...the Prime Directive

Great Debates
21

Don’t forget- making contact with a civilization that has had limited contact with others is a dangerous thing to do, even to the people from the more advanced civilization. The fates of Captain James Cook and Ferdinand Magellan show the kind of thing that can happen in this situation. The Prime Directive may be a way for Starfleet to discourage people who don’t know what they are doing from attempting first contact, or limiting Starfleet’s liability if they do attempt it, mess it up, and get killed.

Disease could also be an issue. The humanoid races may be closely related enough to share diseases, which could have disastrous consequences, either for Starfleet or the newly discovered civilization, as it did for the Native Americans of the New World..

22

Og help me, I agree with Der Trihs on this one! :eek:

The key is defining what “disastrous” means. Did contact with the Europeans result in disaster for the Aztecs? Yep, but they had it coming. If any “civilization” needed erasing from the surface of the planet, that one did. Ditto the Indian sub-continent and some of their practices. Am I approaching this from a self-centered, smug white Western attitude? Of course. But relatively speaking, we had the phasers. Total hands-off will never work, and the “protectors” of the culturally weaker planets aren’t doing them any favors by trying to gently mold them into good little members of the Federation. Let them fight it out with the rest of us! If they have something to sell, then sell it. If not, what do we want with your crummy little planet anyway?

23

What strikes me as very odd is the proliferation of star ships available to humans (who may now be 'enlightened enough to follow the guidlines of the PD) and all other members of the Federation (some who may not be as 'enlightened). Given the amount of starships being staffed by merchants, pirates, and explorers, I don’t see how there could be many star systems left unexplored in Federation space. And once a system has been catalogued then the unscrupulous would be there in droves to see if a profit could be had and contact would be made regardless of the PD.

24

[QUOTE=silenus]
Og help me, I agree with Der Trihs on this one! :eek:

The key is defining what “disastrous” means. Did contact with the Europeans result in disaster for the Aztecs? Yep, but they had it coming. If any “civilization” needed erasing from the surface of the planet, that one did. Ditto the Indian sub-continent and some of their practices. Am I approaching this from a self-centered, smug white Western attitude? Of course. But relatively speaking, we had the phasers. Total hands-off will never work, and the “protectors” of the culturally weaker planets aren’t doing them any favors by trying to gently mold them into good little members of the Federation. Let them fight it out with the rest of us! If they have something to sell, then sell it. If not, what do we want with your crummy little planet anyway?
[/QUOTE]

Oh, please. While certain practices of the Aztecs or on the Indian subcontinent were certainly immoral when viewed from a modern context, it’s nothing but historical revisionism to pretend the Europeans of that time period were any better. Colonial practices were barbaric, cruel, and economically devastating for much of the third world. If the Indians deserved to be conquered for, say, the practice of Sati, then the British deserved to be conquered for their massacres of unarmed Indians.

25

As to the OP, we know how highly the Federation values the PD. They tried to destroy a planet’s atmosphere in order to get the secret of youth–and that was with full backing of the Federation council.

But, I think the PD leads to consequences that are ultimately self-destructive. For example, there’s the episode where Riker gets trapped on a planet that the Feds are scoping out to determine if they should offer them membership. Now, that planetary system must be in Fed space–if it was in Klingon or Cardassian space it would have been overrun. Does this mean that the Federation has to expend resources defending that system? A system which isn’t part of the Federation? Perhaps its strategically located, and it benefits the Federation to protect it anyway, but it seems that with the PD you would end up expending resources to protect systems which aren’t a part of the Federation. That seems to me to be a big economic drain.

Plus, as others have pointed out, the PD simply allows great tragedies to befall other races. If I have to apply it to Earth, then I don’t see the point in allowing, say, infants to die from malaria in order to avoid cultural contamination. I certainly don’t agree with say, the Spanish Conquistadors destruction of the collection of Mayan written works. But I think there is a way to preserve cultures and still allow interaction. If a kid in the jungles of Brazil needs life saving medication, then he should have access to it, and if that means that a tribe becomes aware of other cultural values, I don’t see the big deal. As long as the tribe has the option of preserving its culture, then I’m ok with it.

26

[QUOTE=BrightNShiny]
Oh, please. While certain practices of the Aztecs or on the Indian subcontinent were certainly immoral when viewed from a modern context, it’s nothing but historical revisionism to pretend the Europeans of that time period were any better.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I also hate it when people speak ignorantly about the Aztecs.
It rips my heart out.

27

[QUOTE=BrightNShiny]
Oh, please. While certain practices of the Aztecs or on the Indian subcontinent were certainly immoral when viewed from a modern context, it’s nothing but historical revisionism to pretend the Europeans of that time period were any better. Colonial practices were barbaric, cruel, and economically devastating for much of the third world. If the Indians deserved to be conquered for, say, the practice of Sati, then the British deserved to be conquered for their massacres of unarmed Indians.
[/QUOTE]

The Spanish in particular, at the time of their conquest of the Aztecs, were pretty brutal. Don’t forget, they had recently banished many people from their country for the “crime” of being Muslim or Jewish. They gave them the opportunity to convert to Catholicism and stay, but then they weren’t very nice to the people who chose that option. The conquest of the Aztecs came during the height of the Spanish Inquisition, after all.

28

So, you’re saying Saddam Hussein = Landruu?

29

I’m reluctantly pro-Prime Directive, in the context of ST. It was usually the least bad option, although it was more often than not honored in the breach. Picard said something about the PD not just protecting developing cultures, but protecting Starfleet officers and the Federation from the temptation to play God. But Uzi makes a good point that warp drive seems so widely available that Starfleet would have to spend a lot of time quarantining primitive worlds to shield them from those bent on exploitation, tourism, etc.

The PD was inconsistently described and applied, though. In TNG “Angel One,” someone (Tasha, I think) explicitly says that the PD doesn’t apply to the Federation civilian crew of a starship which landed on the pre-warp, matriarchally-ruled world. And in VGR “Prophet Motive,” the two Ferengi who set themselves up as lords and masters of a primitive culture are, although scorned by Janeway’s crew as immoral and exploitive, not prosecuted for violating the PD.

Peter David wrote in one of his books about a young Starfleet officer (not one of the main characters) who was assigned as a cultural observer to some pre-warp alien royal court. There was a coup, and the “king” and his family were lashed to death. The coup leaders gave the officer the whip as a token of their esteem for his refusal, under the PD, to interfere. A harsh commentary, I’ll admit, but who was he to decide who should rule that planet?

The PD in today’s world would simply be unworkable, as others have said. Virtually every nation is now linked to one degree or another with all others. Standing idly by while genocide, environmental degradation or (actual) development of WMDs takes place within the borders of another country will often not be an option for the U.S., or for the international community. The Hot Zone is a good book about the risk of the rapid, jet-borne spread of diseases like Ebola in our interconnected world, from deepest Africa to suburban Washington, D.C. in less than day.

30

[QUOTE=Elendil’s Heir]
And in VGR “Prophet Motive,” the two Ferengi who set themselves up as lords and masters of a primitive culture are, although scorned by Janeway’s crew as immoral and exploitive, not prosecuted for violating the PD.
[/QUOTE]
The Ferengi aren’t part of the Federation.

31

The Prime Directive was never written out explicitly by the show’s creators. It was a story device that created artificial tension by restricting heroes in the use of offworld technology. “Oh no, we can’t use our laser beams and transporters, that’s a violation of the Prime Directive.” As a result of its amorphous definition, we can’t really debate on its efficacy as a real policy.

The Secondary Directive was therefore, “The ship’s power will go out conveniently to make things appear more dangerous than they really are.”

The Tertiary Directive was then, “Someone in Security should be killed once in a while.”

32

[QUOTE=Fish]
The Prime Directive was never written out explicitly by the show’s creators. It was a story device that created artificial tension by restricting heroes in the use of offworld technology. “Oh no, we can’t use our laser beams and transporters, that’s a violation of the Prime Directive.” As a result of its amorphous definition, we can’t really debate on its efficacy as a real policy.

The Secondary Directive was therefore, “The ship’s power will go out conveniently to make things appear more dangerous than they really are.”

The Tertiary Directive was then, “Someone in Security should be killed once in a while.”
[/QUOTE]

4th Directive: The holodeck will malfunction once per month.

33

Can you just imagine this scenario. You’re world just recently acquired warp technology only to find that all systems surrounding your home have been gobbled up by some empire calling itself the United Federation of Planets. I’d be more than a bit worried.

Marc

34

[QUOTE=MGibson]
Can you just imagine this scenario. You’re world just recently acquired warp technology only to find that all systems surrounding your home have been gobbled up by some empire calling itself the United Federation of Planets. I’d be more than a bit worried.

Marc
[/QUOTE]

Well, if your, let’s say, wheat, can out-perform the other guy’s wheat and you can prove you can develop the nearby planet more efficiently, I believe there is legal precedent to award you the rights to that planet.

35

[QUOTE=BMalion]
4th Directive: The holodeck will malfunction once per month.
[/QUOTE]

5th Directive: Only visit planets where female aliens wear skimpy clothing.

(I see a CS thread coming on here.)

36

[QUOTE=MGibson]
Can you just imagine this scenario. You’re world just recently acquired warp technology only to find that all systems surrounding your home have been gobbled up by some empire calling itself the United Federation of Planets. I’d be more than a bit worried.

Marc
[/QUOTE]

Or, The Day the Earth stood still, where your threatened for being too aggressive.

It is no concern of ours how you run your own planet. As long as you were content to blow each other up in your quaint little wars, we were content to merely watch and wager Quatloo’s. But now, you have discovered warp drive. If you threaten to extend your violence, this planet of yours will be reduced to a burned-out cinder. Your choice is simple: join us and live in peace, or pursue your present course and face obliteration. We shall be waiting for your answer. The decision rests with you.

37

Some sort of guidelines for dealing with a developing civilization are necessary, be they cruelly exploitative or benevolently enlightened, rigid or subject to interpretation. If you have no rules and anything goes, that is still your presumed modus operandi.

So what would be your Prime Directive(s)?

Trying to avoid Lawyerspeak, I would limit interaction to the bare minimum, but allow the civilization to be saved/protected if need be. Typically they are not to be exploited at all, left to their own devices if possible, disguises (holomakeup, plastic surgery or the like) allowed, but not get too anal about it. “Accidentally” leaving advanced technology behind would be a no-no (Lord knows they did that more than a few times, often without it being a concern by the command staff/plot point at all), perhaps a phaser automatically melts after a week or something.

38

[QUOTE=BrightNShiny]
Oh, please. While certain practices of the Aztecs or on the Indian subcontinent were certainly immoral when viewed from a modern context, it’s nothing but historical revisionism to pretend the Europeans of that time period were any better. Colonial practices were barbaric, cruel, and economically devastating for much of the third world. If the Indians deserved to be conquered for, say, the practice of Sati, then the British deserved to be conquered for their massacres of unarmed Indians.
[/QUOTE]

To start off with the fundamental basis of ALL the preColumbian civilisations of central and southern America that we know of to date was that the Sun(usually but sometimes the rains)would not return unless fed with very large quantities of blood.

The sheer scale of the executions,the brutality of the method plus the little extras like flaying the corpses and the priests dancing in the skins and the fact that children as well as adults were victims adds up to a little more then "certain practices"unless I’ve just been wooshed.
We’re not talking about a historical glitch here but many,many centuries.

It was’nt a case of the civilisations AND the sacrifices ,the two were inextricably combined ,the one was the reason for the other.

Its absurd to say that the Europeans of the time were no better as I know of no nation that carried out death in such industrial quantities .

As to India when the Europeans landed it was the Moghul Empire ,nation states under the control of absaloute rulers,anyone and that included members of the ruling families could be executed ,tortured or maimed at the rulers whim .
No explanation given ,no legal process,nothing .
If the top man had a headache or had had a row with his wife then he could and often did those things .
In the lower administrative tiers corruption ,bribery,embezzlement ,abuse of position and nepotism were the order of the day.

The society itself was stagnating politically,economically,technologically and agriculturaly so there was no liklihood at all that anything would improve for the populations of these terrible places.

The Indians of those times were armed at least as well as the Europeans with muskets,cannons ,fortresses etc.

Other not so pleasant facets of the culture were the activities of the Thuggee and the caste system(officially no longer relevant but still being practised in actuality as is Suti)

39

[QUOTE=Lust4Life]
To start off with the fundamental basis of ALL the preColumbian civilisations of central and southern America that we know of to date was that the Sun(usually but sometimes the rains)would not return unless fed with very large quantities of blood.

The sheer scale of the executions,the brutality of the method plus the little extras like flaying the corpses and the priests dancing in the skins and the fact that children as well as adults were victims adds up to a little more then "certain practices"unless I’ve just been wooshed.
We’re not talking about a historical glitch here but many,many centuries.

It was’nt a case of the civilisations AND the sacrifices ,the two were inextricably combined ,the one was the reason for the other.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not an expert on the Aztecs, so I’ll skip this.

France, during the revolution, the USSR, and Nazi Germany all carried out large scale deathly activities.

Seriously, have you ever studied European history? Any of these could be applied to any European nation in the 1400s and 1500s.

This is utter nonsense. The subcontinent economy had a massive trade surplus prior to the arrival of the British East India company. The British East India company collapsed the Indian economy, and then the British Raj stagnated Indian growth for the next 90 years. I’ve posted cite after cite in threads over this, which you have participated in and ignored. You simply have no credibility here, and at this point, either post a cite, or I’m going to assume that you are simply spreading propoganda with no truth value. I don’t even believe what you wrote about the Aztecs now.

Yes, so?

This is the biggest laugh of all. The British made absolutely no effort to end caste discrimination and used it to prop up their system. The people who finally took steps to end officially sanctioned caste discrimination were Indians. Anybody who points to the caste system as evidence that the British should have conquered India has never read a history book.

You are simply someone who likes to post untruths about both colonialism and British behavior during the colonial period.

40

[QUOTE=BrightNShiny]
ance, during the revolution, the USSR, and Nazi Germany all carried out large scale deathly activities.

Seriously, have you ever studied European history? Any of these could be applied to any European nation in the 1400s and 1500s.

I don’t even believe what you wrote about the Aztecs now.

This is the biggest laugh of all. The British made absolutely no effort to end caste discrimination and used it to prop up their system. are simply someone who likes to post untruths about both colonialism and British behavior during the colonial period.
[/QUOTE]

The actions of the Nazis and Communists and so on were evil and Europeans have repeatedly said so but these actions were not a sustained and permament basis of their cultures ,lasting century after century amongst the Aztecs,Mayans ,Incas and many more obscurer Pre Columbian civilisations.
Watch any documentary on any cable channel about any topic to do with these civilisations and it will become blindingly obvious to you .
Those what did you call them?
I cant actually remember the term you used to describe the mass murder of millions",other activities"activities or somesuch.
Yes I have read the odd titbit about European history though I’m not an expert on every single country.
In Britain by that time we had a constitutional monarchy and even the more despotic rulers previously had to work with Parliament ,Charles 2nd tried it and there was a civil war which he lost. but even before then we had had Magna Carta,a legal system and even the lowest of the low had rights.

Even the King couldn’t execute somebody without due process and definitely not on the spot on a whim.

The Irish had a detailed and very humane code of laws many centuries earlier ,the French had a codified system of laws as did the Scandinavian nations,the Italian states I could go on but I dont think I will.

When the Brits ruled India the days of being able to murder a social inferior to vent frustration for being in a bad mood were at an end .
There were laws and they applied to everyone including the Brits.

As to the caste system, coming from outside of the sub continent the Europeans were considered to be "Untouchables"the lowest of the low as I’m sure you must be aware but I don’t recall the Whites restricting their activities to laundry and similar jobs .

The Brits actually had no interest in supporting the system but any attempt to ignore its constraints when other Indians were involved always,every single time led to anger ,hatred and if persisted with violence up to and including the murder of the unfortunate lower caste member .
This too I’m sure you must be aware of .

When lower caste Indians left the subcontinent to work for the Brits ,the Brits were quite happy to employ them in any capacity as long as they were competent at their jobs.

This led to lower caste members being able to become successful merchants in E.Africa,Britain its self ,anywhere in fact in the Empire.

The trade surplus or could we maybe call it imbalance ?
Would that be anything to do with the Moghuls selling the products of their subjects for their own wealth and then hoarding the revenue rather then importing anything that might lighten the lives of their people?

Would the Brits importing raw materials to be turned into manufactured products alter the balance as opposed to say growing spices and other cash crops ?
Questions only ,I’m not suggesting that the Brits were all saints whose only purpose was philantrophic and were not motivated by a strong commercial incentive.

But I am saying that we were one hell of a lot better then the stagnating bunch of psychopaths who had held the population in their merciless sway before us.