This topic was attempted before, but got bogged down by Trekkie fanaticism. The question has nothing to do with Star Trek, but Star Trek provides a convenient way of framing it that most people are familiar with (most science fiction works well for framing difficult questions - it just so happens that this question is one of the trademarks of Star Trek). So to prevent that from happening again, and to focus solely on the philosophical questions, i'm going to say that any discussion of Star Trek is forbidden in this thread. Yes, forbidden. Star Trek will be used to introduce the concept, then it will be forgotten. No talking about Star Trek. If you want to talk about Star Trek, go here.
Most people know about Star Trek well enough to have heard about its (in)famous "Prime Directive", also known as "General Order #1". It gets referred to directly or indirectly in almost all science fiction that involves groups of vastly different technological capabilities interacting, sometimes being specifically named - like the UP3 (Underdeveloped Planet Preservation Pact) in Star Ocean - and sometimes just alluded to by idea - such as in Stargate SG-1, where virtually all technologically superior groups decline to share advanced technology with Earth, and some even refuse to assist when Earth is in need.
It is supposedly so important to the human Federation in Star Trek that Starfleet officers are expected to die rather than violate it - it is "General Order #1", after all. It is proudly touted both in the series and in general as a highly enlightened philosophy.
Is it? Let's see what happens when we examine it in detail.
The specifics of the Prime Directive are never explicitly stated, but we can suss out a general statement of its intent:
Civilizations with lesser technology should not be interfered with by civilizations with greater technology - they should be allowed to develop at their own pace, and should not even be made aware of the existence of superior technology.
What do you think? Is this an enlightened philosophy? Are there any problems with it?
If you were going to explore the world (or the universe), would you adopt this principle for situations where you came into contact with tribes (or alien cultures) that are technologically backward compared to you? Would you prevent them from becoming aware of your technological capabilities (or, if possible, would you even hide your existence)? Well, you could help civilizations in the short term, but in the long term it would make them technologically and developmentally stunted, and make them dependent on alien technology.
Perhaps it would be good to nudge them in the right direction, but the more you change them, the more they will end up just a copy of you. Just think what would have happened if alien technology was available on Earth? Why should we invent firearms when we have alien ray guns? Why should we invent planes when we have flying saucers? It would stunt human innovation.
Wel, there are more advantages to not helping other less developed cultures.
1. If you are stronger than an other civilization the more chance you have of defeating it. (If there comes a war)
2. Lets say in the 1700's Enterprise crashed on earth. The nation or group of people that control this ship would consecuently rule over the whole of earth. And thus this ship would benefit a small group of people at the cost of the rest of the population. It's better to let people develop at their own pace. And keeping some form of balance.
3. If a population of a planet suddenly get a whole new tegnology they might blow themselves up. Because they don't know how to use it.
4. Look above at ocalhoun's post
Last edited by Klaw 2 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 10:25 pm; edited 2 times in total
| Indi wrote: |
Civilizations with lesser technology should not be interfered with by civilizations with greater technology - they should be allowed to develop at their own pace, and should not even be made aware of the existence of superior technology.
What do you think? Is this an enlightened philosophy? Are there any problems with it?
If you were going to explore the world (or the universe), would you adopt this principle for situations where you came into contact with tribes (or alien cultures) that are technologically backward compared to you? Would you prevent them from becoming aware of your technological capabilities (or, if possible, would you even hide your existence)? |
I think it is not correct to suppress information this is not my idea of enlightened philosophy
actually in the example you gave about allein...
I think that there can be a scenario like this- a backward civilization on not being given the latest by a forward civilization could also go in an entirely new direction and end up forward (er). I would not prevent them from becoming aware of out tech one of the reasons being that they could see something in the very same tech which we could not see and actually we may also gain by giving then the tech, although the motive of gain is not the reason I say that I would give the tech to the backward but actually the philosophy of free exchange ( again here in this case there may not be an exchange) of ideas and etc., is what I like | ocalhoun wrote: |
Well, you could help civilizations in the short term, but in the long term it would make them technologically and developmentally stunted, and make them dependent on alien technology.
Perhaps it would be good to nudge them in the right direction, but the more you change them, the more they will end up just a copy of you. Just think what would have happened if alien technology was available on Earth? Why should we invent firearms when we have alien ray guns? Why should we invent planes when we have flying saucers? It would stunt human innovation. |
Hm, i'm not sure i buy this idea of "stunting". There are two reasons that make me question it.
First: observation
When i look back on history, every instance of a meeting between a technologically advanced civilization and a technologically backward one that i can think of has ended in one of two ways. First, the one most people think of: the backward civilization is conquered. That's what happened most often, but then, most of history was pretty barbaric times. We would expect, assuming we're a little more enlightened, that we won't go around crushing every civilization we come across because we think they're "savages". That leaves the second option: the backward civilization - far from becoming developmentally stunted - has an enormous technological and cultural boom.
For examples, i first look at what happened when Europe between 1200 and 1400. At the time, Europe was a culturally stagnant (even somewhat regressed) civilization, having fallen from the cultural peaks of the Roman Empire down into what we now call the Dark Ages. Meanwhile, Asia was booming. China had culture and technology that put Europe to shame - paper, gunpowder, etc. - and the Arabic world was just at the tail end of its golden age (so far), a cultural superpower that was also technologically advanced, having laid down the foundations of what would become science. By virtue of the Crusades bringing European culture into close contact with Arabic culture, and pioneers like Marco Polo bringing Oriental culture back, Europe was faced with the realization that it was a backwards civilization by comparison. What did that lead to? It lead to the end of the Dark Ages, and the dawn of the Renaissance - and we all know where that led: the Enlightenment, and so on, and eventually modern Western civilization as we know it. Europe certainly didn't seem to suffer by their exposure to the superior Asian and Arabic cultures.
For a more limited and clearer example, i also look at what happened when Japan was visited by Commodore Perry's fleet, after centuries of virtual isolation. This contact scared the hell out of the Japanese, and led to the Meiji restoration, and eventually to Japan becoming first a military superpower (under a military dictatorship), then an economic superpower, and - currently - a cultural superpower.
In both cases, i don't see stunting - i see a magnificent invigoration, an incredible cultural boom that revitalized the civilization.
Are there any historical cases of a culture becoming "stunted" by exposure to a more advanced culture? As i said, all i can think of are either cases of conquering, or benefit - no stunting. Am i wrong?
Second: philosophical reasoning
What is the alternative to this "stunting"? It seems to me that the alternative is a culture struggling to pull itself up by the bootstraps... when there is no need to. If you don't tell a culture that they are backward, and show them what they need to do to advance (technologically and culturally), you may leave them "vital" and not "stunted"... but you also leave them ignorantly struggling to solve non-problems. They'll spend decades or even centuries trying to hammer out a universal statement of fundamental rights... all the while with people suffering from the lack of it... when they could have it any time you feel the whim to give it to them. How would you explain to the generations that suffer in the meantime that you were just leaving them to figure it out for themselves to prevent their culture from being "stunted"?
Furthermore, let's say they do manage to figure things out on their own. What has that earned them - by doing it on their own - that they would not also have if you had given them the answers? The only difference i see is that they might have the pride and satisfaction of being able to say "we did it ourselves". Is that how they would feel? Wouldn't they also feel that they've been treated like ignorant children by us? How would you feel if you struggle to solve a serious and critical problem, only to find out that your neighbour knew of your struggle and could have given you the answer any time, only they didn't because they were testing you to see how you did it?
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
| 1. If you are stronger than an other civilization the more chance you have of defeating it. (If there comes a war) |
So you think we should do our best to keep other civilizations a step behind us, to maintain our technological superiority? Do you really think that is the best way to maintain relationships? Because if and when it ever comes to pass that they find just one little technological innovation that gives them enough edge to take over, what do you think they will do? Thank you for keeping them ignorant for all that time and do noting... or take the opportunity to turn the tables?
Keeping someone ignorant is a form of oppression. And the oppressed have a way of not being particularly grateful for being oppressed. And given the chance to seize power, i can't see why they wouldn't. And no matter how careful you are, sooner or later, somehow, a chance will come up.
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
| 2. Lets say in the 1700's Enterprise crashed on earth. The nation or group of people that control this ship would consecuently rule over the whole of earth. And thus this ship would benefit a small group of people at the cost of the rest of the population. It's better to let people develop at their own pace. And keeping some form of balance. |
That is a straw man argument. No one controls the decision on whether or not to share technology there - it is a freak accident. What are you going to do to prevent that situation, tell the ship not to crash? Let's see how effective that is.
A more reasonable - and relevant - situation would be a case where they stumble on a bunch of nations at a 1700s technological level. Giving just one of them a technological advantage would be pointless - even absurd - not to mention philosophically reprehensible. Obviously the only two logical choices are to give no one a technological advantage, or to give them all a technological advantage. Giving just one or two of the factions such an advantage - especially when you know they're just going to use it to wipe out their enemies - is idiotic... and evil. You would be responsible for every atrocity they commit.
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
| 3. If a population of a planet suddenly get a whole new tegnology they might blow themselves up. Because they don't know how to use it. |
Then don't give them a technology they are not prepared to use? i would have thought that was obvious.
Clearly if we stumbled across a Bronze Age tribe, we're not going to hand them a nuclear reactor. We're going to show them a nuclear reactor, then educate them in what it is and all of its dangers. During the course of that education, they would move from being a Bronze Age tribe to a Nuclear Age tribe - quickly and artificially, but what difference does that make? By the time they can actually build a reactor, they would be more or less at the same level we were at when we first built one. If we were mature enough to do it then, why not them?OK...I'll attempt a defense of the Prime Directive. I'll actually try a few different arguments, but I'll consider each separately to keep the length of postings to a readable minimum.
1st defence - Infection.
Biological Infection
Without a thorough knowledge of the biology of the civilisation under consideration there is a potential for biological infection. There are many examples in history of this occuring on Earth - British and French sailors infecting and wiping out civilisations such as the Nova Scotia Indians, and Pacific Island cultures.
Ecological Infection
Without a sound knowledge of the ecology of a planet there would be a potential for infection or interference with the ecology that could be devastating. We could hypothesise a charitable star-ship captain providing anti-biotics to some civilisation to help with a disease and the effect being to kill some necessary bacteria which causes an ecological disaster...
Cultural Infection
It is possible that social/cultural damage could be caused that would have serious detrimental effects. On Earth we have the introduction of Christianity into African tribal culture, for example (yes, I know that is controversial, but what the heck). We could imagine the introduction of our current Capitalist system, say, into a cultural framework which was based on an entirely different ethos (say an enlightened form of communism for argument) where it could have disasterous effects....
Last edited by Bikerman on Mon Mar 31, 2008 7:21 am; edited 2 times in total
| Bikerman wrote: |
OK...I'll attempt a defense of the Prime Directive. I'll actually try a few different arguments, but I'll consider each separately to keep the length of postings to a readable minimum.
1st defence - Infection.
Biological Infection
Without a thorough knowledge of the biology of the civilisation under consideration there is a potential for biological infection. There are many examples in history of this occuring on Earth - British and French sailors infecting and wiping out civilisations such as the Nova Scotia Indians, and Pacific Island cultures.
Ecological Infection
Without a sound knowledge of the ecology of a planet there would be a potential for infection or interference with the ecology that could be devastating. We could hypothesise a charitable star-ship captain providing anti-biotics to some civilisation to help with a disease and the effect being to kill some necessary bacteria which caused an ecological disaster...
Cultural Infection
It is possible that social/cultural damage could be caused that would have serious detrimental effects. On Earth we have the introduction of Christianity into Africa and other countries, for example. We could imagine the introduction of our current Capitalist system, say, into a cultural framework which was based on an entirely different ethos (say an enlightened form of communism for argument) where it could have disasterous effects.... |
You defense is actually good in terms of biology and ecobiology but they can be overcome if there is a true desire to help
Then I think one should take up controlled and well informed release of tech to the tech poor community
say for example in the case of biological infection the capt of the starship should weigh the alternatives and come up with a gift that would out weigh the harm it may cause
there is also a question of time frame here " thorough knowledge of the biology of the civilization under consideration" would take time and the capt can undertake studies on pilot basis or fast rack basis to at least obtain considerable knowledge of the civilization in question
If the objective of the capt is to help the civilization in question and if one of the choices based on his reasoning is that he can do that (help the civilization in question) by not giving the tech then he take the decision not to give the new tech but then follow that up with a time table for review of the decision in future time
Hence in spatial and temporal terms the "Biological/ecological Infection" can be overcome
I would like to make a note of what the British did in India in the context of this thread
They actually slow released their tech know how based on what they considered would be to their advantage like for example the rail system, the modern education system (a product of which I am and I am definitely indebted to the British if I like it or not!)
but they knew very well that this would not be in the long run only their gain but also a mutual gain
and now look at what India is
But the British also exercised choice in whom to give the tech and whom not give probably with the objective of " divide and rule" but in the end even that it not sustain
On the other hand the Aussies took up a different approach with the aborigines which was morally questionable Stolen generation etc.,) look at what they are facing now
I would want more clarity in what you are implying with the example of spread of Christianity in Africa in the Cultural Infection subheading and how is it relevant in this context
Because if we are talking about tech for better living then how does Christianity fit in here
Should the posts (arguments and counter arguments on Prime Directive) confine it self to technology only or also should we include religion, morals and values too
and again here the second example in the cultural subhead "Capitalist system" is again not a tech as such but as I understand it is a system to handle capital so now should we include that too as what the starship capt has to offer to the civilization in question. If so then the issue would become more complicated
Here I would like to make a small analogy
I presume some might find it a little bit out of context and even funny
but anyway here is it
there are two containers A&B connected with a pipe
A has more conc of a substance and B has less conc of the same substance
in addition A has a substance that is not present in B
in due course there will be equilibrium
and oddly I feel that if the starship capt likes it or not if there is a connection (the pipe) there will be eventual transfer and equilibrium will be attainedHm, let say things are like in the series - no one will contact us (officially) until we can travel in space fast!!! Or is it on a mental level???? Do we have to evolve to a understanding phase at first? Do we have to take care of our own spicies first?????
Who wants to land here when we mostly shoot each other?
Who wants to land here when health treatment (like in the USA) is only for rich people?
Who wants to land here when there are too poor people?
we must care for each other first!
UFOs have been here (probably), they are here now (probably) - they won't officially show themselfes until we care! (unless they are dumb also! but the it will we war instead)
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
| I would like to make a note of what the British did in India in the context of this thread |
Well, you might also wish to consider the tens of millions of Indians who died in famines during British rule as a direct result of British mercantile reform, taxation and crop exports.
| Quote: |
| I would want more clarity in what you are implying with the example of spread of Christianity in Africa in the Cultural Infection subheading and how is it relevant in this context |
Technology does not exist in a vacuum. Technology transfer involves training the natives to install, use, maintain and manufacture that technology. This involves contact, on a prolonged basis, with people from the donor civilisation. During such contact it is inevitable that social/cultural issues will arise. It would not necessarily be an intentional 'infection' but the potential for it happening is certainly there.
Your analogy highlights this possibility - imagine that culture - politics/economics/religion is the additional substance in A. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Technology does not exist in a vacuum. Technology transfer involves training the natives to install, use, maintain and manufacture that technology. This involves contact, on a prolonged basis, with people from the donor civilization. During such contact it is inevitable that social/cultural issues will arise. It would not necessarily be an intentional 'infection' but the potential for it happening is certainly there. |
Yes that is true (the capt has got a lot of things to think about if wants to exclude socio cultural infusion during tech transfer) again coming to British in India in the context of the above quoted statement
the following is an observation I have made during my life time of travel and living in all corners of India
In the North of India English is not a preferred language of communication but English style of living is much preferred in terms of clothing eating habits etc.,
In the South of India English is spoken well with a sense of pride but English living style is not preferred for example I still eat off Banana leaves with my hands (not spoon and fork) and sleep on the floor inspite of a king size cot present in the bedroom. So it seems that what infuses in also depends on the various other factors.
this is just an observation it may not be in the context of the thread hopefully this does not derail the thread!
Of course on a lighter vein the English have left a game called cricket which has been eating my brain ever since I was a small school boy, not to say the amount of productive time I lost (and will loose) watching the game with rapt attention no matter where it is played or who plays it. | yagnyavalkya wrote: |
| Of course on a lighter vein the English have left a game called cricket which has been eating my brain ever since I was a small school boy, not to say the amount of productive time I lost (and will loose) watching the game with rapt attention no matter where it is played or who plays it. |
Well, that is a passion we share 
| Bikerman wrote: |
OK...I'll attempt a defense of the Prime Directive. I'll actually try a few different arguments, but I'll consider each separately to keep the length of postings to a readable minimum.
1st defence - Infection.
Biological Infection
Without a thorough knowledge of the biology of the civilisation under consideration there is a potential for biological infection. There are many examples in history of this occuring on Earth - British and French sailors infecting and wiping out civilisations such as the Nova Scotia Indians, and Pacific Island cultures. |
Interesting!
But i don't see it as an argument against a "prime directive" per se so much as it is an argument against contact... period.
First, consider that the same problem arises not only for the lesser advanced civilization, but also for the more advanced civilization. It might not have been the Nova Scotia indigenous peoples that died off from the contact... it might have been the French! They might have carried something back to France, and created an epic plague.
In fact, advancement and culture don't factor at all! Imagine that two tribes of people lived on opposite banks of a very wide, very fast-flowing river for thousands of years. They can see each other, and if they shout really loudly they can even communicate - but smoke signals and flag-waving is easier - but they can't cross the river. They co-evolve for thousands of years, sharing culture and technology (via communication). Then one day, a brave person manages to finally cross the river, makes it to the opposite tribe, shakes hands, and *snap*... extinction for that one tribe.
Second, the problem does not arise if there is no physical contact. Suppose that instead of sending down a greeting party, the space travellers beam down a holographic projection - no matter is transmitted, so there can be no biological infection, but the holographic projection could tell the indigenous peoples just about anything about advanced technology and culture. The "prime directive" applies here, but biological infection is not an issue.
| Bikerman wrote: |
Ecological Infection
Without a sound knowledge of the ecology of a planet there would be a potential for infection or interference with the ecology that could be devastating. We could hypothesise a charitable star-ship captain providing anti-biotics to some civilisation to help with a disease and the effect being to kill some necessary bacteria which causes an ecological disaster... |
True, but that also is not an argument against sharing of technology so much as it is an appeal to be cautious. On another planet, the same transaction might occur with the result of killing off some decidedly unnecessary bacteria, resulting in an ecological resurgence.
Certainly there is need to be cautious about giving a civilization technology (and a need to be cautious when applying technology given by another civilization). As i mentioned with the nuclear reactors, nothing about this "prime directive" advocates dumping a pile of advanced technology on a people and then sitting back and watching the fireworks. It makes perfect sense to decline to give weapons technology to a warlike people. What i don't see is what sense it makes to decline to give medical technology - which would be just as disruptive, and possibly even more so. And i really don't see the sense in declining to share art and culture, or even philosophy, with them.
The starship captain that meets an indigenous people may inform them of better antibiotics, but may tell them that work is needed to assess the ecological impact of using it before distributing it. He or she may even invite the indigenous people's assistance in making that study! "This 'penicillin' may save thousands of lives, but we need to make sure introducing it won't do more harm. Send up your best scientists, and we'll do a study together to assess its impact." Problem solved... but not the "prime directive" question.
| Bikerman wrote: |
Cultural Infection
It is possible that social/cultural damage could be caused that would have serious detrimental effects. On Earth we have the introduction of Christianity into African tribal culture, for example (yes, I know that is controversial, but what the heck). We could imagine the introduction of our current Capitalist system, say, into a cultural framework which was based on an entirely different ethos (say an enlightened form of communism for argument) where it could have disasterous effects.... |
Ah, now this is interesting - and yes, sure to be controversial.
Here's where i see problems: first point, your two examples are not really representative of giving technology to a people so much as they are representative of giving bad technology - flawed technology, at the least, poison at the worst - to a people. Christianity did nothing for Africa except make the situation there worse (there is a quote i love that goes something like this: "When the missionaries came, we had all the land and they had all the Bibles. They taught us to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had all the land and we had all the Bibles."). It didn't cure diseases. It didn't end famines. It didn't help build more stable governments. It did a sum total of nothing. (Nor was it really intended to. The missionaries never intended to make life on Earth better for the African people, they intended to "save their souls".)
The capitalism scenario is hypothetical, but similar, and in order for it to make sense hypothetically as an argument against the "prime directive", it has to be that things were better with the system before, and capitalism ruined it. Unlike the case of Christianity, this is not about introducing a totally useless "technology" into a vacuum (more or less), it is about giving a technology that is inferior to their existing technology. (Technically, you could argue that Christianity simply supplanted existing folk religions, but i don't know any rational way to argue which of the two are "superior" technology. Thus, i pretend that there was a vacuum that Christianity filled, because it allows me to give an example of an extant technology taking root to contrast with an example of replacing an existing technology.)
So there are your examples: giving a useless technology that was unneeded, and giving a technology that was inferior to what they already had. In neither case would we have been helping, either figuratively or literally. Assuming a humanitarian captain for this starship, why would he beam down Bibles if they didn't need them? Just for the hell of it? That's another example of beaming down technology and watching the fireworks. Same goes for capitalism. If their system is working well, why teach them about alternatives? Leave them be, unless they need help.
Which brings me to point two. In the initial stages of contact, providing technology would have to be on a need basis. The lesser culture would not yet know what was available, or of the cost/benefit ratios of many of these technologies, so they would not know what they would like to take and incorporate... and what they would rather take a pass on. And it would be irresponsible for the advanced culture to simply dump advanced technology on them willy-nilly (and watch the fireworks, etc.). Rather, they give them what they need immediately, and then they should spend time educating the lesser culture about other possibilities, and other options, and let them decide what they would like to incorporate.
And if the lesser culture, once educated, chooses ditch their working communist structure in favour of a capitalist one... let them have it. What right do we have to say no? If they choose to ask for Bibles and missionaries... well, then let them have them, for better or worse. | Indi wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | | 1. If you are stronger than an other civilization the more chance you have of defeating it. (If there comes a war) |
So you think we should do our best to keep other civilizations a step behind us, to maintain our technological superiority? Do you really think that is the best way to maintain relationships? Because if and when it ever comes to pass that they find just one little technological innovation that gives them enough edge to take over, what do you think they will do? Thank you for keeping them ignorant for all that time and do noting... or take the opportunity to turn the tables?
Keeping someone ignorant is a form of oppression. And the oppressed have a way of not being particularly grateful for being oppressed. And given the chance to seize power, i can't see why they wouldn't. And no matter how careful you are, sooner or later, somehow, a chance will come up. |
Lets say you land on an planet an those inhabitants don't like you very much. They don't start a war because that is just stupid, they will lose. But if you get them at the same technological level as you they might think hey let's kick some alien a$$. And attack you. This has happened before that here on earth nations helping other nations/group's of people where then attacked by those who they helped (with own technology).
| Indi wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | | 2. Lets say in the 1700's Enterprise crashed on earth. The nation or group of people that control this ship would consecuently rule over the whole of earth. And thus this ship would benefit a small group of people at the cost of the rest of the population. It's better to let people develop at their own pace. And keeping some form of balance. |
That is a straw man argument. No one controls the decision on whether or not to share technology there - it is a freak accident. What are you going to do to prevent that situation, tell the ship not to crash? Let's see how effective that is.
A more reasonable - and relevant - situation would be a case where they stumble on a bunch of nations at a 1700s technological level. Giving just one of them a technological advantage would be pointless - even absurd - not to mention philosophically reprehensible. Obviously the only two logical choices are to give no one a technological advantage, or to give them all a technological advantage. Giving just one or two of the factions such an advantage - especially when you know they're just going to use it to wipe out their enemies - is idiotic... and evil. You would be responsible for every atrocity they commit. |
Of course but, lets say its WOII and aliens land on earth gving the allied and the AXIS powers better technology will just give both sides better ways to blow each other up. And there will be more deaths. Giving one side an advantage over the other isn't fair too so you houldn't then give tech.
| Indi wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | | 3. If a population of a planet suddenly get a whole new tegnology they might blow themselves up. Because they don't know how to use it. |
Then don't give them a technology they are not prepared to use? i would have thought that was obvious.
Clearly if we stumbled across a Bronze Age tribe, we're not going to hand them a nuclear reactor. We're going to show them a nuclear reactor, then educate them in what it is and all of its dangers. During the course of that education, they would move from being a Bronze Age tribe to a Nuclear Age tribe - quickly and artificially, but what difference does that make? By the time they can actually build a reactor, they would be more or less at the same level we were at when we first built one. If we were mature enough to do it then, why not them? |
Of course but when people understand how to use something doesn't mean they don't blow themselves up. Example there's some crazy bronze age priest and says it's evil. And overloads it and POOF. They might understand how to operate it but not how to use it. Repair it some things can't be learned from someone else, you have to learn it yourself. So maybe it's better to develop something yourself and learn from that.
Last edited by Klaw 2 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 9:02 pm; edited 1 time in total | Indi wrote: |
| In fact, advancement and culture don't factor at all! Imagine that two tribes of people lived on opposite banks of a very wide, very fast-flowing river for thousands of years. They can see each other, and if they shout really loudly they can even communicate - but smoke signals and flag-waving is easier - but they can't cross the river. They co-evolve for thousands of years, sharing culture and technology (via communication). Then one day, a brave person manages to finally cross the river, makes it to the opposite tribe, shakes hands, and *snap*... extinction for that one tribe. |
What if the disease is water borne, air borne ?
with the river fast I guess the extinction was on the cards much early | Klaw 2 wrote: |
| Lets say you land on an planet an those inhabitants don't like you very much. They don't start a war because that is just stupid, they will lose. But if you get them at the same technological level as you they might think hey let's kick some alien a$$. And attack you. This has happened before that here on earth nations helping other nations/group's of people where then attacked by those who they helped (with own technology). |
Why on Earth would you feel obligated to help out a bunch of people when you know they will only take advantage of that help to harm others (including yourself)?
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
| Of course but, lets say its WOII and aliens land on earth gving the allied and the AXIS powers better technology will just give both sides better ways to blow each other up. And there will be more deaths. Giving one side an advantage over the other isn't fair too so you houldn't then give tech. |
Same question as above.
As i said in my reply, under normal circumstances you have two logical options: give both sides the same technology, or give neither side the technology. If they're in the middle of a war, and you know they're just going to use the technology you give them to kill each other, then you're down to only one logical option. Guess which it is.
The "prime directive" says you must not give technology to a less advanced culture. But if we say the "prime directive" is wrong, that doesn't mean we automatically must give technology. We can still use our brains, you know, and decide whether it's a good idea to give a certain technology or whether it's not. We don't have to give anyone anything (normally), and in fact if we know harm will come from giving, then we should not (which i would have thought was obvious).
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
| Of course but when people understand how to use something doesn't mean they don't blow themselves up. Example there's some crazy bronze age priest and says it's evil. And overloads it and POOF. They might understand how to operate it but not how to use it. Repair it some things can't be learned from someone else, you have to learn it yourself. So maybe it's better to develop something yourself and learn from that. |
If they understand the hazards of the technology, and still choose to blow themselves up, who are you to say they can't? All we'd have to do is make sure they don't take any innocents with them, and then go ahead and let them blow themselves into whatever afterlife they believe in.
But if they don't understand the hazards, then don't give it to them. Simple as that.
We have no right to dictate to other cultures how to use any technology - whether it's technology they got from us or technology they figured out themselves - provided they're not threatening anyone else's rights (including our own). As long as we make sure that we have properly educated them about the technology and its associated risks, and as long as they're not threatening anyone but themselves, let 'em do as they wish.@ indi the post above.
I was giving arguments why not to give technology to less developed alien civilizations. So what am I saying wrong.
As for the last would you give a knife to someone who wants to commit suicide. I wouldn't, same for a group of people who want to collectably commit suicide.
| Bikerman wrote: |
Biological Infection
Without a thorough knowledge of the biology of the civilisation under consideration there is a potential for biological infection. There are many examples in history of this occuring on Earth - British and French sailors infecting and wiping out civilisations such as the Nova Scotia Indians, and Pacific Island cultures.
|
Not an issue. The chances that our infectious organisms might be dangerous to an alien civilisation or vice versa are astronomically small.
Which is more dangerous? A dog bite or a human bite? The answer is a human bite because the nasties in a human mouth are adapted to humans. Most of the nasties in a dog mouth are not dangerous to us at all. Now imagine a virus with a different genetic code to us. It's not going to fly is it.
| Quote: |
Ecological Infection
Without a sound knowledge of the ecology of a planet there would be a potential for infection or interference with the ecology that could be devastating. We could hypothesise a charitable star-ship captain providing anti-biotics to some civilisation to help with a disease and the effect being to kill some necessary bacteria which causes an ecological disaster...
|
That may well be an issue. For instance, if we introduced photosynthesising algae to a planet where the locals were anaerobic and for whom oxygen is poisonous, there would be problems.
| Quote: |
Cultural Infection
It is possible that social/cultural damage could be caused that would have serious detrimental effects. On Earth we have the introduction of Christianity into African tribal culture, for example (yes, I know that is controversial, but what the heck). We could imagine the introduction of our current Capitalist system, say, into a cultural framework which was based on an entirely different ethos (say an enlightened form of communism for argument) where it could have disasterous effects.... |
Almost certainly a problem, but I suspect cultural infection might might not be viewed so badly by the people infected. On our own planet, we all deplore the destruction of "primitive" cultures in Africa or South America, but given a choice between living off the land and dying aged 40 because of the harsh environment or eating MacDonalds, listening to iPods and dying aged 60 because of coronary heart disease most people would go for the latter and what right do we have to deny them? | Klaw 2 wrote: |
@ indi the post above.
I was giving arguments why not to give technology to less developed alien civilizations. So what am I saying wrong. |
i already explained that, in the response to the post above.
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
| As for the last would you give a knife to someone who wants to commit suicide. I wouldn't, same for a group of people who want to collectably commit suicide. |
You keep asking the same question over and over. ^_^; Are you expecting a different answer?
i'm not a big fan of repetition, so i'll sum up all the previous (and, possibly future) questions, and the answer, in one fell swoop. You keep asking: "If you know giving X to someone (or some people) will harm them (or someone else), would you give it to them?" And i keep answering: "No." If you know they're just going to hurt themselves or someone else, then it makes no sense to give it to them. i keep saying that that seems trivially obvious to me, but to you it seems to be something you just can't get past. Frankly, i can't see why this is such a difficult concept.
However.
If i came across a doctor in a primitive tribe that was using sharpened rocks to operate, i would give them a scalpel - provided i could reasonably expect that he would use that scalpel to do good, and not go on a killing rampage. If - once he has that scalpel - he decides that he would rather use it to cut his own throat (or his patient's), then what am i supposed to do? All the information i had gave me reason to believe that the scalpel would help - i am not omniscient, you know. If i had had reason to suspect that he would do that, then i wouldn't have given it to him - again, isn't this obvious? But if i had no reason, and he chose to do that once he had the scalpel, what am i supposed to do? i was informed, and i made the only rational choice i could make given the information i had. He was informed, and he made a choice, too. C'est la vie.
Why is this even difficult? ^_^; i don't understand. Think about it - you come across two starving people lying in the road, and you have a bottle of juice. What do you do? Dur, you give the juice to them. Why? Because all of the information you have at that point leads you to rationally conclude that it will help alleviate suffering, not cause it. So what if the first guy you give the juice to takes a sip, then promptly smashes the bottle and uses it to cut the throat of the other guy? It could happen. Would it be your fault if it happened? Based on the possibility of it happening, should you refuse to give juice to any people you find that are starving?
Of course not, don't be ridiculous. ^_^; The logical thing to do - the right thing to do - is always to give the juice... unless you have a rational reason not to. If you recognize the person on the ground as someone who often cuts throats with glass bottles, then - obviously, i would think - you don't give them the freakin bottle. This is not rocket science.
Same logic applies here. You come across a civilization that does not have electricity, and you know that electricity will greatly help alleviate suffering in that civilization... what do you do? Dur, you give them the juice. ^_^; You show them what electricity is, and how it works, and how it will improve their lives. Then, they can take it or leave it - that's their choice. If they then turn around and use it to make killer electric fields... how is that your fault (assuming you had no reason to think that they would do that beforehand, of course)? Because of the off-chance that that might possibly happen... you'd say we shouldn't give them electricity at all? Hey, sure, if you observe them for a while, and everything you see suggests that they would just make a weapon out of whatever you give them, then you just don't give it to them. Obvious, isn't it?
| jeremyp wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: |
Biological Infection
Without a thorough knowledge of the biology of the civilisation under consideration there is a potential for biological infection. There are many examples in history of this occuring on Earth - British and French sailors infecting and wiping out civilisations such as the Nova Scotia Indians, and Pacific Island cultures.
|
Not an issue. The chances that our infectious organisms might be dangerous to an alien civilisation or vice versa are astronomically small.
Which is more dangerous? A dog bite or a human bite? The answer is a human bite because the nasties in a human mouth are adapted to humans. Most of the nasties in a dog mouth are not dangerous to us at all. Now imagine a virus with a different genetic code to us. It's not going to fly is it. |
Technically true, but lacking imagination. A truly alien microbe or bacteria may be quite harmful to us without being the least bit concerned about our genetic code. Imagine a microbe that eats up iron whenever it can - it might be benign or even helpful to an alien biology (where iron might be poisonous), but in our bloodstream.... And it doesn't need to know anything about our DNA except that its yummy.
On the flip side, a truly alien microbe or bacteria might not be recognized as a foreign body by our immune system, and it may replicate and clog up our system without any natural controls to stop it - all without any concern about what our genetic make up is like.
| jeremyp wrote: |
| Quote: | Cultural Infection
It is possible that social/cultural damage could be caused that would have serious detrimental effects. On Earth we have the introduction of Christianity into African tribal culture, for example (yes, I know that is controversial, but what the heck). We could imagine the introduction of our current Capitalist system, say, into a cultural framework which was based on an entirely different ethos (say an enlightened form of communism for argument) where it could have disasterous effects.... |
Almost certainly a problem, but I suspect cultural infection might might not be viewed so badly by the people infected. On our own planet, we all deplore the destruction of "primitive" cultures in Africa or South America, but given a choice between living off the land and dying aged 40 because of the harsh environment or eating MacDonalds, listening to iPods and dying aged 60 because of coronary heart disease most people would go for the latter and what right do we have to deny them? |
This is not just a theoretical problem, by the way. And, in the case of certain tribes - like the Jarawa and the Sentinelese - they have chosen to shun modern society...
... but that opens a whole new slew of problems. | jeremyp wrote: |
| Almost certainly a problem, but I suspect cultural infection might might not be viewed so badly by the people infected. On our own planet, we all deplore the destruction of "primitive" cultures in Africa or South America, but given a choice between living off the land and dying aged 40 because of the harsh environment or eating MacDonalds, listening to iPods and dying aged 60 because of coronary heart disease most people would go for the latter and what right do we have to deny them? |
OK, this presupposes that a choice is offered. If the alien culture has a social/political system which allows the population to be canvassed then this could work. One would, presumably, abide by whatever decision making machinery was extant - be it pure democracy, representative democracy, dictatorship or some other form. Would that be OK? Say it was a dictatorship - would it be OK to go ahead on the say-so of the dictator? or would it be incumbent on you to seek the views of the population democratically? Alternatively do you introduce the technology anyway and see where it leads?As i said, a whole slew of problems... ^_^ | Bikerman wrote: |
| jeremyp wrote: | | Almost certainly a problem, but I suspect cultural infection might might not be viewed so badly by the people infected. On our own planet, we all deplore the destruction of "primitive" cultures in Africa or South America, but given a choice between living off the land and dying aged 40 because of the harsh environment or eating MacDonalds, listening to iPods and dying aged 60 because of coronary heart disease most people would go for the latter and what right do we have to deny them? |
OK, this presupposes that a choice is offered. If the alien culture has a social/political system which allows the population to be canvassed then this could work. One would, presumably, abide by whatever decision making machinery was extant - be it pure democracy, representative democracy, dictatorship or some other form. Would that be OK? Say it was a dictatorship - would it be OK to go ahead on the say-so of the dictator? or would it be incumbent on you to seek the views of the population democratically? Alternatively do you introduce the technology anyway and see where it leads? |
... but this is an excellent statement of several of them. Why is it hard to soar like an eagle when you're surrounded by turkeys?
will it hard when you surrounded by other birds other than turkeys
check this link
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071031201110AAx5i4r
there is an answer which says
No, not if you are truly an eagle, but you are probably just another turkey that wants to be an eagle.
just to connect to the thread
Who is the turkey here the new civilization or the star trekker
I guess the star fleet captain is just wanting to be an eagle
So the right decision is to give the new tech to the lesser civilized people
only by doing that the star fleet captain can be called more civilized I think people should share what they know. It's one of the most basic forms of human growth. We learn from people all the time. If we didn't we'd probably still live in caves. Think about all writing being unsharable just because it might influence you, or conversations with new people limited to things both people already know, or a dying person left without help because he belongs to a civilization which doesn't understand the cure.
Share with me at least!
Here's an interesting twist on the question.
I just watched an old episode of the 'Next Generation'. It was the one where the crew come across a society of clones. They are asked to give DNA to keep the society going (otherwise replicative fading means the society will die-out). They all refuse point-blank to consider it.
Why?
Wait - who's asking and who's refusing? Is the crew asking the clones or are the clones asking the crew? Assuming the clones are asking the crew, who refuse, I think it may be because cloning is not going to run consistently for much longer, and that they should establish their own gene-pool and run things 'normally'. With their own gene-pool and proper reproduction, their civilization could expand much farther.
AARRGHH...my mouth hurts from getting braces. I'm going to go take a nap. It was the colony asking the crew. Yes, you are right, the reason you cite was quoted later - but it was an after-thought and very dodgy reasoning.
Why should a colony of (say) 40-60 clones not be viable? They would be able to cross-breed as normal. I suspect that the programme added this reason as an afterthought to validate the original decision - it doesn't hold water scientifically.
i have a very low opinion of the "science" in Star Trek - it's all just "PCR", post-creative rationalization, where you think of something that would be cool, then try to fake a "science-y" explanation for it.
But whatever the rationalization for the request, it counts as a "prime directive" problem... from the other side. Here you have a less-advanced civilization in need making a request to a more-advanced civilization, and the more-advanced civilization saying no for what really amounts to no good reason.
So let's assume the "prime directive" is crap: that is, the rule "a more-advanced civilization cannot give technology to a less-advanced civilization" is crap. So a more-advanced civilization can give technology to a less-advanced civilization. What you're asking now is do they have to (assuming the technology is required to help to the less-advanced civilization, and won't harm it)?
Well? What's everyone think?
(Incidentally, i think this would make an excellent question for another thread: What if a member of a culture/religion/whatever was required to do something - something that their culture/religion/whatever forbade them to do - in order to save someone (or some group)? Would they be right to refuse to offer help based on cultural/religious/whatever beliefs?)
