Is the Prime Directive a bad idea, even in concept?

[Deimos Anomaly]

Seriously, what's so bad about making contact with pre-warp civs?

Not necessarily with cavemen or with Greco-Roman or Medieval type societies, but with post-indistrial societies that are advanced enough to be able to tell the difference between aliens and gods, but haven't got warp drive yet.

If your intentions are good (i.e. you aren't out to exploit them) I don't see any reason not to make contact. Maybe study them from space a bit first to make sure their social order won't implode (i.e. they don't have some religious or cultural tic that will make them all kill each other if aliens turn out to be real).

Many times in history much more advanced civs made first contact with much less advanced ones. Often the more advanced civ subsequently invaded, oppressed and exploited the less advanced one, but not always, and sometimes it brought prosperity to the less advanced civ.

Occasionally it even resulted in the civ advancing to parity with the advanced civ fairly quickly. Look up Commodore Perry, the Black Ships, the Meiji Restoration and the industrialisation of Japan for an idea of what I'm talking about.

I think the idea for the prime directive in GR's mind probably stemmed from the post colonial era in which ST was created, in the 60s there were a lot of independence wars ongoing in various countries belonging to European imperial powers, it would really impress upon a person at that time that colonialism was a bad thing... so if creating a futuristic sci-fi, why not put in a law that would make any kind of colonialism impossible.

The problem is he failed to recognise that it's entirely possible to make contact with lesser civs and start trading with them and selling / giving them tech upgrades, without engaging in colonialism or fucking them over.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

I agree.
There were quite a few discussions on this BBS regarding the ineptitude/immorality of Prime Directive motivated actions in episodes such as 'homeward' or 'dear doctor', which touched upon the flawed assumptions the Prime Directive rests on (species with less advanced tech will commit collective suicide/self-destruct if contacted, etc).

 

[C.E. Evans]

I think the Prime Directive is a good idea--it keeps the Federation from taking advantage of less-developed civilizations. As it was written in TOS, however, the Prime Directive was not a straightjacket. Starship captains had the right to intervene to save civilizations that were in danger of stagnation or to allow civilizations that had already been taken over by other starfaring civilizations to once again choose their own path.

During the TNG era, though, the Prime Directive became much more conservative. Starship captains now couldn't intervene to save less-developed civilizations that were in danger. Less-developed worlds had to fend totally on their own and were allowed to fall to other starfaring civilizations. VOY even declared that stuff Kirk did to protect less-developed worlds would have been considered a violation of the Prime Directive by the 24th-Century (even though it was well keeping with it during the 23rd-Century).

In that regard, the Prime Directive that Picard, Sisko, and Janeway adhere to is less-humanitarian than than one Kirk adhered to (or at least protects the Federation more than it does less-developed worlds). But as a storytelling tool to create moral dilemmas for our heroes, the basic concept hasn't changed, IMO.

 

[Sci]

In concept, the Prime Directive is a good idea. Having a law to prevent the Federation from becoming an imperialist power is definitely a good thing.

In practice, it's been warped into something that goes against the intent of the Directive. Instead of a bulwark against imperialism, it has been used in a manner that actually supports speciesism and Federation domination -- speciesism, because the attitude is, "If they're too primitive to save themselves, then we should not help them;" this is Social Darwinism at its core; supportive of Federation domination, because it provides a convenient excuse for the Federation not to transfer advanced but hardly civilization-shattering technologies to cultures that could grow and benefit from contact with the Federation, thereby maintaining a Federation monopoly on advanced technologies.

 

[JarodRussell]

The problem is that if a primitive civilization is in danger, and some mysterious force from the skies shows up and helps them, it changes the entire civilization.

That's why they made such a huge effort in Pen Pals not to get known.

In the real world, we have destroyed every native culture we made contact with, either directly because we fought war against them, or indirectly because our cultural baggage overwhelmed them.

The Prime Directive is a great idea. Problem is that humans are so stubborn and egomaniacal that they will never follow it.

 

[BillJ]

I'll just post a couple of things from a circle-jerk over in the Enterprise forum...

***
I'll defend it as a construct designed to keep cultures on a normal course of growth. As in, not interfering in a societies social order, preventing advanced technology from being dumped in their laps and allowing them to find on their own how they fit into the greater scheme of things.

But none of the above would prevent me from stopping an extinction level event. At the end of the day, cultures can recover from contamination, even if widespread.

***

If we can step out of the universe for a moment and actually look at what may or may not have been intended with the Prime Directive...

Roddenberry has a writing credit on the episode where the Prime Directive originated (The Return of the Archons). He also has a writing credit on the episodes Assignment: Earth and The Paradise Syndrome. In the former he shows an alien species silently guiding Earth, successfully, through the dawn of its nuclear age and the latter has aliens known as the Preservers abducting members of primitive cultures and putting them on other worlds in order to ensure races survive cataclysmic events that may render a single world uninhabitable. Roddenberry also ran TNG when the episode Pen Pals was produced.



So what do we have the creator of the Prime Directive saying? It seems to this 'intellectually lazy' observer that he is saying that NO law is absolute. The absolutist interpretation comes from after Roddenberry is no longer in control of the series.

SATIE: Would it surprise you to learn that you have violated the Prime Directive a total of nine times since you took command of the Enterprise? I must say, Captain, it surprised the hell out of me.
PICARD: My reports to Starfleet document the circumstances in each of those instances

 

[JarodRussell]

Anij's accusation the Federation would "spy" on other cultures was also hilarious. It's not spying, stupid, it's studying your culture without ANY interference so that you can move on, without outside influence.

 

[Timo]

Seriously, what's so bad about making contact with pre-warp civs?

Ask the Borg...

Never mind the pre-warp civilizations themselves. What does it do to the Federation if it contacts said civilizations at their early stages of development? It exposes the cultures to homogenizing elements, to UFP ways of thinking - which means the culture cannot contribute original elements when it finally gets assimilated into the UFP. It's the Federation's loss.

OTOH, we should note that the Prime Directive has basically never been described as stopping the UFP from interfering with primitive (or advanced) cultures. What it has consistently been described as doing is stopping Starfleet from interfering. Which is sound thinking, not all that different from the once fairly common type of legislation that denies soldiers the right to vote. There should be laws against giving too much power to the military.

Naturally, neither of the above rationalizations for the PD occurred to the writers of Star Trek originally. TOS was a thoroughly militaristic show where the soldiers could do no wrong; TNG did its best to describe the PD as protecting the helpless natives (but failed, as it was the first show to give explicit examples of UFP civilians being exempted from having to follow the PD). It would have been interesting to see the projected "Phase II" show in between those, as it would apparently have reflected the 1970s spirit of seeing the military as an evil thing; there were several plotlines where Starfleet was villainous or ruthlessly manipulative and this was considered a bad thing, in contrast with TOS where gunboat diplomacy was a heroic thing to do.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Deimos Anomaly]

OTOH, we should note that the Prime Directive has basically never been described as stopping the UFP from interfering with primitive (or advanced) cultures. What it has consistently been described as doing is stopping Starfleet from interfering. Which is sound thinking, not all that different from the once fairly common type of legislation that denies soldiers the right to vote. There should be laws against giving too much power to the military.

Naturally, neither of the above rationalizations for the PD occurred to the writers of Star Trek originally. TOS was a thoroughly militaristic show where the soldiers could do no wrong; TNG did its best to describe the PD as protecting the helpless natives (but failed, as it was the first show to give explicit examples of UFP civilians being exempted from having to follow the PD). It would have been interesting to see the projected "Phase II" show in between those, as it would apparently have reflected the 1970s spirit of seeing the military as an evil thing; there were several plotlines where Starfleet was villainous or ruthlessly manipulative and this was considered a bad thing, in contrast with TOS where gunboat diplomacy was a heroic thing to do.

Timo Saloniemi

Are you implying that a civilian shipowner with UFP citizenship has carte blanche to go around interfering to their heart's content?

If Kassidy Yates rolled up into orbit over a 20th-century level civ, made contact with the planet's largest superpower and then went and blatantly sold them, say... transporter technology... would she face no sanction at all from the Federation gov't or legal system for that?

 

[sonak]

Anij's accusation the Federation would "spy" on other cultures was also hilarious. It's not spying, stupid, it's studying your culture without ANY interference so that you can move on, without outside influence.

er, why is that "hilarious?"

Usually, we consider that if a person or group is watching us for long periods of time, recording data on us, observing our movements, etc. without our being aware of it, that would indeed be "spying." So Anij was basically right, even if you prefer a euphemism.



As for the topic, the PD was meant to be anti-imperialist, and also a plot device to inject "dilemmas" into the show and make resolutions more difficult. (Picard can't just beam down a team with phasers blazing, for example in a case where the aliens don't have phasers)


It made some sense in TOS, where it was much less rigid. By TNG, it was being used to justify blatantly unethical things("Homeward"), and by Voyager, it had become totally incoherent.(The Kazon were both post-warp capable and post-first contact, so "sharing technology" had NOTHING to do with the PD).

 

[FordSVT]

OTOH, we should note that the Prime Directive has basically never been described as stopping the UFP from interfering with primitive (or advanced) cultures. What it has consistently been described as doing is stopping Starfleet from interfering. Which is sound thinking, not all that different from the once fairly common type of legislation that denies soldiers the right to vote. There should be laws against giving too much power to the military.

Naturally, neither of the above rationalizations for the PD occurred to the writers of Star Trek originally. TOS was a thoroughly militaristic show where the soldiers could do no wrong; TNG did its best to describe the PD as protecting the helpless natives (but failed, as it was the first show to give explicit examples of UFP civilians being exempted from having to follow the PD). It would have been interesting to see the projected "Phase II" show in between those, as it would apparently have reflected the 1970s spirit of seeing the military as an evil thing; there were several plotlines where Starfleet was villainous or ruthlessly manipulative and this was considered a bad thing, in contrast with TOS where gunboat diplomacy was a heroic thing to do.

Timo Saloniemi

Are you implying that a civilian shipowner with UFP citizenship has carte blanche to go around interfering to their heart's content?

If Kassidy Yates rolled up into orbit over a 20th-century level civ, made contact with the planet's largest superpower and then went and blatantly sold them, say... transporter technology... would she face no sanction at all from the Federation gov't or legal system for that?

I'm pretty sure Timo is wrong on this one. The Prime Directive applies to all Federation citizens. It's not just a Starfleet general order, it's also enshrined in UFP law. Cassidy Yates would be in shit.

 

[BillJ]

TOS was a thoroughly militaristic show where the soldiers could do no wrong;

You and I must've been watching two totally different shows Timo.

 

[Sci]

I'm pretty sure Timo is wrong on this one. The Prime Directive applies to all Federation citizens. It's not just a Starfleet general order, it's also enshrined in UFP law. Cassidy Yates would be in shit.

"Angel One" (TNG) established that the Prime Directive is a Starfleet General Order which does not apply to private Federation citizens.

"Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges" (DS9) established the existence of a provision of the Federation Charter banning the Federation government from interfering in the internal affairs of foreign cultures.

 

[MacLeod]

It is possible that there is a similar law that applies to Federation citizens

 

[Crazy Eddie]

OTOH, we should note that the Prime Directive has basically never been described as stopping the UFP from interfering with primitive (or advanced) cultures. What it has consistently been described as doing is stopping Starfleet from interfering. Which is sound thinking, not all that different from the once fairly common type of legislation that denies soldiers the right to vote. There should be laws against giving too much power to the military.

Naturally, neither of the above rationalizations for the PD occurred to the writers of Star Trek originally. TOS was a thoroughly militaristic show where the soldiers could do no wrong; TNG did its best to describe the PD as protecting the helpless natives (but failed, as it was the first show to give explicit examples of UFP civilians being exempted from having to follow the PD). It would have been interesting to see the projected "Phase II" show in between those, as it would apparently have reflected the 1970s spirit of seeing the military as an evil thing; there were several plotlines where Starfleet was villainous or ruthlessly manipulative and this was considered a bad thing, in contrast with TOS where gunboat diplomacy was a heroic thing to do.

Timo Saloniemi

Are you implying that a civilian shipowner with UFP citizenship has carte blanche to go around interfering to their heart's content?

Isn't that exactly what John Gil did in "Patterns of Force"? I don't think it was ever stated that Gil did anything illegal, only that patterning an entire society after Nazi Germany is ethically questionable at best.

If Kassidy Yates rolled up into orbit over a 20th-century level civ, made contact with the planet's largest superpower and then went and blatantly sold them, say... transporter technology... would she face no sanction at all from the Federation gov't or legal system for that?

Probably not, but there would be all kinds of civilian export laws that would come into play and Starfleet would be responsible for enforcing those. It is probably illegal to sell phasers or replicator technology to primitive cultures for the same reason it's illegal to sell cigarettes to minors. But civilian freight captains, unlike Starfleet, don't have a command organization looking over their shoulder and may not be as reluctant to falsify a log entry or cargo manifest to make a little extra money.

 

[Timo]

"Angel One" is pretty clear on the fact that the castaway Federation civilian citizens are not banned from interfering with the affairs of the locals. However, it also appears to be the only episode to explicitly claim that civilians don't have to obey the PD; all other episodes merely tell us that Starfleet has to obey the PD, or that civilians who act against the PD aren't specifically prosecuted for their PD violations (even though they may be accused of other, closely related crimes). So we might go to the trouble of "reinterpreting" the dialogue of "Angel One".

What actually happens there is that a group of civilians are forced by circumstances to land on an alien world that is neither primitive nor isolated and ignorant of the interstellar community. However, when Starfleet arrives there, our Fleet heroes are very definitely held back by the Prime Directive. Key dialogue here:

Castaway Ramsay: "You can't force us to go [offworld with our heroes]."
Data: " Mr. Ramsey is correct, Counselor. The Odin was not a starship, which means her crew is not bound by the Prime Directive. If he and the others wish to stay here, there is absolutely nothing we can do about it.

Related facts: we know from dialogue that the Odin was a "Federation freighter", not a Starfleet transport as the proper terminology would go for a Fleet vessel. Also, Data in this situation doesn't appear to have any hidden agenda, any reason to tell Troi blatant lies so that the survivors might overhear and be deceived.

Later on, the heroes ponder on the meaning of "absolutely nothing we can do":

Riker: "You're going with us whether you choose to go or not."
Data: "Excuse me, Commander, but removing any of these people against their will would be a violation of several Starfleet regulations, not the least of which would be the Prime Directive."

Now, how to make this work in a way that would suggest the civilians are still subject to non-meddling rules?

We might argue that being forced upon a planet by a crash gives the civilians a waiver on interacting with the locals. Or we might argue that the civilians are locals by legal definition after their seven-year stay, and trying to remove them would mean meddling in the affairs of the native culture and its current representatives, even if they happened to be former UFP citizens.

Isn't that exactly what John Gil did in "Patterns of Force"? I don't think it was ever stated that Gil did anything illegal, only that patterning an entire society after Nazi Germany is ethically questionable at best.

Well, Gill dying made the issue a bit academical. There was no plot moment where formal charges could have been voiced out.

"Bread and Circuses" may hit closer to the issue. Kirk does say this:

Kirk: Septimus, wherever we may be from, you must believe that it is one of our most important laws that none of us interfere with the affairs of others. If Captain Merrick is Merikus, then he has violated that law, and he must be taken away and punished.

Since it was established that Merrick was flushed out of Starfleet Academy, it appears that he wasn't a Starfleet member (although it's possible he later did complete his studies and did earn a commission, or otherwise ended up being in Starfleet employ and subject to Starfleet rules). Yet Kirk includes him in his definition of "us".

On the other hand, here Kirk could well have various motivations for lying to Septimus. His own life depends on him denouncing his association with Merrick, after all; also, the success of his mission depends on him reaching Merrick, and the best way to secure Septimus' support for that is to claim that the mission is one of apprehending the hated figure.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[T'Girl]

In the real world, we have destroyed every native culture we made contact with, either directly because we fought war against them, or indirectly because our cultural baggage overwhelmed them.

Depend on what you man by "we." It's doubtful that women would have the vote in Japan today without the influence of the West. Europe's interaction with the East brought mathematics (and the plague). The Indus Valley created written language, should those people have kept it to themselves?

Should the West have kept secret medicine, education, government, commerce, international travel, communications, etc.?

While our ancestors fought and died ... that wasn't the only thing that was happening, there was a trade in ideas going on too.

"We" in fact very much did not destroy every native culture we contacted, the interacts improved us in many ways.

 

[Deimos Anomaly]

In the real world, we have destroyed every native culture we made contact with, either directly because we fought war against them, or indirectly because our cultural baggage overwhelmed them.

Depend on what you man by "we." It's doubtful that women would have the vote in Japan today without the influence of the West. Europe's interaction with the East brought mathematics (and the plague). The Indus Valley created written language, should those people have kept it to themselves?

Should the West have kept secret medicine, education, government, commerce, international travel, communications, etc.?

While our ancestors fought and died ... that wasn't the only thing that was happening, there was a trade in ideas going on too.

"We" in fact very much did not destroy every native culture we contacted, the interacts improved us in many ways.

Heh, if the 19th century British had been believers in a ST style prime directive, widows would still be getting burned alive in India.

The Thug cultists would still be going around murdering people for Kali too.

And the British were straight up imperialists, they were open about it and didn't try to hide it. If even amid the excesses of full-blown empire, some good can some, such as the banning of wife-burning and the eradication of the murder cult, how much more good could come to a less avanced civ through contact with a benign, benevolent non-imperialistic civ like the UFP.

 

[JarodRussell]

Heh, if the 19th century British had been believers in a ST style prime directive, widows would still be getting burned alive in India.

In the middle ages, they burned witches in Europe. What changed that?

It's a VERY arrogant presumption that our influence alone changed some things for the better in other cultures. It could have changed without any outside influence.


The negative influence is far greater than the positive influence.

Anij's accusation the Federation would "spy" on other cultures was also hilarious. It's not spying, stupid, it's studying your culture without ANY interference so that you can move on, without outside influence.

er, why is that "hilarious?"

Usually, we consider that if a person or group is watching us for long periods of time, recording data on us, observing our movements, etc. without our being aware of it, that would indeed be "spying." So Anij was basically right, even if you prefer a euphemism.

Spying is the acquisition of data for a harmful goal, to get an advantage over the other. The Federation is only curious about other cultures, but means no harm to them (the Insurrection incident being the exception).

 

[horatio83]

Indeed, there is big difference between studying an alien civilization via duck-blind missions and spying on them in order to gain military intelligence.