The prime directive
Indi and I thought this might be an interesting question to consider. Anyone who has even a passing familiarity with Star Trek knows about their "Prime Directive". Most people seem to take it for granted that this old TV plot device is a good idea. Is it? Dun dun dun! Let's find out.
The Star Trek Prime Directive
The actual nature of the Starfleet Prime Directive is never really made clear and it actually changes a couple times. The original gist of it seems to be something like this:
Any civilization that has not developed "space warp" technology (faster than light travel) is deemed unready for contact.
It is forbidden to make contact with any such civilization. It is also forbidden to reveal to them the existence of aliens or advanced technology.
This law is absolute, and the lives of any Starfleet personnel are expendible in order to comply with the objective.
(Later on, the Prime Directive changes to a more generalized, watered-down non-interference directive, even with other FTL-capable civilizations. That's another debate, for now we're just interested in the idea of technologically advanced civilizations' interference with lesser civilizations. Also, its application is inconsistent at best, and sometimes seems to be entirely ignored.)
The philosophy behind the Prime Directive is that it is important for cultures to evolve on their own, and any interference by an advanced civilization would unduly influence the development of the lesser civilization.
Rarely throughout the various series, the idea was explored a little deeper. Here are some highlights:
- A Private Little War (1968): Kirk, apparenty under the influence of an alien medicine woman, agrees to supply guns to the primitive hill people on a planet, in order to counteract the fact that Klingon interference has already provided the towns people with them.
This episode is supposed to be a metaphor for Vietnam, but it works for our purposese. It pulls this very clever bait-and-switch where it seems to Doctor McCoy that the Captain is acting under alien influence until the last minute, where he suddenly offers McCoy a very intelligent and very plausible justification for his actions. According to him, the only moral choice for him to make is to supply those weapons, because failing to do so would pretty much doom the hill people. Even though his actions will most certainly result in at least decades of bloody war, they are the only way to preserve both sides, rather than letting one side eradicate the other. Is Kirk right? And if so, doesn't that pretty much invalidate the entire Prime Directive?
- Symbiosis (1988): One of the most depressingly transparent "just say no" after-school-special episodes about drugs ever. Two planets, one supposedly dying from a disease, the other supplying the cure. Turns out the disease is a hoax, and the cure is a drug, and an entire planet is addicted to it.
The clever thing about this episode is that it shows that the Prime Directive applies to aid of any kind. Picard prevented from freeing the one planet from their addiction, which sends Doctor Crusher into a tizzy. But it turns out that he is also able to use the Prime Directive to apparently free himself from the guilt of perpetuating it. But... has he really?
- Dear Doctor (2002): A dying civilization desparately launches a ship into the depths of space in hope of finding cure for a plague. Enterprise discovers the ship and offers aid, but Doctor Phlox and Captain Archer find themselves on opposite ends of a moral dilemma when it turns out that curing the one species may prevent another from evolving.
One of the best Prime Directive problems ever discussed in the show itself. On the one hand Archer sees the immediate harm to the dying species as something that it is unconscionable to walk away from without helping. On the other, Phlox sees the potential of an entire species being denied existence. In the end, Archer (unlike either Kirk or Picard above - what is it with captains and doctors and the Prime Directive anyway) decides to bow to Phlox's position, deciding to "let nature take its course". Is this right?
The philosophy of non-interference in general
Star Trek's Prime Directive is vague, inconsistently applied and rather arbitrary (why suddenly change the rules when the civilization develops FTL?). Let's see if we can do better.
What I'm gonna do is I'm gonna make up our own clearly defined "prime directive", and then we can all try and figure out one of the following:
- Is my prime directive right?
- Is there any other formulation for a prime directive that might be better?
- Under what circumstances is interference good or bad?
- How to determine what good or harm might be done by interference?
So, first, here is the starting form of the prime directive, which may be modified during the discussion:
A civilization may not provide any technology to another civilization that that civilization does not already possess. It may not provide any material to another civilzation that cannot be traded for in equal value, where value is determined by the other civilization.
K, in the directive above, technology refers to both actual technological devices, and knowlege about technology. So you can't give machines, and you can't give information about machines. But technology refers to more than just actual machinery. Ideas are technology too - teaching the ancient Sumerians about Communism or Cosmotheism would violate the prime directive, too.
The second part is important, because, for example, suppose a civilization had discovered how to make books, but had not yet created the printing press. A more advanced civilization could, in theory, supply them with an endless supply of mass-produced, printed books without violating the first part. They already have books, after all. The second part allows trading on equal footing though, so if the lesser civilization can pay for those books (which would be expensive without printing press technology), then there's no restriction in providing them.
Consider the case of a plague in Afghanistan. They have the technology to produce the cure, but not enough in time. By this prime directive, England would be allowed to provide enough cure, provided Afghanistan can pay for it somehow (although, if England decides to decline payment, they're free to - but Afghanistan must be able to pay, somehow, even if its in installments).
Now consider the case of a plague in an isolated Amazon tribe. They do not have the technology to produce the cure, and we cannot give it to them without exposing ourselves and/or influencing their development. Therefore, we should not give them the cure. If they die, they die.
What say ye on these questions? 1) The reason for the FTL-tech limitation is to ensure that a civilization would be able to advance on its own. Otherwise, you create a potential situation where the society lacks the maturity in order to deal with the technology introduced. Also, when the society is at the FTL level, the Federation has to deal with it (it's now at the point where it's capable of messing with Federation). So there is a certain degree of logic to it.
2) It's worth noting that Kirk has the worst record re: The Prime Directive of any captain. In fact, Captain Kirk and the Prime Directive makes for some of the bloodiest debates in Trekdom...
3) You've picked arguably three of the worst examples (the Prime Directive doesn't even apply to one of them). Of the large number of possibilities (the Prime Directive comes up a lot), you had to pick those?
4) Lastly, your version of the Prime Directive sounds suspiciously like the Ferenghi version (which has led to the enslavement of races).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Objections aside, the Prime Directive was set up in order to prevent certain situations:
1) Cultural contamination to the point that the original culture disappears (paralleling current thought that all cultures are important in some way).
2) Subservience of the culture to another culture (including financial and military means, as well as presenting the technologically superior race as presenting itself as gods).
3) Advancing the civilization in question past a point where it would be able to deal with integrating the technology.
This has not prevented the Federation from interceding in situations where help was needed (note the episode in which a family house was about to be destroyed, but the Federation was able to find a way to save the family). It has also allowed the Federation to back out when the help would actually be deleterious.
Basically, with the PD standing as is, England would be able to give the Amazonian Indians assistance, as long as steps were taken to ensure that the help had been requested and that English culture did not contaminate the Amazonian culture.
Otherwise, the culture won't exist much longer (especially if the help had been forced).
HM
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| 1) The reason for the FTL-tech limitation is to ensure that a civilization would be able to advance on its own. Otherwise, you create a potential situation where the society lacks the maturity in order to deal with the technology introduced. Also, when the society is at the FTL level, the Federation has to deal with it (it's now at the point where it's capable of messing with Federation). So there is a certain degree of logic to it. |
First, how does a civilization magically become "mature" once it has FTL? Why isn't it "mature" once it's developed quantum mechanics, atomic power or anything else? There is no clear demarcation line where you can say a culture has suddenly "matured" upon crossing it - FTL is an arbitrary standard.
Second, how is a civilization that has just developed rudimentary FTL travel practically capable of "messing" with one that has had FTL for hundreds of years? If they don't want to deal with the younger civilization, they can just put up defensive stations along their borders, and warn the newcomers off.
Third, why does a culture suddenly become no longer worthy of concern about contaminating once they have FTL?
Fourth, they have to "advance on their own" up until FTL, but after that they can get outside help?
Unless there's a real reason for making FTL (or any particular technology) the standard for demarcation - other than as a TV plot device and as a means to explain away Fermi's problem - what is wrong with using any technological divide as a justification?
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| 2) It's worth noting that Kirk has the worst record re: The Prime Directive of any captain. In fact, Captain Kirk and the Prime Directive makes for some of the bloodiest debates in Trekdom... |
Exactly why is that worth noting? Who cares?
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| 3) You've picked arguably three of the worst examples (the Prime Directive doesn't even apply to one of them). Of the large number of possibilities (the Prime Directive comes up a lot), you had to pick those? |
That is a completely useless objection.
You didn't say why those are among the worst examples. You didn't describe what a good example might be. You didn't say which one the prime directive does not apply to or why it doesn't.
Was it your intention to waste everyone's bandwidth on empty words? I can't see any purpose to your comment, or most of the comments in your post, other than that.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| 4) Lastly, your version of the Prime Directive sounds suspiciously like the Ferenghi version (which has led to the enslavement of races). |
How, exactly?
First, how is enslavement even possible using that version? Remember, you can't even tell them about advanced technology, so you can't even threaten them with superior firepower. You certainly can't use it in front of them.
Second, how does that version "lead to" enslavement? What part of it does that and why? Surely your objection can't be so stupid as to be that simply because it does not explicily rule it out, it "leads to" it. Tell me that's not your logic.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
Objections aside, the Prime Directive was set up in order to prevent certain situations:
1) Cultural contamination to the point that the original culture disappears (paralleling current thought that all cultures are important in some way).
2) Subservience of the culture to another culture (including financial and military means, as well as presenting the technologically superior race as presenting itself as gods).
3) Advancing the civilization in question past a point where it would be able to deal with integrating the technology.
This has not prevented the Federation from interceding in situations where help was needed (note the episode in which a family house was about to be destroyed, but the Federation was able to find a way to save the family). It has also allowed the Federation to back out when the help would actually be deleterious.
Basically, with the PD standing as is, England would be able to give the Amazonian Indians assistance, as long as steps were taken to ensure that the help had been requested and that English culture did not contaminate the Amazonian culture.
Otherwise, the culture won't exist much longer (especially if the help had been forced). |
I don't care about Star Trek's philosophy. It is puerile and flawed, and it is not even consistently applied (as you freely admit: "This has not prevented the Federation from interceding in situations where help was needed (note the episode in which a family house was about to be destroyed, but the Federation was able to find a way to save the family). It has also allowed the Federation to back out when the help would actually be deleterious." So basically, they use their prime directive when it works for them and ignore it when it doesn't). In fact, I said as much before talking about the real question. I don't feel inclined to repeat what the real question is, so perhaps you should re-read the first post.
Now, as for the only relevant part of that section:
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Basically, with the PD standing as is, England would be able to give the Amazonian Indians assistance, as long as steps were taken to ensure that the help had been requested and that English culture did not contaminate the Amazonian culture. |
Exactly what kind of assistance? Under what circumstances? How is this assistance different from interference? How can the Amazonians request help if they do not know that help is possible?Any line that is drawn to determine when to contact a less advanced civilization is going to be more or less arbitrary. The FTL divide makes some sense, though, because once a civilization has FTL it's only a matter of time before they make contact anyway. Better to establish that contact under more or less controlled circumstances.
As far as providing assistance or technology, I would think that there could be no hard and fast rule. A set of guidelines would be better because each situation would be unique.
In general, then mass confusion of a civilization still using steam power would experience when confronted with a display of transporter technology and phasors would proably do a great deal of harm to that civilization (panic, riots, bizzare religions popping up, etc...), but if the enitre planet is on the verge of distruction because, say, their sun is showing signs of going nova or something (I don't know what the signs are and it may not be scientificaly sound, but it's just an example.), then, wouldn't it be worth making contact to save as many lives, and maybe as much of the culture, as possible?
However, if the same steam-age civilization is hit by a deadly plauge, but the race will survive the plauge (not a 100% fatality rate), it may seen cruel to leave them to their own devices, but passing through such a disaster might be just what the civilization needs to advance, say, to put aside differences and get past the need for individual nations warring with each other and lead to a peaceful global society. In which case, the people of the planet would be better off in the long run than if the more advanced culture had stepped in with a vaccine.
In other words, I feel that non-interferance is a good policy in general, but it should be handled on a case by case basis.
How did horses and guns affect the Native American tribes? (I know what the US did to them, but how did horses and guns change their culture before we started pushing them off thier lands?)
| Jinx wrote: |
| Any line that is drawn to determine when to contact a less advanced civilization is going to be more or less arbitrary. The FTL divide makes some sense, though, because once a civilization has FTL it's only a matter of time before they make contact anyway. Better to establish that contact under more or less controlled circumstances. |
i don't see how it makes sense. Even after a civilization has developed FTL, it may be years... decades... centuries even before they might encounter another species. If their cultural development is so important in the years prior to FTL that they must be protected, why not the years between the development of FTL and actual, natural contact (by that logic, shouldn't contact be delayed until absolutely unavoidable - ie, shouldn't we hide until they can actually find us)? We've had the technology to go to the Moon since before i was born, but have not had occasion to go in my entire lifetime. Imagine a civilization living on Mars who had decided that once we demonstrated that we could get to the Moon and back safely, we were "ready" for contact because the same technology would inevitably lead to a trip to Mars. They would have contacted us in the late-60's/early-70's... even though we now know that a generation has passed since then and we still haven't made the trip. By extension, suppose we developed FTL today... but didn't use it to explore for a hundred years? Simply having the technology does not imply that contact is imminent.
The idea Star Trek works on - and the one you seem to accept - is that possession of a technology implies immediate, successful application. Civilization X has FTL, thus they will build ships and come out and meet us, so we should meet them first pre-emptively. But wait a minute. Civilization X has FTL technology → will build FTL ships → will use those ships to travel outside of their solar system → will eventually bump into us... all of those arrows are assumptions, not guarantees. There's no reason to assume that a civilization will use FTL to explore and not simply as a means for speedy interplanetary travel. There's no reason to assume that contact will ever happen - the galaxy is a big place. The civilization may have a bloody war in the interim and fall back to the bronze age... thus postponing interstellar travel for millenia.
Until contact actually happens, there is no reason to assume it ever will. Setting FTL as the mark point is totally arbitrary. You're saying that the moment the civilization develops FTL, their culture isn't worth protecting anymore because of the increased likelihood of the possibility that they may one day perhaps possibly run into another civilization... a possibility that has existed since the civilization first acquired intelligent thought. Why FTL and not radio? A powerful enough receiver and we could be listening to old broadcasts from another civilization for hundreds or thousands of years before we develop FTL... we may even hold long-delayed conversations with alien ham-radio operators oblivious to the fact that they are making first contact with an "immature" civilization. The entire concept of a limiting technology is completely arbitrary, and FTL is no less arbitrary than radio, rocketry or the optical telescope.
This is why i thought it might be wiser to drop the absolute from the concept and make it a relative thing. It applies to any technological divide. A spacefaring species may not give a bronze-age species nukes, and a bronze-age species may not give a stone-age species chariots.
| Jinx wrote: |
| As far as providing assistance or technology, I would think that there could be no hard and fast rule. A set of guidelines would be better because each situation would be unique. |
The only reason an absolute rule might fail is when it is incomplete. Any set of guidelines becomes an absolute rule once all arbitrary components of it are removed.
So... basically... what's the diff? If you feel more comfortably calling it a well-defined set of guidelines rather than a complicated rule, go for it. But it doesn't really change anything.
| Jinx wrote: |
In general, then mass confusion of a civilization still using steam power would experience when confronted with a display of transporter technology and phasors would proably do a great deal of harm to that civilization (panic, riots, bizzare religions popping up, etc...), but if the enitre planet is on the verge of distruction because, say, their sun is showing signs of going nova or something (I don't know what the signs are and it may not be scientificaly sound, but it's just an example.), then, wouldn't it be worth making contact to save as many lives, and maybe as much of the culture, as possible?
However, if the same steam-age civilization is hit by a deadly plauge, but the race will survive the plauge (not a 100% fatality rate), it may seen cruel to leave them to their own devices, but passing through such a disaster might be just what the civilization needs to advance, say, to put aside differences and get past the need for individual nations warring with each other and lead to a peaceful global society. In which case, the people of the planet would be better off in the long run than if the more advanced culture had stepped in with a vaccine.
In other words, I feel that non-interferance is a good policy in general, but it should be handled on a case by case basis. |
Obviously, in the case of a civilization faced with imminent annihilation, the value of protecting their culture drops to zero. There's no reason to protect a culture that is guaranteed to be extinct in a few years (but there is a caveat to this!)... that's just illogical.
So you've effectively created an addition to the main rule:A civilization may not provide any technology to another civilization that that civilization does not already possess. It may not provide any material to another civilzation that cannot be traded for in equal value, where value is determined by the other civilization.
i.) A civilization in immediate danger of complete extinction is an exception, because there is no purpose to protecting a doomed culture.
But you haven't touched on the topic of the main rule at all.
HOWEVER!
That's not to say there's no debate in the matter of that little exception.
Suppose you had the case of a civilization that had a biological war and introduced a plague guaranteed to wipe them all out. What are your obligations in this matter. Protect the culture? The culture is what's causing their extinction in the first place! Protect the people? Why? If there's no reason to save the people from a non-extinction plague, why save them from one that causes extinction? They caused their extinction. Let them die.
Obviously that doesn't hold for natural disasters, like their sun going nova or a planet-killer meteor, because no aspect of the civilization caused those events or should be expected to be able to prevent them (another caveat is here!). But just how far does it hold for unnatural extinction events?
| Jinx wrote: |
| How did horses and guns affect the Native American tribes? (I know what the US did to them, but how did horses and guns change their culture before we started pushing them off thier lands?) |
Let's apply the directive as it stands so far to that case, to give it a little trial run in practice.
So the colonists from Europe came over in their big ships, and oblivious to the fact that there were natives there, they anchored right in plain sight and rowed ashore.
The moment they discovered the indigenous people, they should have performed a cultural and technological assessment. They would have realized that they were far less advanced, and had already seen things that they may not have developed for millenia on their own (the ships, for example). Oh well, shit happens. That damage was accidental, unintentional and understandable... but, unfortunately, irreversable. Nothing can be done about it now.
However, immediate steps should have been taken to minimize the effect of the damage and prevent any further contamination. Guns should have been sent back to the boats (presumably they would have had no cause to fire them, so the natives would be oblivious). Nothing further should come off those ships that could potentially affect the native culture - and the ships themselves should be anchored out of sight as much as possible.
The Europeans may interact with the natives, but may not provide them with technology or materials that the natives cannot provide themselves with... unless fair and even trade can be made (for example, natives teaching Europeans about farming corn in exchange for Europeans teaching natives some better irrigation techniques). The Europeans would become, in essence, just another native tribe (whenever they were around the actual natives).
Would the native people's cultures be affected? Yes, unfortunately. That damage was done at landfall, accidently.
But had the Europeans known of the existence of the natives beforehand, they should have researched them from a distance to determine their technology, and arrived in appropriate technology so as to be indistinguishable from whatever already exists in the native culture. They should have landed... as if they were natives themselves: in dugout canoes and building teepees (or whatever - i don't know anything about indigenous Americans). And that is only if they had any real necessity in going there at all (which they didn't - they really only went for more land and plunder). So technically, if they were actually following my proposed directive:
- If they did not know about the existence of the natives: Well, they would have screwed up and shown them some things they shouldn't have when they first landed. But damage control should have been swift and immediate.
- If they knew about the existence of the natives, but needed to go (their own home was becoming unliveable, for example): They should have arrived as if they were natives themselves - in canoes and using only technologies that the natives themselves had access too. They should have lived like the natives whenever there was a risk of interaction.
- If they knew about the existence of the natives, but did not have to go: They really should not have gone. But if they felt they had to, see above.
I think the prime directive is a evil. Cause of the prime directive star fleet or any one in star fleet would not be allowed to save another species or civilisation from extinction, if an asteroid was going to hit a planet with am intelligent species on it and wipe them out, they would not be allowed to save them. And if some other civilisation is in a war they would still not be allowed to interfere even if it meant the extinction of an entire species.
And I don't get why they are not allowed to contact pre FTL capable civilisation. Now if there was a situation where contact would lead to a huge war than yes it make sense but any contact with an alien civilisation would ultimately unite a civilisation not divide it just by the fact that there is this big very advances species out there that if it decided to could take over or destroy there world/star system (just cause they don;t have warp drive dose not mean they wouldn't have colonies on other worlds in the system). Just think about how the Soviet Union and the US would have reacted if they learned that there was a much more powerful potential threat out in space some where, the cold war would have all but ceased, instead of pointing there nukes at each other they would have pointed them up.
| Indi wrote: |
First, how does a civilization magically become "mature" once it has FTL? Why isn't it "mature" once it's developed quantum mechanics, atomic power or anything else? There is no clear demarcation line where you can say a culture has suddenly "matured" upon crossing it - FTL is an arbitrary standard. |
It doesn't "magically" become mature; note all of the problems Kirk had. As you noted, it's arbitrary; the line needed to be placed somewhere, so it was placed at having FTL tech.
The line of reasoning is that they would have shown that they were a reasonably stable planet at that point, given the resources needed in order to create FTL travel in the first place. We're not talking a small achievement; rather, it's a major one...
| Quote: |
| Second, how is a civilization that has just developed rudimentary FTL travel practically capable of "messing" with one that has had FTL for hundreds of years? If they don't want to deal with the younger civilization, they can just put up defensive stations along their borders, and warn the newcomers off. |
But is there any value in doing so, especially when the new player may have something interesting to offer the rest of the galaxy? Besides, how would you stop a ship from that system from escaping without a major expenditure on the part of the culture trying to enforce a blackade?
| Quote: |
| Third, why does a culture suddenly become no longer worthy of concern about contaminating once they have FTL? |
Probably because, once you have FTL, you can define your own level of contamination...
| Quote: |
| Fourth, they have to "advance on their own" up until FTL, but after that they can get outside help? |
They can get outside help at any level, provided that can communicate it somehow; that's not an issue. The issue is that they can't fully be part of the galaxy until they have a certain tech level.
| Quote: |
| Unless there's a real reason for making FTL (or any particular technology) the standard for demarcation - other than as a TV plot device and as a means to explain away Fermi's problem - what is wrong with using any technological divide as a justification? |
?
| Quote: |
| HereticMonkey wrote: | | 2) It's worth noting that Kirk has the worst record re: The Prime Directive of any captain. In fact, Captain Kirk and the Prime Directive makes for some of the bloodiest debates in Trekdom... |
Exactly why is that worth noting? Who cares? |
Apparently you (Indi) care, or you wouldn't have mentioned him explicitly in your post. And it's worth noting because you are discussing the Prime Directive; Kirk likes ignoring it. A lot. And so he becomes sort of a weird counter-point (he constantly ignores it, and destroys civilizations because he feels he has to do so in order to survive).
| Quote: |
| HereticMonkey wrote: | | 3) You've picked arguably three of the worst examples (the Prime Directive doesn't even apply to one of them). Of the large number of possibilities (the Prime Directive comes up a lot), you had to pick those? |
That is a completely useless objection.
You didn't say why those are among the worst examples. You didn't describe what a good example might be. You didn't say which one the prime directive does not apply to or why it doesn't.
Was it your intention to waste everyone's bandwidth on empty words? I can't see any purpose to your comment, or most of the comments in your post, other than that. |
If you are trying to discuss the Prime Directive, why did you pick an episode that it doesn't apply to? Outside of just picking an episode out of a hat, was there a reason for the Enterprise episode? The PD doesn't apply to Enterprise because PD-based logic isn't around yet (the Vulcans have it, but it only applies to Earth as far as that particular series is considered).
The other two episodes are poor picks because, if I were looking for PD-related episodes, there are far better episodes (the one with the little girl, for example, leaves no real room for debate, as it shows a way to enforce the PD while at the same time allowing the Enterprise to save a culture). Clever episode, but bad for debate. The one with Vaal (where Kirk destroys the idol in order to escape) and the movie where they meet Cochran are better ones...
| Quote: |
| HereticMonkey wrote: | | 4) Lastly, your version of the Prime Directive sounds suspiciously like the Ferenghi version (which has led to the enslavement of races). |
How, exactly?
First, how is enslavement even possible using that version? Remember, you can't even tell them about advanced technology, so you can't even threaten them with superior firepower. You certainly can't use it in front of them. |
Remember: The Ferenghi don't believe in the PD, so showing an inferior culture lasers isn't an issue.
| Quote: |
| Second, how does that version "lead to" enslavement? What part of it does that and why? Surely your objection can't be so stupid as to be that simply because it does not explicily rule it out, it "leads to" it. Tell me that's not your logic. |
[Why is it that ANY viewpoint counter to yours is stupid?]
Let's see:
a) It's pointed out several times in the series that it has happened.
b) Are you so lacking in basic historical knowledge that you've never heard of "indentured servitude"? The culture just simply racks up a big enough bill that the Ferenghi end collecting by selling the culture in question off as slaves (and possibly as food).
| Quote: |
I don't care about Star Trek's philosophy. It is puerile and flawed, |
Then why did you bring it up?
| Quote: |
| and it is not even consistently applied |
Actually, only by Kirk. Picard, on the other hand, applies it in a number of interesting ways...
| Quote: |
| I don't feel inclined to repeat what the real question is, so perhaps you should re-read the first post. |
Or perhaps you didn't state it clearly enough, and are simply lacking basic courtesy to rephrase it...
| Quote: |
Now, as for the only relevant part of that section:
| HereticMonkey wrote: | | Basically, with the PD standing as is, England would be able to give the Amazonian Indians assistance, as long as steps were taken to ensure that the help had been requested and that English culture did not contaminate the Amazonian culture. |
Exactly what kind of assistance? Under what circumstances? How is this assistance different from interference? How can the Amazonians request help if they do not know that help is possible? |
Actually, this was answered already. The Amazons put out a general call for help (like the little girl did), the Brits answer (as Data did), the Brits scope out the sitch (as Picard did), and then help the absulte least that they can (as Picard did).
Note that at no time do the Amazons ask for specific help, and has no interference as the Brits merely move the Amazons, not impart any tech to them.
Acceptable?
HMWhile this is all extremely hypothetical of course, I see the Prime Directive as being a sort of parallel to the Zen proverb, “touch the world lightly”. That is to say, don’t try to make waves, or if you do try to make waves, do it in a way that is in harmony with the Force (Mu), and try to clean up your tracks afterwards. It is sort of like agreeing that it is a good idea to make up the bed you slept in when you sleep as a guest at a friend’s home.
It is a fuzzy logic sort of thing, not easily defined, which is precisely why I think the concept behind the Prime Directive is so vague and nebulous in many ways.
this all seems very interesting BUT i have one question:
what is the primary role of the non-interference policy? does this policy have clear moral roots? I mean, why is it "good" to not interfere with less advanced cultures?
one more thing that I wish to point out is that it is not possible to interact with a different culture without interfering!! i believe that this whole issue has been somehow debated (when talking about saving civilizations) but I believe that no one has yet pointed out that interacting=interfering and hence all relations with primitive civilizations should be completely banned according to these laws
| nimo wrote: |
this all seems very interesting BUT i have one question:
what is the primary role of the non-interference policy? does this policy have clear moral roots? I mean, why is it "good" to not interfere with less advanced cultures? |
There was a situation that went awry (the mobsters of A Piece of the Action), where some pieces of Federation Tech were left behind and then incorporated into the society. Because of this, it was decided that interfering (even accidentally) with other cultures would be a bad thing.
Primitive societies (ie, those lacking warp technology) were considered special cases, and involvement with them was especially proscribed so as to allow the culture to develop as it would. It can be studied, but that's it.
| Quote: |
| one more thing that I wish to point out is that it is not possible to interact with a different culture without interfering!! i believe that this whole issue has been somehow debated (when talking about saving civilizations) but I believe that no one has yet pointed out that interacting=interfering and hence all relations with primitive civilizations should be completely banned according to these laws |
That's because it's sort of a duh, and already covered. The problem occurs when you have a study being done of a primitive society, and your study group gets discovered, or a primitive society needs rescuing. In the former, the solution was to show that the team was merely human, and see if the society would cooperate in hiding the details. In the latter, the society was put to sleep in order to move them and minimize contact.
For what it's worth...
HM | nimo wrote: |
this all seems very interesting BUT i have one question:
what is the primary role of the non-interference policy? does this policy have clear moral roots? I mean, why is it "good" to not interfere with less advanced cultures? |
That's what i can't figure out. i can't figure out what it is that is being protected by a non-interference policy or why. "Culture" is such a nebulous, shifting concept that it's damn near meaningless.
Furthermore, there are some really weird philosophical implications to the idea that never really get properly explored.
Suppose you defined "culture" as the sum total of the knowledge and art of a civilization. Suppose you had a civilization that lived entirely in one city that had a centralized library that stored every work of art ever produced and every text ever written, and there were no copies elsewhere (sort of an extreme version of the Library of Alexandria). Suppose that library caught fire, and you were forced with a choice. You could either save the library or save the lives of 99% of the population. In other words, either the library burns and all "culture" is destroyed, or the people burn and all that will survive is 1% of the population. Which would be the correct choice?
According to the "prime directive" theory, you should let those people die and save the library. This has already been elucidated here (and i let it slide without comment for the time being). Apparently, "culture" is more important than lives.
| nimo wrote: |
| one more thing that I wish to point out is that it is not possible to interact with a different culture without interfering!! i believe that this whole issue has been somehow debated (when talking about saving civilizations) but I believe that no one has yet pointed out that interacting=interfering and hence all relations with primitive civilizations should be completely banned according to these laws |
Actually, i was keeping deliberately silent on the subject. ^_^
But you're right, that's another little bit of weirdness. The claim is that when a superior civilization interacts with an inferior one, the culture of the inferior one is "destroyed". That's nonsense. It is not destroyed, it is changed.
So "changing" a culture is bad? But... culture changes practically daily, even without interference! The culture today is not like the culture of 1997, or 1987.
What is so bad about "changing" a culture by introduced a foreign influence that it is ok to let millions of people die unnecessarily?To resurrect an aging thread with a few thoughts of my own.
First, can anyone please tell me when in Star Trek the term “Prime Directive” was first used, and then perhaps when it was first explained?
I am not sufficiently hard core to know this and I am referring to the chronological order of the episodes not a given Stardate.
I am initially wondering whether we are not holding Kirk and co from The Original Series (TOS) up against a yardstick that was defined after the fact.
The Original Series, while innovative in its multicultural crew was far from being the sanitised politically correct outfit portrayed by The Next Generation (TNG).
Did the writers of TNG, perceive TOS as attempting to be Politically Correct, or did they develop a view where Political Correctness is a necessity to bind together the nations and cultures of earth so they could be presented as a single racial identity against a backdrop of alien species?
It is I believe, only from this point that a concept such as the Prime Directive could move from a “nice idea” into a actual practice. It is after all something of a paradox. Only once earth has “grown up” united as a single species, a fully fledged intermingled multicultural single technology society, that it can reason that interference in the development in other cultures is a bad thing.
As a brief aside, if the giving of knowledge is a taboo
| Indi wrote: |
| Ideas are technology too - teaching the ancient Sumerians about Communism or Cosmotheism would violate the prime directive, too |
and the Prime Directive was a concept introduced by the Vulcans... would they have not just broken it themselves????
I see the Prime Directive as a hypocritical concept which represents the death of ideas and creativity, a form of intellectual inbreeding.
The only reason the Prime Directive gets any momentum is because Star Trek considered the Prime Directive on a planetary scale, much of the aforementioned discussion appears on a National Scale which sort of works as well. but where should we draw boundaries? Simplistically, the culture of Village A may not be the same as Village B, so if each village followed the Prime Directive there could be no voluntary exchange of beneficial knowledge. The value of the knowledge cannot be determined fairly until the deed of exchange is complete. Allowing one party to assess, defeats the purpose.
Like for like is an interesting concept, and all issues of contamination aside, hypothetically, what if Village A invented the plow, and Village B was starving because its crops failed due to the condition of its fields, (a little contrived I know).
One could argue that Village B would die and then Village A could expand. Patiently waiting on the extinction of a culture so you can snatch their land seems a little unethical to me.
Besides, what if Village B had some skilled Tailers who made excellent shoes. While Village A may have invented shoes already by continuing trade there could still be non-technological benefits to still having Village B around.
What if Village A did wait out Village B (The Amazon basin is indianless)then take over (bring in the settlers). What stance would the Prime Directive take if the pass between were closed by a rockslide (time and distance) and the cultures diverged (Europeans and South Africans)?
The Prime Directive would also lock people within their own little communities.
It would be an ethical nightmare for Farmer Bob who married Mary the milkmaid from a village over the hill with no plows when he could:
a) not bring her to live with him as she would be exposed to “the plow” or
b) not plow his field in her village, even though he knew how. 
It would simply be easier to marry Josie the cook from next door and eat well.
This is to say nothing of the taboos assiciated with explorers and merchants (shades of TOS)
To summarise, Villages, Valleys, States and Nations aside, the only way to get to a unified earth under the Prime Directive would be a drawn out parasitic game of cultural last man standing.
The Prime Directive is an impossibly flawed concept born from a notion of a politically correct Utopia which offers nothing but racial stagnation.
A final thought ... how do you think the Prime Directive would stand on idea theft (say Gunpowder)? | Asgardsfall wrote: |
| First, can anyone please tell me when in Star Trek the term “Prime Directive” was first used, and then perhaps when it was first explained? |
As i've tried to explain to other posters here, this is not a Star Trek discussion thread. We used Star Trek as a convenient way to introduce the problem, because it is something that a lot of people are familiar with. Discussions about what motivated the Starfleet to adopt the Prime Directive (answer: because it made a good plot device) or whether Kirk was better at following the Prime Directive than Picard (answer: who cares?), or even at what point they officially adopted it into the show's bible (answer: depends on exactly what you mean by "Prime Directive", because it varied) - those belong here, not in this topic.
| Asgardsfall wrote: |
| The only reason the Prime Directive gets any momentum is because Star Trek considered the Prime Directive on a planetary scale, much of the aforementioned discussion appears on a National Scale which sort of works as well. but where should we draw boundaries? |
Well, what you're really saying is: "What defines the boundaries of a culture?" Star Trek had it easy in that they had only to deal with aliens... clearly aliens are foreign cultures. In reality, the line is blurrier, especially if you want to consider the prime directive as a directive to be applied even today... we don't have extraterrestrials to worry about, so exactly what makes up a foreign culture is a gray area.
But that's a question for another topic, because it would just make this one way too complex. For this topic, just pretend it's not an issue - pretend that there's no question that the other culture is an "other" culture, and just worry about the ethics of non-interference.
| Asgardsfall wrote: |
Simplistically, the culture of Village A may not be the same as Village B, so if each village followed the Prime Directive there could be no voluntary exchange of beneficial knowledge. The value of the knowledge cannot be determined fairly until the deed of exchange is complete. Allowing one party to assess, defeats the purpose.
Like for like is an interesting concept, and all issues of contamination aside, hypothetically, what if Village A invented the plow, and Village B was starving because its crops failed due to the condition of its fields, (a little contrived I know). |
That's true when it comes to exchanging technologies, but not when it comes to exchanging the fruits of technologies.
Like with your two villages, where one has the plow and the other does not - both villages can still grow crops, just one can grow more faster. If Village A were to sell crops to Village B cheaply, it would disrupt Village B by ruining their natural economy. But if Village A were to sell crops to Village B at the price they go for in Village B, the economy will be unaffected. You don't need a third party to determine the value of the trade in that case, it is determined by its value in the receiving culture. In that situation, there is no reason for Village B to starve... provided it can afford to pay Village A for the food.
| Asgardsfall wrote: |
| One could argue that Village B would die and then Village A could expand. Patiently waiting on the extinction of a culture so you can snatch their land seems a little unethical to me. |
i'm not clear on a lot of things here.
First, why do you assume that just because Village A won't help Village B, that that must mean they want something from Village B dying? If Village B is starving, Village A is under no obligation to help them. They may choose to do so out of kindness, but they are not obligated to. If they choose not to... why does that mean they must want their land?
Second, if Village B is going to starve... why should Village A help? Seriously. Suppose aliens had intervened to stop the turmoil in the years leading up to the world wars. Yes, they would have saved millions and millions, but then we never would have gone on to develop the United Nations, the international court, and the various global cooperative efforts for things like human rights. Would the aliens have been doing us a favour? i don't think so. So would Village A be doing Village B a favour by intervening when they are starving? Probably not - those that survive could learn more about conserving and stockpiling food in preparation for bad weather again... it might even provoke them to invent the plow by showing them that their current technologies are inadequate.
Third, suppose Village B was really going to completely die out... why should anyone step in to stop that? The thing that makes them unique... their culture... is clearly inferior. They're dying out, after all. Why is Village A obligated to save them just because they can?
| Asgardsfall wrote: |
The Prime Directive would also lock people within their own little communities.
It would be an ethical nightmare for Farmer Bob who married Mary the milkmaid from a village over the hill with no plows when he could:
a) not bring her to live with him as she would be exposed to “the plow” or
b) not plow his field in her village, even though he knew how.
It would simply be easier to marry Josie the cook from next door and eat well. |
Actually, he could bring Mary to his village... he just couldn't let her go back if there was a risk of her divulging the information about plows.
| Asgardsfall wrote: |
| To summarise, Villages, Valleys, States and Nations aside, the only way to get to a unified earth under the Prime Directive would be a drawn out parasitic game of cultural last man standing. |
That's a rather bleak view. It assumes that cultural evolution is a zero-sum game. Why can't it be that after some period of time, the various cultures - all having evolved separately and uniquely to the point where they are all roughly equivalent - decide to create a global body that represents them all equally? Why can't they, having evolved separately, decide that they have all reached a similar level of development, and thus there is no more need for prime directive concerns between them?
| Asgardsfall wrote: |
| A final thought ... how do you think the Prime Directive would stand on idea theft (say Gunpowder)? |
What do you mean? The prime directive governs the way a civilization with superior technology is to interact in good faith with a civilization without that technology. It does not have anything to do with either civilization stealing technology from the other. | Indi wrote: |
| this is not a Star Trek discussion thread ... whether Kirk was better at following the Prime Directive than Picard (answer: who cares?) |
I realise that and it is not why I asked the question. I was more interested in discovering the reasoning used by the writers, who developed the concept and when.
Is the Prime Directive as we know it the 90's cultural bastardisation of an unlikely future vision created by the minds of 70's science fiction authors or was it really one of the founding concepts of Gene Roddenberry despite it flying in the face of popular racial prejudices of the time.
I am not here to debate the pros and cons of events within a fictional universe.
| Indi wrote: |
| For this topic, just pretend it's not an issue - pretend that there's no question that the other culture is an "other" culture, and just worry about the ethics of non-interference. |
OK, but I believe that size and relative location is a large factor in the how successful an attempt at adopting the Prime Directive would be. It is after all, harder to ignore your neighbor when you live on opposite sides of the river rather than on opposite sides of the mountain.
| Indi wrote: |
| That's true when it comes to exchanging technologies, but not when it comes to exchanging the fruits of technologies. |
OK I need to think of a better example .. but there is a point in there somewhere .. although I note there is also a problem with your assertion.
What if the supply of the fruits of technologies is detrimental to or changes the purchasing cultures traditional values? Wouldn't this be considered a violation of the Prime Directive? I cite the example of the Japanese, and their youth's adoption of the western fast food culture and the corresponding loss of traditional tastes.
Say Culture A & B spend 90% of their time working the fields to get enough food to survive and that this level of hard work is part of their cultural norm (harvest gods, deities of hard labour).
Suddenly Culture A invents the plow and can now farm more efficiently. Assuming they stick to their cultural beliefs/habits (and this may not in fact happen) they will have an abundance of food.
Now lets say Culture A needs metal to mass produce their plows and Culture B has a metal mine, just they never had time or inclination to use it. No exchanging technology or ideas here just resources.
Can Culture A trade the fruits of technology for metal and not violate the Prime Directive?
I don't think so.
By supplying food for metal, Culture B could turn from a farming culture to a mining culture. To make things worse, what if it only took 20% of the time required to mine the metal that would through trade, provide the traditional level of crop. Culture B would no longer need to work as hard, their hard working culture could transform into one of decadence.
| Indi wrote: |
| why do you assume that just because Village A won't help Village B, that that must mean they want something from Village B dying? |
To answer ... they don't necessarily. My analogies are a bit rusty, I will be more general. Under the Prime Directive, if there is an event afoot which would result in the extinction of Culture B, unless you adopt the extension clause, which is essentially a cop out, Culture A cannot interfere and B must die. You say this yourself.
| Indi wrote: |
| Now consider the case of a plague in an isolated Amazon tribe. They do not have the technology to produce the cure, and we cannot give it to them without exposing ourselves and/or influencing their development. Therefore, we should not give them the cure. If they die, they die. |
| Indi wrote: |
| if Village B is going to starve... why should Village A help? |
| Indi wrote: |
| Why is Village A obligated to save them just because they can? |
Culture A is not obligated to help at all. What I am saying is that there can be circumstances where it is beneficial for Culture A to have Culture B around, perhaps there is a symbiotic relationship. A situation where physical traits, cultural preferences or the skills that result, form the point of difference, not technological or intellectual superiority.
A loss of Culture B caused by strict adherence to the Prime Directive would also mean the end of Culture A. Perhaps an exception to the Prime Directive may be made, but are these exceptions not made primarily in self interest, perhaps under the guise of the “greater good”.
With respect to the acquisition of land, this was more meant in terms of the expansion of the Culture. The more bodies within a culture, the more new ideas that are likely to arise from it.
Where resource is finite and fully consumed (say land) the gain of one must necessarily be the loss of another.
| Indi wrote: |
| Actually, he could bring Mary to his village... he just couldn't let her go back if there was a risk of her divulging the information about plows. |
If you bring one, why not bring them all? What if Bobs brother needs a wife, and his cousin. How do you draw the line?
Lets tie the above few paragraphs together in a fairly ludicrous example. What if Mars were populated by a technologically superior human culture with interplanetary travel, and Venus were populated by a similarly populated but more primative human culture say circa 18th Century.
A virus on Mars wipes out all women and a virus on Venus wipes out all men.
Should both cultures die unnecessarily?
| Indi wrote: |
| Asgardsfall wrote: | | A final thought ... how do you think the Prime Directive would stand on idea theft (say Gunpowder)? |
What do you mean? The prime directive governs the way a civilization with superior technology is to interact in good faith with a civilization without that technology. It does not have anything to do with either civilization stealing technology from the other. |
I was struggling to find some way through the stagnation imposed by the Prime Directive, but you are right. Assuming that we are not taking the "holier than thou" approach where technological superiority = moral superiority and that we assume all Cultures follow the Prime Directive it follows then that explorers when meeting a superior culture will close their eyes and not attempt to remember or comprehend the new things they see, or if they do, will never relay the those parts of thier journey.
Idea theft would not be an issue.
This may in fact not be such a good thing.
I used gunpower as an example as we know this was invented by (say) the Chinese and “discovered” by European explorers.
Under the Prime Directive the Chinese would have never given the secret of gunpowder away and yet without this invention the catalyst for those great changes you cite would not have been possible.
| Indi wrote: |
| Suppose aliens had intervened to stop the turmoil in the years leading up to the world wars. Yes, they would have saved millions and millions, but then we never would have gone on to develop the United Nations, the international court, and the various global cooperative efforts for things like human rights. Would the aliens have been doing us a favour? I don't think so. |
Yes its true the Europeans may have eventually discovered gunpower but how long would it have taken. The Chinese had it in the 9th Century, the Arabs in the 10th each after several hundred years of experimentation. It then took the Europeans a further 200 years to even acquired that knowledge (see Wikipedia - “History of Gunpowder”). Consider how much longer these great cultural developments could have taken to arise.
On this thought .... does the Prime Directive prevent war, or are you only allowed to wage war on an opponent of equal technology level? Perhaps its “just not cricket” to wage war on an inferior culture but what of striking a stronger foe (clearly against the PD rules) in hope of seeing what they've got? War and the PD seem at odds
