You could call it the sub-prime directive and then have an intra-galactic free market decide which competing directives should take precedence at given moment. 
It’s generally a good policy. I don’t see a problem with suspending it to save a species from extinction if you can do it secretly, or if another warp capable race is interfering already.
Let’s see. Extraterrestrials come to Earth today, in 2013.
They have medical technology that could end AIDS, avian flu, cancer, and every other disease we worry about.
They have agricultural and industrial technology that could end famine, poverty, and pollution.
They have transportation technology that can take us to the stars.
But you want them to stay away from us, for fear of harming our delicate little culture?
Screw the Prime Directive. It is patronizing, condescending, and racist.
Don’t you mean demotion? In her last appearance, she was an admiral.
Unless you mean it in the same way Admiral Kirk thought of his demotion.
I had a whole comment about why we should gut the Prime directive, but I lost it when my Internet went out. All I remember is the best part: we humans have been trading ideas and technology since time began. Why does reaching the level of traveling faster than light suddenly mean we should stop? Cultural preservation has its uses, but it makes no sense as the number one rule.
The other part I liked was talking about how the Prime Directive was Roddenberry introducing religion back into Star Trek, despite his stated dislike for it. Remember, one of the reasons for the directive’s existence was given by Riker as believing that the universe has a plan and that we show hubris by daring to alter it.
BTW, you guys do know that “It is absolutely forbidden to interfere with a culture’s development” is not the only part of the directive used onscreen, right? It also is used to mean that you can’t get involved in internal politics. This applies even if one of your people gets the death penalty, despite it being abolished in Starfleet. (I’m pretty sure the Talos IV exception is gone now, and, anyways, it was probably a lame duck law. Lots of unenforceable laws remain on the books even today.)
Personally…I’d keep it. Perhaps with more clarifications, subsections, or exceptions concerning when a species is about to go extinct, at the least. Fundamentally, the PD is intended to protect lesser-developed civilizations, from damage or exploitation. That itself seems noble and enlightened—we don’t know how many, if any, alien civilizations ended up like the Taíno. Or even like Japan.
But if all the PD is managing to do is get people killed or Starship crews imperiled, maybe it’s indeed time to rethink how the Directive is applied, or even how it’s written.
Seems to me that the best way to protect lesser-developed civilizations from damage or exploitation is not to damage or exploit them. That doesn’t mean not to initiate contact with them, though. It only means that you should do it in a careful, respectful and well thought out manner… but then, who has time for that? Better to just place a blanket prohibition. It’s a lot less work.
Gee, you’re too kind.
The other part of the Prime Directive isn’t unreasonable - although you might have to look to Stargate SG-1’s The Other Side to find a good episode showing why - but the smug attitude that it is morally superior to let a civilisation die in some natural disaster to avoid telling them the truth that they are not alone in the universe is repugnant.
I see your point, but there is a sort of logic to it - sudden enormous success or injected wealth can often be disastrous - Winning the lottery turns out to be a terrible, destructive thing for quite a lot of people.
I sponsor the education of a teenage child in Uganda - and I’m permitted to send small cash gifts, but the temptation to send larger amounts is strongly disadvised - because it’s very disruptive, and not disruptive in the good way people people might imagine.
Obviously, those two examples aren’t exactly analogous to the arrival of a post-scarcity alien culture, but even so, it would probably be a really bad thing, in the short term at least, if they just turned up and started handing out baubles.
I’m sure there would probably be a safe, careful way to manage such a transition though, without simply forbidding it, because yes, leaving a planet full of people in disease and misery would also be evil.
Read the OP.
That, I think, is the main problem with the Directive. Why does a law forbidding interference with other civilizations have to be the highest law in the Federation? The concept is good, but making it “Prime” keeps leading to ridiculous extremes such as allowing cultures to be vaporized by supernovas rather than “interfering.”
I mean, the United States considers the First Amendment to be a “prime” legal principle, yet there are still reasonable limitations on it. Neither freedom of speech nor the Directive should be considered absolutes.
Because, as we all know… only a Sith deals in absolutes!
If you leave ambiguity in the law or regulation, office politics, expediancy, and beauracratic CYA will rear it’s ugly head.
1> Why would they GIVE us any of this?
2> What happens to our economy when 80% of our technology is obsolete overnight?
3> What happens to our cultures when faced with this stuff all at once?
Only an idiot would think this was a really good idea.
I would put Quark in charge of the Prime Directive, and give him a 3% commission.
“Blood is thicker than water, but gold-pressed Latinum is thicker than either.”
1a. Because you have nothing to offer in exchange that they do not already have in abundance, so haggling over the price would be a waste of their time.
1b. Because they are decent people who think people dying of preventable diseases is a bad thing.
1c. Because it creates goodwill among the populace, and gets relations off on the right foot.
-
Obsolescence only occurs once it is practical to replace it. Knowing in advance how our technological base is going to progress would make things easier, not harder.
-
The willfully ignorant remain willfully ignorant, but we all reap the rewards of this new knowledge.
I like your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter
Capt
Maybe it should be renamed the Prime Suggestion.
I’m all for the Prime Directive, I think you should leave cultures that are at certain development alone. You don’t want to give a caveman a phaser, ferinstance.
The thing about it though is that the Captain should have the ability to override it when necessary, which is just about every instance it’s been used anyway. If a civilization is about to die off through no fault of their own and Starfleet has the ability to save them, then they should do everything within their abilities to do so. Put the red goo in the volcano or beam everyone onto transports and move them to another planet.
And if a civilization is about to die off, and it *is *their fault, would you just let them? Or should you give them a second chance?
-
I would not expect them to give anything. If it’s worth the effort to cross light-years to reach us, it’s reasonable to assume we have something they want. Since they didn’t just exterminate us and take it, trade seems to me a reasonable expectation.
-
We learn new trades, and make ourselves useful in the new economy. We adapt, or we die. Same as the dinosaurs and the sabertooths.
-
Who cares? Culture is a luxury for people with full bellies.
Besides, one way cultures develop is by interacting with other cultures.
I’d rather have the Federation engage in first contact than the Klingons.
See that’s where the line to cross isn’t so clear, right?
Do you save them all, let them all die, or put a handful in a zoo to preserve the species?