threat, where would that end?
Climate change on Earth, here in the present day, is predicted to have effects on our way of life that range from massive to apocalyptic. Would people subscribe to aliens coming down and imposing a solution in order to "save" us? Do people really think that if some aliens in a spaceship should be passing through our solar system, and saw our world, that they should have agency to choose what's best for us?
Yeah, I feel like the PD makes some degree of sense as a concept, but it's one of those ideas that often hasn't been applied in a logical manner. Particularly during the first couple seasons of TNG, when Gene's "utopian" humanity was supposed to flawless and not dramatically interesting.
I caught the end of "Pen Pals" the other day, and while I do like aspects of the story, I feel like the execution suffers because of the PD related elements. The ending has not aged well at all, since it seems unfair for Sarjenka's memories of Data to be conveniently erased, and this solution seems to nullify some of the big PD debate.That being said, I do think there are relevant concerns over Data's well-intended contact. What if Sarjenka's family, and then her community, had learned about her conversations with him? What if Picard now had a large group of her people demanding the Enterprise give them safe passage off their planet, even if it wasn't practical in a short time span? There are some legitimate problems that can arise from Data's actions, before considering the cultural ramifications.
The FASA RPG has the first major PD violation by Starfleet being a captain who came across a planet where several factions were at war. One faction had launched a volley of missiles at their rivals, and he chose to use his ship's weapons to destroy the warheads so that neither side would be wiped out (presumably without letting either faction know what caused the destruction; the description is a big amiguous). The Federation Council ultimately decided that while his actions were initiated with the best of intentions, they represented a violation of the Directive because other captains might be tempted to make similar mistakes without realizing the consequences. He was stripped of his commission as punishment.
For my part, I think that if the majority of captains are trained properly enough, then there might be areas where the occasional bending or even violation (technically speaking) might be necessary to fulfill their responsibilities as representatives of the Federation, and to take actions that might be essential to helping make relationships with new cultures. Clearly such choices shouldn't be considered lightly, or their consequences, but neither should it be a matter of letting another culture suffer needlessly (or even die) because the policy amounts to "Not our problem."
It's kind of how, when I rewatch "The Pegasus", I don't agree with Admiral Pressman's willingness to break the law in pursuit of regaining the experimental cloak. But I do understand his argument that, however the Treaty of Algeron is laid out, the Federation seemingly agreed too easily to not develop a highly useful technology. And he's apparently not alone in that criticism, as Pressman told Riker he had support from senior officers in a few other departments. Plus, we've seen cases like "Who Watches The Watchers?" and Insurrection where Starfleet (rather hypocritically
) uses holograms to achieve the same practical ends as a cloak, and it's seemingly okay.I don't know what the ideal cut off point for "proper" contact is either. Warp drive capability doesn't seem like an ideal standard, because we've seen Federation contact with cultures lacking such capabilities. The Capellans in "Friday's Child" as a good example, or the Ba'ku in Insurrection who had stopped using many advanced technologies. And even if a culture does develop interstellar travel, it's not necessarily an indicator that they're not a potentially dangerous civilization.
They are going into someone elses space, going down to their planet without any kind of permission. I think they owe a little something back if the planet is in danger from something beyond the control of the populace.
I think those that have the power to help should do what they can to help those that are in danger or need. There are some exceptions when it comes to the point that helping would harm or kill the helper. But as long as it is reasonable within their power to help then yes, I think it's something that should be done.They cannot save everybody in the universe, but they can help within their means, and from what we see of the Federation on the shows, those means are considerable.
And I think there are many people who would listen to friendly aliens trying to help us, me included. There's many who'd have problems with that situations, but in my opinion that should not stop anybody from trying.
McFarlane did write a good explanation, but the problem is the Law of Unintended Consequences. You can't plan for every contingency. It just isn't possible. So they created the PD and said, "Don't Interfere." But, as we've seen, that blanket approach leaves a lot to be desired. Also, quantum physics tells us that observing anything effects the observed. As soon as Nikolai was watching these people, the chances of some kind of change happening became more than zero. In this case, he got to know and care for them, leading to a plan to save them. Paternalistic? Yes. But also Humanistic. It's not black and white (and I wonder if the writer was going for that).
Anytime we become aware of a civilization that might be extinguished, we're already involved just by being aware. We shouldn't play god BUT... where's the line? I would argue that a civilization cannot grow naturally if it dies due to natural disaster, so there should be a way to help them. Maybe in an indirect way, but life (it seems to me) is preferable to extinction. Cultural "contamination" is a lesser evil than cultural extermination.
There IS a line - "Patterns of Force" gives a good example of screwing up a culture with the best of intentions. But I tend to think there should be a "unless they're all going to literally die" in there.
Anytime we become aware of a civilization that might be extinguished, we're already involved just by being aware. We shouldn't play god BUT... where's the line? I would argue that a civilization cannot grow naturally if it dies due to natural disaster, so there should be a way to help them. Maybe in an indirect way, but life (it seems to me) is preferable to extinction. Cultural "contamination" is a lesser evil than cultural extermination.
There IS a line - "Patterns of Force" gives a good example of screwing up a culture with the best of intentions. But I tend to think there should be a "unless they're all going to literally die" in there.
Why not? We aren't doing a bang up job with it.
You said what I was thinking far more clearly than I ever could. Thank you.
I would generally agree to a point. I think Patterns of Force went to one extreme-noninterference is the only way. Well, no, because what you did was mirror a civilization too much and the result was something bad happened. But, to observe means you can at least take steps to minimize interference while still being beneficent.
Some might, yes? Others would reject it due to fear of being controlled.
We're all controlled to some degree, we'd just be switching masters.
Similar threads
