What's your explanation for early TNG prime directive violations?

[IrishNero]

I'm not sure if you're trying to rebutt or refute my post, Timo, but it doesn't appear that you've suggested anything other than "We'll cross that bridge when we come to it because really smart people will figure it out later." Please read my entire post again. We must find a way to stop or curb growth, or create a commiserate growth in available resources. If there is another option, I'm all ears.

 

[Timo]

I'm just saying there's nothing "provable" about how the human population will develop. It may find the two solutions you postulate well in advance of any serious need, or it may opt to self-destruct despite not hitting any Malthusian limits yet. Since it's not predictable, it's not subject to proof, either.

However, more significantly, resources are not predictable or determinable, either. They may well be infinite (eating soylent green would be one way to meet that criterion, without "starvation" or "wars" necessarily involved, even though throwing those in makes for better drama), they may disappear without us exhausting them, or they may grow more bountiful without our efforts (climate change is one thing that would account for such).

There is a limited number of scenarios where we will actually have to do something differently, or indeed do something, period, regarding the "two choices". There is another set of scenarios where staying the course will quickly enough result in infinite resources, and another where every action and inaction terminates us, and neither of the choices comes to apply.

From the truism does not follow any actual obligation, is all.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[JWPlatt]

However, more significantly, resources are not predictable or determinable, either.

The dinosaurs would agree with the unpredictable nature of resources rendering even abundance moot.

 

[IrishNero]

The dinosaurs would agree with the unpredictable nature of resources rendering even abundance moot.

I believe it was Gary Larson who postulated why the dinosaurs really died out:

 

[Hatshepsut]

I'm just saying there's nothing "provable" about how the human population will develop. ... it may opt to self-destruct despite not hitting any Malthusian limits yet.

The first of these two propositions is right on the money. However, I'm not sure the survival vs. destruction question is a matter of option. The human race doesn't make its decisions as a single unified body. Which is why its future is unpredictable to begin with.

I take it the Malthusian idea fell from favor when Paul Ehrlich's predictions of mass famine to kill hundreds of millions by 1985 didn't pan out. Not to say that food supply is no longer something to worry over. But the space aliens must have some confidence in us, or else don't care, if they've decided to stay aloof.

The prime directive as it emerged on Star Trek may be a commentary from the 1960s on the propensity of Western governments to interfere endlessly in the workings of non-Western societies, as with the Indian boarding schools that have since been shut down. By the late '80s when TNG came on air, respect for cultural self-determination was enshrined in political correctness. But then drama is hard to find with a strict "hands off," hence the violations.

 

[IrishNero]

'Hands off' philosophies are always easier to employ when you're able to ignore famine, war, acts of terrorism, genocide and disease. And war tends to be a cancer that tends to draw neutral parties into the fray. In Trek, we have seen them step over the prime directive line many times, only to declare at other times that the prime directive prevents them from performing an action that could stop a terrible conflagration. It certainly makes for great drama, but in ST, the prime directive is anything but applied evenly. And I suspect it would be the same in real life too.

 

[BillJ]

'Hands off' philosophies are always easier to employ when you're able to ignore famine, war, acts of terrorism, genocide and disease. And war tends to be a cancer that tends to draw neutral parties into the fray. In Trek, we have seen them step over the prime directive line many times, only to declare at other times that the prime directive prevents them from performing an action that could stop a terrible conflagration. It certainly makes for great drama, but in ST, the prime directive is anything but applied evenly. And I suspect it would be the same in real life too.

+1

 

[JWPlatt]

[insert inspirational post here]

+1

-1

The Facebook (or whatever) style of social site conversation is an irritant to me, like we're electing opinions or just dogpiling.

I happen to agree with IrishNero's statement, but in Star Trek's case it's a matter of plot convenience instead of real life. I guess it cheapens the concept when they do that. A story should stick to the rules it sets up for itself.

 

[Hatshepsut]

[insert inspirational post here]

+1

-1

The Facebook (or whatever) style of social site conversation is an irritant to me, like we're ... just dogpiling.

+2

Which is why I don't have an active Facebook account. But then, we're gonna validate friendlies one way or another. As well Facebook has become a resume item one is advised to treat as a strategic matter in life. Some companies now require job applicants to be on Facebook....I suggest the prime directive applies to this bit of cultural evolution.

 

[BillJ]

[insert inspirational post here]

+1

-1

The Facebook (or whatever) style of social site conversation is an irritant to me, like we're electing opinions or just dogpiling.

Just a way of me noting that I see the opinion as valid with nothing more to add. Whether it be a '+1', 'This' or 'Quoted for Truth', they all serve the same purpose.

The poster hit the mark and I'm simply acknowledging it.

 

[Kor]

+1

-1

The Facebook (or whatever) style of social site conversation is an irritant to me, like we're electing opinions or just dogpiling.

Just a way of me noting that I see the opinion as valid with nothing more to add. Whether it be a '+1', 'This' or 'Quoted for Truth', they all serve the same purpose.

The poster hit the mark and I'm simply acknowledging it.

+1

Kor

 

[Leviathan]

Ah. I like to think that, thanks to Kirk, the punishment for violating the PD was whittled down to a small fine not unlike a parking ticket.

 

[JWPlatt]

...Some companies now require job applicants to be on Facebook...

Really? For example?

 

[Kor]

...Some companies now require job applicants to be on Facebook...

Really? For example?

+1

Kor