tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post8648393853936415542..comments2023-10-30T04:16:25.917-04:00Comments on Sentient Developments: Star Trek's 'Prime Directive' is stupidGeorgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13003484633933455827noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-76307321439399760902010-11-21T08:07:41.595-05:002010-11-21T08:07:41.595-05:00This attitude really pissed me off. Sure, interfer...This attitude really pissed me off. Sure, interfering with other cultures can have terrible consequences, but as you pointed out above, NOT interfering can have even worse consequences for those who are effectively being abandoned, and it's certainly not crystal clear that a Prime Directive attitude of non-intervention is the best attitude.<br /><br />I was annoyed that they did not explore the aspects of racism and human (as well as alien) rights that came into question, and largely brushed it aside with "oh its their culture and it's not on to tell them what's right and wrong".Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06188804868092397351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-54264071528242705882010-11-21T08:06:06.965-05:002010-11-21T08:06:06.965-05:00I just watched episode 48 of Enterprise, "Cog...I just watched episode 48 of Enterprise, "Cogenitor", and it also has Prime Directive themes, and the moral relativism they portrayed really irked me. <br /><br />One of the Enterprise characters, somewhat naively and with little consideration for the outcome, speaks to one of the slaves and tries to educate her by teaching her how to read, and begins exposing her to film and music. She becomes very excited by all this, and demonstrates that she is an equal with the rest of her species. Unfortunately for her, the rest of her people find out and are very unhappy hearing what's happened, and deny her further education. She demands asylum on the Enterprise, but is swiftly turned away by the captain, and is told to return to her ship. We find out in the end of the episode that she kills herself, presumably because she can't bear going on living as a slave. The episode ends with the captain of the Enterprise berating his crew member and blaming him for her death. Sure, the crew member probably should have been far more careful in his actions and should have foreseen problems arising when the slave goes back to her ship to live her life again as a slave, knowing now that life doesn't have to be this way (and this is probably another vehicle for "colonial white mans guilt"). What pissed me off about this though was that none of the characters critically examined what was going on here, in that this race keeps slaves and denies education to them. From memory I don't think they ever used the terms 'cultural relativism' or 'moral relativism' but it was pretty obvious this is what the rest of the crew members of the enterprise had in mind when they answered questions about whether this sort of slavery is ok with dialog along the lines of "but its they way they do things and its not our place to interfere".<br /><br />This attitude really pissed me off. Sure, interfering with other cultures can have terrible consequences, but as you pointed out above, NOT interfering can have even worse consequences for those who are effectively being abandoned, and it's certainly not crystal clear that a Prime Directive attitude of non-intervention is the best attitude.<br /><br />I was annoyed that they did not explore the aspects of racism and human (as well as alien) rights that came into question, and largely brushed it aside with "oh its their culture and it's not on to tell them what's right and wrong".Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06188804868092397351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-67238168173392878632009-04-13T22:03:00.000-04:002009-04-13T22:03:00.000-04:00Wow, there are some really bad arguments in defian...Wow, there are some really bad arguments in defiance in the Prime Directive.<br /><br />1. "Giving technology bah, blah, blah"<br />No one is suggestion that the Federation should gives weapons technology or technology that can be used as a weapon to less advanced civilizations.<br />2. "Look at what the European empires did"<br />The Federation is not an empire, it doesn't invade, conquer and subjugate less advanced civilizations.<br />3. "You talking about Enterprise, that was a very bad series."<br />Yes it was and it never happened but it still a good example.<br /><br />Its not about those. If you saw some one on the street dieing. Would you help him or would you just walk passed him? If you were caption of the Enterprise and you stumbled on a planet with a civilization of a species developing a civilization and a meteor was heading toward the planet. Would you use the tractor beam to push it out of the path of the planet or would you let the species die? If you stumbled on a planet with two nuclear superpowers in a cold war with each other. Would you orchestrate something that looks like a scouting party from a fictional galactic empire that was scouting the planet to see if its worth invading or would you let them kill them selves? If you stumbled on a planet with a massive global famine, a plague wiping out a intelligent species or their planet is about to fall apart. Would you help them or would you let them die?<br />If you followed the Prime Directive you would let them die and that is why its wrong and evil.Lone Wolfhttp://wolfsden.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-32658148069235136222008-12-04T01:00:00.000-05:002008-12-04T01:00:00.000-05:00Something to take into consideration is that old q...Something to take into consideration is that old question "If a tree fell in the woods and no one was around to hear, would it make a sound?".<BR/><BR/>The PD is there more to keep from interfering with a society's natural development, not to keep anyone in the ST universe from playing saviour. In fact in one episode I remember Troi stating that since they were present, it was their moral obligation to do something about the situation. However if no one is there to stop the destruction or evolution of a civilization, who does it effect?<BR/><BR/>Death, disease, famine, etc. are all things that we view as horrible, but the reality is that at times they are necessary. Like in the episode in TNG where they came in contact with a drug addicted society and those who were their "dealers". Dr. Crusher wanted to develop a drug that would end their addiction. In that case Picard strictly said no, because it wouldn't solve their problem of addiction, it would just give them an easy way out of the consequences they face because of it. However in case like with the little girl who contacted data, he broke the PD because it was nothing the inhabitants of that planet did to themselves, and contact had already been established. On the flip side in another episode Picard allowed an entire planet to be wiped out because of the PD and scolded Worf's brother for saving a few individuals from that planet. If anyone saw that episode, one of the inhabitants of that planet escaped the holodeck and committed suicide because of what he learned.<BR/><BR/>Morals are an interesting thing, and breaking the PD is never taken lightly in TNG or cavalier as was in TOS. You have to think to that with TOS, Roddenberry was hindered from portraying things as they should have been in his vision of the ST universe, so I don't put much stock in discussing the PD from that time frame. He was allowed to go much further in depth with more freedom in TNG, and he did in spades.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-13725657477356428112008-12-01T04:26:00.000-05:002008-12-01T04:26:00.000-05:00To Ana:You've got your history so badly wrong I ne...To Ana:<BR/><BR/>You've got your history so badly wrong I need to correct you on this. Japan is a perfectly example of why you SHOULDN'T give technology to an undeveloped society. Once they had firearm technology, they IMMEDIATELY used it to invade more civilized nations like Korea and China, nations that had long ago achieved internal peace - unlike Japan.<BR/><BR/>Japan would later use their Europeanized society to oppress Asia before and during WWII. And don't kid me when you say that Japan was 'corrupted' by modern thinking, because that did indeed happen during the 16th century. Westernization did not happen overnight, you know.<BR/><BR/>Now, decades later, nearly all of Asia is to a large extent Westernized, and we've lost a great source of cultural diversity. Now we're left with an ugly corrupted form of Western society in East Asia, one of the major reasons being because Japan (unlike how you would believe) was uncivilized when they obtained firearms technologies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-37046257106625540652008-11-21T12:45:00.000-05:002008-11-21T12:45:00.000-05:00For those of you who think the BD was dealt with i...For those of you who think the BD was dealt with inconsistently from series to series and episode to episode I would suggest that the directive itself is probably so long, so full of examples and loopholes, and legalese and input from a hundred cultures and worlds and their own experiences that it is likely the document is so long that nobody has actually read it. <BR/><BR/>They wing-it based on the title and summary.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-60964558355978312282008-09-27T16:24:00.000-04:002008-09-27T16:24:00.000-04:00If we were given a choice between saving a less ad...If we were given a choice between saving a less advanced civilization or letting it die, the most important thing to consider would be if the civilization was worth saving. Why save a people that will just go on to destroy more civilizations? If we were to save them, and they then went on to kill others, we would be responsible; we would have to choose the lesser of two evils. Personally, I see nothing wrong with killing or letting die one person to save thousands, or thousands to save millions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-18956331211064663132008-07-18T23:42:00.000-04:002008-07-18T23:42:00.000-04:00Just an item to ponder. Technological sophisticati...Just an item to ponder. <BR/><BR/>Technological sophistication has no bearing on ethical development. <BR/><BR/>Just because a species isn't complex or technological, doesn't make them any less or more apt to go to war, or ruin themselves or their environment. <BR/><BR/>Giving life-saving medical advances always has some negative consequences, but people generally agree that the alleviation of suffering and saving of life trumps all such concerns. <BR/><BR/> That is, IF you're a member of their species.<BR/><BR/> Humans are incredibly anthropocentric, and scenarios dealing with other species reveals how situational their so-called ethics really are. The <A HREF="http://www.sentientdevelopments.com/2007/08/meat-eaters-are-bad-people.html" REL="nofollow">entry here is but one example</A>.<BR/><BR/> It doesn't have to be Merkins or Martians or whatever; deer and cows will demonstrate the problem readily.<BR/><BR/>And this is why over the years, i too have started to feel that the Prime Directive may be flawed. It started as Roddenberry's way of saying we shouldn't be in Vietnam, and has taken on it's own life. FWIW, Trek has always been filled with intentional and unintentional violations of the PD.<BR/><BR/>That said, there could risks of societal breakdown if a more technologically-advanced species (notice i did not spew the haphazard "more advanced species") were to reveal itself to some species. Looks at how the fundies melt down over evolution. Look at how people were burned for taking positions thought to be heresy, or non-heliocentric. They're still burning people in Africa for being "witches" so clearly there are some screwed up people on Earth. Fermia Paradox apologism? Maybe. But most people are damn idiots. It takes no brains or values to fnck.<BR/><BR/>Superior technology plus alien life would be a double-barrel combo that a good many people could not handle. At all. You can just imagine the diversity of reactions to their revelation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-29367315875099424052008-07-18T03:57:00.000-04:002008-07-18T03:57:00.000-04:00I too thought that Dr. Phlox was an evil douchebag...I too thought that Dr. Phlox was an evil douchebag. <BR/><BR/>The problem is that as anything becomes popular (like Trek) it attracts lesser minds. The core concepts become dumbed down. <BR/><BR/>Like you i often have issues with the PD. You probably have an activist streak.<BR/><BR/>Did i mention that Phlox is a douchebag? His smile is the stuff of nightmares.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-10275845161714990212008-05-22T11:48:00.000-04:002008-05-22T11:48:00.000-04:00In response to the previous commenter (whom I know...In response to the previous commenter (whom I know personally):<BR/>1. For purposes of an at least somewhat fair argument, I won’t take into account your obvious bias- that your love of Star Trek serves a greater role in the formation of your opinion on this particular issue than your actual political and philosophical beliefs, which quite frankly confuse me.<BR/>2. Yes, Enterprise did indeed suck. It was even more juvenile, misogynistic, and ideologically flawed than any of its predecessors- not to mention actually conforming to tele-vision clichés, which is what I like about TOS, TAS, TNG, Voyager and the 1st and 3rd movies.<BR/>3. Your argument about Africa is just wrong. As someone else early pointed out about the interaction between Europeans and Native Americans, neither giving technology to the natives, nor manipulating them through religion was the key to turning their lives into such steaming piles of sh*t. It was the actual political and ideological system that was the logical root of such things, being based on the assumption that Europeans were superior to other races. The Prime Directive appears to me to be based on just such an elitist system. Deciding whether or not a race is suitable to consort with Federation members on equal terms based on the technological structure of their society is nothing more than species-ist. Which reminds me that Starfleet seems to be dominated by humans from Earth- even being based on Earth (in America, no less). I bet they’re just like the American government- convinced of being the height of civilization, with the duty to “improve” the situation of other people- like we did in Iraq. (Maybe even to get their dilithium crystals?) I bet they’ve staged coups on dozens of planets, much like our CIA throughout the last century. This kind of conflicts with the Prime Directive, doesn’t it? <BR/>5. Finally, no rule can apply all of the time. People need to decide what to do based on the situation, like Captain Kirk, and, to a lesser extent, other captains. (I think this is related to the fact that Kirk became a captain at a young age.) Many, many TOS episodes like “The Apple” and “A Piece of the Action” express this idea.<BR/><BR/>John Zerzan has an interesting critique related to some of my arguments, though I am BY NO MEANS advocating primitivism (like I said, technology and elitism are two different things).<BR/>http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/startrek.htm<BR/>Whew!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-83005818630674368652008-04-29T23:56:00.000-04:002008-04-29T23:56:00.000-04:00I can’t begin to say how flawed that argument is. ...I can’t begin to say how flawed that argument is. First, as previously mentioned in other posts, Enterprise was a complete failure—its cancellation after four seasons was, not like the original’s cancellation due to low budget, caused by its enormous unpopularity with fans and laymen alike. The argument offers two pieces of evidence. One of them is from Enterprise, which follows so little of other Star Trek (for instance, in the classic “Balance of Terror,” it is clearly established that they had never met the Romulans face to face until that episode, and never seen a Romulan, as view screens did not exist; however in Enterprise, there are times when Romulans appear on view screens), that it is improper to take this as a reason why all 714 episodes of Star Trek, including Enterprise, are all flawed in their “overly righteous” ideal. Two of 714, which is equal to barely 0.28%, seems to me like a hasty generalization (I smell a reeking, pungent, and repulsive logical fallacy). Also, he argument itself states that the Prime Directive did not exist in the case of that Enterprise episode: that’s contradictory.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, the concept of the Prime Directive is flawless. “If we were to assume the whales were ours to do with as we please, we would be as guilty as those who caused their extinction,” says Spock in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. Just as if we tried to save a species from ethnic cleansing by another species of two pre-warp civilizations existing on negative planets, we would be assuming that we had the right to save them, just like the oppressing civilization has the right to kill them. And this concept of “how is this humane” is flawed, too.<BR/><BR/>The author says that humanitarian reasons should allow for “playing God.” Well, let’s look at some Earth history for reference: Africa. Europeans invaded—and yes, I use the term invaded appropriately here—Africa hundreds of years ago, initially for the purpose of self-enhancement through the gaining of greater profits from exports of overseas items. Later, they used the argument of “We need to stop these people from worshipping false gods and turn them to Christianity,” which actually drew people for that reason: they thought they were philanthropists, and they thought they had the right to interfere with Africa and to “help” the Africans, to show that “Heart of Darkness” the light. They even used the argument, as the author uses, to some degree, of the need for people to go in to stop the petty wars between Africans, and it worked, too. And the result of this so-called “compassionate action,” which is supposedly better than non-interference? Only the murder of some millions of Africans over the years, from causes like diseases brought by the foreigners to those of outright macabre massacres of the indigenous population. And the same was the case with North and South America, Oceania, and many parts of Asia. And these less-advanced people, instead of being treated as equals, because of their technological inferiority, were treated as inferiors.<BR/><BR/>The Prime Directive is for the protection of societies. If a society is on the brink of extinction by another society, is it right for the UFP to step in and give the losing side 10,000 phaser rifles and 15,000 phasers, communicators, transporter technology, replicators, shuttlecraft, Maquis fighters, retired Constitution, Excelsior, and Ambassador class ships, lessons in how to use all this equipment, etc., while the other side is using basic lasers? The losing side would only turn in to the aggressors. We cannot give them that power because it is dangerous to them: they would destroy themselves, both sides would end up being exterminated. The Prime Directive is designed to help; though sometimes we may cry over something that happened, we cannot deny that because something may be sad, it is not always the right thing to do. And we cannot compromise pur morals for our emotions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-12091895401396924812008-04-10T10:22:00.000-04:002008-04-10T10:22:00.000-04:00If only Picard had followed the prime directive in...If only Picard had followed the prime directive in the first season of NG, Wesley Crusher would be dead, dead, dead!!<BR/><BR/>But strangely, starship captains go about violating or upholding the PD whenever they feel like it. They essentially end up doing what they want, but only after some insufferable moralizing over the situation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-83229842831239329592008-04-10T04:58:00.000-04:002008-04-10T04:58:00.000-04:00Stupid? I disagree. Take a look at us humans for...Stupid? I disagree. Take a look at us humans for a minute. 40-some odd years ago we achieved escape velocity and were able to orbit earth, we even managed to visit our satellite moon (maybe) but since the early 1970's there has been no movement to expand manned spaceflight. <BR/>We live in a world of limited resources and I think that extraplanetary exploration by humans is to take place, it will require direction of resources toward that goal. It will require <B>cooperation</B> between peoples and nations. But what we have today is instead a desire to destroy and enslave each other and we are expending our precious resources to achieve those ends.<BR/>At this rate we will never get off this planet and on to another, because somehow, we are not mature enough to do so. <BR/>We do not belong in the confederation and rightfully so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-15780981153722262412008-03-30T15:40:00.000-04:002008-03-30T15:40:00.000-04:00There's a very good sentiment at the heart of the ...There's a very good sentiment at the heart of the Prime Directive, as heavy-handed interference with other cultures should indeed be disastrous in most cases. The purpose of the directive should be to protect pre-warp civilizations, but "Dear Doctor" displays unethical inaction which an absolute interpretation of the directive can be used to justify. <BR/><BR/>Interpretation of the directive seems to have changed to a less compassionate one for series written after the Original Series. In "The Paradise Syndrome", for example, the Enterprise actually had the mission of preventing a natural asteroid impact from causing a pre-warp society's extinction. Unlike in "Dear Doctor", they did not let unconscious and indifferent processes (as the original poster put it) reign.<BR/><BR/>If the crew had never encountered the Valakians, it would be a different story. They already interfered and became involved by simply being there. Having a possible cure and withholding it gave them indirect responsibility for the deaths to come.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-52356345194982129212008-02-29T14:32:00.000-05:002008-02-29T14:32:00.000-05:00I devoted an entire chapter of my book, to this i...I devoted an entire chapter of my book, <A HREF="http://www.toseekoutnewlife.com" REL="nofollow"/> to this issue. The title of the chapter is <I>Send Viruses, Guns and Latinum: New Worlds and the Prime Directive</I>, which tells you a bit about my take on the PD.<BR/><BR/>Incidentally, another chapter in the book deals with Penrose and Hameroff's concept of quantum microtubules. I happen to work with these in the lab and, trust me, they're not the stuff of consciousness. I'd be rich and famous if they were!<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.starshipnivan.com" REL="nofollow">Athena Andreadis</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-76325635459789144482007-11-26T12:47:00.000-05:002007-11-26T12:47:00.000-05:00www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışmasıww...<A HREF="http://www.cesurturk.org" REL="nofollow">www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması</A><BR/><A HREF="http://www.saboces.gen.tr" REL="nofollow">www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması</A><BR/><A HREF="http://www.cesurturk.org/index.php?ind=kureselisinma" REL="nofollow">www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması</A><BR/><A HREF="http://www.sagiroda-fan.com" REL="nofollow">Sağır Oda</A><BR/><A HREF="http://izleindirfull.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow">dizi izle</A><BR/><A HREF="http://r10kureselisinmayahayirseo-yarismasi.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow">www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması</A><BR/><A HREF="http://www.cesurturk.org/index.php?ind=reviews" REL="nofollow">dizi izle</A><BR/><A HREF="http://www.cesurturk.org/index.php?ind=gallery" REL="nofollow">resim galerisi</A><BR/><A HREF="http://www.cesurturk.org/index.php?ind=news" REL="nofollow">haber</A><BR/><A HREF="http://www.cesurturk.org/phpBB2/index.php" REL="nofollow">forum</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-37815269823307884562007-11-04T13:26:00.000-05:002007-11-04T13:26:00.000-05:00The non-interference directive makes complete sens...The non-interference directive makes complete sense. For those who have never studied the complex interactions that exist between vastly different cultures, perhaps not interfering in another culture at a time of externally perceived dire need seems wrong. If you are one of those people who have never had an opportunity to study diverse societies and the vastly different cultures that exist on this tiny planet which exists in billions of star systems, many with other planets, I suggest you start learning. Consider the blatant imperialistic actions and destrucive capitalistic greed resulting from the "tyranny of the majority" (democracy) gone awry in the U.S. . Be aware of terrorists and high tech nuclear weapons now avaialble to them.Consider a country with a history of trespass and murder of Native Americans, and kidnapping of their children to "civilize" them. Consider the 90 percent of Native Americans killed by smallpox and plague brought by Europeans. Too bad the Europeans didn't have the non-interference directive back then. . . . The non-interference directive was / is part of science fiction. It makes complete sense when thoughtfully considered in the context of vastly different cultures and societies, but makes little sense when viewed from the uninformed narrow minded standpoint of ethnocentric rhetoric.Icarushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08952600930551974753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-88607251642680290012007-08-12T20:11:00.000-04:002007-08-12T20:11:00.000-04:00"Helping" someone walk is just as harmful as aidin..."Helping" someone walk is just as harmful as aiding someone to construct a bomb. The whole reason of non-interfearence is so that each and every living being gains wisdom and endurance through their own experiences. If wisdom was that easy to distribute through "help", we wouldnt have teenagers binge-drinking and drink-driving on our civilised streets. We could let it flow freely through our taps. And wisdom can be tainted with closed/narrow minded opinions and beliefs. It is one's vanity and short-sightnedness to think they can "help" others using their own wisdom. Who decides which wisdom is "pure" and which is mere baised opinions? If only every person who feels they can "help" others could reflect on their own wisdom to make that judgement, we wouldnt have the problems we face in our civilised affluent and progressed world. Even before we try to spread our wisdom across to "help" others, we should take a moment to verify our beliefs and opinions. Perhaps then we may realise just how frailed our minds really are, and how inapt we are to help others.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-49038353572524808092007-05-19T08:11:00.000-04:002007-05-19T08:11:00.000-04:00I found it amusing during the TNG series when Pica...I found it amusing during the TNG series when Picard would wax eloquent about humanity having "evolved" beyond violent tendencies, etc., while being hoisted on his own petard later on (most pointedly illustrated during "Contact").<BR/><BR/>I find it hard to believe that the military structure of society as depicted in ST would produce benevolence. That is, I don't see human beings "evolving" in a handful of centuries to the point where they will not commit horrid atrocities in such a setup. Show me a military society that doesn't abuse its children and I'll reconsider my stance. :)James Pyrichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10284056020717016427noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-70561003934548705162007-04-30T15:32:00.000-04:002007-04-30T15:32:00.000-04:00If there are aliens out there with superior techno...If there are aliens out there with superior technology ... I want them to stay away. Can you imagine a neocon Bush government armed with advanced alien technology? Can you imagine the political instability and chaos if some countries were given it but not others? Can you imagine a world where benevolent aliens had given EVERYONE that technology, including Iraq, Iran and North Korea? How long before a bunch of pissed-off Iraqis decide to fly one of those cute stealthed saucers under the US radar and start frying cities out of revenge? <BR/><BR/>As things currently are, Earth politics is primitive and stupid and not capable of dealing with alien contact. Hell, we haven't even learned to behave in a civilised way with with other Earthers yet. <BR/><BR/>And why bother being a scientist if the next 200years worth of research is already done and patented? So we shut down our own research and go begging for technological scraps. We INSIST that they give them to us. And then when we screw up and destroy the atmosphere or accidentally create a supervirus, we demand that the aliens help us because they have the resources and it's partly their fault. And then we screw up again, and again, and protest groups start to complain that this is all the alien's fault, and extremists argue that we should nuke them, and military planners calculate that a preemptive strike would be best, and pretty soon those aliens will wish they'd never met us. Soon they have to decide whether to stop answering their phones next time we send out a distress call, or if we now have spaceships with their technology, whether they have to wipe us out for self-protection. <BR/><BR/>If other alien civilisations are anything like us, the prime directive is a very, very, VERY good idea.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-38485747825901941032007-03-26T00:47:00.000-04:002007-03-26T00:47:00.000-04:00Folks, the Enterprise series just plain sucks.Folks, the Enterprise series just plain sucks.Love and Peacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00601730173008133556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-44635078484054055582007-03-05T12:30:00.000-05:002007-03-05T12:30:00.000-05:00No, the Prime Directive may not be perfect but it’...No, the Prime Directive may not be perfect but it’s not by any means stupid. <BR/><BR/>As it was mentioned above by more than one person, you have many examples of how bad things can get when a piece of, let’s call it, ‘technology’ is introduced in an underdeveloped society.<BR/><BR/>The best example are the civil wars in many countries that were once European colonies (some still striving) and which, after achieving their so desired independence simply destroyed themselves because the balance of power shifted towards those who had appropriated technology that had been out of their reach until the moment of first contact.<BR/>Imagine it by simply considering this analogy: it’s like giving a child a gun.<BR/><BR/>Proof that these countries now ravished by decades of war were victims of their own ignorance (ignorance as lack of knowledge, not as stupidity) is that Japan, also introduced to a piece of new technology in the XVIth century did not fall prey to war, rather emerged from it a united, peaceful and stronger nation. <BR/>The pistol saved Japanese society from decades if not centuries of war and devastation by uniting the nation under a sole Shogun’s rule, instead of letting it be continuously eroded by countless feuds between countless warlords.<BR/>And why did this work in Japan and not in other countries? Simply because Japanese society, although ignorant of what a pistol was at the time it was placed in their hands, had already given proof of being a very advanced nation, despite its geographical isolation. <BR/>Someone used the expression ‘civilized’; well, the Japanese WERE civilized – to the point where they unassembled the pistols, builds hundreds of replicas and used them rationally until they achieved a sort of balance. <BR/>After their problem was solved, they went back to their normal lives… until they were again bombarded by foreign technology in the late XIXth century and got totally corrupted by ‘modern thinking’.<BR/>Sometimes evolution means knowing you have to keep the good things progress and knowledge bring you and discard the bad.<BR/><BR/>The main fault of the Prime Directive is the lack of judgment towards those which it should be applied to and those which deserve a second glance, i.e., the ‘civilized’ ones. Yes, in the case of Japan it was pure luck, but time and a careful examination can give you an idea of the worthiness of a people.<BR/>Obviously, in the episodes of Star Trek, for the sake of emotion and television, things always have to be solved within the hour and there’s never the chance for the crew of the ship to evaluate how evolved the periled society is before they solemnly declare “it’s not in our hands”.<BR/>In these scenarios, they shouldn’t have put their asses on the tech-impaired planet in the first place.<BR/>In some cases, the Prime Directive terms MUST be applied, in some cases we mustn’t interfere.<BR/><BR/>In the case of disease… I totally disagree with you. <BR/>I mean, if you were given the chance… would you save the dinosaurs, knowing à priori that it would mean Humanity would never become?<BR/>It’s easy to say ‘oh, they look fairly humanoid so we have to save them; if we didn’t it would be immoral’, but what about if the diseased society were gross-looking-man-eating beasts?<BR/>Then it would be a threat to us – so is that a fair reason to let them die?<BR/><BR/>How are humans more important than, let’s say, crocodiles? What have we ever done for benefit of the world that they haven’t? In fact, we actually make bags and shoes out of them because it makes us feel more important than the human who hasn’t got the mullah to buy a crocodile bag or pair of crocodile shoes.<BR/>My guess is… long after we as a race are gone, cockroaches will still be here (they’ve reached space already…) and maybe they deserve it more. They’re gross? Yes they are – now imagine how a sack of pink flesh, riveted with wrinkles and depressions, pimples and razor burns looks to an insect who’s been here for millions of years and beat the odds of survival time and time again.<BR/><BR/>I do believe that if a society can’t make it by its own it should collapse on itself. If it’s given a second chance, odds are it’s going to contaminate other societies, otherwise healthy to the date of first contact.<BR/><BR/>Practical example of the Prime Directive: people who make animal documentaries never interfere, no matter how much they love the two months old lion cub they saw be given birth and no matter how much it hurts the moment they see it being slaughtered by a hyena, right before their eyes.<BR/><BR/>Note to ‘mathew’ who mentioned that story about Australia’s native boys: stupid story and I’m convinced that’s an urban myth.<BR/>We don’t live in paradise, we don’t have idyllic lives and not everyone wants what 1st world middle class people have.<BR/>I have a fairly good life in material terms (let’s just say I have a roof over my head, food on my plate and money in my pocket for dinner and a movie) but I’m stupendously unsatisfied with it. Honestly? I’d trade all the internet in the world, all the pointless knowledge about the media and all the candy I’ve ever eaten for a chance to have been born in Tahiti a thousand years ago.<BR/>That would be happiness.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-24623333132275569062007-02-21T15:54:00.000-05:002007-02-21T15:54:00.000-05:00The Prime Directive has been stated in a couple of...The Prime Directive has been stated in a couple of contradictory forms in Star Trek, but I think the absolute version of the PD (no interference) makes sense: the first contact a lot of civillizations make with the Federation is almost always via Starfleet, and much of further contant also is. If Starfleet were to interfere in other civilizations it would in effect determine Federation foreign policy***.<BR/><BR/> This is not be the domain of the military since it has neither the authority, nor the skill, to decide whether an intervention is neccesary, or what forms it should take. Maybe other branches of the Federation are less restricted in what they can do (or order Starfleet to do).<BR/><BR/> It could be argued that this is too strict, but some people in Starfleet keep finding excuses to interfere even when strictly forbidden, so any lenience would probably open the floodgates to all manners of ill-considered action.<BR/><BR/> The talk about "natural development" and such is just a political cover story, to cover a rather cynical (but perhaps neccesary) decision.<BR/><BR/>*** This obviously failed, as the Federation pretty much is a military state. However, this does not condemn PD itself but suggests some other measures were also neccesary.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-64690298130109060322007-02-19T18:09:00.000-05:002007-02-19T18:09:00.000-05:00i think Prime Directive is not stupid... sometimes...i think Prime Directive is not stupid... sometimes it's a bit uneasy but it has it's reasons... just for example some "aliens" are out there watching us and they suddenly came here what do you think people on earth will react? even if they said they will try to help us we will eventually think they are invaders eventually kill them all or have their technology and use it against themselves and sell it in the highest price not all people on earth are like what you call ST's "Federation" the righteous ones and who can understand foreign presence or should we say "aliens" if there really are "aliens" here people will just use them in experiments like lab rats thats why the "Prime Directive" applies to prevent that disaster for both parties. Also what if someone interfered with our past what do you think will happen to all of us now? Prime Directive is all about developing on your own just like us with no help or interfering of others for example how can they or us be independent or how can we call ourselves a culture or "humans" if the framework our ideals came from other species... also what if for example we break the Prime Directive and help other species which "maybe" after 400 years or so will turn against us and obliterate us all?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-67464929592970381302007-02-04T18:30:00.000-05:002007-02-04T18:30:00.000-05:00The problem with the Prime Directive is that it fo...The problem with the Prime Directive is that it forces a crew to deal with a complex situation according to a predetermined set of guidelines. It severely limits the way in which a crew could respond to a given situation. It is a dogma.<br />What would you do if you found a pre-warp civilization that was on the verge of tearing itself apart? Might the introduction of advance technology end poverty and disease and promote equality, education and scientific advancement, and help this civilization to put its problems behind it? Wouldn't you be negligent ethically if you could help but did nothing?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com