What is the purpose of the Prime Directive?

[Anwar]

Well, this is non-canon but I thought it was a reasonable explanation for the PD:

Basically, the story I read (in an RPG book years ago) was that a Fed ship found the Klingon homeworld and immediately made contact without observing them very long. They were all slaughtered, their ship taken, and the Klingons used its' technology to catapult their Empire into interstellar domination over the region.

Basically, the PD was put up to keep other Klingon Empires from popping up due to irresponsbility. No messing with a culture until they get into space on their own, because then the contamination is inevitable.

 

[neozeks]

While situations where a prewarp civilization is endangered by a natural threat, one which they haven't caused, for which they bear no reponsibility and for which they simply have no means (they aren't technologically devoloped enough) to stop it are pretty clear-cut, there are still some problems. How serious should the danger be? If it's a matter of survival, of course, you should intervene. A contaminated society is better than no society. But should you go bellow that? Should you cure diseases that kill a great number of people but don't threaten the entire species? Should you stop earthquakes, tornadoes, tsunamis? Where do you draw the line? Should you cure all diseases if you have the capability? Should you rid them of all poverty? But doesn't that make the civilization in question stagnant and completely dependent on you? Why should they bother to advance, to develop anything if they know they can count on your moral obligation to help them with any problem?

But what if the threat is non-natural or natural but artificially created? If they decide to start a nuclear war, even if it means their extinction, isn't that their own choice, their own responsibility? Can you force democracy, peace and unity on them and should you? Here I think, however cruel it may be, non-interference is justified. A civilization has to learn from it's mistakes, otherwise it will never truely advance. Change has to come from within.

 

[Joshua Howard]

The premise is arrogant and a bit racist, come to think of it. "Oh those poor simpletons won't be able to handle our technology or even the knowledge it exists without their society falling apart." How would you know? That's quite arrogant to presume.
"They'll start worshiping us as gods, and their culture will naturally perish when confronted with ours." How do you know? Maybe they'll just want the medicine or some of the technology they need, but they'll say "thanks, but not thanks" to your customs, fashion, food, or your (anti)religious beliefs.

I think that you have stepped back too far and are over-generalizing. It makes basic sense to say that you could march in on a simple people and not damage their cultural and technological development. In reality though, I seriously doubt it.

I don't think that it is arrogant to say that. I don't think that we - the human race and creators of science fiction - are ready to come in contact with a Star Trek style intelligence. If the Enterprise docked at the ISS tomorrow, I think that it would be really, really bad for the crew to just start showing us the ropes.

We can't be trusted with the inter-planetary capacity to destroy. We can't be trusted until we are capable of running our planet well. We shouldn't be put in a place where we measure ourselves against an alien race. The human spirit thrives on finding inner strength, not outside strength.

I'm not really rooting for or against the prime directive in terms of practical application. I am not suggesting that a planet should be left to die, or that there should be any rule about sharing information and aid set in stone. Nevertheless, it isn't an arrogant or particularly bad idea.

It is a question similar to less trek-oriented ones. For example, how much influence should western powers have on emerging economies? Prime Directive addresses the same modern question in space. Should we give them food but not weapons? Should we give them knowledge but not cultural guidance? Should we work with their governments but not the people? It gets really messy really quickly, and often the best answer is to step back and say "let them grow on their own, at their own pace, and when they are ready, we'll talk about the G-20."

 

[Timo]

Well, the big thing is that the PD is a Starfleet regulation. It doesn't stop courses of action. It stops specific people from pursuing those courses of action.

It makes perfect sense to hobble a starship captain with such legislation IMHO. He or she already holds way too much power to be unleashed on the whim of a single person, or on the basis of a rigid code followed/interpreted by a single person. A rigid code is all right for preventing the unleashing of those forces, but whenever major action is going to be taken, the decision process should be routed through a greater number of heads, including sufficiently many of those who don't care an iota about the captain's personal welfare or feelings.

After all, "major action" a skipper could take at the push of a button includes extinguishing all life on a planet, or all undesirable life; terminating entire schools of thought far more efficiently than the most sadistic dictator's goriest putsch; flipping a planet's climate for good; or forcing the planet's hand in choosing an alliance. It becomes even worse if the planet can fight back, because then the skipper might take action in order to protect his or her starship, which probably shouldn't have been there in the first place.

There's little harm in letting Harry Mudd make first contact with a planet, as he doesn't have the resources to do much harm. But Captain Picard does, which is why he's a monster in need of a thick tritanium collar and chain even when he talks softly and leaves his big stick in orbit.

It just makes sense to introduce the PD to dictate that major decisions have to be routed through expert boards and the democractic process, not executed by the man on the field. It's way too dangerous otherwise. Really, when Kirk used "major action" to protect his ship and crew in "A Taste of Armageddon", the best option of the UFP would have been to execute him and his crew at return to home port, as a demonstration that "criminal gain" is a futile concept...

The PD as witnessed in action is much more lax than that, though. But it does perform the job of keeping the tin-plated dictators in their starships from giving the UFP too bad a reputation.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[The Castellan]

The premise is arrogant and a bit racist, come to think of it. "Oh those poor simpletons won't be able to handle our technology or even the knowledge it exists without their society falling apart." How would you know? That's quite arrogant to presume.
"They'll start worshiping us as gods, and their culture will naturally perish when confronted with ours." How do you know? Maybe they'll just want the medicine or some of the technology they need, but they'll say "thanks, but not thanks" to your customs, fashion, food, or your (anti)religious beliefs.

I think that you have stepped back too far and are over-generalizing. It makes basic sense to say that you could march in on a simple people and not damage their cultural and technological development. In reality though, I seriously doubt it.

I don't think that it is arrogant to say that. I don't think that we - the human race and creators of science fiction - are ready to come in contact with a Star Trek style intelligence. If the Enterprise docked at the ISS tomorrow, I think that it would be really, really bad for the crew to just start showing us the ropes.



QUOTE]

Pffffft. Speak for yourself. An alien vessel shows up tomorrow, and I'll be CELEBRATING. If man's to survive the next mellenium, we need all the help we can get....hell....imagine if we got alien tech, which I think we have already, imagine what we could do...cure cancer, get away from oil and put the oil industry out of business (one of my many fantasies ), and get off this damned rock and really start living. You really think we'll be able to do all what I said alone...not when you got politics and big business running stuff?

You've got the same thinking NASA and Brookings have....that's not good.

 

[The Castellan]

But Captain Picard does, which is why he's a monster in need of a thick tritanium collar and chain even when he talks softly and leaves his big stick in orbit.

If he kept the chain on, the Borg would have won, or in the very least, keep Cochrane from getting the Pheonix flying.

Prime Directive = Bull Shit.

 

[Triskelion]

So you happen across say, the Malon, and they are facing mass extinction due to having chosen, for the sake of argument, an unsustainable system. Rather than let them bear the consequences of their actions, you sweep up their environment so they can begin it all again - and this time, introduce their unsustainable methods to other worlds they colonize and pollute, literally and culturally. And that's the moral thing to do?

Or you let them choke on their own mistakes, and possibly compel themselves to find their own solutions, which they can then learn from - and become fully realized as a culture, fully self-supporting, so that they may then become a strong link in a greater chain? Understanding themselves better than any other culture is equipped to do so - and understanding their own threats to themselves?

Or do you do the simple thing and teach them learned helplessness, how to be dependent on more advanced societies?

But then, some people want an authoritarian boogeyman - to exploit, to gain something for nothing, and to have a ready scapegoat, in order to avoid facing themselves.

Meanwhile the Fed is wrong, by default, simply for being a greater society. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

It is easy to point fingers. It is hard to shoulder responsibility for yourself and your society.

Besides, there are so many planets, the Fed couldn't possibly provide for them all, without killing itself in the process.

When I was a young man, I would have believed the Fed should automatically render aid to those about to die.

But older, and a little more worldly, I've realized that helping people who refuse to help themselves does no one any good.

And you can't just say, save this planet, or end their pollution, or install a democracy, or teach them market economics, or assassinate that dictator, or prevent the invention of gunpowder, or protect religious freedom, or end religious freedom, or give everyone a hamburger, and know for certain you're helping! That would be the height of hubris.

You can't make it a case by case. You'd have crazy admirals and rogue captains starting wars right and left.

You have to say, do not touch the habitat. If they can get up here on their own, then we'll deal with them. Even Kespritt could - but as they were a divided society, they were still denied fed membership. Worlds of the Fed pretty much had to have solved some basic problems before they were admitted - namely, their own sociocultural destructiveness - and cultural myopia.

The Fed is strong because it's based on authentic grassroots power. Not unsustainable flim flam or oppression.

 

[DevilEyes]

Well, this is non-canon but I thought it was a reasonable explanation for the PD:

Basically, the story I read (in an RPG book years ago) was that a Fed ship found the Klingon homeworld and immediately made contact without observing them very long. They were all slaughtered, their ship taken, and the Klingons used its' technology to catapult their Empire into interstellar domination over the region.

Basically, the PD was put up to keep other Klingon Empires from popping up due to irresponsbility. No messing with a culture until they get into space on their own, because then the contamination is inevitable.

This is a good example of a case where PD makes sense. But it doesn't explain absurd examples like Homeward or Dear Doctor.

The premise is arrogant and a bit racist, come to think of it. "Oh those poor simpletons won't be able to handle our technology or even the knowledge it exists without their society falling apart." How would you know? That's quite arrogant to presume.
"They'll start worshiping us as gods, and their culture will naturally perish when confronted with ours." How do you know? Maybe they'll just want the medicine or some of the technology they need, but they'll say "thanks, but not thanks" to your customs, fashion, food, or your (anti)religious beliefs.

I think that you have stepped back too far and are over-generalizing. It makes basic sense to say that you could march in on a simple people and not damage their cultural and technological development. In reality though, I seriously doubt it.

It's not me that is generalizing, it is Star Trek with its treatment of the Prime Directive, particularly in the modern Trek shows. I am certainly not saying that Starfleet should be going around handing out technology or sending missionaries to teach the natives Federation cultural ways. But the attitude "Oh shit, if they as much as learn about us, they'll inevitably crush under the weight of our superior culture!" displayed in Trek, is very arrogant and ridiculous.

It is a question similar to less trek-oriented ones. For example, how much influence should western powers have on emerging economies? Prime Directive addresses the same modern question in space. Should we give them food but not weapons? Should we give them knowledge but not cultural guidance? Should we work with their governments but not the people? It gets really messy really quickly, and often the best answer is to step back and say "let them grow on their own, at their own pace, and when they are ready, we'll talk about the G-20."

Or the laziest answer.

As I've already said, it's not that PD is inherently bad or that there aren't good reasons for it to exist. In some cases, it helps stop cultural imperialism, or Starfleet acting like Universe Policeman and getting involved in interplanetary conflicts, or letting technology get in the wrong hands (say, letting an imperialistic, violent culture become too powerful). But Trek has given us as many examples of PD being used in a totally absurd manner, to justify refusal to help when help is badly needed. PD should be a guideline to be interpreted on a case to case basis, not an inflexible rule that people use to excuse standing by and doing nothing. Yes, deciding how to proceed and whether to apply or not apply the PD is certainly more difficult than just acting by 'the letter of the law' - rather than the spirit - but isn't that what Federation Starfleet senior officers are supposed to do - think things though and make difficult decisions?

 

[DevilEyes]

You can't make it a case by case. You'd have crazy admirals and rogue captains starting wars right and left.

Then you shouldn't have Federation Starfleet at all, or at least not have it traveling around the galaxy "exploring". If you're worried about influencing other civilizations, you know what? Stay the fuck home. That's the simplest solution. Make contact only with those who ask for it, be prepared to defend yourself if someone attacks you, and don't go around landing on all sorts of planets while worrying that you'll "contaminate them".

 

[Anwar]

Uh-huh, and that's better than just NOT interfering with the worlds you come across? The exploring is for the Federations' good as well as anyone elses'. Best answer is the PD, no interfering unless they ask you to.

 

[Triskelion]

To quote Kahlil Gibran:
"Do not limp out of sympathy for the lame."

Surely there's some middle ground between quagmire and xenophobia?

I understand the humane aspect of trying to end suffering if at all possible. So - if you clean up the Malon's pollution, are you ending their suffering? Or are you actually prolonging it?

And how can any one person or group know for certain?

And where exactly does one draw the line? Do you save plague victims but ignore people who start wars? What about their innocent populaces? Do you stop people from fishing their oceans dry? Or do you place those people above the other animals in their ecosystem - knowing that if the oceans are fished dry, the people may be starting an irreversible process of self-extinction? Which is more moral? The short term or long term survival?

What is the moral thing to do: Save a dominant society and help to further marginalize, even extinguish their minorities? How can that captain make an accounting for his or her choices?

I understand embracing morality. I just question someone who is entirely complacent with their definition of the situation. That's self-centered. Willfully ignorant, and the people of the Fed have striven to rise above that. That's why they leave it up to those societies to define themselves. If those societies find balance, they can expand beyond their planet. If they are self-destructive, they don't get off planet. That's the qualification - interstellar capability.

The Federation didn't create their suffering. That's LIFE!

And when a society is sufficiently advanced, and integrated, then the Fed does provide plenty of resources.

Would I rather my parents give me money? Or teach me how to support myself? The latter, every time. YMMV. But if one chooses the former, one really can't comlain about one's lack of control over one's own destiny. Pointing fingers is about all one can do at that point. Don't hold your breath waiting for the others to treat the accusations with any credibility.

 

[DevilEyes]

Uh-huh, and that's better than just NOT interfering with the worlds you come across?

If you don't want to interfere or risk influencing another civilization, the safest way is - guess what - not to come near them.

Yes, it is better. Why would you waste time and resources and risk people's lives to travel across the galaxy, if the end result is the same as staying home? To satisfy curiosity? Come on. UFP obviously has to have an interest in the exploration and collecting information about other cultures. Which brings me to the next issue...

The exploring is for the Federations' good as well as anyone elses'. Best answer is the PD, no interfering unless they ask you to.

Everyone else's good? How so? What good does it bring to the civilization whose planet you've just visited, if you aren't going to share anything with them - no knowledge or technology - and aren't even willing to help them if they need help? It obviously serves no purpose to them at all. So, let's say it as it is - it's only for UFP's good. Starfleet gets to "explore" and bring home info about other civilizations and cultures - and can benefit from it, but those civilizations have to be prevented from potentially benefiting from it. What is that if not very selfish and hypocritical?


No interfering unless they ask you to? They did ask in "Dear Doctor" - and not for any military and political interference, they just wanted a cure, and Archer and Phlox decided to withhold it and lie about it. The Boraalans needed help even more immediately, but apparently, according to Picard, giving a flying fuck about what happens to them and whether they live or die constituted a gross violation of the Prime Directive.

 

[Praxius]

What do you think is the purpose of the Prime Directive? Personally, I think I would interpret it far more narrowly than some of the captains have. Here's the way I see it: Starfleet seems to be largely an organization of well-meaning liberal do-gooders. Between their noble intentions and access to vast resources, it would be a horrible temptation to play god with every pre-warp, pre-industrial, "backward" civilization they come across. It's only natural that they would want to spread the word of their own "enlightenment." However, by doing that at a point too early in a planet's civilization, they would inevitably crush that planet's cultural diversity. Therefore, pre-warp civilizations, however draconian or "backward," have a right to develop their own culture independent of outside influences. (Once a civilization achieves warp capability, then they're going to encounter outside alien cultures anyway.)

However, I don't think the purpose of the Prime Directive was to enforce such inflexible non-interference that a Starfleet ship cannot even secretly save a species from extinction in a natural disaster. Allowing some sort of planetary instability to wipe out an entire species serves no one. It is bad for the species that goes extinct. It is also bad for the cultural diversity of the galaxy, since that species will never be able to contribute to it.

How do you folks interpret the Prime Directive?

I think the way you put it, it's suppsed to keep Starfleet and UFP from screwing around with their development, because if they do end up killing themselves off, you can't be blamed because you wern't involved.

On the flip side, if you do jump in and get involved, then if you screw something up, if they think you're some kind of God and begin to worship you, if they hoard the information and technology you gave one group against another, then you changed the balances of power in that planet..... all the onus falls at your feet and you are responsible for what happens.

If they end up killing themselves, then clearly they're not of sound mind to be jumping around the galaxy like everybody else and spreading their mentality..... AKA: if they can't tollerate and live amongst themselves, then what makes anybody think they'd tollerate and live amongst aliens?

And the age-old argument of getting involved and being responsible for saving the next Hitler or Khan, etc. etc. ...... all speculation, but in many episodes over the years where the Prime Directive was ignored, we've seen a number of situations unfold worse then they were before.

Good intentions are not always enough.

 

[DevilEyes]

Would I rather my parents give me money? Or teach me how to support myself? The latter, every time.

What if they throw you out and tell you "We're not going to teach you how to support yourself, it's your task. You have to learn it all on your own, or die if you can't"? That would be the true parallel to the PD as presented in Trek.

That's exactly the issue. PD prevents Starfleet from not just - to use that metaphor - handing out the fish, but also from "teaching" people how to fish.

 

[Triskelion]

And if you save them, you also prevent the rise of any other dominant civilization on that planet, in favor of one that is fundamentally unsound. Is that your call to make? While you may willfully blind yourself to the ramifications of your decision, they still exist after you have trotted off feeling self-satisfied. Meanwhile, in 1000 years, the planet is still a barren rock. Still feeling generous?

 

[Praxius]

Also...breaking the PD was what let the Federation ultimately come to be, just watch First Contact.

They didn't break the Prime D in First Contact and stuck to the guidelines quite well I thought.

The difference with First Contact was that They were humans, defending their own planet, regardless of time or development. Their entire history/what they are and remember was about to be altered by a powerful enemy which they were partly responsible for creating the situation for them to go back in time in the first place..... so their hands were already dirty before they even followed through the portal.

At the same time, they attempted to tie into the culture as best as possible, limit their contact with humans of the time (except those they needed to interact with in repairing the warp ship) and were told that if their mission failed and they had to lose the Enterprise, to take their escape pods, head to some remote islands and stay out of history's business as much as possible.

The thing about the PD in these situations where they sorta no longer apply, is that their interference already took place in one form or another and damage has already been done, thus the next step is to try and repair or reduce the impact of their involvement.

Take what happened in the TNG episode "Who Watches The Watchers" and you can see what exactly happens if one screws up.

Also, as explained in the Enterprise series in Season 1, There were many times in humanity's past where a lot of stink came out from people being abducted, seeing UFO's, etc. etc..... think of a civilization older then ours at present, say something like in the 1700's or even earlier, and you'd have people claiming to have seen Gods and religions would ensue.

And we seen, especially in TOS, non-warp people deal with Starfleet. The Federation does NOT need a glorfied Brookings Report.

I beg to differ and don't believe Starfleet needs to run around acting like big hot shots, shoving their nose where it's not wanted or where it doesn't belong, continually thinking they're doing what's best simply because they have the power to do so.

Just look at the US in Afghanistan and Iraq...... there was no legit justification for either of those wars, yet the US felt they had the power, they had the means, and they had the people wanting to start changing other countries to be more like their own so they have less to worry about in the future.

Look what happened..... Things are far worse, the people in those countries are suffering and living in more dangerous situations, thousands and thousands of people killed, wounded, children, women, innocent civilians, families displaced, more hatred for the US worldwide, and the security of the planet is worse now then it was prior to all of this starting in the first place.

And you think doing the same thing accross the galaxy, to many various planets and cultures is a good thing?

You know what they say: "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"

 

[Praxius]

Sounds like you're supporting Social Darvinism.

What's to stop us from applying that motto to our societi(es)? Why not abolish welfare and health care and leave everyone to fend for themselves? Let the weak, sick and disabled perish, rather than let them be dependent on the Nanny State... Entire countries that are not economically viable, or have problems with hunger, disease, consequences of natural disasters or wars? The international organizations and other countries should not offer them any help, financial or otherwise - let them fight for their own survival or die if they're not strong enough!

Am I exaggerating? No, that's exactly where this kind of thinking leads.

Indeed that is how it should be until those societies start to put risk on your own.

Spoon feeding and simply handing out money and aid to various nations like those in Africa obviously solves nothing, because they're too disorganized to use that money and aid responsibly as proven time and time again.

And how has their societies changed? They didn't.... now all these countries know is to become dependant on hand outs and money. Rather then dishing them out the things they need, they should be taught how to develop their own societies, taught how to be independant, taught how not to depend on hand outs and take them for granted.

Has this happened yet? Not really. All that has happened is that the demand for this aid and money has continually increased, not decreased, all the while these societies seem to be exactly where they were before they started getting aid.... if not, worse.

At the same time, our own societies are sapped from our own resources more and more for something that isn't working.

Should they be left to destroy themselves?

If they're going to be that stupid, I say yes.

Offer them a hand if they want it, but offer them a select few options that you know will help them.... don't just leave the doors open for all sorts of demands that have no benefit in the long run.

And another difference in your above situation is that you're talking about human interaction with other humans, not other aliens or animal species, so there's a bit of room for involvement moreso.

Another way to look at it is how our societies have no issue leaving the cannibal tribes in South America well enough alone, we don't try to meddle in their affairs and we tell anybody who ventures into their territory that they're on their own and their lives are at risk.

I don't see anybody wanting to go in there and force them to adopt our way of life. You may not like their way of life, but it is not our position to change their way of life.

 

[Praxius]

..... Everyone else's good? How so? What good does it bring to the civilization whose planet you've just visited, if you aren't going to share anything with them - no knowledge or technology - and aren't even willing to help them if they need help? It obviously serves no purpose to them at all. So, let's say it as it is - it's only for UFP's good. Starfleet gets to "explore" and bring home info about other civilizations and cultures - and can benefit from it, but those civilizations have to be prevented from potentially benefiting from it. What is that if not very selfish and hypocritical?

Hypocritical?

Take a look at our own planet as an example. How many times have we in the past asked help from aliens to solve our problems.... better yet..... when was the last time you can remember God or Gods coming down to help us in our time of need(s) when we asked for it?

They need to first prove they can do things on their own, that they are resourceful, that they are capable of dealing with things on their own.

Constantly getting things handed to you just because you asked for it, constantly getting others to do things for yourself doesn't solve anything, doesn't advance anything and only creates a dependant person who constantly expects their demands and pleas to be answered by others.

AKA: A Mooch.

No interfering unless they ask you to? They did ask in "Dear Doctor" - and not for any military and political interference, they just wanted a cure, and Archer and Phlox decided to withhold it and lie about it. The Boraalans needed help even more immediately, but apparently, according to Picard, giving a flying fuck about what happens to them and whether they live or die constituted a gross violation of the Prime Directive.

Sometimes worse outcomes can emerge then what you currently see that tugs at your emotions in the moment.

You can not save everybody in the universe, nor should you feel it's your obligation to do so. Same as here in real life.... people suffer, people die..... not everybody is supposed to live a long life..... not everybody is going to have a 100% joyful life.

If you can't take decent care of yourself first, how can you expect to take care of others in any decent fashion? Focus on your own culture/society's needs first and then determine if you can help others. If helping others can impact things in a bad way in the future, then you have to factor that into account.

Just saving people lives and make their lives easier isn't always the best solution, anymore then it is to do your child's homework for them.

Let's also not forget.... Life isn't fair.

 

[Praxius]

What if they throw you out and tell you "We're not going to teach you how to support yourself, it's your task. You have to learn it all on your own, or die if you can't"? That would be the true parallel to the PD as presented in Trek.

That's how I had to do it. I moved out on my own after high school knowing very little about living on my own, nor did I get much information from my parents except "Pay your bills."

I learned it all on my own, I gained my own
independence, I learned how to live my own life as I deemed it to be..... I learned how to survive, keep my things in order, etc. etc.... as far as I am aware, what you described above is the norm..... or should be.

When you first moved out on your own, did your parents live with you for the first couple of months to make sure you're doing everything right? Did they help you with your bills and managing your new home?

They didn't for me and I'm glad they didn't.

That's exactly the issue. PD prevents Starfleet from not just - to use that metaphor - handing out the fish, but also from "teaching" people how to fish.

There is sometimes a greater accomplishment in figuring things out for yourself.

The issue with the PD towards other Pre-Warp civilizations is that if you tell them how to do something, give them the technology, help them out every way you can, then where's their own identity and originality?

They will progress and develop based around federation/starfleet teachings, technology and history, and chances are, abandon many of the things they once believed or developed to adopt the easier path of tacking technology and information already created for their own.

Be given a car or build it yourself?

Sure, being given a car is quick and easy and you'll know how to use it..... but if you take the time and effort to build it yourself, you not only know how to use it, you know how it was built, how it works and be able to fix it yourself when you need to..... not to mention improve and evolve it a lot easier.

 

[DevilEyes]

And if you save them, you also prevent the rise of any other dominant civilization on that planet, in favor of one that is fundamentally unsound. Is that your call to make? While you may willfully blind yourself to the ramifications of your decision, they still exist after you have trotted off feeling self-satisfied. Meanwhile, in 1000 years, the planet is still a barren rock. Still feeling generous?

That was one of the most ridiculous arguments ever presented in Star Trek. Sadly, the writers of that episode seemed so convinced that their "message" was intelligent and wonderful, so much that they performed a character assassination of the main character, who had been established as a guy who does rash and stupid things, but has his heart in the right place and an enthusiasm to help everyone. And then he acted out of character and decided not to help - and still for a very stupid reason. Well, I guess at least the stupidity was consistent.

Just how absurd is it to claim that you won't help someone because by saving them, you'd be playing God - when, by refusing to save them, you've done just that? To make matters worse, you decide that they aren't worth saving, because, oh shucks, that might, possibly, or not, sometime in the future, prevent another species from taking over! Gotta help the other species take over. Wait - how the hell is that your call to make?

No, better off to refuse to help, even though you can, and trot off feeling self-satisfied, because you were so wonderfully smart and long-sighted, that you refused to save people because of what might or might not happen in 500 or 1000 years! Nevermind that you actually don't have a fucking clue what will happen in 1000 years, and you're just making a lot of assumptions - say, that the existence of one species will hurt another - even though the other species has been developing while living alongside the first one - or that two civilizations will be incompatible. How the hell would you know that?! You have no proof of what is going to happen in 500 years. In making all those assumptions and basing your decision on hypothetical future scenarios, you're, in fact, playing God.

What was certain - not just an assumption - is that people were dying, in the present, and they had the means to help. Helping save lives, if you can, is not "playing God". It's what civilized humans are expected to do. And it's what ever medical doctor or medic does that whenever he/she treats someone. It's what their profession is all about. If giving people cures that they did not invent themselves is "playing God" and averting the course of nature, well, why don't we just abolish the medical profession?

You can not save everybody in the universe, nor should you feel it's your obligation to do so. Same as here in real life.... people suffer, people die..... not everybody is supposed to live a long life..... not everybody is going to have a 100% joyful life.

So, I bet you think that, when you see a person drowning, you should never try to save them? When you see a person on the street getting raped or beaten to death, you should just walk away and ignore the whole thing? Meh, it's none of your business. They should fend for themselves, if they can't, they were not strong enough and they should die. If you help one person, next they'll be expecting you to save everyone! Can't have that!

They will progress and develop based around federation/starfleet teachings, technology and history, and chances are, abandon many of the things they once believed or developed to adopt the easier path of tacking technology and information already created for their own.

Be given a car or build it yourself?

Sure, being given a car is quick and easy and you'll know how to use it..... but if you take the time and effort to build it yourself, you not only know how to use it, you know how it was built, how it works and be able to fix it yourself when you need to..... not to mention improve and evolve it a lot easier.

Yeah, I bet every driver you see on the street has built their own car.

It's pretty stupid having to invent things that have already been invented. I don't see the necessity of living in 18th century conditions before I personally manage to invent electricity - since someone else has already done it long time ago.

If you're going to try to invent new technologies, it makes a lot more sense if you first know what technologies already exist. Then, instead of treading old ground, you can actually contribute something new. That would certainly help progress a lot more than 1000 different people having to invent things that have already been invented by others.

There are such things as sharing knowledge and cultural exchange. I don't see European cultures being hurt by the legacy of the Arab medicine, which was superior to the European during the Middle Ages.

Take a look at our own planet as an example. How many times have we in the past asked help from aliens to solve our problems.... better yet..... when was the last time you can remember God or Gods coming down to help us in our time of need(s) when we asked for it?