The Prime Directive: f**k it

Great Debates
1

I am not sure that this is really a Great Debate, but it seems a little more philosophically intense than a topic more suited to other forums. Given that I have no idea where the thread will head, however, I request that Mods move it as necessary.
————————————————————————

So, I just finished watching a pretty good episode of Stargate: SG1 and, apart from the moral paradoxes involved in the episode (which I feel were skirted instead of actually resolved) it occured to me that the interactive protocol followed in SG1 is far different from the one in the Star Trek world.

For those not in the know, the Star Trek world (herein: ST) has the infamous “Prime Directive” dictating that ship captains or other emissaries of The Federation are prohibited from interacting with technologically inferior races in an effort to let them sort out their own differences and grow “naturally.” There are many good reasons for this, the least of which involves the incredible weapon strength this inferior (technologically, please, no moral pronouncements here) species would suddenly have access to. Other concerns have been listed throughout the course of the show, but they are all pretty self-evident (xenophobia, worship, etc).

Indeed, it has always been pretty self-evident to me (that is, a good idea), which is why when I was watching SG1 today I was pretty much shocked at how easily I swallowed that “world.” The SG1 paradigm has no such protocol as the Prime Directive of ST. Not even close. Hell, the whole point of SG1 is to go out there and meet civilizations and gain technologies in order to combat a certain set of “bad guys” whose name I am not going to attempt to spell (because I can’t) but it really doesn’t matter. I don’t want to discuss the shows, per se, but rather these two different outlooks on communication with extra-terrestrial life forms.

Since this topic, honestly, just came to my mind I haven’t formed a clear outlook yet on which is more correct to me, but at the outset I think I like SG1 better than ST. Here is my reasoning:

I am rather fond of the “meme” idea of “thought” evolution, and think that the natural selection paradigm serves well to explain any conflict in which change is necessary, not just as a mechanism for fostering biological life. SG1 is out there merging technologies, information, and so on, in some ways militarily leveling the playing field but more importantly driving all races toward technological advancement (nevermind that, in the show, this largely doesn’t happen; given any real-world interaction I think it is clear this is the outcome). So I feel that ST with its Prim Directive is an “ignorance is bliss” view which I don’t agree with at all. I am a firm supporter of what is often called “social darwinism” and feel that information/technology sharing fosters this more than the Prime Directive which, in this light, seems to serve as a benevolent dictator of sorts.

In fact, though I know exactly what the Prime Directive says, I can’t help but feel a hint of cultural/ moral/ ethical superiority in it (which I don’t have a problem with either, but it achieves this superiority in a method which I would disagree with if it is assumed they are, in fact, morally superior by their reasoning).

What do you think? A paradigm for interaction between ETs is only a small step above the paradigm for interaction between two distinct cultures. Given that close tie (I might say: they are not able to be distinguished) what say you? Is the Prime Directive really the way to go? Or is SG1 on the right track?

And, perhaps most importantly, why?

[sub]Though recalling events from either series is probably unavoidable please try to refrain yourself as it is somewhat unnecessary, and will serve to keep it here in GD; but, who am I to tell you what to do? :)[/sub]

2

Put me down as someone who says, especially for the Federation, which tries to respect cultural diversity, it’s a good idea.

It’s hard just to give aid. When you do, you usually also give the recipient the values behind that aid. These might be good values, and might even be worth giving, but you still encourage the culture to develop like you and not the way it otherwise would. It leads to imperialism and colonialism, which are two things that the Federation are morally opposed to.

There’s a good short story, that I don’t remember the name of and can’t find, about these two alien nations that have just, under Earth as a mediator, signed a peace treaty (they had been rivals for sometime). They’re then offered aid to rebuild, but one of the ambassadors insults the earthman and his planet loses the aid. His king is furious with him, but he says, “In 70 years, I’ll expect an apology!” and leaves his meeting with the king.

70 years later (these are a long lived alien species), both planets have rebuilt, with the planet that accepted the aid becoming a major tourist center. It’s also lost most of its culture, and what’s left is done for the entertainment of tourists, and earth looks down on the planet. The ambassador’s culture, on the other hand, still thrives, and its become a respected ally of earth.

3

On the other hand, if an alien race made contact with us, and knowingly wihtheld the cures for cancer, AIDS, obesity, CF, and the flu because they wanted us to “develop naturally”, I’d be pretty pissed.

I think it is basically a teliological fallacy: the belief that a society (or a specis) is evolving towards sometihng. Unless you are a thiest, we aren’t: there is no preset goal, or any particular way that it is “supposed to be.”

4

I always thought that the point of the Prime Directive was to avoid the moral responsibility that came with having a tremendously disruptive effect on another society. Say the Federation gives phasers to a culture at our technological level, who then wipes out all the other cultures on the planet: The Federation is then morally responsible for the destruction of those other cultures, while if they’d withheld the technology and those other cultures were destroyed, the Federation’s hands would at least be clean.

Hmm. It sounds a bit cowardly that way, doesn’t it?

I disagree with the point that the prime directive commits a teleological fallacy. Breaking the prime directive doesn’t disrupt some purpose towards which a society is progressing. What breaking the prime directive does accomplish is putting power into the hands of those who have not earned it, do not understand it, and can’t be trusted to use it responsibly, or at least with the benefit of the experience of developing that technology in the first place.

One can say trivially that, for any technology a society has obtained, that society has not destroyed itself with it. An important part of using technology (or cultural values or institutions or practices) is doing so incrementally–taking small steps, evaluating the impact, more small steps…

Actually, some of the better Star Treks are the ones that revolve around the consequences of breaking the prime directive, or the desperate need to do so.

5

So, you followers of the Prime Directive… should we not give AIDS drugs to those of it in need in Africa, for example? Or should we not arm our allies in other nations if they can’t make the weapons themselves?

How is the situation different, if so?

6

The difference, Eris, is that the Prime Directive (theoretically) does not even allow the “inferior” alien cultures to know of our presence. That’s why Riker gets to dress up in those funny costumes and surgically implant ridges in his forehead.
We don’t interfere AT ALL until they develop warp technology. Africans, OTOH, know that we exist. At least, I think they do. I haven’t been to Africa to confirm this.

7

From what I understand about the Prime Directive, the Federation does not interfear with non-warp drive cultures for their own good. From what I have observed, the Prime Directive can be broken if 1) it will benefit the Federation, 2) it will save a planet/culture from total destruction 3) the captain really feels like it.

The reason Earth nations don’t follow a ‘Prime Directive’ AKA Isolationism is that:

  1. It is in our (and their) economic interests to trade with developing nations and thus help their development along

  2. There are other nations that don’t share our idealogy. If we don’t help those nations develop, other nations probably will.

As for changing these nations cultures and traditions, well things change. After the invention of the automobile, we stopped riding horses everywhere, right?

8

I would think that the prime directive would be a good thing, should we ever need it. Think about it. Civilizations that are too immature for advanced technology, (ex., nuclear tech. and us), usually just end up messing themselves up (hiroshima). Some people would probably freak out if they suddenly heard of alien species that had the ability to completely wipe them out, and there would lots of chaos and denial.

That’s just what i think, but given the aggresiveness of our species, i don’t think one would ever be instituted.

9

Well, “Should we interfere” ism’t a theoretical question. In the 16th-19th centuries, Europeans made first contact with other cultures, and decided that they had a moral responsibility to help those cultures develop technologically, politically, and socially, and we’re facing the consequences of those decisions today.

Here is the poem “The White Man’s Burden”, espressing those sentiments.

http://www.boondocksnet.com/kipling/kipling.html

It’s tempting to say, “Yeah, we have a responsiblity to help technologically inferior societies” and maybe we do, but we can’t fool ourselves in saying that this help doesn’t have any affect on their culture. I’m not trying to argue a teliological fallacy. Our influence doesn’t disrupt what another culture is supposed to be, but it does destroy all the other options of what the culture could be. Are we sure enough that our culture is the best possible culture to cut off other cultures from developing other options?

10

When two cultures develop close relations with each other, they will invariably influence each other to some extent, regardless of where they are technologically. We shouldn’t be trying to turn everyone into carbon copies of us, but if some beings see us and decide by their own free will to emulate some aspects of our culture, is there really any problem?
I fully understand how it wouldn’t be such a hot idea to give out advanced technology(especially things like weapons and antimatter) like candy, but we probably shouldn’t be as strict as the Federation’s Prime Directive is.

Think about it: If a primitive society is about to be destroyed by a disease, natural disaster, meteor impact, etc., why would helping them be a bad thing? Are they actually better off dead than having been influenced by us?

11

What consequences? You wouldn’t have an America without ‘interference’ by Europeans. Europe would probably be 1000 years behind schedule if the Romans didn’t ‘influence’ their ‘barbarian’ neighbors. It is truly naive and ignorant to believe that the world would be a better place if we just let everyone run around the woods in loincloths picking berries.

12

Well, my point is, we don’t know what Europe would be like now without Rome. We don’t know what the Aztecs would have been like now if they never met the Spanish, and we don’t know what the Japanese would be like now if they didn’t meet the Portugese in the 16th century, or the Americans in the 19th. They might be worse off. They might not be, though. If the Aztec didn’t meet the Spanish, we can’t assume Aztec culture now would be the same as it was them. Cultures do change over 400 years. It’s even more difficult to see what would have developed in Europe without Rome.

13

We can, however, make some educated guesses. Simply put:
Technology tends to develop in a culture that values new ideas and has the wealth/leisure to support them. Starving peasants and warlike barbarians rarely create new technologies.
Had Rome not been there, Greece would have continued to dominate the Eurpoeans scene. But Greece had never had much interest in the northern lands and had not enough people to move there anyway. Also, Greece’s infuence was waning in this era anyway.
The Germans move in less opposed by, well, anyone.
God alone (I mean that) knows what would have happened to Christianity (later to importantly pave the way for and support the Renaissance with the its continued copying of Greek philosophy and science throughout the ages, among other things.
The Germanic peoples would not have had any great states to look to for inspiration in later years, at least, not on that continent.
Muslim domination of whatever bits of Europe they wanted. Which probably wouldn’t be much. No Rome, No Constaninople, no nothing to conquer or steal.

14

Well, the Celts were pretty solidly in the middle of the Iron age, and were fairly prosperous. It’s possible they may have started devloping centralized statses (which started to happen in Ireland). Christianity probably wouldn’t have existed at all, because without Roman domination of Judea, messianistic cults and movements wouldn’t have been common. Or, the Parthians would have invaded Judea, and any religious movements would have moved east. Who knows if Islam would have existed without Christianity? I don’t think it would have, though.

15

Well, the great thing about life and history is that you can only do something once, there’s no going back. We can’t see what would happen, for example, if England never pushed colonies in the Americas.

This is why these cultural interaction paradigms are so fascinating. They are, totally and without exception, unsupportable by any evidence whatsoever. They are completely dependent on your outlook in life. (or so it seems to me, anyway)

It seems clear to me that we have never exercized the Prime Directive, but we have effectively (that is, in effect) used it with respect to many isolated Amazon tribes, for instance. Not that no one anywhere knew they existed, but that is probably as close as we are going to functionally get to the PD being implemented here on Earth.

Now, can we say that they are better off than they would have been without interaction? No, probably not, because yes-men will look at the “richer, fuller lives” we lead materially, and the nay-sayers will suggest that such small cultures could have been swept away in the momentum of globlization or early colonialism (which then just pushes the argument onto: does culture have inherent value? See how people can dodge issues, so tricky :)).

And so we come back to the issue at its face.

Yeah, but why? You later mention, “Are we sure enough that our culture is the best possible culture to cut off other cultures from developing other options?” You seem to be saying that no, it isn’t, and the Pd should stand on its own merits out of moral relativity-justified isolationism (as opposed to other, less popular brands). Am I correct in this reading?

I am not certain where this is coming from, or what it is in regards to… is this for or against the PD? I would read that you are against the PD, but I am unclear about why the PD represents any teliological belief.

Is that really the difference between SG1 and PD models of interaction? If you don’t watch the show, the SG1 team actively searches for new races to share intelligence with, seek allies, and recover a valuable compound of some sort. At that the two are really more dichotomous in the spectrum of “seek or not to seek” rather than any implication of a culture’s foreknowledge of our (SG1 team or the federation as “our”) existence.

Indeed; but, do you feel that this model is unavoidable (i.e.— a function inherently necessary for humans), currently prudent but possibly not permanently necessary, the incorrect course of action, or a “universal truth” for life as we know it (though I wouldn’t presume, for example, that alien races would necessarily look human, I would think that the evolutionary process would yield intelligent races with very similar functionality)?

Your second post seems to support technological advancement as a guide for cultural/societal viability, and while I wouldn’t disagree that this is a supportable method of examination I don’t want to put words into your mouth, either.

ssj_man2k, your post is a supreme example of the intention of the PD. Contrary to msmith’s point about economic factors driving interaction you certainly do take the moral route here and lead me to wonder the following:

As a general rule this is perhaps interesting, but here we see the “its for your own good / mother knows best” mentality. If I were, somehow, a civilization I would want access to higher technology earlier, so we certainly cannot ask them their opinion… can we? I mean, consider—would a civilization ever turn down such aid and ability? Have there been historic cases of such? What privilege do we have that we may learn from them and yet offer nothing in return?

I think the PD has, television-and-movie-wise, been broken each time for such affairs… hasn’t it? Even still, this is far less of a moral quandry than finding another culture and deciding whether or not to interact with it. Of course, any such event must be weighed independently on its own merits, but we can cetainly taint those merits depending on the stand we take along the SG1/PD continuum.

bandit, your response does not automatically convey in me a sense that you support the PD, but also seems to condemn SG1 as well. I am thoroughly confused. Or were you just trying to put some perspective into this and not taking a side?

16

Well, basically, but I will add that the Prime Directive protects alien cultures from exploitation. It’s what stops me from taking my spaceship to some bronze age society and saying, “I am your king! Worship me!”, and phasering anyone who disobeys.

To risk invoking Godwin’s law, let’s look at the one episode I can remember from TOS where the Prime Directive was violated, and Kirk and Co. came by later and saw the effect.

The name of the episode is “Patterns of Force”. The Enterprise is going to the planet Ekos to find John Gill, a historian, and Kirk’s professor at Starfleet Academy, who was observing the Ekosians. The Ekosians are a violent but technologically primitive and anarchic culture. Their neighbors, from Zeon, are more technologically advanced and peaceful. When they get to the solar system, the ship is attacked by a probe with a nuclear warhead, too advanced to belong to either Ekos or Zeon. When Kirk beams down to the planet, he finds that the Ekosians have developed a society similar to Nazi Germany, and they’re planning on exterminating the people of Zeon. It turns out that Gill, when he came to the planet, and saw that it was in chaos, and the people were suffering, he told them about the structure of Nazi Germany, so the Ekosians patterned their society around that.

17

Erislover:

The teliological belief behind the PD is that there is some destined “development arch” that other cultures are “interfering” with. It’s the old savagry - babarism - agriculture - feudalism - monarchy - nation-state plan that those 19th century types were so fond of. In order to claim that we can disrupt some vital process, you have to believe that some vital process is there in the first place.
I also think that we are all approaching this from a very Eur-centric view where we are used to assuming that we will be the ones chooseing to discolose or withhold knowledge. Turning the problem around, would it be morally correct for some other culture to let you kid die of cancer because they didn’t tihnk your civilization had developed to the point where they could handle having the cure?

18

Now, I don’t know if this answers the main point of the OP (which is better, the Prime Directive or whatever rule Stargate follows) or not, but there is one major difference between the two groups espousing those ideas that I don’t believe has been mentioned before.

In Star Trek, the Prime Directive is used to ensure that the Federation doesn’t interfere with less-civilized cultures. In Stargate, (as far as I can tell from the description erislover gave) the characters are fighting a war against a more advanced enemy.

Notice the balance of power. In Star Trek, the Federation is the more advanced civilization. They’re one of the major governments in the galaxy. A planet, especially one that’s not yet developed warp drive, is (generally) no match for the Federation.

In Stargate, Earth’s military is technologically inferior. They’re fighting a technologically superior foe, far more powerful than Earth could ever hope to achieve on its own.

This power inequity is what drives the rationale for its behaviour towards other civilaztions. Stargate needs all the tech it can get to defeat the big baddie. So it doesn’t care that it is spreading its technology to other races, as long as it gets the technology that other races might provide to it. Star Trek, on the other hand, knows that it is more powerful than those less primitive races, so it treads more lightly.

So, bascially, I guess my answer would be that whether or not sharing tech with other races depends entirely upon the situation around it.

19

OTOH, would it be morally correct for some other culture to come in and say, “You’re ignorant savages, and your society is perverted. We’ll take power and show you how things should be.”

20

I think another function of the PD that hasn’t been mentioned is to keep the unscrupulous from messing with people who are in an easily victimized position. It’d be awfully easy for someone in a starship to come along and extort whatever sorts of payment he/she wanted from a planet still dealing with the concepts of gravity and momentum. And for that person to introduce things and attitudes that could be detrimental to the actual survival of the people on that planet.