Question on the scope of Prime Directive

[JRTStarlight]

This was a TNG plot done badly in Enterprise. Justification for letting Valakians to die was weak and callous, and the whole thing did what ENT often did, failed to do what a prequel should. But I think that's enough of that, we obviously disagree.

Perhaps, just as Dr. Crusher disagreed with Picard's POV 100%. Since Crusher only looked at one side of it – a short-term side to alleviate immediate suffering, and the long-term stuff didn't seem to matter to her or occur to her.

And Picard's adherence to the PD condemned one planet not to death, as the Ornarans thought, but a good deal of suffering as they went through withdrawal, but Crusher said they wouldn't die from that. So they would naturally learn they no longer had the plague and were finally free of the drug. But then the worse addiction kicks in, often not considered. The Brekkians were 100% dependent on the Ornarans for everything else. They had no industry, save the drug trade. So now they'll have no food, clean water, clothes, etc. and countless numbers of them probably will die. Crusher may not have considered that, or cared, since they were low-life drug dealers and probably deserved it. She did say she didn't care for them, and never once did she really express any concern for them or what would happen to them should their only industry collapse.

Of course I never cared too much for certain aspects of that episode as I felt it was badly contrived, unlike those circumstances in Dear Doctor, which seemed more plausible. First, the whole idea they had both the drug and the payment in transit seemed wrong. Why are they still carrying the payment back to Ornara? They were at the 4th planet in the Delos system, which didn't appear to be Brekka or Ornara. So the payment should have already been on Brekka.

Regardless, the idea two or three faulty spaceships are carrying all the trade goods required by another planet is just ludicrous. That's enough to carry a potent drug, but not enough to carry the trade goods for all of Brekka back.

Nevertheless, we needn't dwell on the apparently faulty story details to examine the prime directive. This episode, in particular, is the one I quote that shows Picard feels it mostly deals with and applies to "less developed" civilizations (non-warp-capable), and not just anyone, and that history has shown us time and again however well intentioned a quick fix might be, the long-term consequences are often disastrous. And it would squarely be the Federation's fault if they interfered.

Ultimately, though they interfered by saving the people and the drug in the first place that would have otherwise been lost and accelerated the end results, the end results were left on track when they departed by not giving them the repairs for their two remaining ships. It was as "hands off" as they could get at that point. Maybe it's callous to let millions suffer when they could offer a non-addictive version of the drug, but can one starship really do that? Might it not become their full time job to manufacture drugs long enough to wean them off the drug, as well as support the Brekkians until they could build up more industry? How many years must they do this to prevent all suffering, and should they go before they totally fix other people's problems, are they really responsible for the suffering left behind?

I think not. It's not their job, nor their responsibility to do all that there, and every where else, too, lest others suffer. Nor do I feel that is actually a callous attitude. Crusher disagreed. I agreed more with Picard.

But it's fine if you like that episode more than Dear Doctor. I just felt DD did a pretty decent job as a forerunner for Picard's attitude, though I'm pretty sure Beverly would not have approved.

Not a great analogy really, there's little evidence to suggest we wiped out Neanderthals or enslaved them. In fact the best that can really be drawn from the evidence is we prospered where they failed. Theories have been put forward to suggest there would have been violent conflict on local scales but it's hard to extrapolate that to an extinction event given the number of other hominid species we would have been in competition with but survived to become the ancestors of many of the species we see today.

More likely would be a combination of losing out in terms of resource competition, absorption into the homo erectus/sapiens gene pool or (the prevailing theory) being decimated by transcontinental drift of pathogens as we spread into Europe.

Doubtless we contributed to their decline but it's hard to claim realistically we "wiped them out".

Well, we could discuss the actual science, but that's hardly the point, and my analogy stands up as a good example for how the Prime Directive might apply there in that real situation, or a fictitious one similar enough to it that you see the larger point I'm making.

One can contrive various reasons an alien culture might help out one species but not another, on this planet 75,000 years ago, or another planet, thus giving one species the upper hand they otherwise would not have had, and through their interference or intervention, determine which of two (or more) competing species would come out on top. The aliens do not even have to have all their facts right, or a "good" reason by human standards to believe things will work out as they figure they might down the road. The POINT is, such interference can consign one race to subservience or even oblivion where, had no such interference been made, they could have achieved dominance or even sole dominion over the world.

I wasn't really suggesting Homo Sapiens actively hunted down and killed every Neanderthal, BTW.

As for the science, considering how we are as a species, I have little doubt we killed a bunch of Neanderthals, and they killed a bunch of us, and we bred with them, and we were at peace with them at times, too. The entire gambit of interaction is on the table. But on the whole, we out paced them, and when ever limited resources would make all the difference, we monopolized enough of them that the Neanderthals ultimately failed. Had an advanced civilization interfered, it might have turned out differently.

 

[Spot261]

Perhaps, just as Dr. Crusher disagreed with Picard's POV 100%. Since Crusher only looked at one side of it – a short-term side to alleviate immediate suffering, and the long-term stuff didn't seem to matter to her or occur to her.

And Picard's adherence to the PD condemned one planet not to death, as the Ornarans thought, but a good deal of suffering as they went through withdrawal, but Crusher said they wouldn't die from that. So they would naturally learn they no longer had the plague and were finally free of the drug. But then the worse addiction kicks in, often not considered. The Brekkians were 100% dependent on the Ornarans for everything else. They had no industry, save the drug trade. So now they'll have no food, clean water, clothes, etc. and countless numbers of them probably will die. Crusher may not have considered that, or cared, since they were low-life drug dealers and probably deserved it. She did say she didn't care for them, and never once did she really express any concern for them or what would happen to them should their only industry collapse.

Of course I never cared too much for certain aspects of that episode as I felt it was badly contrived, unlike those circumstances in Dear Doctor, which seemed more plausible. First, the whole idea they had both the drug and the payment in transit seemed wrong. Why are they still carrying the payment back to Ornara? They were at the 4th planet in the Delos system, which didn't appear to be Brekka or Ornara. So the payment should have already been on Brekka.

Regardless, the idea two or three faulty spaceships are carrying all the trade goods required by another planet is just ludicrous. That's enough to carry a potent drug, but not enough to carry the trade goods for all of Brekka back.

Nevertheless, we needn't dwell on the apparently faulty story details to examine the prime directive. This episode, in particular, is the one I quote that shows Picard feels it mostly deals with and applies to "less developed" civilizations (non-warp-capable), and not just anyone, and that history has shown us time and again however well intentioned a quick fix might be, the long-term consequences are often disastrous. And it would squarely be the Federation's fault if they interfered.

Ultimately, though they interfered by saving the people and the drug in the first place that would have otherwise been lost and accelerated the end results, the end results were left on track when they departed by not giving them the repairs for their two remaining ships. It was as "hands off" as they could get at that point. Maybe it's callous to let millions suffer when they could offer a non-addictive version of the drug, but can one starship really do that? Might it not become their full time job to manufacture drugs long enough to wean them off the drug, as well as support the Brekkians until they could build up more industry? How many years must they do this to prevent all suffering, and should they go before they totally fix other people's problems, are they really responsible for the suffering left behind?

I think not. It's not their job, nor their responsibility to do all that there, and every where else, too, lest others suffer. Nor do I feel that is actually a callous attitude. Crusher disagreed. I agreed more with Picard.

But it's fine if you like that episode more than Dear Doctor. I just felt DD didn't a pretty decent job as a forerunner for Picard's attitude, though I'm pretty sure Beverly would not have approved.



Well, we could discuss the actual science, but that's hardly the point, and my analogy stands up as a good example for how the Prime Directive might apply there in that real situation, or a fictitious one similar enough to it that you see the larger point I'm making.

One can contrive various reasons an alien culture might help out one species but not another, on this planet 75,000 years ago, or another planet, thus giving one species the upper hand they otherwise would not have had, and through their interference or intervention, determine which of two (or more) competing species would come out on top. The aliens do not even have to have all their facts right, or a "good" reason by human standards to believe things will work out as they figure they might down the road. The POINT is, such interference can consign one race to subservience or even oblivion where, had no such interference been made, they could have achieved dominance or even sole dominion over the world.

I wasn't really suggesting Homo Sapiens actively hunted down and killed every Neanderthal, BTW.

As for the science, considering how we our as a species, I have little doubt we killed a bunch of Neanderthals, and they killed a bunch of us, and we bred with them, and we were at peace with them at times, too. The entire gambit of interaction is on the table. But on the whole, we out paced them, and when ever limited resources would make all the difference, we monopolized enough of them that the Neanderthals ultimately failed. Had an advanced civilization interfered, it might have turned out differently.

The analogy was used in the episode, but sorry that doesn't give it any more credibility. It was seemingly written in either on the basis neither Phlox nor Archer would really appreciate how far off the mark the analogy was, or that they had more pressing points to debate at the time than breaking it down. Very possibly the Jacquemettons did not give the matter too much thought when they included the line. However the analogy does fall down on several points, too many to list here fully but two stand out in addition to the ones I already pointed out:

Firstly the two species were coherently defined societies which could reasonably be said to have a consistent relationship with each other. The Valakians were the dominant species on the planet, whilst the Menck were visibly a race with a well defined subordinate relationship to them.

Secondly that relationship consisted of just the two of them in the scenario shown.

Thus the scenario was both discrete and binary.

Neither would apply in the case of Sapiens and Neanderthals. There was no consistent or well defined societies interacting in a manner which could be similarly characterised nor were either all that visibly special at the time. Both had limited tool use but so it seems did other hominid species which were present.

No alien species looking at earth could have reliably predicted the future dynamic of all those millions of species within the ecosystem or which if any would go on to become the dominant one in our timeframe, much less could anything remotely approaching an active, organised, dominant global society be discerned.

At that point viewed externally both species were simply part of the background noise of the ecosystem and frankly classifying our current status as an endgame seems pretty premature given how short a period we've actually been about.

However even if said aliens somehow picked out those two species from millions, dozens of which would be classed as proto humanoid in trek terms so it is by no means clear that we did in some manner prove to be generally better adapted to the environment at large.

As I said the current best extinction theory for Neanderthals revolves around a pathogen piggybacking the sapiens migration patterns, which would have affected Neanderthal regardless of their level of selective sophistication. The implication is they might potentially have been every bit as well, if not better, adapted to the environment as we were at the time, we have no way of being sure.

This might seem pedantic but whilst loose analogies can be said to work in many cases, this went beyond loose into simply invalid.

 

[JRTStarlight]

The analogy was used in the episode, but sorry that doesn't give it any more credibility.

Or any less.

It was seemingly written in either on the basis neither Phlox nor Archer would really appreciate how far off the mark the analogy was, or that they had more pressing points to debate at the time than breaking it down.

Far off the mark? It's just a similarity – it's not meant to be identical on every point or in every way. In fact the only thing it's meant to do is to make the current situation more personal to you and not just some abstract concept or something happening to somebody else. It does that. It does that well.

The important point there was to try to grasp how you might feel if aliens came along and did give the Neanderthals an advantage that either led to Homo Sapiens demise or subjugation. I suspect you would not have liked it, though you probably never would have been born to have an opinion on the matter had they done that.

Very possibly the Jacquemettons did not give the matter too much thought when they included the line. However the analogy does fall down on several points, too many to list here fully but two stand out in addition to the ones I already pointed out:

I don't recall you pointing any out that invalidated the comparison or discounted the hypothetical possibilities. You just didn't think the real science supported it, but the assertion isn't that the real science does support it, but what if aliens did something like that and it led to Homo Sapiens' demise? How would you feel about that?

Firstly the two species were coherently defined societies that could reasonably be said to have a consistent relationship with each other.

Yes, with the Valakians calling the shots, making the decisions for the Menk, possibly even population control by fixing them so only a few can have children and the Valakians can manage their numbers – like we do our pets when we spay or neuter them. We didn't actually see that happening, IIRC, but the comparison was made, and it makes sense if the Valakians are in control, lest they spend most of their time and resources letting the Menk population run rampant and using a huge percentage of their time and resources to support them.

The Valakians were the dominant species on the planet, whilst the Menck were visibly a race with a well-defined subordinate relationship to them.

Well-defined by the Valakians.

Secondly that relationship consisted of just the two of them in the scenario shown.

So?

Thus the scenario was both discrete and binary.

Neither would apply in the case of Sapiens and Neanderthals.

Neither has to for one to consider the hypothetical possibilities of something like that occurring, and whether or not you have the right to make that kind of decision for others (or as they say, play God).

There was no consistent or well-defined societies interacting in a manner which could be similarly characterized nor were either all that visibly special at the time. Both had limited tool use but so it seems did other hominid species that were present.

Again, so? Consider all the sentient (edit: sapient) species at any given time when the aliens show up. How does this change the argument an alien might decide for whatever alien reason to pick one and give them an advantage? And how might you feel if the one they picked wasn't you and yours?

No alien species looking at earth could have reliably predicted the future dynamic of all those millions of species within the ecosystem or which if any would go on to become the dominant one in our timeframe, much less could anything remotely approaching an active, organized, dominant global society be discerned.

You think there were millions of sentient (edit: sapient) species on Earth at one time? I guess it's possible aliens might pick a garden slug and genetically tweak it so it would surpass anything else on Earth, but the point there would then be, would you have been fine with that given that you were not the slug?

At that point viewed externally both species were simply part of the background noise of the ecosystem and frankly classifying our current status, as an endgame seems pretty premature given how short a period we've actually been about.

I think that's misses the point by such a wide margin one might wonder what analogies in any situation for any reason you wouldn't discount since not having identical circumstances therefore makes it invalid. I believe it suffices to say the suggestion isn't 75,000 years ago an alien species could have done this and it would have had that outcome, but hypothetically, they could have done something like picking a species (not yours) to help, and because of that your species could have been subjugated or destroyed. Then a sort of Golden Rule philosophy might apply. You wouldn't have wanted the aliens to do that to you and yours, so maybe you shouldn't be all that willing to do it to somebody else. That's the point. Not your assessment on what was happening 75K years ago, if aliens would have or could have picked Neanderthals over Homo Sapiens, or the likelihood Homo Sapiens might have been subjugated, dominated, or destroyed if they had.

However even if said aliens somehow picked out those two species from millions, dozens of which would be classed as proto humanoid in trek terms so it is by no means clear that we did in some manner prove to be generally better adapted to the environment at large.

Millions of sentient (edit: sapient) species? You don't think it more likely a tool using space faring species might just narrow the field to probably tool using candidates that might achieve as much in less than 100,000 years or something? And again, it doesn't have to perfectly match the how or why Homo Sapiens arose while Neanderthals fell. How that happened is so far off the point and quite besides the point, so I wonder why you even bring it up. The question is do you think it would be ethical for an alien race to pick one and apply their own values when such interference could and probably even would consign other species to lesser positions in the future? No guarantees, of course, that any of their assessments will pan out, but we're not looking for a guarantee.

As I said the current best extinction theory for Neanderthals revolves around a pathogen piggybacking the sapiens migration patterns, which would have affected Neanderthal regardless of their level of selective sophistication. The implication is they might potentially have been every bit as well, if not better, adapted to the environment as we were at the time, we have no way of being sure.

That sounds about right. But it's still not the point. What if the aliens gave Neanderthals the understanding of germs and the practice of inoculation, and they didn't share it with Homo Sapiens? In fact, long after the aliens depart, maybe Neanderthal decided to use the knowledge and launch a sort of germ warfare on the competing race, wiping out Homo Sapiens.

This might seem pedantic but whilst loose analogies can be said to work in many cases, this went beyond loose into simply invalid.

IMO, an analogy doesn't have to be particularly "tight" at all to conjure up enough of a comparison for one to consider what it might be like if the shoe was on the other foot. That's all it was meant to do.

Join the Enterprise Reviews
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/enterprise-episode-review-with-spoilers.290742/#post-12215817

 

[Commishsleer]

In the third season of TNG, Hans Beimler and Rick Manning developed a story about the Enterprise coming across an active genocide and having to face the consequences of violating the Prime Directive. According to RDM, the whole writing staff was excited about this story, seeing it as a return to the moral discussion of the original series. However, Roddenberry quashed the story, saying that "if the Enterprise came to a planet where they were shoving Jews into ovens, the Enterprise would have to leave. " It was not the kind of story that Roddenberry was willing to let the writers explore, that the Prime Directive was fundamentally and wholly good. That's why often actions that contradicted the Prime Directive were often taken depicted as the rash actions of secondary, perhaps non-human, characters, or else technological work-arounds were used. Roddenberry was not wiling to let his ideas be challenged, and stories had to conform to his ethos.

To me this shows why TNG is a bit of a cheat.
Picard is so noble and good because the writers protect his character from these situations.
This is one of the many reasons that Picard is more beloved than say Archer or Sisko.

BTW I 100% agree with GRs decision here

 

[Spot261]

Or any less.


Far off the mark? It's just a similarity – it's not meant to be identical on every point or in every way. In fact the only thing it's meant to do is to make the current situation more personal to you and not just some abstract concept or something happening to somebody else. It does that. It does that well.

The important point there was to try to grasp how you might feel if aliens came along and did give the Neanderthals an advantage that either led to Homo Sapiens demise or subjugation. I suspect you would not have liked it, though you probably never would have been born to have an opinion on the matter had they done that.


I don't recall you pointing any out that invalidated the comparison or discounted the hypothetical possibilities. You just didn't think the real science supported it, but the assertion isn't that the real science does support it, but what if aliens did something like that and it led to Homo Sapiens' demise? How would you feel about that?


Yes, with the Valakians calling the shots, making the decisions for the Menk, possibly even population control by fixing them so only a few can have children and the Valakians can manage their numbers – like we do our pets when we spay or neuter them. We didn't actually see that happening, IIRC, but the comparison was made, and it makes sense if the Valakians are in control, lest they spend most of their time and resources letting the Menk population run rampant and using a huge percentage of their time and resources to support them.


Well-defined by the Valakians.


So?


Neither has to for one to consider the hypothetical possibilities of something like that occurring, and whether or not you have the right to make that kind of decision for others (or as they say, play God).


Again, so? Consider all the sentient species at any given time when the aliens show up. How does this change the argument an alien might decide for whatever alien reason to pick one and give them an advantage? And how might you feel if the one they picked wasn't you and yours?


You think there were millions of sentient species on Earth at one time? I guess it's possible aliens might pick a garden slug and genetically tweak it so it would surpass anything else on Earth, but the point there would then be, would you have been fine with that given that you were not the slug?


I think that's misses the point by such a wide margin one might wonder what analogies in any situation for any reason you wouldn't discount it all as not having identical circumstances and therefore invalid. I believe it suffices to say the suggestion isn't 75,000 years ago an alien species could have done this and it would have had that outcome, but hypothetically, they could have done something like picking a species (not yours) to help, and because of that your species could have been subjugated or destroyed. Then a sort of Golden Rule philosophy might apply. You wouldn't have wanted the aliens to do that to you and yours, so maybe you shouldn't be all that willing to do it to somebody else. That's the point. Not your assessment on what was happening 75K years ago, if aliens would have or could have picked Neanderthals over Homo Sapiens, or the likelihood Homo Sapiens might have been subjugated, dominated, or destroyed if they had.


Millions of sentient species? You don't think it more likely a tool using space faring species might just narrow the field to probably tool using candidates that might achieve as much in less than 100,000 years or something? And again, it doesn't have to perfectly match the how or why Homo Sapiens arose while Neanderthals fell. How that happened is so far off the point and quite besides the point, so I wonder why you even bring it up. The question is do you think it would be ethical for an alien race to pick one and apply their own values when such interference could and probably even would consign other species to lesser positions in the future? No guarantees, of course, that any of their assessments will pan out, but we're not looking for a guarantee.


That sounds about right. But it's still not the point. What if the aliens gave Neanderthals the understanding of germs and the practice of inoculation, and they didn't share it with Homo Sapiens? In fact, long after the aliens depart, maybe Neanderthal decided to use the knowledge and launch a sort of germ warfare on the competing race, wiping out Homo Sapiens.


IMO, an analogy doesn't have to be particularly "tight" at all to conjure up enough of a comparison for one to consider what it might be like if the shoe was on the other foot. That's all it was meant to do.

Join the Enterprise Reviews
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/enterprise-episode-review-with-spoilers.290742/#post-12215817

So quite simply the analogy had an excuse in the episode, where it was used in a throwaway manner. To be used after the fact it doesn't hold water. Analogies don't have to be precise to work, that's the whole point of being an analogy, but the key factors have to map between the two scenarios.

Throwing another of your walls of text at me won't change that one simple point I'm trying to make, the analogy is flawed.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Janeway said in Counterpoint that she can do whatever she wants, and the people who's job it is to punish her for doing whatever she wants are super easy to manipulate, so she will never get into trouble no matter how excessively what she wants is magnificently illegal and immoral.

JANEWAY: Well, let's just say I usually go with my instincts and sort it out later at the Board of Inquiry. Those Admirals and I were on a first name basis, you know.

 

[Longinus]

You think there were millions of sentient species on Earth at one time?

There are millions of sentient species on Earth right now. There is just one sapient species though (maybe couple of more depending how you define it, other apes, whales and dolphins might qualify.)

Yes, a pet peeve. They misuse 'sentient' in scifi all the time.

 

[JRTStarlight]

So quite simply the analogy had an excuse in the episode, where it was used in a throwaway manner. To be used after the fact it doesn't hold water. Analogies don't have to be precise to work, that's the whole point of being an analogy, but the key factors have to map between the two scenarios.

Throwing another of your walls of text at me won't change that one simple point I'm trying to make, the analogy is flawed.

The analogy is fine. I could stop there in response to your "uh, uh" post since you seem to disdain a more thorough explanation, but I won't since others may want it, or more likely, they are clever enough to scroll past it without comment if they don't care about it.

The analogy maps in every important way it was meant to. Two species in competition. Left to their own devices, one will arise to have dominance over the other, or subjugate the other. Third party interference (for whatever reasons, for whatever motives) could change that verdict. Do we have the right to do that?

To make it personal and less abstract, the Neanderthal vs. Sapien is proposed, not because the Valakians are exactly like the Neanderthals, or the Menk are exactly like Homo Sapiens (or vice versa), and certainly not because the relationship between the two species are identical in every way or even most ways in some one-to-one mapping. No one is even suggesting that. The only important feature is that they are in competition. Left alone, the Valakians will die off and the Menk will probably arise and thrive. Interfere and the Valakians will survive and the Menk will continue to be subjugated. Left alone, Sapiens arose to dominate the planet. Interference could have changed that verdict. The details of how or even why somebody might do that are wholly unimportant to the point, which is, would you have thought that ethical or fair if some aliens decided to interfere in such a way that Sapiens did not become the dominate species on the planet?

The answer should be, no, that wouldn't have been fair. And therefore, by analogy, one should see it would be wrong for us to change the verdict there, too.

 

[JRTStarlight]

There are millions of sentient species on Earth right now. There is just one sapient species though (maybe couple of more depending how you define it, other apes, whales and dolphins might qualify.)

Yes, a pet peeve. They misuse 'sentient' in scifi all the time.

What term would is more appropriate for "tool using"? I guess sentient isn't quite that, obviously, if one looks at the definition, but "tool using" is what I meant. Is there one term for that?

I know a lot more than two species on Earth use and make tools, but it's not in the millions. So I stand corrected since "sentient" isn't quite what I meant. Thanks.

 

[Longinus]

What term would is more appropriate for "tool using"? I guess sentient isn't quite that, obviously, if one looks at the definition, but "tool using" is what I meant. Is there one term for that?

I know a lot more than two species on Earth use and make tools, but it's not in the millions. So I stand corrected since "sentient" isn't quite what I meant.

'Sapient' would be closest. Though many animals we really wouldn't consider sapient can use tools.

 

[JRTStarlight]

Well, whatever trait a tool using (and tool making, too), space faring race might consider that would demonstrate to them a species was close (within 100,000 years) of perhaps becoming a space faring species themselves.

 

[suarezguy]

More evidence that Roddenberry had really lost it by the time of TNG.

Kirk would have stepped right in and found some bold and brilliant way to stop the genocide.

If you wanted to watch him doing that you could, the old episodes were and are still around; Roddenberry and most of the other TNG writers very much didn't want to make the new series or lead copies.
Kirk probably would have solved the problem, or thought he did, by giving arms to the oppressed side which may be best but isn't exactly brilliant.

 

[Spot261]

The analogy is fine. I could stop there in response to your "uh, uh" post since you seem to disdain a more thorough explanation, but I won't since others may want it, or more likely, they are clever enough to scroll past it without comment if they don't care about it.

The analogy maps in every important way it was meant to. Two species in competition. Left to their own devices, one will arise to have dominance over the other, or subjugate the other. Third party interference (for whatever reasons, for whatever motives) could change that verdict. Do we have the right to do that?

To make it personal and less abstract, the Neanderthal vs. Sapien is proposed, not because the Valakians are exactly like the Neanderthals, or the Menk are exactly like Homo Sapiens (or vice versa), and certainly not because the relationship between the two species are identical in every way or even most ways in some one-to-one mapping. No one is even suggesting that. The only important feature is that they are in competition. Left alone, the Valakians will die off and the Menk will probably arise and thrive. Interfere and the Valakians will survive and the Menk will continue to be subjugated. Left alone, Sapiens arose to dominate the planet. Interference could have changed that verdict. The details of how or even why somebody might do that are wholly unimportant to the point, which is, would you have thought that ethical or fair if some aliens decided to interfere in such a way that Sapiens did not become the dominate species on the planet?

The answer should be, no, that wouldn't have been fair. And therefore, by analogy, one should see it would be wrong for us to change the verdict there, too.

Sorry my last post was a little, snarky, but you seem to be dismissing my point about the specificity of analogies by repeating yourself at length without actually addressing what I'm saying. For the analogy here to work relies on the parallels being so abstract and loosely defined as to render any conclusions or arguments drawn from it meaningless.

By the way, in the ecological literature tool use tends to be rather imaginatively termed "tool use" and the associated cognitive complexity is also frequently referred to simply as "cognitive complexity". There are references here and there to things like "proto tools" and "meta tools" to define different levels of sophistication, but otherwise the terminology is pretty limited and literal compared to that used to describe concepts such as sapience and social cognition. Where it does get a little more interesting is in relation to tools as cultural phenomena amongst primates.

The scenario in the episode relied on there being precisely two species interacted collectively in a well defined manner on a global scale. Being in competition is neither necessary not sufficient for an analogy given that the Valakians and the Menck were not. They had a subservient and symbiotic relationship that relied on having a well defined societal structure to work as portrayed, any other way and the dynamic would have dictated a completely different set of ethical questions.

That being said, it really isn't clear sapiens and neanderthals were in competition either, they existed concurrently with each other and many other species and held no special place within the ecosystem. That one went on to prosper whilst the other faded is not synonymous with their being in competition. Nor is it clear that one prospered at the expense of the other. In fact we have surprisingly little hard facts on the nature of the relationship between them, much less sufficient knowledge to map that relationship onto the quite specific Valakian/Menck relationship observed in the episode

 

[JRTStarlight]

Sorry my last post was a little, snarky, but you seem to be dismissing my point about the specificity of analogies by repeating yourself at length without actually addressing what I'm saying. For the analogy here to work relies on the parallels being so abstract and loosely defined as to render any conclusions or arguments drawn from it meaningless.

I disagree that is what it takes to make the necessary and valid conclusion the doctor is trying to expose Archer to. So I keep dismissing the specifics you wish to introduce about how close the parallel is, or isn't, since my point is it doesn't matter one way or the other. It needn't even have been a comparison to Sapiens and Neanderthal to work but any two abstract competing species would work (though later you and I seem to have a different idea of what it means to compete). The particular comparison used just makes it easier for Archer to make it personal. Often, only when something becomes personal might one finally see it in a different light, or from the other side.

I also think that is how they intended it – not to introduce a new scientific theory as to what happened to the Neanderthals, or to explain how Homo Sapiens "definitely" contributed to their demise since they may not have. It didn't need for any of those details to be particularly accurate just to remind Archer how such a decision on Valakis might hit closer to home than he thinks, or to get him to see the problem from a different angle.

The analogy is only made to put Archer in a frame of mind that something is happening on the planet Valakis that isn't just abstract or only could happen to somebody else and but could never happen to him or humans, so something "like this" could have happened to humans, too, if past aliens went about the place imposing their subjective will on others and making those sorts of decisions to intervene in Mother Nature's natural course. The question – are we out here to substitute our will for Mother Nature's, or to play God when it comes to other civilizations? The answer - no.

Now nobody is saying there is good reason to believe aliens would have wanted to help the Neanderthals but not the Homo Sapiens, but if they did, and they wanted the Neanderthals to dominate the world and subjugate all others, or even wipe out Homo Sapiens, for whatever reason, they could have done as much. That is the essence necessary to demonstrate to a particular Homo Sapien named Archer how unfair such an action would be.

It is not meant to say or even suggest he is making a decision that would be comparable to the one some past aliens would have had to make 75,000 years ago to get similar results on Earth – only that he's about to potentially substitute his subjective judgments for mother nature's and essentially play God. Does he really want to do that?

By the way, in the ecological literature tool use tends to be rather imaginatively termed "tool use" and the associated cognitive complexity is also frequently referred to simply as "cognitive complexity". There are references here and there to things like "proto tools" and "meta tools" to define different levels of sophistication, but otherwise the terminology is pretty limited and literal compared to that used to describe concepts such as sapience and social cognition. Where it does get a little more interesting is in relation to tools as cultural phenomena amongst primates.

Sounds good.

The scenario in the episode relied on there being precisely two species interacted collectively in a well-defined manner on a global scale. Being in competition is neither necessary not sufficient for an analogy given that the Valakians and the Menck were not. They had a subservient and symbiotic relationship that relied on having a well defined societal structure to work as portrayed, any other way and the dynamic would have dictated a completely different set of ethical questions.

The Valakians and Menk are definitely competing. Oh, not in a the way they are actively opposing one another with open hostilities, but in the more subtle way Mother Nature's indifference has for those sorts of long-term consequences. But I do feel the Valakians are actively preventing the Menk from doing what they want, when they want, and making all manner of decisions for them – where to live, what to grow, when to procreate (if allowed at their natural levels of desire to do so, which I doubt they are allowed to do since that would put a tremendous drain on the Valakian's resources).

The fact when/if the Valakians die off that the Menk will probably fill that vacuum shows this. They are not going to stay where the Valakias put them because that's where they want to be – they are going to expand since they will then have access to more resources the competing Valakians had been keeping for themselves. They may not be as efficient as the Valakians at first, but the Doctor seems certain they will get there in short order.

What other sorts of ethical questions did you have in mind? Any examples so I know what you mean? How do you envision the decision Archer made to not play God, or substitute his subjective judgement for mother nature's natural verdict to be invalid, and what about the Sapiens/Neanderthal analogy would make it the wrong decision? In short, justify your decision to save the Valakians and allow the Menk to remain in virtual slavery, subjugation, or never allowed to fulfill their own potential.

That being said, it really isn't clear sapiens and Neanderthals were in competition either, they existed concurrently with each other and many other species and held no special place within the ecosystem. That one went on to prosper whilst the other faded is not synonymous with their being in competition. Nor is it clear that one prospered at the expense of the other. In fact we have surprisingly little hard facts on the nature of the relationship between them, much less sufficient knowledge to map that relationship onto the quite specific Valakian/Menck relationship observed in the episode

It needn't be the case for Sapiens and Neanderthals to have been in "competition" if you mean some sort of active hostility, but only that there are limited resources, and one side grows more when they have them than when they don't.

I don't see how you can even make a decent argument they weren't competing since land, fresh water, shelter, food, and other natural resources have always been in limited supply, unless you can show nothing Sapiens wanted or used ever overlapped with anything Neanderthals wanted or used.

I mean it might be interesting to discuss the details of Sapiens and Neanderthals, but for the point Phlox was making, they are entirely irrelevant.

 

[JRTStarlight]

Before the Prime Directive it was O.K. Archer was even talking to the Valakians, but even that could prove disastrous, making it wise to not even talk so openly with pre warp cultures.

It occurs to me, should the Valakians determine the only reason Archer didn't give them the cure was because of some ethical dilemma he felt about the Menk, they might take steps to ensure that should a more advanced space faring culture happen across their path again in the next 200 years before they die, it might be a good idea if the Menk were no longer around to give such an advanced culture pause to similarly not help them with their problem.

It's even possible, given this idea, they might round them up and exterminate them and bury the evidence. It might be their best or even their only chance to live.

Thanks, Jonathan.

 

[ralfy]

Probably similar to the Declaration of Human Rights, i.e., with adjustments when, for example, following one right violates another.

 

[Spot261]

I disagree that is what it takes to make the necessary and valid conclusion the doctor is trying to expose Archer to.

It's possible we are talking on two different levels here, nonetheless an analogy (or at least a meaningful one) relies on offering sufficient level of insight that one scenario informs the way we look at the other. If we (not Phlox) attempt to map these two scenarios the only way the analogy holds is by abstracted past the point where the salient points hold.

The analogy is only made to put Archer in a frame of mind that something is happening on the planet Valakis that isn't just abstract or only could happen to somebody else and but could never happen to him or humans, so something "like this" could have happened to humans, too, if past aliens went about the place imposing their subjective will on others and making those sorts of decisions to intervene in Mother Nature's natural course. The question – are we out here to substitute our will for Mother Nature's, or to play God when it comes to other civilizations? The answer - no.

Exactly, the point in the episode is it was a throwaway line used in the heat of the moment. I was referring to your usage of it in text many years later with the luxury of being able to do the research. I'm not saying the analogy can't work but it's a weak one as defined by offering explanatory power. The relative level of sophistication expected between the two is totally different and what is acceptable as an off the cuff illustration of a point does not work in the more in depth analysis you were offering in your post.

 

[JRTStarlight]

It's possible we are talking on two different levels here

Quite.

Nonetheless an analogy (or at least a meaningful one) relies on offering sufficient level of insight that one scenario informs the way we look at the other. If we (not Phlox) attempt to map these two scenarios the only way the analogy holds is by abstracted past the point where the salient points hold.

The analogy, then and now, only need holds to the point of putting any Homo Sapien in the right frame of mind to see the "other side" of the argument. No greater or more accurate mapping need take place to achieve this in that case.

Exactly, the point in the episode is it was a throwaway line used in the heat of the moment. I was referring to your usage of it in text many years later with the luxury of being able to do the research. I'm not saying the analogy can't work but it's a weak one as defined by offering explanatory power. The relative level of sophistication expected between the two is totally different and what is acceptable as an off the cuff illustration of a point does not work in the more in depth analysis you were offering in your post.

I was using it to re-illustrate the point Phlox made. If you're complaining I stepped too far afield in some random speculation as to WHY an alien might choose to help Neanderthal, I freely admit one could contrive better scenarios as to WHY, and HOW Homo Sapiens might subsequently fail. But WHY and HOW weren't important then, or now, to capture the essence of the point being made – what if it wasn't just somebody else – what if it was you? Think about it from the other side of the argument and not just some abstract thing happening to somebody else. It still does that.

Now I don't know what else you're complaining about. What detail, in particular, about the Valakians or the Menk invalidates the analogy if the only insight we wished to derive from it is "what if the shoe were on the other foot" perspective? I don't recall some other salient point, for example, that would suggest the shoe could never be on the other foot. Never! In fact, in a later post, the speculation as to teaching Neanderthals about germs and inoculations did seem like it might be something a well-meaning alien might do, and how it could have such a detrimental consequence to Homo Sapiens if Neanderthals later misused that knowledge to help them compete.

So I guess I'm asking you to be less abstract in your objection, and give more concrete examples as to how it doesn't work to show the captain then, or any Homo Sapien now, that the shoe could just as easily be on the other foot, and ask how would you like that.

Are you even saying, BTW, Archer made the wrong call? Or are you objecting to a lose analogy since those who crafted it and used it didn't feel the need to make it better to do its one intended job – grant a more personal prescriptive?

 

[Spot261]

I was using it to re-illustrate the point Phlox made. If you're complaining I stepped too far afield in some random speculation as to WHY an alien might choose to help Neanderthal, I freely admit one could contrive better scenarios as to WHY, and HOW Homo Sapiens might subsequently fail. But WHY and HOW weren't important then, or now, to capture the essence of the point being made – what if it wasn't just somebody else – what if it was you? Think about it from the other side of the argument and not just some abstract thing happening to somebody else. It still does that.

Now I don't know what else you're complaining about

Complaining is too string a word, I'm making the observation that your post had all the hallmarks at attempting to make a sober, insightful analysis of the episode beyond simply reiterating what Phlox said in that exchange but use of that analogy lets you down.

The episode worked the way it did because the characters could identify a clear cut situation where one species was dominant but without intervention the other would almost certainly supplant them, whereas in our own prehistory no such assessment could be made. The analogy works because of unsubstantiated (and likely false) assumptions and invalid mapping of salient points in each case.

Sapiens and Neanderthal could never have represented such a predictable binary situation, there were far too many more variables, far too many other active players, far too many unknowns, far too little inter and intra group coherence and far too much general muddying of the waters to allow such a comparison. Equally importantly what think we know of the situation actually paints a picture which is in fact rather different and arguably contrary to the Valaian/Menck setup.

Therefore whilst the analogy holds very, very superficially it offers nothing new besides that which we see in the exchange and the word "superficial" is key to that proviso. This offering of new insights is one of the hallmarks of productively using analogy in presenting a case. It should offer insights that one side of the comparison could not alone without compromising the salient points of comparison.

Not only does the sapiens/neanderthal analogy fail on that score but in many ways could be misleading even at the casual level of analysis used in the show. In some regards I'm actually complimenting you here in that I'm isolating the weak point in an otherwise strong post, but a weak point it certainly is.

 

[JRTStarlight]

Complaining is too strong a word; I'm making the observation that your post had all the hallmarks at attempting to make a sober, insightful analysis of the episode beyond simply reiterating what Phlox said in that exchange but use of that analogy lets you down.

These apparent hallmarks are of your own design or imagination, I suspect. I wasn't trying to render a more considered opinion of how the situation on Valakia was "scientifically" exactly like or even remarkably similar to the Neanderthal/Sapien competition. I was using it much like Phlox, and the analogy to put a Homo Sapien in the different frame of mind still works for me.

I made one. Then I made a better one. I could probably make a better one yet so it fit the situation more closely, but doing that isn't necessary to do that one thing it was designed to do - make it personal by asking you to consider hypothetical possibilities.

In fact, I'm not even sure calling the similarity an "analogy" rather than a "hypothetical" does it any service.

We might dicker about how to make the comparison better so it might be useful for "other" considerations or conclusions, but we are only talking about the one issue – our moral right to change Mother Nature's verdict for an entire planet or civilization or race or races. And how that relates to the PD.

Or we might discuss how to craft, for example, a Denobulan historical example where the Doctor challenges Archer to make a decision for historical Denobula that would have resulted in the doctor's race's demise. That might work, too, since the captain could see it hitting closer to home in that regard, as well. Not just some strangers, but a friend and colleague. And it would have the added benefit of a fictitious setting so one could hardly complain it didn't match the prehistorical situation in every imaginable way to be useful enough for anything.

The episode worked the way it did because the characters could identify a clear-cut situation where one species was dominant but without intervention the other would almost certainly supplant them, whereas in our own prehistory no such assessment could be made. The analogy works because of unsubstantiated (and likely false) assumptions and invalid mapping of salient points in each case.

Clearly the Valakian/Menk situation would have a more immediate and predictable outcome sans intervention (assuming that because of the interference already done, the Valakia don't decide to wipe out the Menk so any future encounters in the next 200 years with another advanced civilization that could medically help them won't similarly be conflicted by the Menk issue. Fortunately, IIRC, Archer didn't tell them the "reason" he withheld the cure, or even that they had a cure. He only gave them some medicine to alleviate their suffereing. Sadly, suffering can be a great motivator, and by making their deaths less painful, Archer may have helped remove some motivation to find a cure).

Anyway, I agree there is no historical or scientific reason to feel Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens were ever in a similar 200-year window point of crisis where one thing and only one thing would tell the tale, if that's what it takes for you before you can find ANY use in such an analogy.

But I think you are expecting far too much from a hypothetical. Phlox, and I, are not saying Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens ARE/WERE similarly neck and neck, or in a tiny 200-year window where one factor can make the decision as to which one will dominate the world for thousands of years to come, or anything like that. We simply asked, WHAT IF aliens could pick and alter mother nature's, or evolution's, natural selection process? And WHAT IF that interference leads not to your dominance, but to your destruction? Would that be fair to any other species that might be short-changed by such interference in the foreseeable future (read about 100,000 years there, for to go out further is remarkably arrogant and beyond most people's ability to reasonably predict anything with a fair degree of accuracy)?

Sapiens and Neanderthal could never have represented such a predictable binary situation, there were far too many more variables, far too many other active players, far too many unknowns, far too little inter and intra group coherence and far too much general muddying of the waters to allow such a comparison. Equally importantly what think we know of the situation actually paints a picture which is in fact rather different and arguably contrary to the Valaian/Menck setup.

You seem to demand a lot from an analogy before you'd use one. But I can only reiterate, Phlox (and I) are not saying look, this one decision here, just as one decision on Earth 75K (they say 35K) years ago will send one species to dominance and consign the other to the rubbish bin of prehistory. At every important point, we said, WHAT IF? Not IT WAS. It's a hypothetical.

What if we lived in a universe where they didn't have hypothetical questions?

Therefore whilst the analogy holds very, very superficially it offers nothing new besides that which we see in the exchange and the word "superficial" is key to that proviso. This offering of new insights is one of the hallmarks of productively using analogy in presenting a case. It should offer insights that one side of the comparison could not alone without compromising the salient points of comparison.

The only salient point that seemed to matter was it could happen to you, too, under the right circumstances. Would you like that?

Not only does the sapiens/neanderthal analogy fail on that score but in many ways could be misleading even at the casual level of analysis used in the show. In some regards I'm actually complimenting you here in that I'm isolating the weak point in an otherwise strong post, but a weak point it certainly is.

The only thing I'm getting from this is you somehow feel no useful comparison can be made at all between the two situations because they are not identical enough. I think they are similar enough to give one person new and valid insight into how it isn't just a decision about strangers that could never happen to you, but a general principle, or directive, that could just as easily apply to you. Think about it.

Pertinent Dialogue from Dear Doctor:

Spoiler

PHLOX: Trouble sleeping, Captain?
ARCHER: Looks like I'm not the only one.
PHLOX: Actually, Denobulans require very little rest, unless you count our annual hibernation cycle.
ARCHER: Am I going to be without my doctor this winter?
PHLOX: Only for six days.
ARCHER: Maybe I'll join you. Any progress?
PHLOX: The research has been challenging, to say the least.
ARCHER: A cure, Doctor. Have you found a cure?
PHLOX: Even if I could find one, I'm not sure it would be ethical.
ARCHER: Ethical?
PHLOX: We'd be interfering with an evolutionary process that has been going on for thousands of years.
ARCHER: Every time you treat an illness, you're interfering. That's what doctors do.
PHLOX: You're forgetting about the Menk.
ARCHER: What about the Menk?
PHLOX: I've been studying their genome as well, and I've seen evidence of increasing intelligence. Motor skills, linguistic abilities. Unlike the Valakians they appear to be in the process of an evolutionary awakening. It may take millennia, but the Menk have the potential to become the dominant species on this planet.
ARCHER: And that won't happen as long as the Valakians are around.
PHLOX: If the Menk are to flourish, they need an opportunity to survive on their own.
ARCHER: Well, what are you suggesting? We choose one species over the other?
PHLOX: All I'm saying is that we let nature make the choice.
ARCHER: The hell with nature. You're a doctor. You have a moral obligation to help people who are suffering.
PHLOX: I'm also a scientist, and I'm obligated to consider the larger issues. Thirty five thousand years ago, your species co-existed with other humanoids. Isn't that correct?
ARCHER: Go ahead.
PHLOX: What if an alien race had interfered and given the Neanderthals an evolutionary advantage? Fortunately for you, they didn't.
ARCHER: I appreciate your perspective on all of this, but we're talking about something that might happen. Might happen thousands of years from now. They've asked for our help. I am not prepared to walk away based on a theory.
PHLOX: Evolution is more than a theory. It is a fundamental scientific principle. Forgive me for saying so, but I believe your compassion for these people is affecting your judgment.
ARCHER: My compassion guides my judgment.
PHLOX: Captain.
ARCHER: Can you find a cure? Doctor?
PHLOX: I already have.

The key sentence there was:
ARCHER: Well, what are you suggesting? We choose one species over the other?

By giving the cure, that's exactly what Archer would be doing.

Eventually, he decided, and I think correctly, that wasn't his choice to make.