When Did The Prime Directive Change And Why?

[sojourner]

EDIT: You can't use Doctors in this scenario, Doctors have an oath to do no harm and help anyone. The Feds do not.

Then why do you keep insisting they would!?!?!

And I'll say it again, there are no pro-interventionalists.

Once you saved one random world outside your own border from destruction in a manner that involved thousands of ships working around the clock and several years of continued work to make sure the saved people properly recover it sets a precedent of what to do when inhabited worlds are threatened. A total foreign policy changeover.

A precedent is NOT a policy. It does not force one to take further actions.

As such, Starfleet now has a duty to actively seek out endangered worlds (since they know this stuff keeps happening) and save them all.

No, Starfleet doesn't. In fact if it went outside it's current borders "seeking all planets in danger" it would be intimating that it had jurisdiction of said planets and might anger the other interstellar races. A stance Starfleet has always avoided.

If they don't, they just end up hypocrites who heartlessly pick and choose to save some and not others while the pro-interventionalists just keep pushing for further intervention.

You need to lookup "hypocrite".
1. Canon source for these pro-interventionalists.
2. provide an explanation of how the came into the majority in federation politics.
3. Describe how they will get this major Policy shift passed.

 

[DevilEyes]

Lemme get this straight... We're talking about leaving billions of people to die even though you could help them, and you're arguing that comparing that to letting someone get raped is too extreme?

No, I'm saying that making analogies in which siding with 'don't interfere with the development of other cultures' is equivocated with 'let someone be raped' is arguing in bad faith. It's like saying that because Hitler invaded France we shouldn't take our holidays there.

The analogy is flawed not just because it's a ridiculous comparison, but also because it's inaccurate. The Prime Directive refers to systems you're not already a part of. That offensive and pointless analogy refers to a system you ARE already a part of, so it's inapplicable and f*cking moot. I'm sick to death of rape (and Hitler) being used to prove hypothetical points, give it a god-damned rest.

You seem to be missing the point - again. They weren't talking about the PD in general, they were talking about refusing to help save billions of people from death and entire civilizations from extinction.

I'm sorry, but the international law and the legal systems of most countries in the world regard murder as a graver crime than rape, and genocide the gravest crime there is. So, if anything, the comparison is inaccurate because it undersells the gravity of the situation. Letting someone get raped is awful, but letting billions of people die and entire races/civilizations get obliterated is far, far worse.

 

[Anwar]

Errr, no. I do give to charity. I do not give everything I own to charity. It's not an 'all or nothing' situation. Am I a hypocrite?

As a private citizen, you are entitled to occasional charity. Giving charity is not the same thing as being a member of the State Military and using the resources of said military to save the entire population of a doomed civilization which will require millions of your own soldiers working around the clock for several years. Years that could have been spent protecting the State from attack. And once said Massive Rescue action is completed, the government will have to reflect and either change their foreign policy in reaction to said Rescue operation and resettlement (while the millions of soldiers are still stuck with the resettlement for several years) or tribunal you for abusing your power and usurping State resources in said way.

The actions of a private citizen don't compare to the actions of a State military Officer utilizing State resources in said way.

Occasionally you may see on the news or in the local papers stories about ordinary people who do act selflessly to help others. As far as I am aware, they are not required by society to continue their acts, nor are they punished for choosing not to do so.

Like I said, the actions of private citizens aren't the same as actions taken by Officers of the military utilizing State Resources.

One could just as easily argue that, the moment the UFP got involved in it's first military action, however small, this would be the pretext to create the Galactic Military Dictatorship.

Every State has a military that has to eventually engage in military actions.

In a war, those in command must exercise sound judgement. They must decide how much force to use on a certain objective, how to gain the greatest results with the minimum resources. Above all a commander must know which battles are worth fighting, and which are lost causes. These decisions may not always be popular ones, but with sound judgement great things are possible. Surely it is not beyond the realms of possibility that such decisions, such insight, can be made during peacetime too? Surely we can all agree that saving innocent lives is a noble cause, even if we are pragmatic enough to know that it may not always be possible?

It's not pragmatic when said action is the catalyst for the creation of a program that will drain the resources of the State to the point of collapse. You can't pick and choose once you've committed to saving a world, you have to go all the way or not at all.

Now, Sojourner.

Nikolai's attitude shows that there are people opposed to the PD and advocate intervention.

Yes, a precedent on the scale of "Homeward" would set a massive example that Starfleet would have to live up to. Once they've committed to such an action once, they either keep doing it since they've shown that they can (no matter the cost) or they punish the ones responsible.

And yes, you're further proving why the Nanny State is still a bad idea. Not only does it bankrupt the Federation, it angers their enemies into a more hostile stance and possibly provokes them into the military actions that, thanks to the Nanny State, can't be guarded against.

Gotta think big picture here.

 

[sojourner]

Anwar,
Please for the love of all that's holy for once explain what would be forcing Starfleet to pursue such a course of action based on merely saving someone once. WHY would they have to either keep doing it or punish the ones who did it once? HOW can you not see a middle ground where saving someone in sight of you does not require you to go out and search out for everyone one else that might need saving?

Please cite a relevant example of a government following this course of action.

Please answer my previous 3 points regarding these "pro-interventionalists".

We are tired of the round about argument of "because they did it once, they have to do it again". It's not rational. By your argument the USA (since it provided aid to Haiti among others) should be pursuing spaceflight at a rapid pace just to have the capability to search for aliens to save on other planets.

Your big picture is black and white. Reality has shades of grey and color.

 

[Anwar]

They aren't saving some one individual, they're saving and relocating/resettling an entire species and culture (possible various cultures) while also having to deal with the natives of whatever compatible world they have to eventually relocate them too. That would take thousands of ships, millions of personnel and several years all solely dedicated to this endeavor.

We know events like this happen often enough, and that from now whenever the Feds encounter them they'd have to do the same. Where are the ships, people, and YEARS for these operations supposed to come from? They either have to help anyone they encounter who is similarly imperiled (and it happens often enough with all the exploration done).

That people like Nikolai are around shows that there are folks who are pro-interventionalist and no matter how small, they'd be able to use this event as their prime example of what the Federation should do when faced with such worlds.

The USA researching spaceflight isn't the same as saving an entire civilization. There's nothing comparable in reality to that, or the massive resources required.

 

[sojourner]

They aren't saving some one individual,

Do I really need to repost my previous replacing any use of single pronouns? You know what the intent was.

they're saving and relocating/resettling an entire species and culture (possible various cultures) while also having to deal with the natives of whatever compatible world they have to eventually relocate them too. That would take thousands of ships, millions of personnel and several years all solely dedicated to this endeavor.

We know events like this happen often enough, and that from now whenever the Feds encounter them they'd have to do the same. Where are the ships, people, and YEARS for these operations supposed to come from? They either have to help anyone they encounter who is similarly imperiled (and it happens often enough with all the exploration done).

OK, now we're getting somewhere. You've dropped the silly part of your argument about the Federation having to go out searching for people to save. I actually agree with your points above in this context. It does strain the federation to make a rescue effort of this magnitude and could very well be part of the reason for a strong non-interference version of the PD.

That people like Nikolai are around shows that there are folks who are pro-interventionalist and no matter how small, they'd be able to use this event as their prime example of what the Federation should do when faced with such worlds.

Just because a special interest group exists does not mean it can control policy.

The USA researching spaceflight isn't the same as saving an entire civilization. There's nothing comparable in reality to that, or the massive resources required.

Please re-read my example. Haiti is the civilization that needs saving initially. U.S. research into space flight is the comparison to what you think the federation would be required to do as a result of saving said civilization.

 

[Anwar]

No, Haiti isn't applicable. Helping an ailing but intact country is far from relocating an entire civilization.

 

[sojourner]

Yes, it is an analogy. You do know what an analogy is?

It was a natural disaster that caused massive destruction and loss of life. The US used vast resources to help the people of Haiti to recover and rebuild. It's about as apt an analogy as one can make to the federation helping to save the people of a planet from destruction.

Please tell me in what way it doesn't work as an analogy?

Do you study history at all? Can you see any comparable situations in history to the points you are trying to make?

 

[Anwar]

In this case, the analogy doesn't work. It was a natural disaster that damaged, but did not destroy, another nation. They knew about us and asked us for help, and we gave it in a measured response. This is not the same as going to a world that doesn't know we exist, transplant their ENTIRE CIVILIZATION which encompasses millions upon millions of people, and then move them to an entirely new world. And then have to spend the next several years if not decades helping them cope with this and the immense effect this had on their society and culture.

 

[lstyer]

So, Anwar, is your objection to interference in general or to interference in that particular episode, due to the scale? I don't see a problem with a policy that allows aid when it is practical. Such a policy would pretty much preclude relocating an entire planetary population anyway.

I don't really get why we are hung up on that particular episode.

 

[Anwar]

Anti-PD folk keep using "Homeward" as an example of why the PD is bad, mainly because they can't think of the practicality of the situation and the big picture. All they see is "Save innocents at any cost!" without any other considerations.

As for interference, if it's going to be stuff like Boraal than don't. Also don't mess around with stuff that's their own damn fault (nuclear wars and all that), or natural disasters they made a mess of on their own (lousy responses, somehow provoked it, etc).

 

[ProtoAvatar]

No, Haiti isn't applicable. Helping an ailing but intact country is far from relocating an entire civilization.

Yes, Anwar, Enterprise could not save everyone in 'Homeward'.
But Enterprise could save thousands.

If you can't save everyone, you shouldn't save anyonne?
This is a morally indefensible position.

Medics who can't save every victim of an accident shouldn't save anyone, not even the victims they can actually help?
I strongly disagree.

 

[lstyer]

Anti-PD folk keep using "Homeward" as an example of why the PD is bad, mainly because they can't think of the practicality of the situation and the big picture. All they see is "Save innocents at any cost!" without any other considerations.

That is, at least in part, because the episode itself frames the question as a Prime Directive problem, not a problem of practical concerns. I haven't seen the episode in a while, but I don't recall much if any discussion of the practicality of intervention.

As for interference, if it's going to be stuff like Boraal than don't. Also don't mess around with stuff that's their own damn fault (nuclear wars and all that), or natural disasters they made a mess of on their own (lousy responses, somehow provoked it, etc).

Nuclear wars and the like strike me as the sort of cultural/societal stuff te Prime Directive was "always" about. The Boraal thing, though, not so much, in that the practicalitie weren't the crux if the disagreement in the episode.

 

[Anwar]

Yes, Anwar, Enterprise could not save everyone in 'Homeward'.
But Enterprise could save thousands.

Medics who can't save every victim of an accident shouldn't save anyone, not even the victims they can actually help?
I strongly disagree.

Medics are bound by duty and oath to save whomever they can, Starfleet are not bound to save every single civilization in whatever form of peril no matter how small or how big or if it's their own fault. How would they pick, out of the millions upon millions of Boraalans, who to save? Picard would just be regarded as being monstrous for who he DID try and save.

As for the practicalities of saving the Boraalans, just because they didn't mention them doesn't mean there wouldn't be any. Big picture.

 

[The Badger]

Anwar, why are you so fixated on the idea that every case of intervention would require sending thousands of ships to transplant an entire civilization. Maybe you could save billions of lives by spending five minutes using the navigational deflector to nudge an asteroid off course, so it doesn't impact the world. No fuss, no worries, and no cross cultural contamination. Would that be so bad?

And before you repeat your claim that it would inevitably lead to a situation where the UFP bankrupts itself by seeking out and solving problems regardless of practicality, might I just point out that that simply isn't true. Not 'I disagree with...' or 'I don't see why...', but simply not true. Allow me to explain.

As the OP pointed out, in TOS the PD did allow a certain amount of intervention. From 'Bread And Circuses' "No identification of self or mission. No interference with the social development of said planet. No references to space, other worlds, or advanced civilizations." So don't go around telling people you come from another world, and no interference with the social development. Nothing about letting them go extinct from natural disasters (self caused disasters would, alas, come under the heading of social development).

So under those rules intervention is allowed under certain circumstances. We see an example in 'The Paradise Syndrome'.

Yet by the time of TNG the rules are even more strict, prohibiting any intervention even to save lives. Sometimes it even applies to other warp capable species, for example the Klingon Civil War.

So your claim that if you get involved once, you would inevitably be lead to a state of having to get involved, irrespective of practicality, would seem to be false. Star Fleet did intervene in the days of TOS, yet this wasn't the start of the 'Galactic Nanny State' you seem so certain would exist. If anything, the opposite happened.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Yes, Anwar, Enterprise could not save everyone in 'Homeward'.
But Enterprise could save thousands.

Medics who can't save every victim of an accident shouldn't save anyone, not even the victims they can actually help?
I strongly disagree.

Medics are bound by duty and oath to save whomever they can, Starfleet are not bound to save every single civilization in whatever form of peril no matter how small or how big or if it's their own fault.

Just because no law obligates to to save someone changes nothing to the fact that you NOT saving someone you could save is morally grotesque.

And again - not saving someone just because you can't save everyone is equally morally grotesque.

How would they pick, out of the millions upon millions of Boraalans, who to save? Picard would just be regarded as being monstrous for who he DID try and save.

Non-sense.
Medics pick whom to save at an accident - medical triage. Nobody considers them monsters for this.

As for the practicalities of saving the Boraalans, just because they didn't mention them doesn't mean there wouldn't be any. Big picture.

Again, non-sense.
The Enterprise was seen more than once evacuating thousands - no problem.
Worf's brother, acting in hiding - aka with only a fraction of Enterprise's resources - , managed to save hundreds with the Enterprise in 'Homeward' itself.

 

[Anwar]

If aliens had stopped the meteor from hitting Earth, we wouldn't even be here discussing this now would we? No, we WOULDN'T EXIST. Thanks a lot, jerks!

Of course, cases like asteroids aren't impractical so maybe there's more wriggle room. "The Paradise Syndrome" doesn't count since those humans had already been tampered with, and had a defense system to guard against asteroids anyways.

TOS didn't know what it meant by the PD, it meant whatever it meant from episode to episode, and was usually just a plot device to show off their "Damn the rules!" attitude.

Interfering with the Klingon Civil War is a special case, because it's their own internal affairs, and in an honor bound society like the Klingons having to call for help from outsiders would've weakened Gowron after he won anyways.

In the case of a mass-rescue like Boraal, and that these disasters DO keep happening, Starfleet would have to keep rescuing and relocating them all once they did it for Boraal.

TOS never dealt with a catastrophe like Boraal anyways.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

If aliens had stopped the meteor from hitting Earth, we wouldn't even be here discussing this now would we? No, we WOULDN'T EXIST. Thanks a lot, jerks!

No, but intelligent dinosaurs could exist on Earth.

Making decisions based on fantasy future scenarios is inept, simply because you can't know the future.
But you do know the present - and you should make your decisions based on this information.

What you're saying is aking to:
You shouldn't save a person who is drowning, because this person could become the next Hitler or - insert future paranoid fantasy here.
That's morally grotesque, intelectually inept.

In the case of a mass-rescue like Boraal, and that these disasters DO keep happening, Starfleet would have to keep rescuing and relocating them all once they did it for Boraal.

That's a joke of an argument - as many posters already proved conclusively.

 

[Anwar]

Just because no law obligates to to save someone changes nothing to the fact that you NOT saving someone you could save is morally grotesque.

I'm saying there WASN'T any way to save all the Boraalans. Not without the massive rescue operation that would drain Starfleet's resources.

And again - not saving someone just because you can't save everyone is equally morally grotesque.

And bankrupting yourself to save a bunch of people who'll just end up dead or subjugated anyways is utterly short-sighted stupidity.

Non-sense.
Medics pick whom to save at an accident - medical triage. Nobody considers them monsters for this.

Because they're Doctors. That's what they do. Starfleet's mission is not to go around and save every endangered world they find, abandoning their defensive duties to the Federation.

Again, non-sense.
The Enterprise was seen more than once evacuating thousands - no problem.
Worf's brother, acting in hiding - aka with only a fraction of Enterprise's resources - , managed to save hundreds with the Enterprise in 'Homeward' itself.

Thousands, maybe. Sustaining those thousands until a new world is found, having to integrate them to said new world without harming the native life there already, and then remaining for years to make sure they fully adapt and then help them with the massive cultural shock (likely cultural destruction), not so much.

 

[Anwar]

In the case of a mass-rescue like Boraal, and that these disasters DO keep happening, Starfleet would have to keep rescuing and relocating them all once they did it for Boraal.

That's a joke of an argument - as many posters already proved conclusively.

No, they just seem to forget that these disasters do happen and Boraal isn't some one-off thing.