Do you agree with the Prime Directive?

[acri1]

Figured we might as well get a philosophy thread popping since current politics is depressing. For anybody who's never watched Star Trek -

Prime Directive - Wikipedia

In the fictional universe of Star Trek, the Prime Directive (also known as "Starfleet General Order 1", "General Order 1", and the "non-interference directive") is a guiding principle of Starfleet that prohibits its members from interfering with the natural development of alien civilizations.[1] The Prime Directive protects unprepared civilizations from the dangerous tendency of well-intentioned starship crews to introduce advanced technology, knowledge, and values before they are ready.

As the right of each sentient species to live in accordance with its normal cultural evolution is considered sacred, no Starfleet personnel may interfere with the normal and healthy development of alien life and culture. Such interference includes introducing superior knowledge, strength, or technology to a world whose society is incapable of handling such advantages wisely. Starfleet personnel may not violate this Prime Directive, even to save their lives and/or their ship, unless they are acting to right an earlier violation or an accidental contamination of said culture. This directive takes precedence over any and all other considerations, and carries with it the highest moral obligation.[5][6]

This idea probably came about because of politics at the time. The Vietnam War was ongoing at the time the original Star Trek show was created, and the idea of the Prime Directive was probably a result of the the decreasing popularity of the war, and many people not wanting the US to try to police the world or get involved in other people's affairs.

But if something like Starfleet existed in real life, is this rule ethical and/or a good idea?


I'm not sure honestly. Sounds good on one hand, but if billions of people are about to get wiped out by an asteroid, or disease, or something like that, is it ethical to let them die (when you can prevent it) just to avoid interfering?

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

Figured we might as well get a philosophy thread popping since current politics is depressing. For anybody who's never watched Star Trek -

Prime Directive - Wikipedia






This idea probably came about because of politics at the time. The Vietnam War was ongoing at the time the original Star Trek show was created, and the idea of the Prime Directive was probably a result of the the decreasing popularity of the war, and many people not wanting the US to try to police the world or get involved in other people's affairs.

But if something like Starfleet existed in real life, is this rule ethical and/or a good idea?


I'm not sure honestly. Sounds good on one hand, but if billions of people are about to get wiped out by an asteroid, or disease, or something like that, is it ethical to let them die (when you can prevent it) just to avoid interfering?

Depends on what other knowledge the supposed Star Fleet has.

Would it be ethical to stop those billions from getting wiped out if there is knowledge of some sort of natural flow to a timeline? What if stopping those billions from dying leads to trillions dying elsewhere in a previously unforeseen event?

Are events pre-determined or destined to occur in such a way, is there a logical and improvisational nature to events or is it random chaos under the veneer of organization that is a figment of our minds seeking sense?

 

[acri1]

Depends on what other knowledge the supposed Star Fleet has.

Would it be ethical to stop those billions from getting wiped out if there is knowledge of some sort of natural flow to a timeline? What if stopping those billions from dying leads to trillions dying elsewhere in a previously unforeseen event?

Are events pre-determined or destined to occur in such a way, is there a logical and improvisational nature to events or is it random chaos under the veneer of organization that is a figment of our minds seeking sense?

You're thinking of the Temporal Prime Directive (ie "don't mess with the timeline").

The regular Prime Directive isn't about time travel, it's just about not interfering with less advanced civilizations. Starfleet doesn't know what the outcome would be in each situation, it's just a rule they have.


There's precedent of them giving out technology and shyt only for it to backfire.

 

[Formerly Black Trash]

Figured we might as well get a philosophy thread popping since current politics is depressing. For anybody who's never watched Star Trek -

Prime Directive - Wikipedia






This idea probably came about because of politics at the time. The Vietnam War was ongoing at the time the original Star Trek show was created, and the idea of the Prime Directive was probably a result of the the decreasing popularity of the war, and many people not wanting the US to try to police the world or get involved in other people's affairs.

But if something like Starfleet existed in real life, is this rule ethical and/or a good idea?


I'm not sure honestly. Sounds good on one hand, but if billions of people are about to get wiped out by an asteroid, or disease, or something like that, is it ethical to let them die (when you can prevent it) just to avoid interfering?

It wouldn't exist irl
Because federation would be stripping those planets of resources

 

[Spidey Man]

It wouldn't exist irl
Because federation would be stripping those planets of resources

They wouldn't need to because of replicators, and if there's resources that can't be replicated, there's millions of uninhabited planets all over the galaxy that they could get it from.

 

[MasterOfAllHeSurveyz]

Yes.

 

[Orbital-Fetus]

 

[Macallik86]

Figured we might as well get a philosophy thread popping since current politics is depressing. For anybody who's never watched Star Trek -

Prime Directive - Wikipedia






This idea probably came about because of politics at the time. The Vietnam War was ongoing at the time the original Star Trek show was created, and the idea of the Prime Directive was probably a result of the the decreasing popularity of the war, and many people not wanting the US to try to police the world or get involved in other people's affairs.

But if something like Starfleet existed in real life, is this rule ethical and/or a good idea?


I'm not sure honestly. Sounds good on one hand, but if billions of people are about to get wiped out by an asteroid, or disease, or something like that, is it ethical to let them die (when you can prevent it) just to avoid interfering?

Didn't watch the show but did this ever occur?

Outside of extreme scenarios like that, I'm cool with protecting other civilizations from themselves. Unless you show the entire civilization the tech at the same time, it will just create an indestructible group that can rule over the rest of the globe. IIRC a navy advantage made England dominant, Americans dominated Native Americans with guns and diseases, etc. Even a small advantage is leverageable over time.

 

[Take It In Blood]

no

fuk up some commas

 

[acri1]

Didn't watch the show but did this ever occur?

Yes, it comes up all the time and and Star Trek captains occasionally get in trouble for violating it.

I think they said in one episode that over the course of history Starfleet has allowed something like 50 or 60 races to die out rather than interfere. This was in an episode where they were arguing about whether to save this one civilization from dying out due to some kind of problem with their atmosphere. Was kind of interesting.

 

[NZA]

i wouldnt follow it 100%, but it is a great general rule. i would still be willing to interfere for some extreme circumstances that i may not even be able to fathom right now.

i dont believe it is "moral", but it does give clean hands for starfleet in their diplomacy missions.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

You're thinking of the Temporal Prime Directive (ie "don't mess with the timeline").

The regular Prime Directive isn't about time travel, it's just about not interfering with less advanced civilizations. Starfleet doesn't know what the outcome would be in each situation, it's just a rule they have.


There's precedent of them giving out technology and shyt only for it to backfire.

I don't watch Star Trek really so I didnt realize that this thread was specifically in regards to that as opposed to using it as a frame of reference.

In that case I wouldnt interfere unless I was sure I could have prolonged influence to guide the civilization. Just hopping in and out and hoping they figure it out is not the wave

 

[Secure Da Bag]

Does the Prime Directive prevent the crew from stopping a meteor from causing an extinction level event?

 

[Michael's Black Son]

Didn't watch the show but did this ever occur?

Outside of extreme scenarios like that, I'm cool with protecting other civilizations from themselves. Unless you show the entire civilization the tech at the same time, it will just create an indestructible group that can rule over the rest of the globe. IIRC a navy advantage made England dominant, Americans dominated Native Americans with guns and diseases, etc. Even a small advantage is leverageable over time.

Prime Directive has been “violated” many times in many Trek series. Sometimes by accident and of course on purpose. That’s why they (the Federation) will at least observe a species for a while to see if they are capable of warp travel before trying to make contact.

Idea is that a non warp capable species would lose their damn minds if they saw advanced “alien” tech

 

[acri1]

Does the Prime Directive prevent the crew from stopping a meteor from causing an extinction level event?

Yes. It would also prevent the crew from doing something like curing a plague that was wiping out a civilization.