Oh yes my mistake thought you were on about the movie
ultimate reasoning behind prime directive ?
- Thread starter at Quark's
- Start date
The moral dilemma in that story didn't fall upon our heroes, but rather on the civilization they contacted--should they continue forward with warp drive and join the greater galactic community or should they stop and let more time pass until everyone in their society--including the hardline opposition--was ready to move forward?
I haven't heard this story of the boy getting suspended because he made a gun. Was it a real gun capable of actually harming someone or a toy gun?
And if it's a toy gun, does it look enough like a real gun to cause a panic? And, did he bring it to school? These are all important. Using a real gun at a shooting range: Harmless. Making a fake gun that looks real and bringing it into school = Yelling 'Bomb' on a plane.
And if it's a toy gun, does it look enough like a real gun to cause a panic? And, did he bring it to school? These are all important. Using a real gun at a shooting range: Harmless. Making a fake gun that looks real and bringing it into school = Yelling 'Bomb' on a plane.
This does not belong here. Were you in the wrong forum?
I'll answer and let the mods decide. The boy made a gun with his first finger and thumb.
The relation to the subject of Trek is: someone said the 'no-tolerance' (on paper) application of the PD is considered 'liberalism' gone mad. And he asked, but is it liberal or conservative.
And I responded with a different, current, no-tolerance policy and asked *is* that a liberal or a conservative policy? I can understand why the mods wouldn't want political topics to infect Trek threads, but:
1) I've been here a very short time, but SO FAR...everyone seems to be adults.
2) I think the idea of Trek being a reflection of American politics is a valid one worthy of discussion. Sometimes TNG and Voyager DID seem like 'no-tolerance' gone wild.
And while 87-01 isn't really current times...TNG did have the ability to forecast future events. See "The Drumhead"...I would be amazed if that were made today.
To me it was a relevant example. I won't be venturing into the question whether this is 'liberal' or 'conservative', not being an American myself. However, it does feel like 'trying to be too correct' and being very uptight about it, which is an attitude I sometimes see back in TNG eps, including some 'prime directive' ones.
I agree that you can look at it as a relevant analogy about adhering too strictly to the letter of the law without regard to flexibility or common sense. The TOS PD seemed to be(at least to Kirk) somewhat flexible in interpretation with a lot of leeway for captains. By TNG it seemed to be treated as holy writ rather than just a basic guideline.
Yeah, during Kirk's day, the Prime Directive authorized Kirk to intervene when the Enterprise encountered a civilization that had either become stagnant or was being influenced by something unnatural (usually some super computer). By the time of Janeway, though, the Prime Directive was much more hands-off and quite a few of Kirk's actions were likely viewed as violations by then.
That's not conservative. Conservative means: I support who does support me; I always go for my interests and strengthen those who help my interests and weaken those who go against my interests; those I like I let live and those who I dont like I let die; I never reflect and hesitate, I always act according to my interests and needs; who is not with me, is against me.
The Prime Directive goes against this type of culture.
I'll go along with what Holdfast wrote. Its ultimate purpose is to protect The Federation from the pitfalls & repercussions of having to take responsibility for everything you come across throughout the galaxy, with the added humility of suggesting that they themselves could also be a potentially corrupting influence on cultures of lesser development
Starfleet Motto: Always assume the worst. Better to die than let them see you, and better to let them all die than continue living.
Best way of saying it.
And with my own Dr. Who/Trek crossover, I'm getting this image if Defiant and Sovereigns chasing a tiny blue polic box in space, weapons fire showing near it, and throughout every Federation planet, there's the equivalent of a wanted poster with Tom Baker's face on it, with "Starfleet Enemy Number 1!" below.
Here's another reason why I think the PD is poorly thought out. There is absolutely no 'incase of' guidelines in the event that the crew might get involved with a pre-warp species. What if our crew must make contact with this species? What if contact was accidental? What if the species somehow discovers us all on their own?
Why does there have to be so much dilemma over something that frequently happens?
Why does there have to be so much dilemma over something that frequently happens?
FASA had an instance of the first Starfleet captain being held accountable under the PD. He came across a primitive world whose two major powers were about to destroy themselves through war, and he used his starship's weapons to destroy theirs so that they wouldn't annihilate each other. Starfleet ultimately found him guilty of violating the directive and took his command, even though they acknowledged his sentiments were good.
I tend to agree with you, though. While there are certainly circumstances where it would be be best to avoid direct contact or interference with a more "primitive" culture, it wouldn't be entirely avoidable or undesirable. The Capellans from "Friday's Child" would certainly fit into such a category, and yet they were valuable trading partners to both the Feds and the Klingons because of their minerals.
I tend to agree with you, though. While there are certainly circumstances where it would be be best to avoid direct contact or interference with a more "primitive" culture, it wouldn't be entirely avoidable or undesirable. The Capellans from "Friday's Child" would certainly fit into such a category, and yet they were valuable trading partners to both the Feds and the Klingons because of their minerals.
Great....save the whales but not a civilization. This is like the Marie Antoinette mentality of "let them eat cake" or like the rich, power business man avoiding homeless people and saying, "let them rot".
With Starfleet, their mentality is "let them all rot, but if they got something we want/need, well.....they are worth helping/saving now. Only when it's convenient to Starfleet will they do the right thing.
Captain: You mean let the entire race die?
Starfleet: Yes
Captain: That's horrible!
Starfleet: They are going to die a painful, horrible death, but at least we did not ''contaminate'' their culture.
This is why I liked Pulaski in the second season of TNG, she openly criticized the almighty Prime Directive.
The Prime Directive is, to me, just another way of keeping less advanced beings from being possible competitors/rivals in the future. And I am sorry, but giving an oath to give one's life for a policy that pretty mean seals the fate of an entire world and its people, and deeming it unworthy of either a future or contact, simply because they have not achieved faster than light travel....that's bullcrap. I mean look a tthe episode, "First Contact", that race HAD or at least was going to have faster than light travel, but the government in charge flat out DENIED official contact with the Enterprise, and cancelled the warp project, simply because some screwballs in the government felt they were not ready or that the old beliefs/values were going to end, that's not a natural thing, the prevention of first contact was ARTIFICIALLY caused....(stuff like that's happening today)...I'd love to see an episode or story where Starfleet is dealing with an unwilling government that's own interests are not that of the people of that world....that should not be a factor in first contact.....in fact, that would allow a natural development to occur.....since oppressive governments are no different than computers with megalomania.
Similar threads
