The Prime Directive, As It Should Be

[Mojochi]

The PD, as I see it, presents itself in a few ways

1. Preserve the natural development of Non-Federation cultures through non-interference (Up to the point of their potential extinction, at which point, you do whatever you can to see that their culture continues, regardless). However, it's not just for pre-warp civilizations. It is ongoing. Even if they do know about the nature of the galactic community, & participate in it, it's still wrong to interfere in the internal affairs of Non-Federation worlds.

2. Preserve the integrity OF the Federation by not getting it involved in the internal affairs of Non-Federation cultures. You endanger yourself just as much as you do the natural development of alien worlds.

3. which they almost never get into. Preserve the natural development of Non-Federation worlds, where interference from OTHERS is concerned. If you know Romulans, for example, are interfering in the internal affairs or natural development of worlds, you do what you can to stop them from doing that. Kind of like what they were doing in Redemption, although they had a personal interest in that one

The inescapable pitfalls are...

Firstly, it can be pretty stifling if you take it too far. Alliances & even trade relations could be, in a sense, disrupting the natural development of a culture, considering that their development would've been different had you not allied or traded certain things with them. It's pretty unlikely you'll be able to not interfere on every level, when your whole purpose is to reach out to & establish relations with other cultures. True noninterference is xenophobic.

Secondly, clearly you shouldn't let an entire civilization die out to uphold the PD, but where's the line? Should you let half of one die? A quarter? a tenth? 10,000 people? 1000? Should you or shouldn't you interfere if a handful of people are going to die, and by saving them, you risk altering the development of their culture?

That's where it get's a bit sticky, imho. My personal opinion is that extinction is the line. If 1/2 or 3/4 or maybe even more of their civilization is going to die, but the culture will survive, & interfering will disrupt the natural course of their development, then as inhumane as it sounds, you let it happen. Only when extinction is on the line do you interfere, because at that point, what does it matter that you altered their culture's development? Their culture was going to cease existing. Plus... would they prefer letting their culture go extinct than allowing it to be altered by you?

And where should it stand on requests for assistance or aid? If they know fully that your aid will alter their natural development and are ok with that, then it's fair to call it a just intervention, but that also must be weighed against my #2 up there, in how the interference will ultimately affect the Federation, because the PD is just as much about the effect on the Federation as it is about the effect on Non-Federation worlds

 

[JWPlatt]

My personal opinion is that extinction is the line.

Conditions that cause extinctions may have beneficial outcomes to the Federation. Do you draw the line at hominids? Would you divert meteor(s) or subdue tectonic action that leads to volcanic activity that favors smaller mammals (including humans who go on to become part of the Federation) to save the dinosaurs?

 

[Grendelsbayne]

The PD, as I see it, presents itself in a few ways

1. Preserve the natural development of Non-Federation cultures through non-interference (Up to the point of their potential extinction, at which point, you do whatever you can to see that their culture continues, regardless). However, it's not just for pre-warp civilizations. It is ongoing. Even if they do know about the nature of the galactic community, & participate in it, it's still wrong to interfere in the internal affairs of Non-Federation worlds.

This isn't very strongly established in the canon. There are examples like STID, where even saving a civilization from extinction was considered a clear PD violation. There are examples like Insurrection, where it was claimed that the PD only applied to 'Indigenous', pre-warp civilizations. There are at least a couple of examples where the Federation landed duck blinds to study even pre-warp civilizations, despite the obvious risks of exposure.

Overall, the Prime Directive often seems to mean whatever the writers want it to.

 

[Greg Cox]

Question: Do we know when the PD was first instituted? Was it around in Archer's time? April's? Pike's?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Question: Do we know when the PD was first instituted? Was it around in Archer's time? April's? Pike's?

Not in Archer's time, we know that much. It also didn't exist for the first few years of the Federation's existence - when the Horizon visited Iotia (A Piece of the Action), which was around 2168, there was no PD then either.

 

[T'Girl]

Some of the inconsistence seen during TOS with the application of the PD could have been due to it being a relatively new policy within Starfleet.

They had to play around with it, the wording of the policy if you will, in order to find something that both served the supposed purpose of the PD (the intent), while at the same time allowed Starfleet enough flexibility to explore, obtain needed natural resources, acquire allies, and protect the best interests of the Members of the Federation.

 

[Greg Cox]

Some of the inconsistence seen during TOS with the application of the PD could have been due to it being a relatively new policy within Starfleet.

They had to play around with it, the wording of the policy if you will, in order to find something that both served the supposed purpose of the PD (the intent), while at the same time allowed Starfleet enough flexibility to explore, obtain needed natural resources, acquire allies, and protect the best interests of the Members of the Federation.

Exactly. It's possible the ink was still wet . . .

 

[JWPlatt]

Some of the inconsistence seen during TOS with the application of the PD could have been due to it being a relatively new policy within Starfleet.

I prefer the real world point of view in matters of developing TV series and so forth. That is to say, the writers of the fiction were finding their way. The fictional history is fluid - not fixed. It can change as the writers move along and their ultimate intent is better represented by the mature product. I don't consider those early experiments with the story as any more canon than bugs in software are intentional. Are software bug fixes considered retcon? Not really. They're just things that get fixed. Though I agree it is nice when it appears to show a developing timeline and a maturing space agency.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Some of the inconsistence seen during TOS with the application of the PD could have been due to it being a relatively new policy within Starfleet.

Or it could be a case that Starfleet gave starship captains a great deal of leeway in interpreting the Prime Directive and really only got up in arms about the most extreme cases of harm being done.

Despite a claim by a certain Klingon Starfleet officer once than the Prime Directive was "an absolute," it really has never been depicted as such. How strictly the Prime Directive was followed was largely at the discretion of individual captains.

 

[Ithekro]

Just a random thought. Were the planets in "Pen Pals" falling apart similar to what happened to Praxis?

 

[Granola Gwen]

I've been thinking of this for the past couple of days myself. And I totally agree, if the population reaches a majority loss or even extinction, then the Federation or whoever should act. It might be hard for some underdeveloped worlds to consider the possibility of extraterrestrials and even "Homeward" showed the results of a suicide. I couldn't pick a number of dying people where intervention would be necessary, I value the life of others too much to decide.

 

[Mojochi]

This isn't very strongly established in the canon.

Oh, believe me, I know that

Overall, the Prime Directive often seems to mean whatever the writers want it to.

And I know that too. I mostly made the thread to discuss what the Prime Directive should be. I might not have been clear there

Conditions that cause extinctions may have beneficial outcomes to the FederationDo you draw the line at hominids? Would you divert meteor(s) or subdue tectonic action that leads to volcanic activity that favors smaller mammals (including humans who go on to become part of the Federation) to save the dinosaurs?

This concept only extends to the preservation of intelligent life. Despite how widespread it is in Star Trek, Intelligent life still must be a pretty special occurrence throughout the universe, worthy of not allowing it to disappear, just because it may create cultural difficulties

Conditions that cause extinctions may have beneficial outcomes to the Federation

True, but take for example the Klingons. Many believed it beneficial to let them go extinct after Praxis. The moral thing to do is offer an olive branch, if you can

Mostly, I'm just trying to reconcile this "Let them die" aspect, from an episode like "Homeward" which most people agree is pretty inappropriate, but then where is that line? To me it's at extinction. As long as that culture will survive, no matter how many may die on any given day, if it might disrupt their natural development, then we don't interfere.

 

[JWPlatt]

Conditions that cause extinctions may have beneficial outcomes to the Federation. Do you draw the line at hominids? Would you divert meteor(s) or subdue tectonic action that leads to volcanic activity that favors smaller mammals (including humans who go on to become part of the Federation) to save the dinosaurs?

This concept only extends to the preservation of intelligent life.

I'd say the concept has been extended much further back in the evolutionary stages of a planet to the extreme:

CHEKOV: I suppose it could be a particle of preanimate matter caught in the matrix.
...
CAROL: Then again it may not [be something you can transplant]. You boys have to be clear on this. There can't be so much as a microbe or the show's off.

 

[Greg Cox]

Conditions that cause extinctions may have beneficial outcomes to the Federation. Do you draw the line at hominids? Would you divert meteor(s) or subdue tectonic action that leads to volcanic activity that favors smaller mammals (including humans who go on to become part of the Federation) to save the dinosaurs?

This concept only extends to the preservation of intelligent life.

I'd say the concept has been extended much further back in the evolutionary stages of a planet to the extreme:

CHEKOV: I suppose it could be a particle of preanimate matter caught in the matrix.
...
CAROL: Then again it may not [be something you can transplant]. You boys have to be clear on this. There can't be so much as a microbe or the show's off.

I don't think that was a PD issue, just a matter of careful experimental procedure. If you're trying to demonstrate that you can create life from lifelessness, you don't want to compromise your experiment by using a test site that already has life on it, even microbial life.

It's like sending a probe to Mars to test for microbes in the soil. You have to make sure your probe is completely sterile to avoid contaminating your results.

Dr. Marcus wasn't worrying about the PD. She was just being a good scientist.

 

[JWPlatt]

Interesting. That point of view never entered my thoughts, but it's valid. To me, it was all about not interfering if there were any chance for life to exist or develop. But further to the point, I doubt that existing life would affect the experiment, based on how Spock said that "it would destroy such life in favor of its new matrix." To me, that implies a complete subatomic breakdown and buildup from a new initial state such that what came before is irrelevant except to its conserved mass. Still, something to think about.

 

[T'Girl]

How strictly the Prime Directive was followed was largely at the discretion of individual captains.

(Bread and Circuses) Spock: "Then the Prime Directive is in full force, Captain?"

Would seem to say that the matter was up to Kirk. And Spock's "full force" indicates that there are levels to the PD, it's not all or nothing..

 

[Timo]

Random sniping:

There are examples like STID, where even saving a civilization from extinction was considered a clear PD violation.

What was going extinct, though? A civilization, or a species? Kirk saved one village, all the inhabitants of which we eventually saw in their genetically unviable non-multitude. Letting that one die and the ten thousand others on the planet survive might have been the PD way to go. Heck, perhaps the destruction of that Temple of Doom and its evil cult is what later allowed the other civilizations on that planet to thrive!

Just a random thought. Were the planets in "Pen Pals" falling apart similar to what happened to Praxis?

Might be - but Praxis was never established to have any dilithium connection. It was just a "key energy production facility", and we don't even know if dilithium produces energy.

This concept only extends to the preservation of intelligent life. Despite how widespread it is in Star Trek, Intelligent life still must be a pretty special occurrence throughout the universe, worthy of not allowing it to disappear, just because it may create cultural difficulties

But if intelligent life indeed is so rare, then it becomes all the more important to protect kelp and mucus. After all, that's where intelligent life comes from! Allowing a small settlement of folks who aren't particularly distinct from Andorians and whose oil paintings are dull to die might be vital to letting a much more significant and distinct civilization to evolve a billion years later. Otherwise, it's just racial purging.

But further to the point, I doubt that existing life would affect the experiment, based on how Spock said that "it would destroy such life in favor of its new matrix."

It wouldn't stop Genesis from creating life, but it would probably still ruin the experiment. You don't get the Zee-Magnees prize for demonstrating that a dirty petri dish still has dirt in it after you are done.

Would seem to say that the matter was up to Kirk. And Spock's "full force" indicates that there are levels to the PD, it's not all or nothing..

I think Spock was just seeking confirmation, not permission, for his declaration of protection status. But yes, all sorts of levels there (and no, not even this particular one is exhaustively covered by the things our heroes mention, such as keeping the mission secret).

The frustrating thing is that we don't learn what prompts Spock's "then"... What are the criteria for full force? The fact that the place was surveyed by careless civilians and might be in a delicate state right now? The fact that no proper survey was conducted and the place could have cultural pitfalls galore? The fact that the planet lies in the Outer Survey Zone rather than in one of the Zones cleared for other levels of interaction?

One thing to add to the list of PD motivations: the Borg one. Keeping others distinct helps the UFP evolve through assimilation. Assimilating contaminated cultures is less efficient. But throughout TOS, Kirk seems to be fighting against local distinctiveness and either overtly or sometimes covertly forcing the natives to the human-American mold, even when supposedly either upholding the PD or exploiting one of its many exceptions. Baaaad for UFP!

Timo Saloniemi

 

[C.E. Evans]

How strictly the Prime Directive was followed was largely at the discretion of individual captains.

(Bread and Circuses) Spock: "Then the Prime Directive is in full force, Captain?"

Would seem to say that the matter was up to Kirk. And Spock's "full force" indicates that there are levels to the PD, it's not all or nothing..

By Janeway's time, there were nearly 50 subsections to the Prime Directive, IIRC.

 

[Mojochi]

But if intelligent life indeed is so rare, then it becomes all the more important to protect kelp and mucus. After all, that's where intelligent life comes from! Allowing a small settlement of folks who aren't particularly distinct from Andorians and whose oil paintings are dull to die might be vital to letting a much more significant and distinct civilization to evolve a billion years later. Otherwise, it's just racial purging.

They're people, not gods. They can't presume to be the authority on what intelligent life should evolve in the universe. However, for the intelligent life which already does exist, they should have a pretty solid policy on how to deal or not deal with them

As for Carol Marcus' Genesis experiment, mentioned on the last page, not wanting to destroy life in favor of conducting their science experiment is not really a PD call, it's just being moral. There needn't be a specific protocol at play for not wanting to destroy life forms, whatever their state of evolution. Maybe she was just being nice

 

[JirinPanthosa]

The trouble with the definition laid out in the original post is that it would seem to apply to cases such as slavery and conquerers is that it requires you to apply your own labels to people and group them from a foreigner perspective.

For example, your #3 implies that if invaders from one planet try to enslave people on another planet we should defend them. But if invaders from one continent of the same planet try to enslave people on another continent in the same planet, we should not.

So the question is, why is 'Planet of origin' the important grouping? Two completely different cultures on the same planet, we can't interfere, two completely different cultures on a different planet, we can? That seems like we're putting arbitrarily different values on sapient life based on contrived groupings.

Though I guess that definition would be realistic. After all, we put arbitrarily different values on historical atrocities. We still celebrate Columbus Day, for example. Apparently mass murdering people hundreds of years ago is only a bad thing if their descendants constitute a statistically significant voting block. So future humans would probably put arbitrarily different moral values on interfering with invasions.