What is the purpose of the Prime Directive?

[Crazy Eddie]

I notice that all posters who support PD seem to think that any contact between the Federation and a pre-warp culture - or even any culture at all - will inevitably be damaging to this culture.

Not inevitably. Just potentially. The potential is enough to restrict that contact to a level of exchange that that culture can probably tolerate with a minimum of disruption.

As I mentioned earlier, it's alot like restricting the sale of alcohol and cigarettes to minors. Surely, there are some kinds who are mature enough to safely consume alcohol and tobacco, but you can never be completely sure, and it's better to have a policy in place than try to take it on a case-by-case basis.

Well, "playing god" is inevitable whether one respects the PD or not.

Right. And the Prime Directive is there to set the rules for the God Game: if you must play God, do not do so with a primitive developing culture that never knows what hit em.

Again, the same analogy applies to children. People can and do manipulate people into doing things for them, sometimes things that are not in their best interest. The Prime Directive would be like a statutory rape law: there are certain things you are simply not allowed to do with certain people, whatever the circumstances, because of the potential for harm. Same with the Prime Directive: you can send a Starfleet Officer to impersonate the Emissary of the Prophets on Bajor, but you can't do it on Mintaka or Tyree's planet: the more primitive cultures lack the experience to make a (sort of) informed decision.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

I notice that all posters who support PD seem to think that any contact between the Federation and a pre-warp culture - or even any culture at all - will inevitably be damaging to this culture.
I find these assumptions absurd.
In Earth's history - every time there was contact between a more advanced (technologically, culturally) and a less advanced civilization AND the stronger civilization didn't intentionally/systematically try to destroy the other culture, this less developed culture benefitted from the contact.

I would agree that direct contact would not necessarily be irreparably damaging in all cases - sometimes the effect might be minimal, other times we would be so incompatible that there would be no change whatsoever - but how often would something go wrong hours, years or even centuries down the line? What if the medical supplies provided to a species whose body chemistry was not fully understood killed them all? What if advice in medical science gave a species the means to develop and release a deadly virus upon their enemies? Who can reasonably assess these risks when faced with a poorly understood culture in imminent peril?

And what if the medical supplies save them all?
What if this species, far from becoming a barbarian horde, becomes a stabilizing influence in its region?

You want to play Nostradamus and then base all your decisions on some pessimistic/alarmist assumtions about the unknown future?
Then I guess you agree that doctors shouldn't try to cure any disease, because there's a chance the cure could become a new plague in centuries to come. They shouldn't save any patient because there's a chance this patient could become the next Hitler.
Then you agree that parents should have nothing to do with their children, because there's a chance the children could become dictators in the future - better let blind fate take care of their upbringing - that should work (sarcasm).

Also - as I previously observed, you (like all PD supportive posters) started from the assumtion that contact between two civilizations inevitably/always damages the weaker one - without providing any arguments to back your claim up.

My statement that such assumptions are unfounded is supported by humanity's history.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Trek shows that those sort of things happen quite a bit, how would they pick and choose who to save out of millions, and if it's due to a natural disease/war/environment action then leaving them alone to deal with it is the moral thing to do.

Anything else? Because this "save everyone from every little thing" course of action is unrealistic and foolish.

So we should let the child on the corner die of starvation because we can't save every child from starvation?

No, we send him to the child or social services meant to deal with cases like him. The people and organizations already set up to deal with these situations, which we are legally obligated to do.

Anwar, sending the child to social services IS actively intervening in order to ensure the child's future wellfare.

And, tell me, what's the equivalent of this intervention when dealing with another sentient species in need?
Letting this species die without lifting a finger?

others have already demonstrated that even situations like a person drowning are more complex than "save them or not". That line of thinking is dangerously over-simplified.

Anwar - you made your social darwinistic point of view clear in this thread.
According to you, you should let a person drown when you have the ability to save that person with no risk to yourself because...
What?
Because this person has a very small chance of saving oneself in desperation?
Because there is a non-zero possibility of this person becoming the next Hitler - which could be said about ANY person, including yourself?

Monstruous - Hitler&co had justifications along those lines - racial superiority, genocide in so-called "self-defense".
In reality, it was just hatred. History judged them.

You're the one doing nihilistic oversimplification, Anwar. And you're the one displaying a troubling social darwinistic mindset.

 

[Anwar]

No it's not, it's obeying the law that we've set for ourselves how to deal with cases like abandoned or sick children. And we are punished for not obeying those laws. Not so with PD and alien cultures, where the law is the opposite and NOT to intervene with what's happening to them.

With other alien species unaware of our existence, we just leave it alone. if they are fighting a war, they started it and must finish it. If they are dealing with plagues or natural disasters native to their world, it's their obstacles to overcome. It's how humanity developed and WE didn't die out. If we solve their major problems for them then they'll never really grow up. Strength and maturity come from facing adversity.

Or do you want the galaxy to be inherited by a bunch of pansies who never overcame their social or developmental problems because "Big Brother" was always there to make sure they never had do really do any work in all their years of development?

And no, it's not the same as "What do you do if you see someone drowning", that's a false analogy. Nothing you say will change that.

As for the examples of cultural domination, all human cultures have more in common due to developing on the same planet than with any alien culture. It's another false analogy.

The Federation should NOT go around babying everyone, which is what the Anti-PD people want. It'll just screw them in the end.

 

[BillJ]

Or do you want the galaxy to be inherited by a bunch of pansies who never overcame their social or developmental problems because "Big Brother" was always there to make sure they never had do really do any work in all their years of development?

They'd have loved you in Nazi Germany. "Hey! He's a Jew... law says we gotta turn him in!"

How do you know how a pre-industrial society will turn out if you simply allow it to be wiped out? And why help a society if it does have the means to ask? Seems to me a society is pretty worthless if it has the means to save itself and still can't.

Your argument is no more complex than: "It sucks you were born at the wrong time."

If you have the means to help and refuse to do so you lose your moral high ground. You seem to have a "all or nothing" mindset which is troubling.

 

[Anwar]

No, I just think that a culture that faces harsh challenges and overcomes them is a stronger one than one that never faced adversity and was babied for most of its existence.

 

[Horga'hn]

And what if the medical supplies save them all?
What if this species, far from becoming a barbarian horde, becomes a stabilizing influence in its region?

You want to play Nostradamus and then base all your decisions on some pessimistic/alarmist assumtions about the unknown future?

Nobody can play Nostradamus - that's the whole point. Since there could never be a consistent means of reasonably assessing the risks of that sort of contact with an alien culture, the prudent default stance would be non-interference (assuming unexceptional circumstances).

Then I guess you agree that doctors shouldn't try to cure any disease, because there's a chance the cure could become a new plague in centuries to come. They shouldn't save any patient because there's a chance this patient could become the next Hitler.
Then you agree that parents should have nothing to do with their children, because there's a chance the children could become dictators in the future - better let blind fate take care of their upbringing - that should work (sarcasm).

Ah, Godwin's Law.

Seriously, these are absurd exaggerations of my argument and do not warrant an answer.

Also - as I previously observed, you (like all PD supportive posters) started from the assumtion that contact between two civilizations inevitably/always damages the weaker one

Did you previously observe the first line of my response to you?

The PD obviously isn't perfect - if it were, there would never be a conflict. However, it is the best rule of thumb for a collective of spacefaring explorers whose inclination towards charity has proven problematic in unfamiliar and unpredictable situations, as per the following quote (which was in my last post as well):

"History has proved again and again that whenever mankind interferes with a less developed civilisation, no matter how well intentioned that interference may be, the results are invariably disastrous." - Picard, Symbiosis (TNG)

Even if we take this statement as rhetoric, this is confirmation within ST canon that pre-PD Starfleet saw enough examples of good intentions backfiring that they saw fit to implement non-interference as their Prime Directive.

- without providing any arguments to back your claim up.

Ha, okay. Maybe you should go read my post a little more carefully before decrying a lack of argument.

My statement that such assumptions are unfounded is supported by humanity's history.

As has been noted already, that is a false analogy.

 

[Anwar]

I wonder if I should keep track of how many times I'll be compared to a Nazi in PD debates from the anti-PD side .

 

[Horga'hn]

Hilarious Nazi analogies aside, Anwar has been making a sound point. One of the goals of the PD is to allow cultures to stand on their own two (or more) feet and reach a state of cultural maturity which engenders readiness for the challenge of interplanetary relations. A general milestone for that point of development is warp technology.

Think of it in terms of the age of consent. There is no definate point at which an individual reaches sexual maturity and to have sex before that point wouldn't necessarily harm the ongoing development of all individuals below that boundary, but it is simply not worth the risk for immature individuals to inadvertedly lead themselves to harm (e.g. STDs, teen pregnancy) because they cannot handle what they've learned in a responsible manner.

However, once there are reasonable indications that an individual is mature (i.e. reaching the age of consent) then first contact may be made (

) and a satisfying, mutually beneficial relationship will be a realistic goal. See?

 

[DevilEyes]

^ Funny analogy, but completely wrong when it comes to cases such as "Homeward" or "Dear Doctor". Just how old does a person have to be to give consent to be saved from death and annihilation?

 

[Horga'hn]

17

 

[Horga'hn]

Serious answer coming tomorrow, I should really get to bed.

 

[UssGlenn]

^ Funny analogy, but completely wrong when it comes to cases such as "Homeward" or "Dear Doctor". Just how old does a person have to be to give consent to be saved from death and annihilation?

I think you're hung up on a couple dubious decisions by the writers and it's blinding you to the larger issues.

Homeward was just silly, since they can solve the problem (a natural disaster) without being seen. Putting aside the fact that dear doctor is pre-prime directive, what the writers should have done is have them assist with the health issue and leave patting themselves on the back. Then next season have an episode about the horrible unintended consequences of that action thus showing the characters (and the audience) the reason to enact the prime directive.

After a few disasters you start banning things even if it can be done safely on occasion.

 

[Sci]

Hilarious Nazi analogies aside, Anwar has been making a sound point. One of the goals of the PD is to allow cultures to stand on their own two (or more) feet and reach a state of cultural maturity which engenders readiness for the challenge of interplanetary relations.

Which is the essential problem with the modern interpretation of the PD: It's built on the premise that some cultures are more mature than others and that this correlates to its level of technological development -- two entirely false and bigoted premises.

If the PD were about treating all cultures as equals, it would be a lot more respectable than its current incarnation as the Federation's legal justification for its own military dominance and belief in its own superiority over other cultures.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Hilarious Nazi analogies aside, Anwar has been making a sound point. One of the goals of the PD is to allow cultures to stand on their own two (or more) feet and reach a state of cultural maturity which engenders readiness for the challenge of interplanetary relations.

Which is the essential problem with the modern interpretation of the PD: It's built on the premise that some cultures are more mature than others and that this correlates to its level of technological development -- two entirely false and bigoted premises.

If the PD were about treating all cultures as equals, it would be a lot more respectable than its current incarnation as the Federation's legal justification for its own military dominance and belief in its own superiority over other cultures.

It begs the question, though, of whether or not cultures can be measured and if so, by what yardstick can they be compared. It also leads to wonder whether all cultures should be treated as equals, or even considered as such.

Given the amazing biodiversity of the universe it is improbable that all cultures could be treated equally. Some really ARE smarter than others just by virtue of a biological advantage; some are STRONGER than others, some have longer lifespans and therefore accrue more life experience and have slower political change. Some are more fearful and paranoid, some are xenophobic and hostile. Depending on the qualities the Federation finds desirable, certain cultures might be considered "Ready for contact" while others would be written off as "I'm not touching that one."

Which, in the end, leads to the dangerous playing god scenario: the Federation gets to pick and choose which races IT finds desirable and bring them into the fold. The policy as it stands leaves open a more objective yardstick: cultures are ready for first contact when they are in a position to initiate that contact, intentionally or accidentally, and that implies warp drive. "First Contact" is a very delicate matter, though (as we learn, ironically, in TNG "First Contact") and it turns out some races aren't even ready when they develop warp drive. A few--the Elaasians, for example--were probably born ready, while the android race on Exo-III will never be ready, warp drive or not. The only way to find out for sure is to evaluate all of them based on a pre-determined and mostly objective rubric and then adjust for their individual circumstances as more information becomes available.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

And what if the medical supplies save them all?
What if this species, far from becoming a barbarian horde, becomes a stabilizing influence in its region?

You want to play Nostradamus and then base all your decisions on some pessimistic/alarmist assumtions about the unknown future?

Nobody can play Nostradamus - that's the whole point. Since there could never be a consistent means of reasonably assessing the risks of that sort of contact with an alien culture, the prudent default stance would be non-interference (assuming unexceptional circumstances).

But you are basing your decisions on some uncertain alarmist predictions, on fear.
You want to cower under your bed in fear, afraid to go out because some meteor could fall on your head.

You think INACTION washes your hands from the blatant imorality of letting someone die when you can easily save him. You think INACTION is always moral - when the complete opposite is true in the vast majority of cases.

Then I guess you agree that doctors shouldn't try to cure any disease, because there's a chance the cure could become a new plague in centuries to come. They shouldn't save any patient because there's a chance this patient could become the next Hitler.
Then you agree that parents should have nothing to do with their children, because there's a chance the children could become dictators in the future - better let blind fate take care of their upbringing - that should work (sarcasm).

Ah, Godwin's Law.

Seriously, these are absurd exaggerations of my argument and do not warrant an answer.

No, Horga'hn.
This is your argument - these concrete examples are the logical continuation of your ideas. Their concreteness reveals the blatant immorality of your stance - that's why you have no argument to support your position.

And - as I previously observed, you (like all PD supportive posters) started from the assumtion that contact between two civilizations inevitably/always damages the weaker one

The PD obviously isn't perfect - if it were, there would never be a conflict. However, it is the best rule of thumb for a collective of spacefaring explorers whose inclination towards charity has proven problematic in unfamiliar and unpredictable situations, as per the following quote (which was in my last post as well):

"History has proved again and again that whenever mankind interferes with a less developed civilisation, no matter how well intentioned that interference may be, the results are invariably disastrous." - Picard, Symbiosis (TNG)

That's precious.
If you want to be taken seriously, Horga'hn, don't come with examples from a fictional universe with a fictional history slave to the whims of a scenarist.
Come with examples from REAL WORLD Earth history that disprove my statement:

"In Earth's history - every time there was contact between a more advanced (technologically, culturally) and a less advanced civilization AND the stronger civilization didn't intentionally/systematically try to destroy the other culture, this less developed culture benefitted from the contact."

My statement that such assumptions are unfounded is supported by humanity's history.

As has been noted already, that is a false analogy.

Exagerations, False analogies - that's all you can offer as justifications, Horga'hn - affirmations with nothing to back them up.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

^ Funny analogy, but completely wrong when it comes to cases such as "Homeward" or "Dear Doctor". Just how old does a person have to be to give consent to be saved from death and annihilation?

I think you're hung up on a couple dubious decisions by the writers and it's blinding you to the larger issues.

Homeward was just silly, since they can solve the problem (a natural disaster) without being seen. Putting aside the fact that dear doctor is pre-prime directive, what the writers should have done is have them assist with the health issue and leave patting themselves on the back. Then next season have an episode about the horrible unintended consequences of that action thus showing the characters (and the audience) the reason to enact the prime directive.

After a few disasters you start banning things even if it can be done safely on occasion.

It's pretty convenient to be the writer in a fantasy universe, yes?

The writer can create highly improbable outcomes to justify the most absurd ideas.
Real life is quite different - no deux ex machina "that's moral and this not", "contact will always result in mass suicide", etc; that's what many on this thread seem to intentionally ignore.

No, I just think that a culture that faces harsh challenges and overcomes them is a stronger one than one that never faced adversity and was babied for most of its existence.

Your post means absolutely NOTHING, Anwar.
If you want your post to have a meaning beyond gibberish, you must first DEFINE the very abstract concepts of "STRONGER" and "WEAKER" - in relattion to cultures.

 

[DevilEyes]

^ Funny analogy, but completely wrong when it comes to cases such as "Homeward" or "Dear Doctor". Just how old does a person have to be to give consent to be saved from death and annihilation?

I think you're hung up on a couple dubious decisions by the writers and it's blinding you to the larger issues.

What larger issues? This is a forum about a TV/movie franchise, and we're discussing the writing on a few TV shows. It's not like we've made contact with other planets or that there is PD issue in real life. In this case, there are no issues larger than the writing on that show, the "messages" it attempts to send, or its clumsiness and mistakes made in conveying those "messages".

And that's exactly what I've been trying to explain for dozens of pages now, that the PD makes perfect sense in some cases, but makes absolutely no sense in others, which did not stop Trek writers from treating the PD as a dogma, taking it to an absurd level and making a complete travesty out of it. "Dear Doctor" is only worse because 1) it happens before PD even existed, but still preaches absolute adherence to it, 2) it is based on very dubious "science", and 3) the decision is very out of character for Archer. In other words, logic and characterization were sacrificed for a message based on pseudo-science and dubious ethics.

 

[Anwar]

Your post means absolutely NOTHING, Anwar.
If you want your post to have a meaning beyond gibberish, you must first DEFINE the very abstract concepts of "STRONGER" and "WEAKER" - in relattion to cultures.

Ah yes, you don't like what I post so that mean you can just dismiss it outright as meaning "nothing" despite us all responding to your posts with respect.

At least now we know there's little point in trying to discuss this further with you, since you can just label it all as "gibberish" without bothering to explain yourself.

A culture that has fought and survived several violent wars on it's world has made social achievements and advancements in peace and co-existence in comparison to a culture that never had to go through that pain since "Big Brother" was always there to make sure nothing bad ever happened to them. Societies that have had to deal with cruel dictators who killed millions will have taken steps to ensure power would never be abused like that again, in comparison to a culture that never had to deal with those problems because "Big Brother" was there to keep said Dictator from power. A culture that dealt with natural cataclysms and deadly plagues will have advanced technologically in response to said natural phenomena compared to cultures that never had to face those problems.

What you want, is a galaxy of pansies who can't stand on their two feet. You can blather all you want over this being "amoral" but facing hard challenges is the reality we must all deal with.

 

[BillJ]

Your post means absolutely NOTHING, Anwar.
If you want your post to have a meaning beyond gibberish, you must first DEFINE the very abstract concepts of "STRONGER" and "WEAKER" - in relattion to cultures.

Ah yes, you don't like what I post so that mean you can just dismiss it outright as meaning "nothing" despite us all responding to your posts with respect.

At least now we know there's little point in trying to discuss this further with you, since you can just label it all as "gibberish" without bothering to explain yourself.

A culture that has fought and survived several violent wars on it's world has made social achievements and advancements in peace and co-existence in comparison to a culture that never had to go through that pain since "Big Brother" was always there to make sure nothing bad ever happened to them. Societies that have had to deal with cruel dictators who killed millions will have taken steps to ensure power would never be abused like that again, in comparison to a culture that never had to deal with those problems because "Big Brother" was there to keep said Dictator from power. A culture that dealt with natural cataclysms and deadly plagues will have advanced technologically in response to said natural phenomena compared to cultures that never had to face those problems.

What you want, is a galaxy of pansies who can't stand on their two feet. You can blather all you want over this being "amoral" but facing hard challenges is the reality we must all deal with.

If you're a pre-industrial culture and your atmosphere dissipates into space I doubt you'll ever have that chance to develop (unless said sentient species doesn't need air ).

The TNG writers changed the Prime Directive into something perverted. Episodes like Pen Pals and Homeward are enough to make someone with a soul ill. And I'll still never understand how the Prime Directive worked in an episode like Redemption. The Klingons should've been pissed when the Federation kept Starfleet on the sidelines while the legitimate government was under seige. It would've been much more creative if the writers had used the treaty language of the Khitomer Accords to explain Starfleet being on the sidelines. But that would've required some creativity of the part of the TNG writers... which was never their strong suit.