PD breaking individuals, SoD spoilers...

[Trent Roman]

Sci said:
My general rule is that when you have the capacity to save people from large-scale natural disasters, you have an obligation to do so, and that the nature of the foreign relations of the society being saved is irrelevant, because A) most of the victims would still be innocent people who are not involved in sentient rights abuses, and B) societies have the right to determine for themselves what kind of society they shall be, and C) societies have the right to exist.

A consistent and well-thought out stance (though I would disagree with (C)--individuals have rights, societies are constructs with no intrinsic existence); but by saving the society, you do become responsible for what they'll do in the future. If, by ill fortune, they go on to oppress the neighbouring people for several more centuries before finally collapsing, the descendants of the oppressed will be quite displeased that you intervened. If you'll humour me further, would you, as the hypothetical starship captain, also interceed in the case of a plague, for which you could easily devise a cure? If that plague was a result of urban overcrowding and poor sanitation? If the plague was engineered, say as a result of biological warfare (which needn't be technologically advanced--catapulling corpses into a city could do)?

Timo said:
Indeed, we get a pretty explicit claim that civilians need not obey the PD in TNG "Angel One". This as such invalidates the effectiveness of the PD in fighting cultural contamination. So perhaps we should be tackling the issue from the opposite end?

Personally, I always thought that apparently counter-intuitive rule was a product of the show still trying to establish its setting early on--a rule that gets retrospectively revoked later on. Take the converse example of Nikolai Rozhenko in "Homeward". A civilian researcher, but his involvement with the Boraalans was considered a PD breach even before he involved Starfleet by being up 'his' village to the holodeck. Or "False Profits", where apparently a Starfleet crew has the authority to remove foreign nationals who are comitting a PD breach far outside Federation territory--one would think, then, their own civilians would fall under PD jurisdiction.

Christopher said:
Once again, so long as there's no military coercion involved, an indigenous culture has a lot of choice in how it's affected by a contact.

With all due respect, that's hopelessly naive. Coercion doesn't have to be military; heck, it doesn't even have to be overt. Any disproportionate relationship of power will create the circumstances for abuse, whether monetary, technological or ideological. The Ferengi in "False Profits" represent a good example of that, but you don't have to look any further than the modern world for more. The First World isn't militarily occupying the Third (with a few exceptions like Iraq), but maintains its dominance through economics and ideology.

I suppose, at this point, it's pretty clear that I think the Prime Directive is, generally speaking, a good idea. I don't believe in the absolutism of any law, but the PD should be strictly enforced, and short of averting global extinction, I don't see that more advanced cultures have any business interfering with other cultures until nterstellar travel brings them, on their own power, into contact with the galactic community. This isn't just a question of averting the cultural genocides and other egregious abuses that followed in the wake of colonization here on Earth, which, I would hope, 24th century humans would have greater wisdom. Even well-meaning attempts to meddle in foreign affairs produce negative results far more often than they do positive ones. For every success story like Japan, there are dozens of failed states. For every foreign investment that brings prosperity to a disfavoured region, there are dozens of cases of environmental damage making things worse and corrupt leaders pocketing the cash for themselves. And even when there aren't people, foreign or local, looking to seize power for themselves, sheer cross-cultural ignorance can turn well-meaning impositions into disasters. Relationships must take place between equals or near-equals, or take place in a narrow legal framework hampering the influence of the over-empowered partner, for anything approaching fair exchanges.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Baerbel Haddrell]

The basic idea behind the PD is a good one but you simply can`t be just by saying in general that all interference in pre-warp civilizations (and sometimes less advanced civilizations that have warp technology, too) is potential harmful and therefore forbidden. In other words, if doing nothing means aliens die or even the whole civilization, that is very regrettable, but according to the letter of the law no crime has been committed.

If you talk about uncontaminated worlds on which the inhabitants are indeed untouched and uninfluenced by other species, that makes a lot of sense. BUT already here the PD has flaws. Instead of the PD, such untouched, innocent species in Federation territory should be given actual protected status. That would also apply against civilians who might disturb these people, which can rank from simply trespassing to exploitation and enslavement. It would also mean that the ridiculous position in “Pen Pals” would be turned into the opposite: Starfleet has a duty to help such a civilization if it is about averting a natural disaster, something that can be done without the inhabitants even noticing.

Using the PD argument when the world in question has already been contaminated is nothing else but an excuse not to get involved. The contrary, I think Starfleet should even help to restore such a civilization as much as possible to a state of independence.

As the PD is now, this law is sometimes applied when Starfleet wants to avoid getting involved because it would be politically inconvenient – as in the case when they didn`t help the Bajorans during the Cardassian occupation. If I remember correctly, even humanitarian aid was usually denied because of PD reasons!

On the one hand we have episodes in which the PD is treated as a holy law that can`t do wrong, one of the crowning achievements of Starfleet morals and proof of how advanced humans are now and then the same PD law is used to do blatantly wrong, for example when it is used as a convenient tool. I very much detest this duplicity.

Therefore my first reaction when the argument comes “He has broken the Prime Directive” is why? Not a gut reaction that this person has committed a terrible crime because he broke the PD but I want to know details first before I pass judgement. I think sometimes Starfleet personnel, especially high ranking ones, should be prosecuted because they were unwilling to break or even bend the PD in order to do what is right. Not that this would happen, of course.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

In my opinion, the prime directive that applies to pre-warp civilizations should be quite diffrent from the prime directive that concerns post-warp civilizations.
​

Contact with post-warp civilizations should be permitted, as long as the Federation doesn't force its values on these cultures. The alien civilization will take what it wants (or needs) from the Federation's many cultures, and the Federation will do the same with this culture.
In any other case, Starfleet shouldn't have the right to explore, to encounter "new worlds and new civilizations". The Federation definitely shouldn't accept new species (and new cultures) into the big "Federation family". On the contrary, the Federation should be extremly isolationist, mothballing its fleets and staying at home, in order to avoid culturally contamining other civilizations.

Starfleet didn't interfere in the klingon civil war because only Gowron and his followers wanted this interference. Not all the klingons and not Duras's son (whatever his name is).

Also, Sisko's status as emissary is not a violation of the Prime Directive. Nobody (not the Federation and not anyone else) forced the bajorans to worship Sisko. They did that of their own free will.


Contact with pre-warp civilizations is trickier.

The first contact should not be initiated by a Starfleet ship. Every Starfleet vessel I've seen is a warship, whether it's on a mission of exploration or whether it's fighting in a war. And warships make people (regardless of species or level of technology) nervous and trigger-happy. Perhaps a civilian ship with an ambassador on board will have to do?

Obviously, the Federation should not impose its ideals on these cultures. Its assistance should be given only when it's requested.
According to one opinion, it's arrogant to expose "lesser" civilizations to more advanced ideas and values. I beleive it's arrogant to assume that these less advanced civilizations will be so frail, as to be overwhelmed by these ideas. In "real world" history, no culture was so frail - i'm talking about the cases witch don't involve forcing these values onto another culture, of course.

The Federation should not share its technology with these civilizations. They could use the knowledge to attack the Federation or to destroy themselves - both undesirable results and both posible (sometimes even probable).

On the other hand, the same Federation should do everything in her power to stop the destruction of pre-warp civilizations via natural catastrophes.

In TNG: Homeward, Picard&Co committed genocide. It's that simple. They could have stopped the extermination of an entire species (they used to do that every other episode via some technobabble solution - see TNG: Pen Pals) and they didn't. That their crime was committed by inaction and not by action changes nothing. How could the scriptwriters beleive that the crew's actions from that episode were morally justified?
Also, in Homeward was implied that any technologically inferior civilization who encounters a more advanced civilization will disappear through mass-suicide. This is ridiculous. Look at humanity's history. If that was true, then almost all the indigenous population From North America, South America, Africa, Australia and a lot of islands should have comitted suicide. Of course, this didn't happen.

As for the unexpected consequences problem - you save a culture and this culture ends up wiping out all life in the galaxy - nobody knows what the future holds.

A person you save might become Hitler, but it's much more probable that this person will become a decent man - there were only a few Hitler-like persons in history and how many good men?
The same goes for civilizations: they may become aggressive, but they could also become peaceful. Nobody knows.

All you can do is act in good faith, in accordance with your moral values - and your values in general.

If, in the beginning, you don't save a civilization because it might become murderous, in the end, you will destroy civilizations because they could do this or that. Thus, you will become yourself the murderous civilization.
It's a very small step from inaction to action, and a logical one: the same values that made you watch a civilization dying without doing nothing (because your calculations showed that this culture might become dangerous) will, eventually, make you destroy any civillization that shows the slightest aggressivness.


In this post, I've tried to discern what's in the other culture's interest during interaction with the Federation. But what about your best interest?

For example, if Gowron would have lost the klingon civil war, the klingons (led by the Duras family) and the romulans would have attacked the Federation, tearing it apart and killing billions of federation citizens.
The Federation did what was right for the klingons, but what about itself?

Or in TNG: I, Borg, Picard didn't destroy the borg collective, essentially applying the Prime Directive to the borg - don't force anything on another civilization. Of course, this also meant that the borg continued to kill or assimilate billions of beings. What about them? What about the Federation, who remains under constant threat of assimilation?

I beleive that there is no good decision and bad decision in such situations. Only two or more bad choices. In such situations, one must choose "the lesser evil".

In both cases, the worst decision was taken. In both cases, the day was saved by ulterior, highly improbable events filled with plot holes.

During the klingon civil war - Why did the romulans retreated? Why didn't they say: If you have the guts, open fire! If not, get out of our way! We have a shipment to deliver! We have a civil war to win! And then, we have a few hundred Federation worlds to burn!

And in VOY: Endgame the borg problem was solved via technology from the future and massive plot contrivances! Talk about improbable!

An example when "the lesser evil" was chosen was DS9: In the Pale Moonlight. Kill a romulan senator - blatantly breaking the Prime Directive in the process - and win a galactic war, saving the lives and liberty of billions. A bad choice? - definitely. The correct choice, nonetheless? - yes, considering the alternatives.

 

[Christopher]

Starfleet didn't interfere in the klingon civil war because only Gowron and his followers wanted this interference. Not all the klingons and not Duras's son (whatever his name is).

Err, that's kind of a tautological statement: it was a civil war, meaning that different groups of Klingons were fighting each other, so obviously they weren't in agreement. The Prime Directive forbids taking sides in an internal conflict, especially a military one. It only allows fighting on an entire world's behalf against an outside invader. Which was why they had to expose the Romulan backing of the Duras faction -- that made it an outside attack on an ally, which would have permitted Starfleet to intervene.

According to one opinion, it's arrogant to expose "lesser" civilizations to more advanced ideas and values. I beleive it's arrogant to assume that these less advanced civilizations will be so frail, as to be overwhelmed by these ideas. In "real world" history, no culture was so frail - i'm talking about the cases witch don't involve forcing these values onto another culture, of course.

Absolutely right. A culture is a dynamic and adaptable thing, well able to absorb new ideas at its own pace so long as it's given the freedom to do so and to reject whatever it doesn't want.

The Federation should not share its technology with these civilizations. They could use the knowledge to attack the Federation or to destroy themselves - both undesirable results and both posible (sometimes even probable).

I think sharing knowledge to a certain extent is beneficial. A good model would be one I came across recently in a Poul Anderson novel: the starfaring civilization gives the natives knowledge of technologies, medicines, and so forth, but only those that they're capable of making themselves with their indigenous resources, so that they won't be dependent on the outsiders. So you don't give them a fusion reactor or forcefield generators, and you definitely don't give them phasers, but you can teach them how to process a local plant into a lifesaving medicine or antibiotic, teach them how to improve their crop yields without damaging the ecosystem, show them how to refine metal to make better plows and surgical tools, etc. Things they could've figured out on their own eventually, or learned from a more technically sophisticated culture elsewhere on their own world if one had existed.

Also, in Homeward was implied that any technologically inferior civilization who encounters a more advanced civilization will disappear through mass-suicide. This is ridiculous. Look at humanity's history. If that was true, then almost all the indigenous population From North America, South America, Africa, Australia and a lot of islands should have comitted suicide. Of course, this didn't happen.

Yes, that was particularly absurd.

I'd also mention Europe, which degenerated to a fairly primitive state in the age of feudalism and then came into contact with the far more advanced civilizations of the East, acquiring many technological advances from them, from stirrups to printing to gunpowder to the zero.

During the klingon civil war - Why did the romulans retreated? Why didn't they say: If you have the guts, open fire! If not, get out of our way! We have a shipment to deliver! We have a civil war to win! And then, we have a few hundred Federation worlds to burn!

If the Romulans had been ready or able to wage an open war against the Federation, they wouldn't have been sneakily backing a Klingon faction to begin with.

 

[BrotherBenny]

Er, the Romulans have always been sneaky, and prefer to turn everyone against everyone else before getting overtly involved.

As for the East, they really did give us nothing :Rommie:

 

[Christopher]

As for the East, they really did give us nothing :Rommie:

Francis Bacon once wrote that the printing press, the magnetic compass, and gunpowder were the tools that enabled Europe to reshape the whole world. All three were invented in China.

Modern mathematics (and particularly the computers we're conversing upon) would be impossible without the concept of zero and decimal notation, which was invented in India.

Many scholars argue that the stirrup was a revolution in mounted warfare, giving riders greater stability and control in a way that gave them a decisive edge over those without stirrups and thus significantly affected the course of history. Stirrups were invented by Central Asian horse nomads -- who also invented pants.

 

[Trent Roman]

^ I think that was a joke, Christopher: "The East really gave us nothing", i.e., the East gave us the zero (nothing).

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[BrotherBenny]

As for the East, they really did give us nothing :Rommie:

Francis Bacon once wrote that the printing press, the magnetic compass, and gunpowder were the tools that enabled Europe to reshape the whole world. All three were invented in China.

Modern mathematics (and particularly the computers we're conversing upon) would be impossible without the concept of zero and decimal notation, which was invented in India.

Many scholars argue that the stirrup was a revolution in mounted warfare, giving riders greater stability and control in a way that gave them a decisive edge over those without stirrups and thus significantly affected the course of history. Stirrups were invented by Central Asian horse nomads -- who also invented pants.

^ I think that was a joke, Christopher: "The East really gave us nothing", i.e., the East gave us the zero (nothing).

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

Thank you, Trent.

Chris, where did your sense of humour go?

 

[Christopher]

Sorry... it's just that over the years I've gotten so fed up at Eurocentric bias in the teaching of history that it's kind of a kneejerk reaction. Also, keep in mind that when I clicked on the thread, it was the morning after I wrote the post that preceded it, and the thread jumped to your post at the top of the page. So I didn't remember I'd mentioned the zero specifically last night, and thus I didn't realize you were riffing on that.

Also, for some reason the smiley code you typed in didn't appear as a graphic image, so I just saw the word "Rommie" inside colons and didn't see the "expression" you were trying to convey.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

I think sharing knowledge to a certain extent is beneficial. A good model would be one I came across recently in a Poul Anderson novel: the starfaring civilization gives the natives knowledge of technologies, medicines, and so forth, but only those that they're capable of making themselves with their indigenous resources, so that they won't be dependent on the outsiders. So you don't give them a fusion reactor or forcefield generators, and you definitely don't give them phasers, but you can teach them how to process a local plant into a lifesaving medicine or antibiotic, teach them how to improve their crop yields without damaging the ecosystem, show them how to refine metal to make better plows and surgical tools, etc. Things they could've figured out on their own eventually, or learned from a more technically sophisticated culture elsewhere on their own world if one had existed.

The Poul Anderson model would be beneficial in some cases, but there must be exceptions. The question is: which are the exceptions?

As you proved, medieval european culture was quite backwards by comparison to the asians. The europeans took what they needed from Asia (the printing press, the magnetic compas, the gunpowder, etc) and then god help the rest of the world!
At first glance, the printing press or the magnetic compas seemed harmless. They weren't.

A civilization at our current technological level should be able to build antimatter reactors or warp engines, as long as someone tells them how to do it.
Is it prudent to give it such knowledge?

I think the exceptions must be determined on a civilization by civilization basis. Also, they must be quite numerous.

During the klingon civil war - Why did the romulans retreated? Why didn't they say: If you have the guts, open fire! If not, get out of our way! We have a shipment to deliver! We have a civil war to win! And then, we have a few hundred Federation worlds to burn!

If the Romulans had been ready or able to wage an open war against the Federation, they wouldn't have been sneakily backing a Klingon faction to begin with.

The Romulan Star Empire didn't stand a chance against the united might of The Federation and The Klingon Empire. And the romulans knew it. That's why they didn't start open war with the Federation. At least, that's what I thought until the klingon civil war.

In TNG: Redemption 1&2, the klingons were fighting against themselves. They were no longer a threat.
The romulans still didn't attack an Federation who stood alone, for the first time in decades. They wasted a golden opportunity. Were they too weak or just afraid?
The Romulan Star Empire tried to ally itself with the klingons, by secretly helping the Duras family. Starfleet exposed this plot. The romulans could have helped the Duras family in broad daylight, but they didn't. Again, they didn't want to risk going to war with the Federation.

In TNG: Unificatin 1&2, we find out that the romulans are incompetent strategists. Three troup carriers and a warbird against the arguably second most important world in the Federation? The romulans actually expected to conquer Vulcan in these conditions?

In DS9: In the Pale moonlight and DS9: Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges the romulans are completely and embarrassingly outwitted by both Sisko and Section 31.

After these events, the romulans are no longer a credible threat. They're "all bark and no bite". They will never go to war with the Federation. They fear it.

 

[Christopher]

The Poul Anderson model would be beneficial in some cases, but there must be exceptions. The question is: which are the exceptions?

As you proved, medieval european culture was quite backwards by comparison to the asians. The europeans took what they needed from Asia (the printing press, the magnetic compas, the gunpowder, etc) and then god help the rest of the world!
At first glance, the printing press or the magnetic compas seemed harmless. They weren't.

Well, the thing is, Europe wasn't just being spontaneously aggressive, but responding to outside influences. Its economic expansionism and industrialization were driven by envy of the wealth and prosperity of the East and the desire to obtain them and compete with them (a major driving force behind the development of the factory system in England, for instance, was the Wedgwood pottery industry that was created to compete with China's eponymous porcelain goods). Whereas Spain's religious imperialism was an extension of 700 years fighting off Islamic rule in the Iberian peninsula.

So when interacting with another culture, you need to keep an eye, not just on what material and scientific things you give them, but also on how you influence them culturally, and whether you're giving them any reason to become a threat. Although as my first point above shows, sometimes it's not anything specific that you do, but simply the fact that you have things they don't have and want. Come to think of it, in a case like that, a too-rigid policy against sharing technology could just make them resentful and more aggressive in their efforts to compete, so it would be counterproductive in the long run. It's a complex issue.

I think the exceptions must be determined on a civilization by civilization basis. Also, they must be quite numerous.

Agreed. I think the right policy for each society (I was going to say each world, but a single world has thousands of different societies on it) would have to be arrived at on a case-by-case basis as the result of careful study, rather than just being some cookie-cutter rule applied universally. Although at the very least, there needs to be a blanket policy for your space explorers defining some basic guidelines, e.g. err on the side of caution and get as much info as you can before deciding how to proceed.

The Romulan Star Empire didn't stand a chance against the united might of The Federation and The Klingon Empire. And the romulans knew it. That's why they didn't start open war with the Federation. At least, that's what I thought until the klingon civil war.

In TNG: Redemption 1&2, the klingons were fighting against themselves. They were no longer a threat.

Until it was exposed that the Romulans were behind their troubles. That would've united them damn fast, and made them madder than usual at the Romulans. Not good if you're a Romulan.

The romulans still didn't attack an Federation who stood alone, for the first time in decades. They wasted a golden opportunity. Were they too weak or just afraid?

Not every society is out for military conquest as a default. It never seemed to me that the TNG-era Romulans were interested in expansionism (except for the faction that backed Shinzon's coup in NEM); rather, they seemed to be more concerned with securing their borders and gaining political advantage over other powers that might pose a threat to them.

They knew the Klingons were an aggressive, expansionist power, so it was in their interests to act to weaken them. But they knew the Federation doesn't start wars or invasions, so there was no reason to launch any sort of pre-emptive attack -- especially since the UFP is larger and more powerful than the Romulans and such an attack would've been self-destructive. They were better served by using espionage and political gamesmanship against the UFP than launching a war. Remember, when it looked like they were building up for a war in "The Defector," it was all just a ploy to expose a "disloyal" officer within their own military. Their priorities were more inner-directed than outer-directed.

In TNG: Unificatin 1&2, we find out that the romulans are incompetent strategists. Three troup carriers and a warbird against the arguably second most important world in the Federation? The romulans actually expected to conquer Vulcan in these conditions?

The Greeks only needed one big horse...

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Well, the thing is, Europe wasn't just being spontaneously aggressive, but responding to outside influences. Its economic expansionism and industrialization were driven by envy of the wealth and prosperity of the East and the desire to obtain them and compete with them (a major driving force behind the development of the factory system in England, for instance, was the Wedgwood pottery industry that was created to compete with China's eponymous porcelain goods). Whereas Spain's religious imperialism was an extension of 700 years fighting off Islamic rule in the Iberian peninsula.

So when interacting with another culture, you need to keep an eye, not just on what material and scientific things you give them, but also on how you influence them culturally, and whether you're giving them any reason to become a threat. Although as my first point above shows, sometimes it's not anything specific that you do, but simply the fact that you have things they don't have and want. Come to think of it, in a case like that, a too-rigid policy against sharing technology could just make them resentful and more aggressive in their efforts to compete, so it would be counterproductive in the long run. It's a complex issue.

Arrogance, aggressiveness, religious intolerance - medieval european cultures had these traits long before they made contact with the asians, long before they started to burn "witches". These traits developed during hundreds of years. The historical circumstances determined the shape in which these characteristics manifested themselves. In different circumstances, such traits would have emerged in other forms, but they would have become apparent.
Such civilizations will respond aggesively no matter how you make contact, no matter what you do say or do.

Before you contact another culture you should gather as much data as you can, you should endeavor to determine what lurks beneath the surface. In some cases, it might not be in your best interest to make contact.

Until it was exposed that the Romulans were behind their troubles. That would've united them damn fast, and made them madder than usual at the Romulans. Not good if you're a Romulan.

But the romulans' plot was exposed! And the klingons didn't unite and they didn't attack the romulans!

A...this would be TNG's standard reset button we all know and love.

Not every society is out for military conquest as a default. It never seemed to me that the TNG-era Romulans were interested in expansionism (except for the faction that backed Shinzon's coup in NEM); rather, they seemed to be more concerned with securing their borders and gaining political advantage over other powers that might pose a threat to them.

They knew the Klingons were an aggressive, expansionist power, so it was in their interests to act to weaken them. But they knew the Federation doesn't start wars or invasions, so there was no reason to launch any sort of pre-emptive attack -- especially since the UFP is larger and more powerful than the Romulans and such an attack would've been self-destructive. They were better served by using espionage and political gamesmanship against the UFP than launching a war. Remember, when it looked like they were building up for a war in "The Defector," it was all just a ploy to expose a "disloyal" officer within their own military. Their priorities were more inner-directed than outer-directed.

The romulans are always extremly aggressive in their dealings with the Federation. In TNG: The Defector, for example, they wanted to expose a traitor, true, but they also wanted to capture or destroy the Enterprise. If they would be sure of victory they would have attacked the Federation long ago. But the romulans know they would probably lose. I would describe their feelings toward the Federation as rage and frustration.

In TNG: Unificatin 1&2, we find out that the romulans are incompetent strategists. Three troup carriers and a warbird against the arguably second most important world in the Federation? The romulans actually expected to conquer Vulcan in these conditions?

The Greeks only needed one big horse...

The Trojan Horse strategy succeeded not because the greeks were such superb strategists, but because the trojans were incredibly negligent. They didn't inspect the inside of the horse, they carried the horse inside Troy (demolishing its front gate). And the trojan security was so lax as to allow the few dozen soldiers who were hiding in the horse to open the gates of the city.
Really, Ulysses got undue praise for this strategy.

And the romulans' planning was orders of magnitude worse. Let's say they succeeded in conquering Vulcan - through a miracle, of course. This would lead to a war between the Romulan Star Empire and an alliance composed of the United Federation of Planets and the Klingon Empire. A war the romulans cannot win.

 

[Christopher]

Arrogance, aggressiveness, religious intolerance - medieval european cultures had these traits long before they made contact with the asians, long before they started to burn "witches". These traits developed during hundreds of years. The historical circumstances determined the shape in which these characteristics manifested themselves. In different circumstances, such traits would have emerged in other forms, but they would have become apparent.
Such civilizations will respond aggesively no matter how you make contact, no matter what you do say or do.

Sure, medieval Europe had those traits, but every culture has aggression. And you can't stereotype the Europeans as some sort of mad dogs. Their interactions with the greater world were spearheaded as much through (relatively) peaceful traders and merchants as through armies and conquistadores. Much of their "aggression" was mercantile. And the cultural and religious imperialism, as I said, were largely a reaction to having been the victims of others' imperialism for centuries before. Victims have a way of becoming victimizers.

You're right that you can't explain a culture's behavior in a post-contact situation entirely on the basis of outside influences, but my point is that you can't explain it entirely on the basis of its internal dynamics either. It's the interaction of both that's key, and if you (as the contacting civilization) understand both sides of the equation, then you can theoretically shape the form your own contact takes in a way that moderates whatever dangerous potentials exist in the contacted culture. And you can certainly try to make sure you don't act in a way that causes damage to the cultural psyche in a way that makes it more dangerous.

Before you contact another culture you should gather as much data as you can, you should endeavor to determine what lurks beneath the surface.

Easy to say, but I dispute the Trek assumption that you can learn useful things about a culture via a "duck blind" or secret-infiltration approach. Any anthropologist will tell you that's limited at best, since you're seeing it from the outside, filtered through your own preconceptions and worldview, and so you're not getting an understanding of their worldview. Without that, you can't really understand their motivations. Immersion anthropology in the real world demands that the contacted culture knows who and what you are. Only that way can they know that you need certain crucial things explained. If you disguise yourself and pretend to be one of them, they'll assume you already know certain things, so you'll have no clue that you need to learn them until you make some horrible mistake and violate their taboos and get the book (or the spear) thrown at you without ever knowing what it was you did wrong. If they know you're an outsider, though, they'll probably be more tolerant of your inevitable violations of their taboos.

Also, many cultures would be offended or frightened to know you'd been observing them in secret (see the TNG episode "First Contact"). It's like voyeurizing a woman and hiding cameras in her home to get to know her before you introduce yourself. It's dishonest, invasive, and creepy. It's arrogant, assuming you have the right to take unilateral action in a contact without the awareness or consent of the other side. It gives you all the power and leaves them powerless. A healthy contact, whether between individuals or between cultures, requires equality.

The romulans are always extremly aggressive in their dealings with the Federation. In TNG: The Defector, for example, they wanted to expose a traitor, true, but they also wanted to capture or destroy the Enterprise. If they would be sure of victory they would have attacked the Federation long ago.

There is a major difference between trying to capture or neutralize a single vessel and launching an invasion on a civilization-wide scale. The former is a surgical strike, and can be seen more as an espionage type of operation if it's done in secrecy. Yes, it's an act of aggression, but not all acts of aggression are the same. A pride of lions will try to take down one wildebeest out of the herd, maybe a young or old or injured one that's easy to defeat, but they would never try to attack the entire herd at once with all their force. That would just be stupid. The willingness to engage in one type of aggressive act does not prove willingness to engage in every other possible kind of aggressive act.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Arrogance, aggressiveness, religious intolerance - medieval european cultures had these traits long before they made contact with the asians, long before they started to burn "witches". These traits developed during hundreds of years. The historical circumstances determined the shape in which these characteristics manifested themselves. In different circumstances, such traits would have emerged in other forms, but they would have become apparent.
Such civilizations will respond aggesively no matter how you make contact, no matter what you do say or do.

Sure, medieval Europe had those traits, but every culture has aggression. And you can't stereotype the Europeans as some sort of mad dogs. Their interactions with the greater world were spearheaded as much through (relatively) peaceful traders and merchants as through armies and conquistadores. Much of their "aggression" was mercantile. And the cultural and religious imperialism, as I said, were largely a reaction to having been the victims of others' imperialism for centuries before. Victims have a way of becoming victimizers.

You're right that you can't explain a culture's behavior in a post-contact situation entirely on the basis of outside influences, but my point is that you can't explain it entirely on the basis of its internal dynamics either. It's the interaction of both that's key, and if you (as the contacting civilization) understand both sides of the equation, then you can theoretically shape the form your own contact takes in a way that moderates whatever dangerous potentials exist in the contacted culture. And you can certainly try to make sure you don't act in a way that causes damage to the cultural psyche in a way that makes it more dangerous.

Can you make contact in a way that moderates the "dangerous potentials"? I'm not so optimistic. For medieval europe, greed and religious intolerance were the result of hundreds of years of history. These transformations can't be undone in a day or a year or even ten years. Your actions can moderate such dangerous tendencies in many cases, but not in all of them. For example, the fictional Dominion. From the moment the wormhole to the Gamma Quadrant was discoverred, the war between the Alpha Quadrant powers and the Dominion was inevitable. The Founders were just too paranoid for any other outcome to be possible.

Before you contact another culture you should gather as much data as you can, you should endeavor to determine what lurks beneath the surface.

Easy to say, but I dispute the Trek assumption that you can learn useful things about a culture via a "duck blind" or secret-infiltration approach. Any anthropologist will tell you that's limited at best, since you're seeing it from the outside, filtered through your own preconceptions and worldview, and so you're not getting an understanding of their worldview. Without that, you can't really understand their motivations. Immersion anthropology in the real world demands that the contacted culture knows who and what you are. Only that way can they know that you need certain crucial things explained. If you disguise yourself and pretend to be one of them, they'll assume you already know certain things, so you'll have no clue that you need to learn them until you make some horrible mistake and violate their taboos and get the book (or the spear) thrown at you without ever knowing what it was you did wrong. If they know you're an outsider, though, they'll probably be more tolerant of your inevitable violations of their taboos.

Also, many cultures would be offended or frightened to know you'd been observing them in secret (see the TNG episode "First Contact"). It's like voyeurizing a woman and hiding cameras in her home to get to know her before you introduce yourself. It's dishonest, invasive, and creepy. It's arrogant, assuming you have the right to take unilateral action in a contact without the awareness or consent of the other side. It gives you all the power and leaves them powerless. A healthy contact, whether between individuals or between cultures, requires equality.

Sure, the duck blind and undercover methods will never be as efficient as an open contact. But they can provide you with an insight into the culture you want to contact. It's prudent to have a safety net. Without such precautions, you'll have to make contact without any information whatsoever. The consequences could be disastrous. In most cases, I seriously doubt you'll be able to moderate the so-called "dangerous potentials" - even when this could be done.

As for the morality of such methods - C.I.A., M.I.5, F.S.B (and the list could go on) - are doing just that.

Seriously, I think that these approaches are "the lesser evil".
Of course, there must be strict rules: the observation must not exceed a certain intensity and duration. The reasons are both moral and practical: the probability of discovery by the observed civilization must remain low.

The romulans are always extremly aggressive in their dealings with the Federation. In TNG: The Defector, for example, they wanted to expose a traitor, true, but they also wanted to capture or destroy the Enterprise. If they would be sure of victory they would have attacked the Federation long ago.

There is a major difference between trying to capture or neutralize a single vessel and launching an invasion on a civilization-wide scale. The former is a surgical strike, and can be seen more as an espionage type of operation if it's done in secrecy. Yes, it's an act of aggression, but not all acts of aggression are the same. A pride of lions will try to take down one wildebeest out of the herd, maybe a young or old or injured one that's easy to defeat, but they would never try to attack the entire herd at once with all their force. That would just be stupid. The willingness to engage in one type of aggressive act does not prove willingness to engage in every other possible kind of aggressive act.

If the romulans tried to destroy or capture a shuttle or a small starship, I would agree. But they attacked the Enterprise, perhabs the most renowned flagship of the Federation.
Today, the destruction of an U.S. aircraft carrier by a hostile nation is practically a declaration of war against U.S.A. In the fictional star trek universe, the destruction of a galaxy class starship has the same meaning. In DS9: The Jem'Hadar, the Dominion made its intensions clear when it destroyed The Odyssey. The willingness to go to war was followed by war a few seasons (read years) later.
Most of the time, the romulans refrain from being overtly aggressive towards the Federation. Sometimes, though, their hatred against the Federation overwhelms their common sense ( Like in TNG: Unification 1&2 and TNG: The Defector). Then you can see their true feelings towards the Federation.

 

[Christopher]

Can you make contact in a way that moderates the "dangerous potentials"? I'm not so optimistic.

Given enough experience and sociological expertise, I think a sufficiently advanced starfaring civilization could develop a system for minimizing the risk. Of course, there would probably have to be a lot of tragic mistakes before that happened.

For medieval europe, greed and religious intolerance were the result of hundreds of years of history. These transformations can't be undone in a day or a year or even ten years. Your actions can moderate such dangerous tendencies in many cases, but not in all of them. For example, the fictional Dominion. From the moment the wormhole to the Gamma Quadrant was discoverred, the war between the Alpha Quadrant powers and the Dominion was inevitable. The Founders were just too paranoid for any other outcome to be possible.

Maybe sometimes, yes, if the damage has already been done. For instance, the militant Islamist radical subculture today is too embittered and hardened by centuries of historical motives for their anger to be diverted from it; if an alien species came along and tried to make contact with them, they probably wouldn't be able to avoid a violent outcome.

But maybe that's how you moderate the risks of the contact: by making sure that the local culture you make contact with isn't the most radicalized and xenophobic one. Fiction gives us one culture per planet, but that's utterly absurd; every planet is going to have many distinct cultures. By fostering the more reasonable ones, maybe they can keep the more aggressive ones in check.

Sure, the duck blind and undercover methods will never be as efficient as an open contact. But they can provide you with an insight into the culture you want to contact. It's prudent to have a safety net.

See, that's just it. They don't really provide insight, just guesses based on external appearance. Insight comes from within. Those conclusions are based solely on your own preconceptions, and so you could be drastically misinterpreting what's going on. If you assume you understand them based solely on one-sided observation, you could be dangerously overconfident.

Without such precautions, you'll have to make contact without any information whatsoever. The consequences could be disastrous.

Most human cross-cultural interactions have begun with little or no prior knowledge, and they haven't all been disastrous. There is a risk, yes, but the way to moderate it is by starting out slow. Among humans, trade is usually a successful way of beginning a first contact, even if it's just a symbolic trade. You approach tentatively, do a little minor business, retreat, come back later, just take it all one small step at a time. Humans haven't needed to rely on pre-contact espionage in order to avoid disastrous contacts.

As for the morality of such methods - C.I.A., M.I.5, F.S.B (and the list could go on) - are doing just that.

I think that makes my point for me. Those are methods you use on enemies, not friends. Go into a contact that way, and you're approaching the other side as someone to be controlled and regulated. That's just the kind of mindset that can lead to cultural imperialism and political domination. And if the locals find out you were spying on them, they'll have every reason to conclude your intentions are antagonistic.

Of course, there must be strict rules: the observation must not exceed a certain intensity and duration. The reasons are both moral and practical: the probability of discovery by the observed civilization must remain low.

I don't think "It's okay if you don't get caught" should be the guiding principle of a civilized contact policy.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

But maybe that's how you moderate the risks of the contact: by making sure that the local culture you make contact with isn't the most radicalized and xenophobic one. Fiction gives us one culture per planet, but that's utterly absurd; every planet is going to have many distinct cultures. By fostering the more reasonable ones, maybe they can keep the more aggressive ones in check.

I disagree. If there are more cultures on one planet, you must treat them equally. If you discriminate one or more, these cultures will become paranoid, aggressive (more than they already are). They will act against the contacted cultures and against you. Worst case scenario: an planetary conflict engulfs that world. Best case scenario: the planet becomes politically unstable. And nobody on that world likes you very much by the time you leave.

Sure, the duck blind and undercover methods will never be as efficient as an open contact. But they can provide you with an insight into the culture you want to contact. It,s prudent to have a safety net.

See, that's just it. They don't really provide insight, just guesses based on external appearance. Insight comes from within. Those conclusions are based solely on your own preconceptions, and so you could be drastically misinterpreting what's going on. If you assume you understand them based solely on one-sided observation, you could be dangerously overconfident.

But I only assume that you can gain a superficial understanding of the culture you're studying through these methods. Perhaps these "guesses" can allow you to determine if this culture resembles the radical islamists or not.

Most human cross-cultural interactions have begun with little or no prior knowledge, and they haven't all been disastrous. There is a risk, yes, but the way to moderate it is by starting out slow. Among humans, trade is usually a successful way of beginning a first contact, even if it's just a symbolic trade. You approach tentatively, do a little minor business, retreat, come back later, just take it all one small step at a time. Humans haven't needed to rely on pre-contact espionage in order to avoid disastrous contacts.

Most "human" interactions. Humans have a similar physiology and, even more important, a similar psychology.
What about human-extraterrestrial interactions? Surely, the alien anatomy and personality differs from ours. They may even use a different logic, incomprehensible to us.
Communicating with them could prove immensely difficult, and we have to know how to do it when we make contact with them! Why? Because, from that moment, the clock is ticking. Without proper communication, the first contact could degenerate into chaos. The aliens will project their own fears, hopes and deductions upon us, and we'll do the same with them.

And how can we learn how to communicate before we make contact? By using these "duck blind" methods.

As for the morality of such methods - C.I.A., M.I.5, F.S.B (and the list could go on) - are doing just that.

I think that makes my point for me. Those are methods you use on enemies, not friends. Go into a contact that way, and you're approaching the other side as someone to be controlled and regulated. That's just the kind of mindset that can lead to cultural imperialism and political domination. And if the locals find out you were spying on them, they'll have every reason to conclude your intentions are antagonistic.

I was trying to say that today, humans are spying on each other for a lot less noble reasons. And yes, the morality of such actions is questionable. But in the case of interspecies contact, the same actions are necessary. Only by using such methods can you lower the probability of an catastrophic first contact.

Of course, there must be strict rules: the observation must not exceed a certain intensity and duration. The reasons are both moral and practical: the probability of discovery by the observed civilization must remain low.

I don't think "It's okay if you don't get caught" should be the guiding principle of a civilized contact policy.

Give me an efficient alternative, and I'll be happy to renounce these methods. All you are giving me is "have faith that everything will have a happy end". Considering the stakes, this is not good enough.
These observation methods are the lesser evil. A necessary evil.

 

[Christopher]

But maybe that's how you moderate the risks of the contact: by making sure that the local culture you make contact with isn't the most radicalized and xenophobic one. Fiction gives us one culture per planet, but that's utterly absurd; every planet is going to have many distinct cultures. By fostering the more reasonable ones, maybe they can keep the more aggressive ones in check.

I disagree. If there are more cultures on one planet, you must treat them equally. If you discriminate one or more, these cultures will become paranoid, aggressive (more than they already are). They will act against the contacted cultures and against you.

I didn't say discriminate. It's more a matter of offering incentives for peaceful interaction. More importantly, it's about remembering that it's not just about you -- they don't exist merely as objects for you to act upon. They have their own internal dynamics, their own cultural forces engaged in interaction or conflict, and as likely as not, you're just arriving in the middle of an ongoing situation and trying to catch up.

Certainly favoring one side heavy-handedly can be disastrous; the only reason Islamist fundamentalists are mad at us is because we hamfistedly took sides in the ongoing conflict between opposing cultural and economic forces within the Islamic world, often favoring tyrants, plutocrats, and oppressors because they seem nominally more willing to Westernize. But what I'm talking about is something much more subtle, and probably beyond the scope of a BBS discussion.

Worst case scenario: an planetary conflict engulfs that world. Best case scenario: the planet becomes politically unstable. And nobody on that world likes you very much by the time you leave.

When has Earth ever not been politically unstable on a global scale? Again, it's a mistake to assume all causation springs from you, the visitor. All you're doing is inserting yourself into a complex ongoing process, and whatever happens will be caused as much by the factors already in play as by anything you introduce. The key is to step gingerly into the waters, get a feel for the flow of things, and maneuver in a way that lets the flow carry you forward rather than smashing you into the rocks.

But I only assume that you can gain a superficial understanding of the culture you're studying through these methods. Perhaps these "guesses" can allow you to determine if this culture resembles the radical islamists or not.

Until you discover that your outsiders' assumptions have caused you to misread the situation critically and confuse the wolves with the sheep.

What about human-extraterrestrial interactions? Surely, the alien anatomy and personality differs from ours. They may even use a different logic, incomprehensible to us.

Exactly my problem with the "duck blind" approach. Observing from the outside, you can only filter your observations through your own logic and precedents. You can't understand how their society works until you've entered into it interactively.

Communicating with them could prove immensely difficult, and we have to know how to do it when we make contact with them! Why? Because, from that moment, the clock is ticking. Without proper communication, the first contact could degenerate into chaos. The aliens will project their own fears, hopes and deductions upon us, and we'll do the same with them.

Exactly why trade is a good way to start. Even when alien psychologies have little in common, every living organism is going to have needs, and every civilization is going to have material goods as a component. Communication has to begin with a common point of reference, and the basic physical needs of physical beings and societies can provide one (assuming the beings in question aren't cold-planet methane-breathers or something).

And how can we learn how to communicate before we make contact? By using these "duck blind" methods.

Again, no, because you'd be limited to your own detached assumptions about meaning. You might get a grasp of the syntax and grammar, but you'd be sorely deficient in understanding the subtler nuances of meaning. If you come to them sounding like you understand their language, they'll assume you understand their unspoken rules as well, and that assumption is as likely to get you in deep trouble as your own assumption that you have all the answers.

Whereas if they know going in that you don't know their language and rules, they'll be patient with you, more forgiving of your mistakes. (Well, not always, but the odds are better.) Better to approach openly as a child needing to learn, rather than pretending to be an adult and then making a child's mistake.

I was trying to say that today, humans are spying on each other for a lot less noble reasons. And yes, the morality of such actions is questionable. But in the case of interspecies contact, the same actions are necessary. Only by using such methods can you lower the probability of an catastrophic first contact.

I don't accept that the ends justify the means. The means inform the end. If you believe you're entitled to spy on people, to lie to them, to act unilaterally without giving them a choice, those are exactly the attitudes that can lead you to abuse them, to exploit them, to treat them selfishly and imperiously. It's implicitly assuming that you have more rights in the contact than they do.

Like I said, you don't start a romantic relationship by voyeurizing your potential partner. That's unhealthy and just plain rude. This is no different. It's about respect for the other partner in the relationship. You can make all sorts of excuses about how you can make the girl happier if you spy on her private conversations and read her diary before you introduce yourself so you know what she likes and doesn't like. But in the final analysis, you're just being self-centered, trampling her rights to serve your own agendas and not giving her a choice in the matter. It's immature and controlling, and people who treat women that way tend to go on to treat them in far more abusive ways.

Give me an efficient alternative, and I'll be happy to renounce these methods. All you are giving me is "have faith that everything will have a happy end". Considering the stakes, this is not good enough.

That's a complete lie and I resent it. I'm saying "Be extremely careful and attentive and it can minimize the risk." The fact that I'm not spelling out details doesn't mean I'm spouting hollow platitudes, it means that it's too multifaceted and complex to discuss in detail in a superficial medium like this.

Besides, who says efficiency is the goal? What's the rush? The best approach to getting to know a new culture is to proceed in small steps, let the impact of the contact be absorbed gradually and adjusted to. Episodic TV has spoiled us to think of first contact as something that happens in a day or two; the more practical approach might take many years, with only intermittent visits.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

You obviously think that the "duck blind" approach is not only morally questionable, but also completely ineffective - because the contacting civilization won't be able to interpret correctly the information it gathered.

My opinion is that an advanced civilization, one that had hundreds of previous first contacts, will have the experience to correctly interpret the data - in most situations. You said it yourself: such a civilization should be able to moderate even the so-called "dangerous potentials" - again, in most cases.

As for the "trade" and "tread carefully" approach - this is, obviously, a good ideea. If the contacting civilization discovers that the other civilization is not the "mad dog" variety. If a peaceful relation is possible at that point.
You will never be able to avoid the "mad dog" societies if you bypass the "duck blind" approach.


Of course, humanity doesn't have any experience with first contact situations - the first contact between human cultures (or a romantic relationship) can't really compare with the first contact between two alien civilizations. The aliens from Star Trek are ridiculously human. I beleive that a true alien civilization will be so strange, as to defy comprehension.

What should we do, then? I think there are only two options.

First choice. We stay at home, in our own solar system. Basically, this is the "Star Trek" approach - only without the plot inconsistencies and with a different motivation: we fear that the alien civilization will become our enemy, not that it will be overwhelmed by our civilization.

Second choice. We travel to the stars. Beginnings are always hard. Nonetheless, they must be made. A civilization can only advance or regress. There is no third option. Stagnation is regress.

If we are lucky, an experienced alien civilization will contact us - we will learn from them how to act in such situations. Of course, we can't count on that.

You said that the "duck blind" approach is morally problematic.

The variety we see on TNG: Who watches the watchers, TNG: First contact or TNG: Insurrection surely is.

But what if you only listen to their Tv/Radio(or equivalent) transmissions?

If you begin to suspect that they have a taboo against being observed, you desist immediately, of course. In this case, it's obvious that such methods will do more harm than good.
When you contact this alien species, you must tell them the truth. The aliens will surely realize that you have too much information about them. If you lile, these aliens will become distrustful.

But what if you can be relatively sure that the observed civilization has no such taboo? In this case, you can even use the Star Trek "duck blind" methods. But you should only use them if it's absolutely necessary. And, obviously, you shouldn't lie to them about these actions.

Finally, if you realize that the civilization you're trying to contact is too embittered to make peaceful contact, you leave it alone until this is no longer the case.

We have discussed another issue: when you discover a world inhabited by an intelligent species, which culture from this world should you contact first?

In my opinion, the response is: you must contact all the cultures from that world simultaneously.
In any other case chaos will ensue.
Yes, the political climate was never stable on Earth, but, for example, there is a big difference between the tensions that preceded the world wars and the usual friction that characterizes the relations between states.
Imagine if an alien species contacted only The European Union. All the other states would jump at its throat like a pack of rabid dogs. And U.S.A. would lead the pack.
Only afterwards can you make your trade offers and begin the political games - or, as you said it, only afterwards can you start "offering incentives for peaceful interraction".

Give me an efficient alternative, and I'll be happy to renounce these methods. All you are giving me is "have faith that everything will have a happy end". Considering the stakes, this is not good enough.

That's a complete lie and I resent it.

I was not my intention to be impolite.

But what I'm talking about is something much more subtle, and probably beyond the scope of a BBS discussion.

The fact that I'm not spelling out details doesn't mean I'm spouting hollow platitudes, it means that it's too multifaceted and complex to discuss in detail in a superficial medium like this.

What is this "subtle" and "complex" magic first contact solution? Can you at least describe it summarily? Did you read about it in a book? If so, whitch book? I'm interested to know.

 

[captcalhoun]

that'd be MI6 not MI5, FYI... 6 is the Secret Intelligence Service doing all the James Bond guff. MI5 are the Security Service, doing all the spy-catching, terrorist-tracking stuff that the FBI do.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

that'd be MI6 not MI5, FYI... 6 is the Secret Intelligence Service doing all the James Bond guff. MI5 are the Security Service, doing all the spy-catching, terrorist-tracking stuff that the FBI do.

I stand corrected.