The Prime Directive, As It Should Be

[Greg Cox]

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

Honestly, in all the times I've watched WOK, it's never seemed to me that this was a moral/ethical/PD issue. It's simple scientific procedure: you want to eliminate any random variables that might compromise your results.

That's basic science, Chemistry 101 stuff. You don't test your samples in a dirty test tube.

 

[JWPlatt]

It would have been nice if the scientists of Prometheus were so true to character as you project onto Carol Marcus. But it's apparent that sticking to realistic science is not how Hollywood works. And in the case of TWOK - a Star Trek movie - I doubt they would write that level of scientific understanding into the script for a show so well known for its (supposed) non-interference protocols. Why would they spend time to promote such arcanery (to the lay person) above the Prime Directive in a Star Trek script? Does Star Trek most try to discuss chemistry or philosophy?

 

[Greg Cox]

It would have been nice if the scientists of Prometheus were so true to character as you project onto Carol Marcus. But it's apparent that sticking to realistic science is not how Hollywood works. And in the case of TWOK - a Star Trek movie - I doubt they would write that level of scientific understanding into the script for a show so well known for its (supposed) non-interference protocols. Why would they spend time to promote such arcanery (to the lay person) above the Prime Directive in a Star Trek script? Does Star Trek most try to discuss chemistry or philosophy?

Okay. I don't think that's arcane. Like I said, that's basic high school science--and way less obscure to a lay person than the PD, which hadn't been mentioned onscreen for thirteen years at that point.

And in the context of the movie, it seemed obvious that Carol was just focused on finding the right setting for her experiment, so that the whole exercise wasn't pointless.

Remember, this is Trek. If the movie had wanted to moralize about any ethical issues, it would have done so--and wouldn't have been subtle about it.

"But do we have the right to alter to interfere with this planet's natural evolution? Who are we to play God, even where a microbe is concerned?"

In fact, the PD is never mentioned once in the entire movie. And remember, to a lay person, the PD is way more arcane than the idea of conducting experiments in a controlled, sterile environment.

 

[Ithekro]

Carol Marcus wanted to test her device on a place that was completely devoid of life but within the parameters of being able to support life via distance from a star. A planet like Mars or Venus. A dead planet, as oppose to just some rock deep out in the cold edge of a solar system, or a gas giant, or one of their many moons.

If it worked on a dead planet, it would work about anyplace. They could have tried it on Regula, but it is likely that it was not the type of world she wanted to test on (or having tested in the cave made it impossible to test the full device as their was now a margin of error due to the Genesis Cave.

As it turned out, the device was tested in a nebula and still somehow made a planet and seemingly a small star. Unless that was Regula and the star was the remains of the nebula and Reliant.

 

[JWPlatt]

It would have been nice if the scientists of Prometheus were so true to character as you project onto Carol Marcus. But it's apparent that sticking to realistic science is not how Hollywood works. And in the case of TWOK - a Star Trek movie - I doubt they would write that level of scientific understanding into the script for a show so well known for its (supposed) non-interference protocols. Why would they spend time to promote such arcanery (to the lay person) above the Prime Directive in a Star Trek script? Does Star Trek most try to discuss chemistry or philosophy?

Okay. I don't think that's arcane. Like I said, that's basic high school science--and way less obscure to a lay person than the PD, which hadn't been mentioned onscreen for thirteen years at that point.

And in the context of the movie, it seemed obvious that Carol was just focused on finding the right setting for her experiment, so that the whole exercise wasn't pointless.

Remember, this is Trek. If the movie had wanted to moralize about any ethical issues, it would have done so--and wouldn't have been subtle about it.

"But do we have the right to alter to interfere with this planet's natural evolution? Who are we to play God, even where a microbe is concerned?"

In fact, the PD is never mentioned once in the entire movie. And remember, to a lay person, the PD is way more arcane than the idea of conducting experiments in a controlled, sterile environment.

I propose that a Star Trek script would promote and carry forth the idea of the PD, Nemesis dune buggies notwithstanding, whereas a medical or forensics show is more inclined to use chemistry. That a Star Trek script would consider chemistry rather than the Prime Directive, at the point in time for the series when TWOK was made, on the basis that people who go to see Star Trek movie have never heard of the Prime Directive seems very strange to me.

We don't need such blatant, or in your face, reminders of the PD to know when it is there by example. For example, we don't need to discuss sex when we see people all around us - it's implied. The issue of considering a transplant of a life from from an otherwise sterile planet suggests an inherent respect for life and its natural evolution (though I would strictly say it is a violation of the PD to separate life from its origin). It is the extension of the same belief system which bore the Prime Directive; it's implied.

It is a very interesting topic, as I said, because the chemistry point of view had not occurred to me before now. I wonder if most people actually thought about it as you do and I'm the strange one.

 

[Greg Cox]

It is a very interesting topic, as I said, because the chemistry point of view had not occurred to me before now. I wonder if most people actually thought about it as you do and I'm the strange one.

Honestly, I think you may be overestimating the degree to which the average moviegoer was conscious of the PD way back in 1982.

It wasn't mentioned in TMP. It wasn't mentioned in WOK.

I find it hard to imagine that Nicholas Meyer would assume that a "lay person" would be thinking in terms of the PD when listening to all that science talk about finding the right planet to test the Genesis Effect on . . ..

Heck, WOK even makes a point of reminding us that Vulcans are cool and emotional and so on, so why would it assume that movie audiences already knew about or remembered the PD?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

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

Honestly, in all the times I've watched WOK, it's never seemed to me that this was a moral/ethical/PD issue. It's simple scientific procedure: you want to eliminate any random variables that might compromise your results.

That's basic science, Chemistry 101 stuff. You don't test your samples in a dirty test tube.

Especially when the point of the experiment is to create life. If you do it on a planet that already has life, it creates doubt about whether you really did what you set out to.

 

[Mojochi]

^Oh, I do agree from a basic scientific perspective, having no life is probably how she wanted to proceed. I was just kind of addressing the PD issue from the morality angle in previous posts. I do also see the merit of saying she was just being scientific

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.

because the PD is a protocol designed to lay out rules for how to deal with whole worlds. The reason I put this stipulation 3rd, is because it would be supplemental to the fact that it's a directive about abstaining from interfering in the internal development of worlds.

It's an addendum to that principle, that recognizes a responsibility to see that worlds are left undisturbed by other worlds, be they us or someone else who might interfere with them. (Or even an act of nature) Any internal atrocities are a part of their development. My point was that if we value the development of intelligent life enough to abstain from disturbing it, then we recognize a responsibility to see it undisturbed completely by exterior forces.

 

[Greg Cox]

Ah, but here's a paradox. If you force the Prime Directive on another alien species, perhaps by stopping them from interfering with a more primitive civilization on another planet, are you violating the Prime Directive?

"We don't believe in playing God, but we're going to impose our Prime Directive on you--and force you to abide by its dictates."

But what if, according to culture of the alien invaders, they "claimed" the planet fair and square? "We planted our flag. We established colonies. By our laws, we're allowed to conquer this planet."

Does our Prime Directive trump their Rules of Conquest?

Heck, forget alien invaders for a minute. What about alien missionaries? Does the Prime Directive requires us to stop Votan missionaries from bringing the good word of Reyetsu to the benighted natives of Ceti Gamma XV?

Or does the Prime Directive mean that we should mind our own business?

 

[JWPlatt]

Ah, but here's a paradox. If you force the Prime Directive on another alien species, perhaps by stopping them from interfering with a more primitive civilization on another planet, are you violating the Prime Directive?

If the interlopers are are warp-capable, anything goes. If not, how did they get there? Probably with help, and still it is permissible to trim the poisonous fruits.

 

[Greg Cox]

In general, I think that there's probably no all-purpose, one-size-fits-all solution to every messy, complicated PD issue out there.

Which is why Starfleet captains sometimes need to make some tough calls, and probably need some degree of flexibility where the PD is concerned.

Even if that means making the wrong call sometimes . ....

(And which, of course, makes for more dramatic stories. Moral dilemmas are always more interesting than moral certainty.)

 

[section31agent]

I don't think saving the Nibarans itself is PD violation. It's the fact that a stone age civilization just watched a starship fly out of their ocean and go into space. Spock made a point that if the plan had gone accordingly it would not have affected their development. They took a gamble and they lost. And then to make things worse Kirk lied about it to Starfleet Command and tried to cover it up *insert Picard's speech about the first duty of every Starfleet officer here*

If the Enterprise can save a civilization without any risk of interference I don't think there is an issue. For example when the prime universe Enterprise tried to shoot down the asteroid heading for Kirok's planet. Spock is usually the first to remind the captain about a potential PD violation but I don't think there was any mention of it.

As for the Boralans, the Enterprise-D had no way to save the planet. They only had the ability to establish a force field around one village. Who is to decide which village gets to survive? I mean Rozenko obviously picked the village where he was banging one of the locals, but I mean as a Starfleet captain how would Picard decide. And how long can one village survive in that force field before they expand and look for more natural resources? The rest of the planet is dead. How long should the Federation keep an engineering team to maintain that forcefield? When villagers try to leave that forcefield is a Starfleet security team going to permanently deployed to that planet just to push them back or shoot them if necessary?

 

[T'Girl]

As for the Boralans, the Enterprise-D had no way to save the planet. They only had the ability to establish a force field around one village.

Or (instead of a force field) Picard could have beamed the natives up by the thousands, packed the ship, along with as much of their culture as could be secured in the available time, transferred them to the planet the small group eventually went to and beamed them down some place fertile. No, there's no guarantee they would survive and prosper, but they had no chance where they were.

And while we're at it, how do we know "the Enterprise-D had no way to save the planet?" Did Picard order the atmosphere be sprinkled with mumbo-jumbo particles? Was the main deflector fired at the north pole?

Anything?

All Picard did is have the bridge crew stand respectfully while a entire planet's life suffocated. Way to step up to the plate Jean-Luc.

 

[Ithekro]

I figure the style of Captain Kirk either went out of style by the 24th century, or one or more of those planets and races saved by the like of Kirk came back and had horrible consequences for the Federation. The result was Starfleet being put on the spot and the Prime Directive's clauses being redefined to prevent such things from happening again if at all possible. The logical reaction to "the needs of the many" (the Federation) "Outweigh the needs of the few" (pre-contact planetary civilization about to die).

Politics. As Janeway said about Kirk, McCoy, and Sulu, the whole lot would probably be booted out of Starfleet by her time. Following the more strict interpretation of the Prime Directive as seen sometimes in TNG, Kirk would have been court marshaled or something for saving so many civilizations in defiance of the Prime Directive.

 

[Mojochi]

Ah, but here's a paradox. If you force the Prime Directive on another alien species, perhaps by stopping them from interfering with a more primitive civilization on another planet, are you violating the Prime Directive?

"We don't believe in playing God, but we're going to impose our Prime Directive on you--and force you to abide by its dictates."

But what if, according to culture of the alien invaders, they "claimed" the planet fair and square? "We planted our flag. We established colonies. By our laws, we're allowed to conquer this planet."

Does our Prime Directive trump their Rules of Conquest?

Heck, forget alien invaders for a minute. What about alien missionaries? Does the Prime Directive requires us to stop Votan missionaries from bringing the good word of Reyetsu to the benighted natives of Ceti Gamma XV?

Or does the Prime Directive mean that we should mind our own business?

And this is probably why the show rarely ever touched on the subject of what to do about other warp capable species' interferences. There's a lot of pitfalls there. I'm of the opinion that yes, you stop them, if warp capable species are disrupting the natural development of non-warp species. We only mind our own business when it's an issue of a world's or species' internal matters. One world's people disrupting another world's people is open season. However, I don't really expect the canon or the show's concept to support such a philosophy. That really would be a full time job, policing the undisrupted development of primitive worlds, in a galaxy littered with warp capable species, possessing a myriad of questionable values on the subject. We're not even just talking about primitive worlds here. It's all worlds, like when Cardassia tries to conquer Bajor, by the UFP's tenets, they really have a moral obligation to do something about that

Ultimately, I just can't reconcile the UFP having a policy of staunch noninterference, in a galaxy where they might be the only ones who do. What's the point of not interfering, if you're not also prepared to protect that condition from the 5 or 15 other species standing in line behind you, waiting to wreck their natural evolution anyhow? What did your noninterference really accomplish? You'd be better off interfering, just so you could get one step ahead of all the other jerks who might make a mess of them after the fact. Otherwise, it's just cruel

Nope. By saying that a species should be left free of tampering by outside influences, such as your own, you are admitting a responsibility for that condition, and have at least some obligation to see that the next guy doesn't just make your purpose pointless

But like I said. It's wrought with pitfalls. It's paramount to saying you need to butt into every worldly conflict where someone is trying to impose themselves on someone else. That's nearly impossible, especially when you come up on a new star system, with a couple planets that are pre-warp but have extraplanetary activity, and one is imposing themselves on the other for millennia before you even get there & know about it. There'd have to be a lot of stipulations about existing local conditions in such cases. Tough business managing that, but by having that PD at all, you admit some responsibility for such a posture. Otherwise, the PD only really exists to protect YOU, and you're full of crap if you say it's about protecting other worlds from outside influence, because you don't really care about that

 

[Greg Cox]

^ Good response.

And, yes, the PD sounds simple in principle, but gets messy when you try to actually apply it to an infinite number of scenarios.

Forget outright aliens invasions. Does the UFP set up permanent blockades to keep well-meaning alien missionaries, rapacious Ferengis traders, obnoxious space tourists, etc. from vulnerable, pre-warp planets?

And, as you said, what if the interference has been going on for years or even generations before Starfleet stumbles onto it? At what point does it become too late to try to retroactively restore the planet's "natural" development?

"It appears, Captain, that the invaders have been occupying the planet, and interbreeding with the native population, for centuries now. And the alien technology and religion was adopted by the natives generations ago .... To use a human expression, sir, it is too late to close the barn door."

 

[T'Girl]

one or more of those planets and races saved by the like of Kirk came back and had horrible consequences for the Federation

Or, the Federation Council simply didn't like the idea that a lowly starship commander was allowed to exercise professional judgement and interpret their general one number one, and so they make it unmalleable.

In a fit of political ego.

Kirk would have been court marshaled or something for saving so many civilizations in defiance of the Prime Directive

Or something, Janeway herself got "promoted" off the bridge of a starship and into a office.

I'm of the opinion that yes, you stop them, if warp capable species are disrupting the natural development of non-warp species.

Stopping third party interaction.

There would have to be reasonable limitations on this, how far afield would this protection policy extends in terms of distance, if a pre-tech world in located in the core of the Federation, completely surrounded by Member star systems is one thing, however if the pre-tech world is in the outer marches of explored space would there be the opportunity for the same level of continuous protection?

There's also the consideration of who the third party is. If a tiny warp capable republic is sniffing around a pre-tech planet the next system over, sure have Starfleet warn them off.

However, if it's the Klingon Empire, and the pre-tech world is out in open unclaimed space, would the Federation risk a incident (possible leading to war) for the sake of the one world in question?

Ultimately, I just can't reconcile the UFP having a policy of staunch noninterference, in a galaxy where they might be the only ones who do.

It would depend on whom the PD applies, my take is that it applies only to Starfleet, and isn't something that the Federation expects other species will adhere to throughout the universe. Again, if the planet is enclosed within the Federation that would be different, because you can guard them to a degree.

But that wouldn't be so much imposing the PD on others, but having the level of force required to enforce a "native reservation."

but by having that PD at all, you admit some responsibility for such a posture

Unless the PD only applies to your own people. There's a implication in the very essence of the PD that the Federation inherently doesn't trust it's own people.

 

[Greg Cox]

one or more of those planets and races saved by the like of Kirk came back and had horrible consequences for the Federation

Or, the Federation Council simply didn't like the idea that a lowly starship commander was allowed to exercise professional judgement and interpret their general one number one, and so they make it unmalleable.

Kirk would have been court marshaled or something for saving so many civilizations in defiance of the Prime Directive

Or something, Janeway herself got "promoted" off the bridge of a starship and into a office.

Interesting thought.

Come to think of it, Starfleet kept trying to confine Kirk to a desk job, too, at least according to the first three movies or so . . . .

"Jesus, what do we have to do to keep this guy under control and off the Enterprise? De-commission the ship . . . .?"

 

[section31agent]

As for the Boralans, the Enterprise-D had no way to save the planet. They only had the ability to establish a force field around one village.

Or (instead of a force field) Picard could have beamed the natives up by the thousands, packed the ship, along with as much of their culture as could be secured in the available time, transferred them to the planet the small group eventually went to and beamed them down some place fertile. No, there's no guarantee they would survive and prosper, but they had no chance where they were.

And while we're at it, how do we know "the Enterprise-D had no way to save the planet?" Did Picard order the atmosphere be sprinkled with mumbo-jumbo particles? Was the main deflector fired at the north pole?

Anything?

All Picard did is have the bridge crew stand respectfully while a entire planet's life suffocated. Way to step up to the plate Jean-Luc.

Picard said there was no way to save the atmosphere but Rozenko countered that they did have the power to save one village. If they had the technology to save the whole planet I'm sure Rozenko would've suggested that instead.

But yes, they could've tried to beam up a few hundred people or however many the Enterprise can hold and move them to a new planet. They could cram the unused crew quarters, the cargo bays, holodecks and whatever empty space they have with these stone age refugees. But obviously they are going to be freaking out and trying to escape. Security teams are probably going to have to shoot a few of them. At that point their culture and beliefs are going to be permanently thrown upside down. Then the Enterprise is just going to drop them off and expect them to continue as they were. The Federation is not going to set up an embassy there or try to help them develop their culture and technology.

Now is having their culture fucked up better than being completely wiped out? Yes I think most people would choose to live lol. But the Federation just doesn't want to deal with the responsibility of what happens after.

If on the new planet people decide to start worshiping the Federation as the "true Gods" and their existing religion (if they have one) resists and that leads to a holy war, the Federation would hold some responsibility for the bloodshed. And then what? Starfleet has to beam down security forces to restore order? The Federation has to occupy the planet and re-educate them? The Federation would rather just let them die off of "natural" causes so that they have no future obligations.

Now I'm not saying the Federation did the correct or moral thing to let them die. But I understand why the Federation would have such a policy. The moment they try to help, they will be criticized. Why did they save this village but not that one? How has their culture and beliefs been altered since contact with the Federation and its technology? How is their culture developing in the next 50 or 100 years? If there is any kind of violence that could be attributed to having contact with the Federation? Do they have adequate natural resources to sustain themselves in the region that they were dropped off?

Imagine if the Borallans were dropped off at Ceti Alpha V before VI blew up and messed up V's atmosphere. Now Khan and his men were a bunch of war criminals from another era and long assumed dead. They were exiled for an attempted hijacking of an armed Starfleet ship. Nobody cares if they die. But if instead of Khan, they are a bunch of innocent Borallan refugees on Ceti V that are now hostile towards the Federation for maybe not vetting the star system well enough or not checking back on them sooner and more often, is Starfleet now obligated to re-evacuate a larger and now hostile Borallan population?

To say that PD prohibits Starfleet from saving people is oversimplifying a bit. The PD prevents Starfleet from saving people if the act of saving them could affect their cultural development. That's why it's ok for Spock to fire on an asteroid heading for Kirok's planet but it's not ok for alternate reality Kirk to fly his starship in front the Nibirans

But anyway I'm not saying its the morally correct decision, but I can see why it is the politically correct decision.

 

[Timo]

As it turned out, the device was tested in a nebula and still somehow made a planet and seemingly a small star. Unless that was Regula and the star was the remains of the nebula and Reliant.

If Genesis created a star, it also had to destroy the one that was already there... The fight in the nebula was at a spitting (aka impulse) distance from Regula and its star, after all.

Genesis, Phase III, clearly wasn't supposed to work on a nebula. But it wasn't supposed to work on the Regula planetoid, either, or that's where the Marcuses would have fired it, instead of sending Starfleet hunting for a Goldilocks world elsewhere. Clearly, there's some robustness to the device... But arguing that it in fact hit Regula and turned that into Genesis Planet is a tad easier than arguing it transformed a nebula!

But obviously they are going to be freaking out and trying to escape. Security teams are probably going to have to shoot a few of them.

That's hardly a problem in Star Trek. Moving an entire nation by using nonlethal force only is definitely an option.

Now is having their culture fucked up better than being completely wiped out? Yes I think most people would choose to live lol. But the Federation just doesn't want to deal with the responsibility of what happens after.

Why would it have to? The primitive Boraalans aren't going to bite back for centuries, and we have never heard of this upstart star empire of Earth thinking that far ahead. Just save these people and then forget all about them.

Now Khan and his men were a bunch of war criminals from another era and long assumed dead.

Admiral Marcus claimed they were war criminals. For all we know, their only real crime was losing the war. At least Kirk, Spock and all the other top officers on "Space Seed" appear unanimous in considering Khan Time Magazine's Least Savage Person of the 1990s!

But if instead of Khan, they are a bunch of innocent Borallan refugees on Ceti V that are now hostile towards the Federation for maybe not vetting the star system well enough or not checking back on them sooner and more often, is Starfleet now obligated to re-evacuate a larger and now hostile Borallan population?

If Starfleet were obligated to save the Boraalans in the first place, nothing here would be different. Hostile, non-hostile, non-aware of UFP, aware of UFP, that wouldn't change anything.

The means could be the same, too. It's not as if even hostile Boraalans could actually do anything to resist mass deportation; even preventing suicides should be a breeze, now that the heroes know to expect some.

The PD prevents Starfleet from saving people if the act of saving them could affect their cultural development.

Kirk in TOS never thought in those terms. All cultural development that deviated from Earth norm could freely be crushed and replaced by the Earth alternative; that in fact was often the definition of "saving". And indeed, it was only when facing cultures almost exactly like Earth's that Kirk got into trouble with PD!

Timo Saloniemi