Yes, but I'm talking about setting a precedent for Homeward-level types of crises. The ones that would require thousands of starships working around the clock.
Star Trek morality test - best and worst episodes
- Thread starter Charles Phipps
- Start date
Yes, but I'm talking about setting a precedent for Homeward-level types of crises. The ones that would require thousands of starships working around the clock.
Which simply isn't practical. Your level of help also depends on how practical that help is. It simply isn't practical to move a planetary population.
This has already been addressed.
Yes, have the Prime Directive policy include that when a species is facing utter extinction that Starfleet can move all or part of the species off the doomed world. Direct contact with a primative (or not so primative) species.
Because survival trumps contamination.
No, this doesn't mean the Starfleet then has to endlessly prowl the galaxy looking for species to move. The only precedent that would be create is that the Prime Directive recognizes that not all situation are the same. If Starfleet has the assets availible, in place, at that time, great. If not then a tragedy will occure that is in no way Starfleet's fault or responsibility.
I could imagine that during the Dominion War a Humanitarian evacuation would have been out of the question.
This. It unlikely that a entire planetary population in the tens of millions (or more) are going to be moved. Starfleet is simply going to have to employ some kind of selection process. to the majority of the population left behind (abandoned) on the doomed planet the selection process wouldn't be seen as fair. The people moved will have to be people who can re-establish their culture on a new planets, while at the same time being able to feed themselves after a short period of time.
Unless we want them to become dependent on Starfleet's on going assistance.
Last edited:
I think we discussed this a few years ago. I brought up how this ends up creating a lot of dependent Vassals the Feds would spend years looking after and devoting a ton of resources to.
I remembering bringing up how the anti-PD pro-interventionalists would insist they do so.
If that were true, the PD Haters here wouldn't be complaining so much.
And I'm saying that the precedent set would mean that when any others in peril were discovered, the ship in question would now HAVE to call in all ships available to help, meaning the thousands necessary would have to be pulled away from their other (important) duties to do so. Because that's what the Boraal Precedent would cause.
Maybe, but then after the war they'd have to go and try and salvage those worlds they couldn't completely save, even if the ships were needed elsewhere.
And given the Anti-PD attitudes witnessed here alone, the Feds would still end up condemned for not being able to save everyone.
your argument is basically a strawman of the pro-interventionists: no one is suggesting that the UFP's primary missions be scrapped so that they can go around looking for planets in danger.
Also, it's not "anti-PD," it's anti-TNG PD. The TOS PD was fine with interventions when it was necessary to save the civilization.
The changes made to the PD the anti-PD folks want would result in that.
Anti-PD is anti-PD, TOS or TNG or otherwise. Folks don't understand the consequences of these things in the long-term.
What if aliens had decided to stop the great meteor that hit Earth and killed off the dinosaurs, resulting in humanity never existing? Would you think that was a good thing?
Huh? Do you even you what your talking about? No one here has presented that Starfleet's job is to go around looking for endangered worlds. You're essentially making things up as the centerpiece of your argument.
Here you go, just for clarity: If you stumble upon a bad situation, you should help if you can help. Unless the situation was caused by the inhabitants acting stupid.
And you do of course!
Depends. Are the dinosaurs sentient? Do the dinosaurs have a living culture? I wouldn't expect anyone to withhold help based on what "might" happen a hundred, a thousand or a million years down the road.
"Don't save that toddler from getting hit by a bus! Who knows what negative ramifications it might have fifty years from now!"
Your entire argument is absurd.
There are some good arguments for and against how the PD is interpreted . But the main problem I have is the mixing of pseudo science with it.
In Pen Pals, Data made contact with a little girl from a pre-warp society, whose planet was about to tear itself apart.
Data suggests that it might be possible to save the planet without any contact with the inhabitants, but here is the response;
Even if they could save those people without any risk of contact, it is still a violation?
But the real new age/philosophy part occurs later during a conference about the situation.
When they start using words like "fate" and destiny with what is supposed to be an non interference policy towards aliens, the (TNG) PD starts looking a little weird.
So according to this the criteria for deciding to help a culture in danger is whether they are warp capable or aware of life on other planets--if they are, they deserve to be helped--
If they're not, then it's their fate and they should not be helped
In Pen Pals, Data made contact with a little girl from a pre-warp society, whose planet was about to tear itself apart.
Data suggests that it might be possible to save the planet without any contact with the inhabitants, but here is the response;
Even if they could save those people without any risk of contact, it is still a violation?
But the real new age/philosophy part occurs later during a conference about the situation.
When they start using words like "fate" and destiny with what is supposed to be an non interference policy towards aliens, the (TNG) PD starts looking a little weird.
So according to this the criteria for deciding to help a culture in danger is whether they are warp capable or aware of life on other planets--if they are, they deserve to be helped--
If they're not, then it's their fate and they should not be helped
Last edited:
Pen Pals opens up a dumb can of worms, so we can assume, probably (From The Drumhead), that SF looked the other way because Picard saved the planet...from a NATURAL disaster...and without contamination.
Well what about the poor slob Captain one sector over who obeyed Starfleets "most precious regulation" to the letter when he finds out 'Oh heyyy...those billions of people you let die and will carry to your grave? Yeah...Starfleet really doesn't care one way or another."
The ONLY way all this works is if Prime Directive 101 is taught at the Academy as a philosophy course and not a strict set of regulations. "Every Captain must make his own decision, no two cases are alike."
edit: I also find it hilarious that the only thing standing between aliens swooping down and solving all our problems for us, is that...no one has thought to ask.
Well what about the poor slob Captain one sector over who obeyed Starfleets "most precious regulation" to the letter when he finds out 'Oh heyyy...those billions of people you let die and will carry to your grave? Yeah...Starfleet really doesn't care one way or another."
The ONLY way all this works is if Prime Directive 101 is taught at the Academy as a philosophy course and not a strict set of regulations. "Every Captain must make his own decision, no two cases are alike."
edit: I also find it hilarious that the only thing standing between aliens swooping down and solving all our problems for us, is that...no one has thought to ask.
I agree with this.
The only way the TNG version of the Prime Directive would work is if you completely did away with your exploration of habitable systems. Too many things can go wrong, as we've seen, and contamination of some sort is inevitable.
Cosmic Plan, I guess Riker would love the Intelligent Design idiots.There are some good arguments for and against how the PD is interpreted . But the main problem I have is the mixing of pseudo science with it.
In Pen Pals, Data made contact with a little girl from a pre-warp society, whose planet was about to tear itself apart.
Data suggests that it might be possible to save the planet without any contact with the inhabitants, but here is the response;
Even if they could save those people without any risk of contact, it is still a violation?
But the real new age/philosophy part occurs later during a conference about the situation.
When they start using words like "fate" and destiny with what is supposed to be an non interference policy towards aliens, the (TNG) PD starts looking a little weird.
So according to this the criteria for deciding to help a culture in danger is whether they are warp capable or aware of life on other planets--if they are, they deserve to be helped--
If they're not, then it's their fate and they should not be helped
And I'm saying there are more consequences to going around saving every endangered world encountered than folks think about. All they seem to care about is "Folks in danger, do something that requires all our resources even if they're deployed elsewhere!" and not about what that really entails.
And if said help requires pulling thousands of ships off active duty to come in and help resolve said bad situation? Duties that were important and were now unfulfilled?
For whatever reason, no one seems to stop and consider what happens AFTER you take millions if not billions of people from their world and try to resettle them and how this process would have to be repeated numerous times considering how often these things happen in Trek.
But the end result is that Humanity wouldn't exist.
By that logic, there was nothing wrong with Edith Keeler living.
The caveat to that has to be, while the Prime Directive shouldn't prevent Starfleet from saving entire planets, often (even usually) other factors and priorities would.
If a technological solution could be applied then fantastic, if it can be done in such a way that the natives don't realize anything unusual happened than so much the better.
However if the natives attribute the "ending of the big earthquakes" with the blue fire that came out of the sky one day, too bad. They're alive to make assumptions.
Technically the natives (in a small area) have been contaminated, and their culture may be altered because of it, but they're alive to to make those changes.
In the case of a evacuation, first evacuating an entire planet's population will likely alway be out of the question, second the Federation simply isn't going to devote "thousands" of starships to the effort. They do what they can, with what they have availible.
Also, if a natural event was going to kill a large number of native, but would leave the majority of the native species untouched, then the Prime Directive would likely prevent the saving of the large number.
Realistically they not going to be saving every endangered planet.
If the use of "thousands" of ships is in fact a requirement, and the the employment of far far fewer ships can not effect the desired solution, then the bad situation won't be resolved.
It would not have to be repeated as a requirement, exercising an option would be a more acurate description.
If the dinosaurs were sapient beings, then stopping the impact would have been the correct decision. Would the rise of Humans have been prevented? You're talking about the passage of a lot of time Timo.
There were options in that situation other than standing aside and watching her die, Kirk couldn't conceive of the alternatives, or choice not to attempt one.
Last edited:
If you're a biologist on a field trip, and you see a pride of lions attack a herd of zebras, do you interfer and save the zebras? Do you supply the animals with food and water when there is a drought in Serengeti?
If the zebras were sapient beings then yes. However real zebras are just striped cows, so no.
That's a pretty arrogant attitude, don't you think?If the zebras were sapient beings then yes. However real zebras are just striped cows, so no.
And as soon as some being happens to fit inside your definition of sapient, you have the right to interfer with a perfectly balanced ecological system? Killing lions in order to save zebras?
No, it's actually a silly question. Sentient beings > non-sentient beigns.
That's a pretty arrogant attitude, don't you think?If the zebras were sapient beings then yes. However real zebras are just striped cows, so no.
And as soon as some being happens to fit inside your definition of sapient, you have the right to interfer with a perfectly balanced ecological system? Killing lions in order to save zebras?
if there's a fire, and a Human being and a rabbit are trapped inside, do you think it's "pretty arrogant" to try to save the Human being instead of the rabbit?
I mean really, try to apply your argument to real scenarios and you'll see how silly it is.
Similar threads
