Why is uplifting lower species a bad thing?

[T'Girl]

Once we can go to other systems within months or years rather than decades and centuries, we potentally become a problem for others.

Or, a asset and a benefit to those "others."

And that point the Vulcans set in, take us aside and say "Look ..."

And we could (would) respond with "Thank you for your wise council, we will certainly consider your advise. However we can't be bound by what the Vulcans might like or dislike in formulating our day to day action, or planning our species future. We would hope that we would be able to call upon our friends the Vulcans on those occasions that we need you sage perspective."

Well the Treaty of Versailles gave ammunition to the rise of Nazi Party in Germany, similarly the Oil embargo against Japan contributed to events which led up to the the Attack on Pearl Harbour.

The Treaty of Versailles was a result of Germany invading it neighboring countries during the first world war, and the oil embargo against Japan was a response to Japan's invasion of China.

So those wise aliens would have to look at the actions of the Allied Nations as well.

And view them in context.

If you think about it, that essentually is what the Prime Directive is. A statement that the people being sent out into the darkness are not trusted, no trust in their judgement, reasoning or wisdom.

That's not the Prime Directive--that's every single rule, regulation, and law ever made.

I disagree, and this is why.

Every "rule, regulation, law" isn't based on not trusting people not to help other people correctly, which is the core of the Prime Directive. In many places in America we have "good samaritan laws" that protect people who help (or try to help) other people and get it wrong. There are no laws (to my knowledge) that prevent you from assist someone with a flat tire.

If I kick open your front door because your house is on fire, I can't be charged with breaking and entering. I can't be charged with attempting to help you. But under the Prime Directive I could.

 

[DonIago]

I think rescuing someone from a fire is a far more clear-cut scenario than taking it upon yourself to decide what's "best" for an entire civilization.

Unless their entire planet is literally on fire.

 

[C.E. Evans]

If you think about it, that essentually is what the Prime Directive is. A statement that the people being sent out into the darkness are not trusted, no trust in their judgement, reasoning or wisdom.

That's not the Prime Directive--that's every single rule, regulation, and law ever made.

I disagree, and this is why.

Every "rule, regulation, law" isn't based on not trusting people not to help other people correctly, which is the core of the Prime Directive. In many places in America we have "good samaritan laws" that protect people who help (or try to help) other people and get it wrong. There are no laws (to my knowledge) that prevent you from assist someone with a flat tire.

If I kick open your front door because your house is on fire, I can't be charged with breaking and entering. I can't be charged with attempting to help you. But under the Prime Directive I could.

Sorry, but all that is besides the particular point here (the Prime Directive being something handed down to people to follow). Regardless of the particulars, the Prime Directive, when all is said and done, is still a set of "things you can't do" just like so many other laws, rules, and regulations. Like them, you can argue over the pros and cons of it until the cows come home, but it still comes down to them being rules.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

The Prime Directive is only used to mean "We can't save dying civilizations" when the writer has no idea what he's talking about.

But there's a difference between that and saying "We don't take stone age civilizations and suddenly give them our technology." Or saying "We don't get involved in internal political conflicts."

You can't give a sudden technological jump to a civilization without giving the main recipients of that technology a major power advantage which they could use to dominate others. And you can't give everybody the technology equally. If you try, those with the best infrastructure or those best at manufacturing it will get the power advantage.

 

[Makarov]

The Prime Directive is only used to mean "We can't save dying civilizations" when the writer has no idea what he's talking about.

Isn't that what it usually means though? Even in Into Darkness they call Kirk "playing God" for saving that race from the volcano.

 

[DonIago]

Kirk may have saved the race, but he also forever altered their cultural evolution. If the last shot of the Nibiru people didn't make that clear, I don't know what would. What he saved is not what they were before his intervention.

And for all we know the PD in the NuVerse is more rigid than in the Prime. Given everything they've already gone through, I wouldn't be especially surprised.

 

[Ithekro]

Starfleet does not want unintended consequences that are their fault. They likely had many in their early years or else got word of many from the older member races of the Federation. Help a species out, and later that species is fighting your neighbor with what you taught them. Or save a species from extinction, and resign another species to a life of slavery or extinction at their hands. Save a species from their equivalent of Hitler....have them not know the warning signs of it later on and get their whole planet destroyed in a nuclear (or antimatter) holocaust.

Most times Kirk in TOS bent the Prime Directive it was to undo some form of cultural contamination or end artificial stagnation of a species by computers (1960s writers seemed to be heavily against computers running societies). Or the species had directly threatened his ship and would not just let him leave.

 

[T'Girl]

I think rescuing someone from a fire is a far more clear-cut scenario than taking it upon yourself to decide what's "best" for an entire civilization.

That would go back to what I mentioned before about "judgement, reasoning or wisdom." Starfleet personnel are given a lot of responsibility. They're trusted to employ deadly force at their own discretion, and their commanding officers can employ weapons of mass destruct on their own authority. Diplomatic treaties and important trade agreements with entire planets.

So why wouldn't their command officers be trained to make independent decisions concerning what is "best."

Unless their entire planet is literally on fire.

Would Starfleet stop the Black Death on an alien world? It didn't wipe out the Human species, just half the population where ever it traveled. Not a falling rock, not a nuclear war, just a wee little bacterial infection carried by insects.

Option one ... beam down and provide instruction on insecticides and simple antibiotics and some basic hygiene. The natives themselves could spread the information outward from a few hundred population centers. Not everyone would get the word, but you would be cutting the death toll substantially.

Option two ... the Picard solution, do nothing because there a chance you might screw it up.

Kirk may have saved the race, but he also forever altered their cultural evolution.

But they survived to be altered.

 

[Ithekro]

But they survived to be altered.

And that could be a bad thing. The Starship worshipping sect goes to war with the sects of the old gods of populations that were not in danger from the volcano and causes several religious purges over the next three or four thousand years. Purges that would not have happened had that one tribe been killed by the volcano or if they had not seen USS Enterprise at the very least. By the time this warlike and religious species makes First Contact with a local species, the Federation, if it still exists will have forgotten about Kirk and may even not bother with such species anymore. Yet it would still be Kirk's fault the species is like they are.

Option Two for the Black Death is the safe route. Given the Age, it is highly possible that saving all those people would cause a highly dangerous situation in Europe and Asia while possibly make the religious wars and much later imperialism/colonialism ages even worse for the rest of the planet.

 

[Makarov]

That's comparing a risk of could be bad against the certainty of being dead. But what if they take the risk and it turns out fine? A chance to save living beings means they have some moral obligation to at least try.

A federation that sits back and lets people die & suffer because they're too high and mighty to get their hands dirty is not one I'd ever want to be a part of, and I'd probably actively be against them. That's probably why they're breaking the prime directive every other episode - it's the only way the audience can be rooting for them.

Imagine going to to the doctor and he's like "Sorry kid, you might turn out to be the next hitler, can't give you this medicine"

 

[Ithekro]

It is not about getting their hands dirty, but more of making things worse via unintended consequences. The good of the many (Galaxy full of species) outweights the needs of the few (single pre-warp species that could use a hand from Starfleet). It is logical to assume that species did use to help others long before the humans even stepped into space. They also learned some leasons they passed on to the humans once they got their Warp Five engines working.

Don't interfere. You will make it worse. This seems to be the message being given by the Vulcans and Denobulans to the humans.

 

[Makarov]

I feel less bad about Vulcan blowing up in nuTrek then

But that's what getting their hands dirty means to me, dealing with those unintended consequences as they come up. If they start making bad choices then they will lose their support. The possibility of saving beings is worth it...

 

[Metryq]

The Organians appear to have something like the Prime Directive, but may violate it conditionally:

CLAYMARE: Brave men.
AYELBORNE: Yes, but so foolish.
TREFAYNE: Interesting, however.
AYELBORNE: Of course, we cannot allow it. To stop them is very bad.
CLAYMARE: It is necessary. They may harm one another.

 

[DonIago]

Kirk may have saved the race, but he also forever altered their cultural evolution.

But they survived to be altered.

They would have survived if Kirk had let Spock die and not flown the Enterprise over them as well.

"When you do things right, people won't be sure you did anything at all."

Honestly, this is nothing we haven't heard before. "We know what's best for the Indians (or if you prefer, Bajorans), and they seem to be a backward, dying race, so we better do something to help them! If we destroy their culture, who cares? At least they'll still be alive!"

This seems to be on some level less about doing what's best for other cultures and more about what one thinks their own morality seems to dictate they should do for others whether they want the intervention or not.

That even in this day and age people still assume they know what's best for other societies galls me.

 

[Makarov]

This seems to be on some level less about doing what's best for other cultures and more about what one thinks their own morality seems to dictate they should do for others whether they want the intervention or not.

That even in this day and age people still assume they know what's best for other societies galls me.

Somehow I think Spock&Kirk intervening with some cultural contamination is obviously better than watching them horribly burn to death from orbit, but that's just me. Most societies wouldn't want to be hit by an asteroid or have their planet destroyed. No one called them "backward", they just can not stop these events without help.

 

[DonIago]

I don't recall any point where I said stopping the volcano from erupting was an issue.

 

[Ithekro]

I feel less bad about Vulcan blowing up in nuTrek then

But that's what getting their hands dirty means to me, dealing with those unintended consequences as they come up. If they start making bad choices then they will lose their support. The possibility of saving beings is worth it...

From the way we keep seeing it happen on our own planet, it really isn't worth it. So many cultures have been completely destroyed due to others wanting to help. Socities change to the point where they aren't what they were and could be worse, all because someone thought they could make it better. And once they were messed around with, they could not back out, the help had to continue. Or the help was fought and relations between cultures grew strained.

And that is just one species helping various cultures of their own species on one planet. Now start trying that to other species with a multitude of cultures on a hundred planets. For every one you get right you are going to have maybe ten failures. In Star Trek time, after several hundred years of seeing these attempts and failures the older races make their own version of the Prime Directive. By the time the Humans join them in the interstellar arena, the older races tell them of this Prime Directive and why it is a good idea. Some humans listen, some don't and humanity rewrites it for their own needs. We see what happens across six TV series and 12 movies.

 

[Makarov]

I don't recall any point where I said stopping the volcano from erupting was an issue.

Honestly, this is nothing we haven't heard before. "We know what's best for the Indians (or if you prefer, Bajorans), and they seem to be a backward, dying race, so we better do something to help them! If we destroy their culture, who cares? At least they'll still be alive!"

To me when you bring up this comparison to Indians (which did not face any calamity on this scale before their invaders came), with "at least they'll still be alive" as if a negative outcome, that implies to me that you'd rather let the volcano erupt and keep their culture intact in their demise.

From the way we keep seeing it happen on our own planet, it really isn't worth it. So many cultures have been completely destroyed due to others wanting to help. Socities change to the point where they aren't what they were and could be worse, all because someone thought they could make it better. And once they were messed around with, they could not back out, the help had to continue. Or the help was fought and relations between cultures grew strained.

I see that those things could happen, I just think the risk may be worth it when it comes down to the individual level. It's one thing to sacrifice one's self to uphold the prime directive like Spock was, but it's another to sacrifice every sick person with easily curable diseases simply because they were unlucky enough to be born pre-warp. That sick person is basically a sacrifice to their society when they are denied technology which would have cured them.

When the TNG crew violate the prime directive, good things tend to happen. Sure Picard got shot with an arrow once, but after some discussion they were able to adapt and individuals were healed by advanced tech. There may be a long term downside to it, but it's not really shown on the show... I imagine they'll just adapt their religions to encompass the universe as it really exists in Trek world. A little bit closer to reality than their myths were before they made contact.

 

[Ghrakh]

Most societies wouldn't want to be hit by an asteroid or have their planet destroyed.

But it probably happens often in this big galaxy of ours. The ones where a federation ship happens to be visiting are supposed to be saved despite the PD because it's the moral thing to do.

Everyone else is SOL.

 

[DonIago]

I don't recall any point where I said stopping the volcano from erupting was an issue.

Honestly, this is nothing we haven't heard before. "We know what's best for the Indians (or if you prefer, Bajorans), and they seem to be a backward, dying race, so we better do something to help them! If we destroy their culture, who cares? At least they'll still be alive!"

To me when you bring up this comparison to Indians (which did not face any calamity on this scale before their invaders came), with "at least they'll still be alive" as if a negative outcome, that implies to me that you'd rather let the volcano erupt and keep their culture intact in their demise.

I have no issue with stopping the volcano from erupting per se, though the PD might have an issue with that, and stopping it may ultimately have negative repercussions.

My issue is with the irrevocable cultural destruction that ensues from Kirk allowing the E to be seen.

As I said above, "If you do things right, people won't be sure you did anything at all." Kirk violated that principle. In a sense, he saved the Nibiru only to destroy them. Because whatever they are now, it's not what they were.