Unfortunately for us all, not every scribe is a Shakespeare or a Dante. Ohh alas..., those two have their critics as well.
What happens if an alien civilization cries out for help?
- Thread starter Gingerbread Demon
- Start date
Unfortunately for us all, not every scribe is a Shakespeare or a Dante. Ohh alas..., those two have their critics as well.
Oh are you twisting my idea around? I mean I like what you wrote but I think you are twisting it a little too dark hehe.
I just pictured a culture that had all the mod cons but never bothered to do warp drive or visit other worlds, but they made contact with them regardless and traded with them.
In my rational Prime Directive you contact them. Dogmatic adherence to anything will cause evil. Some races do things differently. "Warp Drive" is a decent metric. Once they have that you will contact them ready or not, or they will contact you.
However life is not so neat and will do thing you do not expect. Ergo you adapt.
I did write two stories on this theme. Bookends if you will. The Sins of the Sons, and The First Principle
I don't think the PD should preclude interceding to save a species from some sort of preventable cataclysmic event -- when possible, I think it makes sense for Starfleet to do so anonymously or at least while revealing as little information as possible, but it seems better to have a living species whose development has been "interfered" with than millions of needlessly dead people.
I suppose that raises other questions of what level of death or destruction is requisite to justify interference, but Starfleet could figure that out themselves. It also seems under this paradigm that revealing the existence of warp travel and the Federation would be better than allowing a civilization to reshape their society around worshipping spacefarers as gods -- in either case, the interference has happened and you're choosing the lesser of two evils.
I suppose that raises other questions of what level of death or destruction is requisite to justify interference, but Starfleet could figure that out themselves. It also seems under this paradigm that revealing the existence of warp travel and the Federation would be better than allowing a civilization to reshape their society around worshipping spacefarers as gods -- in either case, the interference has happened and you're choosing the lesser of two evils.
I would say it's probably depends. I think they use the warp drive as sort of the gold standard for when a civilization is ready for contact, but like anything in life, there are already exceptions. My guess is Starfleet had studied the issue and determined that the achievement of warp drive was generally a good time to initiate contact, all things being equal. A good starting point.
But if the Federation was contacted by a species that didn't have warp drive, then that means they were aware of the Federation and the issue is probably moot at that point. I mean, they'd still have to follow the non-interference directive like they would in any case. The Federation wouldn't come in and start telling them how to run things or share quantum torpedo technology with them obviously. But I'd think they'd open diplomatic relations with them and probably let the new planet take the lead on the contact.
Now if it's a situation where they are asking for help, sending out a distress signal, then that'd probably depend on the circumstances. In "Pen Pals" that's basically how Picard interpreted the cry for help, but they managed to help the planet without showing themselves. In a sense, the best of both worlds. They managed to save them so that they can continue on their way as they would have without ever knowing about the Federation. But like anything in life, I'm sure it would vary from situation to situation. What is the problem to be fixed, is the civilization aware of alien life, what is the minimum interference necessary to fix the problem, and of course, should they fix the problem in the first place? There may be situations where they wouldn't provide help since in some cases we learn best from the mistakes we make, not in the successes. So there may be times where non-interference is truly the best option.
But if the Federation was contacted by a species that didn't have warp drive, then that means they were aware of the Federation and the issue is probably moot at that point. I mean, they'd still have to follow the non-interference directive like they would in any case. The Federation wouldn't come in and start telling them how to run things or share quantum torpedo technology with them obviously. But I'd think they'd open diplomatic relations with them and probably let the new planet take the lead on the contact.
Now if it's a situation where they are asking for help, sending out a distress signal, then that'd probably depend on the circumstances. In "Pen Pals" that's basically how Picard interpreted the cry for help, but they managed to help the planet without showing themselves. In a sense, the best of both worlds. They managed to save them so that they can continue on their way as they would have without ever knowing about the Federation. But like anything in life, I'm sure it would vary from situation to situation. What is the problem to be fixed, is the civilization aware of alien life, what is the minimum interference necessary to fix the problem, and of course, should they fix the problem in the first place? There may be situations where they wouldn't provide help since in some cases we learn best from the mistakes we make, not in the successes. So there may be times where non-interference is truly the best option.
I wonder how many worlds they let die because of the Prime Directive, must have been a Vulcan idea
I used to tidy my sisters house when I'd visit.
I stopped.
She died in own filth.
Now I have 5 less Christmas cards to deal with, so I'm happier.
I stopped.
She died in own filth.
Now I have 5 less Christmas cards to deal with, so I'm happier.
Contrary to popular belief, these things are not strongly coupled in aired Trek.
Warp drive is a factor in whether the PD applies. But PD can apply regardless of that. And PD being in force doesn't categorically preclude contact or UFP membership or genocide; it merely affects the decisionmaking. And generally only as regards our Starfleet characters, who are the true threat force the PD tries to guard against by requiring them to clear their excesses through the government, which for its part can make decisions quite freely.
"Letting worlds die" in turn is hardly a concern in the episodes we see. Picard was powerless to save Boraal II; the question was merely over saving a tiny handful of Boraalans. Kirk thought he had the power to save the paradise planet from asteroid strike; he was fundamentally mistaken, because the planet regularly survived such strikes ("thrice since last harvest"!) yet Kirk was only there this one time (and, incidentally, fumbled even that one). A host of other worlds died on Starfleet's watch, and it basically never was a matter of decisions.
Timo Saloniemi
Warp drive is a factor in whether the PD applies. But PD can apply regardless of that. And PD being in force doesn't categorically preclude contact or UFP membership or genocide; it merely affects the decisionmaking. And generally only as regards our Starfleet characters, who are the true threat force the PD tries to guard against by requiring them to clear their excesses through the government, which for its part can make decisions quite freely.
"Letting worlds die" in turn is hardly a concern in the episodes we see. Picard was powerless to save Boraal II; the question was merely over saving a tiny handful of Boraalans. Kirk thought he had the power to save the paradise planet from asteroid strike; he was fundamentally mistaken, because the planet regularly survived such strikes ("thrice since last harvest"!) yet Kirk was only there this one time (and, incidentally, fumbled even that one). A host of other worlds died on Starfleet's watch, and it basically never was a matter of decisions.
Timo Saloniemi
Kirk did save the asteroid spaceship and didn't even kill the bad computer that ran it, a first for Kirk.
Good catch. But the issue there is a bit ambiguous. Sure, the Oracle had apparently gone mad as a hatter. But was the ship itself in need of saving? It was headed for a planet. Spock called this a "collision course", but add a braking maneuver and it's merely the final leg in the intended journey - at the conclusion of which the Oracle might quite possibly have gone on Arrival Mode all on its own, and stopped being seemingly crazy.
We never learn that the engines of the asteroid would have been incapable of a braking maneuver, as opposed to the dodge that Kirk forced upon it. Just as in "Paradise Syndrome", all might have gone just fine without outside interference, and Kirk's (or Spock's) additional keypresses were either superfluous, or then only mildly detrimental.
For some reason, Starfleet Command believed Kirk should not intervene. They certainly didn't quote "Our Laws Require Letting These People Die" as a reason, either as regarded the Yonadans or the Daranites. Was Kirk simply being an idiot there, not listening to the bit where the admiral would have explained that no intervention was needed? Or did Starfleet plan on sending a different specialist, one with a better reputation with alien computers, to intervene within the remaining year, and Kirk just wanted to hog all the glory?
Obviously Yonada wanted to reach Daran V: the odds of her going there at random while actually en route elsewhere would be a flat zero. And obviously there would be some issues with letting Yonada settle the already inhabited Daran. But Kirk's folks never discuss that side of the equation. Which may well be why Starfleet Command felt they should vamoose and let others handle the affair.
Timo Saloniemi
We never learn that the engines of the asteroid would have been incapable of a braking maneuver, as opposed to the dodge that Kirk forced upon it. Just as in "Paradise Syndrome", all might have gone just fine without outside interference, and Kirk's (or Spock's) additional keypresses were either superfluous, or then only mildly detrimental.
For some reason, Starfleet Command believed Kirk should not intervene. They certainly didn't quote "Our Laws Require Letting These People Die" as a reason, either as regarded the Yonadans or the Daranites. Was Kirk simply being an idiot there, not listening to the bit where the admiral would have explained that no intervention was needed? Or did Starfleet plan on sending a different specialist, one with a better reputation with alien computers, to intervene within the remaining year, and Kirk just wanted to hog all the glory?
Obviously Yonada wanted to reach Daran V: the odds of her going there at random while actually en route elsewhere would be a flat zero. And obviously there would be some issues with letting Yonada settle the already inhabited Daran. But Kirk's folks never discuss that side of the equation. Which may well be why Starfleet Command felt they should vamoose and let others handle the affair.
Timo Saloniemi
Hmmm... I know of worlds without warp technology where the PD doesn't apply, but your turn of phrase seems to suggest the opposite case: worlds with warp technology for which the Prime Directive still is in force. Any examples of that?
The only potential case that pops up in my mind is that of the Malcorians of First Contact, but I'm not sure that one really counts as it is by the government's (well, the Chancellor's) own request that both parties will 'play' as if they hadn't invented warp drive for the time being.
Last edited:
Bajor as per the Circle trilogy, and the Klingon Empire as per "Redemption".
The Federation in general has a noninterventionist stance. It apparently has formulated this into a very complex Prime Directive (with 47 sub-orders and whatnot), and told its Starfleet through the SF General Order #1 to always obey this PD. But the PD covers quite a variety of situations, and actions that are not established as being in violation of the PD can range from staying the hell out through being invisible during recce missions through actively eliminating disrupting factors (be it by arguing, abducting or annihilating) through altering the physical future of the whole planet.
I gather it would be difficult to find a situation where the PD would not apply, when dealing with aliens. Or with labor disputes for that matter. But every now and then, the heroes do need to point out to each other that the PD applies, suggesting it doesn't always do that after all.
Timo Saloniemi
The Federation in general has a noninterventionist stance. It apparently has formulated this into a very complex Prime Directive (with 47 sub-orders and whatnot), and told its Starfleet through the SF General Order #1 to always obey this PD. But the PD covers quite a variety of situations, and actions that are not established as being in violation of the PD can range from staying the hell out through being invisible during recce missions through actively eliminating disrupting factors (be it by arguing, abducting or annihilating) through altering the physical future of the whole planet.
I gather it would be difficult to find a situation where the PD would not apply, when dealing with aliens. Or with labor disputes for that matter. But every now and then, the heroes do need to point out to each other that the PD applies, suggesting it doesn't always do that after all.
Timo Saloniemi
Checked the scripts quickly. Nice find about 'the Circle', though I didn't find an explicit reference to the PD in 'Redemption' at first sight (just the mention that they will not intervene).
It would seem though as if is a very different modality of the prime directive applying there. Obviously in 'the Circle' the PD doesn't prescribe 'no contact at all', just 'no interference in internal politics'. Which in itself makes sense as the situation is also very different (internal civil war even if the Cardassians are behind some of it vs. a culture's cry out for help to some unknown alien potential benefactors).
So that would make the PD a kind of catch-all term for a set of different policy rules that can only be grouped under the very general 'no intervention' umbrella term.
It would seem though as if is a very different modality of the prime directive applying there. Obviously in 'the Circle' the PD doesn't prescribe 'no contact at all', just 'no interference in internal politics'. Which in itself makes sense as the situation is also very different (internal civil war even if the Cardassians are behind some of it vs. a culture's cry out for help to some unknown alien potential benefactors).
So that would make the PD a kind of catch-all term for a set of different policy rules that can only be grouped under the very general 'no intervention' umbrella term.
This I guess is at the heart of the issue: the PD may proscribe all sorts of courses of action or inaction, and we never hear the full range (because just droning it out would take a two-parter), nor do we see consistency when we only get a sampling. It's not just politics, it's legislation and resulting juridics at its most natural...
Timo Saloniemi
Timo Saloniemi
The PD is designed to keep us from interfering in a civilization's development. But if a civilization is about to be destroyed, it HAS no further development. So what the heck, try to save it!
Also, what about Friday's Child? We were clearly in contact with a pre-industrial civilization in order to trade for natural resources. Seems pretty interfering to me!
Also, what about Friday's Child? We were clearly in contact with a pre-industrial civilization in order to trade for natural resources. Seems pretty interfering to me!
Total lack of consistency. Who thought Star Trek would do that?
This is why I wrote my own and stick with it. The Prime Directive is never fully stated in any episode, with or without sub orders. It was a straw man in "The Apple" and not even brought up in "Friday's Child". Fime I'll post the thiong here.
The Conundrum of the Prime Directive
~ Prohibits Starfleet personnel or ships from interfering in the normal development of any society, and mandates that they sacrifice themselves if necessary to prevent such interference. ~ (No source I found exactly words this order. All sources only explain its intent, usually in the terms above.)
Since Star Trek first aired many people have debated the exact meaning and intent of the Prime Directive. Star Trek itself has debated it within the show, and the outcomes of several episodes have hinged on how this week's writer sees it.
The main problem with the wording of the prime directive as (not) given is that the most strict interpretation would require everyone to go home and hide under the bed. We cannot interfere. We cannot more specifically "unnaturally interfere". I ask; what is unnatural interference?
By this statement the "Prime Directive" assumes that we are somehow a meta-natural event. I strongly disagree. We are natural. Human cities are complete analogs in nature to termite mounds. How are we fit to judge if our dropping out of the sky, or not dropping out of the sky, is a natural event in the development of a culture? It could well be argued that the human race is in the muddle it is in because we lacked the mentoring of a more mature species. If you had lousy parents does that mean it is good for everyone to have lousy parents? That suddenly, "lousy parents" are the standard everyone should grow up by? It might be the normal course of events that younger species are mentored by more advanced ones, and that Humans are the red-headed stepchildren of the galaxy because they lack such a mentor.
Furthermore it allows us to judge whether a culture is "naturally developing". By what standards does one natural creature judge what is "natural development" for another creature it knows nothing about? The Prime Directive, as stated, is nothing less than playing God, and congratulating ourselves for doing so. We the meta-natural event of the galaxy have the power and right to decide if your culture is natural. No matter how bad it might abuse you, if we think it is natural, hands off. No matter how well it works for you, if we think it is unnatural, we can interfere all we want.
If we desire not to force our views on others or to allow a life saving measure when required, let us rethink the idea of the prime directive.
Let us consider the Golden Rule Treat others as we ourselves would be treated. The Golden Rule has served humanity for thousands of years and has been expressed in every culture and every wisdom tradition. For us at least it works.
Star Trek is full of "people". Even the aliens are mostly human, so we can assume that the Golden Rule is as close to a universal principle as we will come up with. In Star Trek we can declare it to be so universal because we create the creatures within and how they will behave.
Let us put a little thought into our "Prime Directive." First, we ditch the vague wording of the Prime Directive as it is. It was a straw argument in The Apple, It was not thought out at all. So we create the Epiphany Trek "Prime Directive" to replace it.
Starfleet General Order Number One (The Prime Directive)
1) Life is sacred. Do what you can to preserve life while following the rest of these principles.
2) First, Do no harm. Examine your actions for potential harm, if acting is significantly worse than not acting, do not act.
3) Second, Allow no harm. This calls upon principle one. Life is more important than anything else. If preserving the life of a world will destroy that world's culture, preserve the life. The culture will rebuild. Sentients have been creating cultures for millions of years, and cultures have been dying out for as long. There is nothing sacred about a culture.
4) There are players (warp capable), and non-players (non-warp capable). Leave the non players alone. Yes, this principle is arbitrary. Like any set of rules, a line has to be drawn between one point and another, between the allowed and the unallowed. We choose to place this line at warp travel. Non-players must be left be to develop their own right ways. They do not need to have them delivered on duralloy tablets from the stars. Principles 1 and 3 can over ride this, but remember principle 2.
5) Our way is not the universal way. Don't shove it down anyone throat. This applies even to players. If someone asks us to let them be, and lets us be also, we will follow their wishes. Some sentients might need the protection and comfort of a totalitarian state. Others might thrive only under total anarchy. Do not judge others by our standard of decency, but by whether the culture is working for them. Someone out there may invent a superior social system we all might find better. They will not however if we give them ours.
6) Free will is paramount. If any Individual feels that their native culture is not working for them they may ask Starfleet for asylum, and they should be granted same. Don't be stupid. Those persons clearly criminal by both the standards of their own culture and the standards of ours cannot expect our protection. Any creature enslaved or oppressed can and should expect our help, even unto risk to ourselves.
7) These rules are suspended for those that make war on us. We will not make war on anyone that does not attack us first. If attacked we will seek peaceful resolution, but not beyond the point of reason. Then we will throw our full combined might against those that make war on us. Once the fighting is over we will seek reasons and resolutions.
I believe that this usage better covers the intent of the idea than the vague wording found in other sources. Far from being a straw man that various Captains have to justify breaking for this reason or that, let us create a Prime Directive that is usable and positive in its scope.
-- Garry Stahl, June 2003
This is why I wrote my own and stick with it. The Prime Directive is never fully stated in any episode, with or without sub orders. It was a straw man in "The Apple" and not even brought up in "Friday's Child". Fime I'll post the thiong here.
The Conundrum of the Prime Directive
~ Prohibits Starfleet personnel or ships from interfering in the normal development of any society, and mandates that they sacrifice themselves if necessary to prevent such interference. ~ (No source I found exactly words this order. All sources only explain its intent, usually in the terms above.)
Since Star Trek first aired many people have debated the exact meaning and intent of the Prime Directive. Star Trek itself has debated it within the show, and the outcomes of several episodes have hinged on how this week's writer sees it.
The main problem with the wording of the prime directive as (not) given is that the most strict interpretation would require everyone to go home and hide under the bed. We cannot interfere. We cannot more specifically "unnaturally interfere". I ask; what is unnatural interference?
By this statement the "Prime Directive" assumes that we are somehow a meta-natural event. I strongly disagree. We are natural. Human cities are complete analogs in nature to termite mounds. How are we fit to judge if our dropping out of the sky, or not dropping out of the sky, is a natural event in the development of a culture? It could well be argued that the human race is in the muddle it is in because we lacked the mentoring of a more mature species. If you had lousy parents does that mean it is good for everyone to have lousy parents? That suddenly, "lousy parents" are the standard everyone should grow up by? It might be the normal course of events that younger species are mentored by more advanced ones, and that Humans are the red-headed stepchildren of the galaxy because they lack such a mentor.
Furthermore it allows us to judge whether a culture is "naturally developing". By what standards does one natural creature judge what is "natural development" for another creature it knows nothing about? The Prime Directive, as stated, is nothing less than playing God, and congratulating ourselves for doing so. We the meta-natural event of the galaxy have the power and right to decide if your culture is natural. No matter how bad it might abuse you, if we think it is natural, hands off. No matter how well it works for you, if we think it is unnatural, we can interfere all we want.
If we desire not to force our views on others or to allow a life saving measure when required, let us rethink the idea of the prime directive.
Let us consider the Golden Rule Treat others as we ourselves would be treated. The Golden Rule has served humanity for thousands of years and has been expressed in every culture and every wisdom tradition. For us at least it works.
Star Trek is full of "people". Even the aliens are mostly human, so we can assume that the Golden Rule is as close to a universal principle as we will come up with. In Star Trek we can declare it to be so universal because we create the creatures within and how they will behave.
Let us put a little thought into our "Prime Directive." First, we ditch the vague wording of the Prime Directive as it is. It was a straw argument in The Apple, It was not thought out at all. So we create the Epiphany Trek "Prime Directive" to replace it.
Starfleet General Order Number One (The Prime Directive)
1) Life is sacred. Do what you can to preserve life while following the rest of these principles.
2) First, Do no harm. Examine your actions for potential harm, if acting is significantly worse than not acting, do not act.
3) Second, Allow no harm. This calls upon principle one. Life is more important than anything else. If preserving the life of a world will destroy that world's culture, preserve the life. The culture will rebuild. Sentients have been creating cultures for millions of years, and cultures have been dying out for as long. There is nothing sacred about a culture.
4) There are players (warp capable), and non-players (non-warp capable). Leave the non players alone. Yes, this principle is arbitrary. Like any set of rules, a line has to be drawn between one point and another, between the allowed and the unallowed. We choose to place this line at warp travel. Non-players must be left be to develop their own right ways. They do not need to have them delivered on duralloy tablets from the stars. Principles 1 and 3 can over ride this, but remember principle 2.
5) Our way is not the universal way. Don't shove it down anyone throat. This applies even to players. If someone asks us to let them be, and lets us be also, we will follow their wishes. Some sentients might need the protection and comfort of a totalitarian state. Others might thrive only under total anarchy. Do not judge others by our standard of decency, but by whether the culture is working for them. Someone out there may invent a superior social system we all might find better. They will not however if we give them ours.
6) Free will is paramount. If any Individual feels that their native culture is not working for them they may ask Starfleet for asylum, and they should be granted same. Don't be stupid. Those persons clearly criminal by both the standards of their own culture and the standards of ours cannot expect our protection. Any creature enslaved or oppressed can and should expect our help, even unto risk to ourselves.
7) These rules are suspended for those that make war on us. We will not make war on anyone that does not attack us first. If attacked we will seek peaceful resolution, but not beyond the point of reason. Then we will throw our full combined might against those that make war on us. Once the fighting is over we will seek reasons and resolutions.
I believe that this usage better covers the intent of the idea than the vague wording found in other sources. Far from being a straw man that various Captains have to justify breaking for this reason or that, let us create a Prime Directive that is usable and positive in its scope.
-- Garry Stahl, June 2003
It's probably way simpler than that, though.
Starfleet General Order One:
A starship captain is indistinguishable from God. To create a distinction, a starship captain is forbidden from pursuing any independent policies whatsoever, and from making moral calls of any sort that aren't specified in the field manuals. The government will make those calls, having Top Men working on the issues, thank you very much. In short, do not interfere on your own initiative, ever. Not simply because you can. Because, you know, you can.
It's not a positive order encouraging the pursuing of a policy. It's a thoroughly negative one, discouraging the creating of a policy out of the barrel of a photon torpedo launcher.
Case in point, "Angel One", where civilians are allowed to interfere, but Starfleet is disallowed from even interfering with the civilian interference. You don't take power away from those who don't have it. You remove it from those who have too much of it already.
As for the likes of "Friday's Child", contact would be a non-issue there: the planet had already been contacted by Klingons. And probably by lots of other folks, since there had been this Fed team down there, with McCoy tagging along. We don't know who got there first, but it wasn't Kirk, and by the time of the episode, Kirk wouldn't be required to care.
Timo Saloniemi
Starfleet General Order One:
A starship captain is indistinguishable from God. To create a distinction, a starship captain is forbidden from pursuing any independent policies whatsoever, and from making moral calls of any sort that aren't specified in the field manuals. The government will make those calls, having Top Men working on the issues, thank you very much. In short, do not interfere on your own initiative, ever. Not simply because you can. Because, you know, you can.
It's not a positive order encouraging the pursuing of a policy. It's a thoroughly negative one, discouraging the creating of a policy out of the barrel of a photon torpedo launcher.
Case in point, "Angel One", where civilians are allowed to interfere, but Starfleet is disallowed from even interfering with the civilian interference. You don't take power away from those who don't have it. You remove it from those who have too much of it already.
As for the likes of "Friday's Child", contact would be a non-issue there: the planet had already been contacted by Klingons. And probably by lots of other folks, since there had been this Fed team down there, with McCoy tagging along. We don't know who got there first, but it wasn't Kirk, and by the time of the episode, Kirk wouldn't be required to care.
Timo Saloniemi
Depends on who is Captain.
Kirk would not only charge into that mofo with guns blazing, he'd also leave behind a detachment of sociologists and scientists to help them get back on their feet. He'd probably plant the UFP flag in town square himself, right after enjoying a hearty laugh at McCoy saying something mildly (but funlovingly) bigoted to Spock.
Picard would turn the ship around exactly 180 degrees and head away at warp 9.7 for several days, letting everyone die a slow, painful, unnecessary death while he drinks tea and philosophizes with Data over something that will put everyone else (characters and audience) to sleep.
Sisko would say in a booming, authoritative voice "People, we have a war to fight here. Notify Starfleet to send a science vessle" and not slow down for one min.
Janeway would find a way to go back in time through a temporal rift inside an antiproton nebula by reversing the polarity of the deflector. She'd then bathe the planet's ionosphere in inverse tachyons while beaming Harry Kim to the surface disguised as a native to influence a different outcome. But, the plan backfires, creating 345 versions of the Voyager at different quantum vibrations, only one of which can rectify the situation. Once this is done, by ejecting the other 344 warp cores and shooting them all with a charged thaleron radiation stream, everything wraps up in a nice little bow in the last 15 seconds of the episode, and all is well.
Archer would nearly get himself killed by making idiodic mistakes that my 6 year old would have avoided.
Kirk would not only charge into that mofo with guns blazing, he'd also leave behind a detachment of sociologists and scientists to help them get back on their feet. He'd probably plant the UFP flag in town square himself, right after enjoying a hearty laugh at McCoy saying something mildly (but funlovingly) bigoted to Spock.
Picard would turn the ship around exactly 180 degrees and head away at warp 9.7 for several days, letting everyone die a slow, painful, unnecessary death while he drinks tea and philosophizes with Data over something that will put everyone else (characters and audience) to sleep.
Sisko would say in a booming, authoritative voice "People, we have a war to fight here. Notify Starfleet to send a science vessle" and not slow down for one min.
Janeway would find a way to go back in time through a temporal rift inside an antiproton nebula by reversing the polarity of the deflector. She'd then bathe the planet's ionosphere in inverse tachyons while beaming Harry Kim to the surface disguised as a native to influence a different outcome. But, the plan backfires, creating 345 versions of the Voyager at different quantum vibrations, only one of which can rectify the situation. Once this is done, by ejecting the other 344 warp cores and shooting them all with a charged thaleron radiation stream, everything wraps up in a nice little bow in the last 15 seconds of the episode, and all is well.
Archer would nearly get himself killed by making idiodic mistakes that my 6 year old would have avoided.
I think the idea there (and I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the philosophy) is that if nature has selected a species for extinction, it is the natural order of things. What if some advanced race decided to prevent the dinosaurs from going extinct, for example? Yes, tragedy averted....but at what cost to the future of that planet's natural development.
Again, I'm not here to debate the merits of the approach. I'm just saying I think this is part of the baked-in rationale for the directive.
"Next week on Star Trek, Kirk and Spock discover the circuit breaker."
Similar threads
