Do you agree with the Prime Directive?

[MasterOfAllHeSurveyz]

Yes.

 

[CopiousX]

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?

Its not a bad idea. Its just unenforcible. As a society we cant even keep our religious zealots off of a remote, protected, human location like North Sentinel Island in the indian ocean. So imagine trying to do such a thing on a cosmic scale.



As for ethicality, i dont see an issue with the directive. Sometimes humanity needs a hard lesson to change. These last 2 covid years have shown me that; as a planet, we would need a bubonic plague to teach our stupidist population the importance of hygene. I mean large swathes of our human population in the US, Canada, India, South America, the middle east, and Africa outright ignored the advice of the planet's foremost biochemists, immunologists, physiologists for 2 years straight. so i garuntee you our alien saviors would be ignored as well.


Its a shame to admit it, but our most ardent MAGA people only admitted the Covid crisis was a legitimate problem once it had finally killed a close relative. So there is something to be said about hampered psychosocial development, if aliens were to intervene. After all, even if they could magically fix the disease itself, such a thing would not fix the underlying psychological mindset that causes MAGA folk to throw conventions in a medical crisis or Indians to hold river bathing festivals in one either.




I will admit tho, that the entire prime directive's principle is mute if the protected species is 100% anhialated, so extreme events like a dinosaur era meteorite hitting our world during a primitive era like the middle ages should be stopped. However, if such a thing allowed any of the protected species to survive then it shouldnt be intervened with. Even that meteorite is a learning opportunity. A stronger species would arise from an incomplete cataclysm the same way antibacterial-resistant bacteria arise from a heavy dose of penicillin in a petri dish

 

[Skooby]

No...somewhat. One man's good is another man's evil.

 

[DrBanneker]

I agree as far as political/social/cultural/technological progress within a less advanced civilization.

External threats species killer events like asteroids or stellar collapse could be grounds for intervention though. If they decide to nuke or bio warfare themselves though, ain't our fault.

 

[88m3]

in theory it is sound but in practice...



I don't think any of the captains were ever able to stick to it let alone the individual crew members that felt x because of y

 

[Anton]

Only reason nikkas want to fukk these hoes is cuz Drake fukked em. Yall gay.

 

[chico25]

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

It depends. If the civilization is advanced enough to be aware of the meteor and its trajectory the prime directive would stop you from interfering because it would affect the civilization. If Earth detected a meteor that would destroy all life on earth and knew it was going to hit then it just disappeared that would cause a lot of questions and panic that would affect society.

On the other hand a primitive civilization that had no clue the meteor existed could be saved with no conflict with the prime directive because that civilization will continue to evolve in the same way it always would have.

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

The purpose in not interfering with things like a plague or environmental issue is where do you draw the line. When do you go from savior to colonization. If you give certain tech without getting involved in how it's used then it could be taken over by a ruling class that uses it for oppression. For instance if a society greater than ours gave us everything we needed for energy and transportation to eliminate fossil fuels and power our whole world for free, how much do you want to bet it would be buried by oil companies?

If you start "guiding" them at what point are they just a colony that you've taken over.

Its not a bad idea. Its just unenforcible. As a society we cant even keep our religious zealots off of a remote, protected, human location like North Sentinel Island in the indian ocean. So imagine trying to do such a thing on a cosmic scale.



As for ethicality, i dont see an issue with the directive. Sometimes humanity needs a hard lesson to change. These last 2 covid years have shown me that; as a planet, we would need a bubonic plague to teach our stupidist population the importance of hygene. I mean large swathes of our human population in the US, Canada, India, South America, the middle east, and Africa outright ignored the advice of the planet's foremost biochemists, immunologists, physiologists for 2 years straight. so i garuntee you our alien saviors would be ignored as well.


Its a shame to admit it, but our most ardent MAGA people only admitted the Covid crisis was a legitimate problem once it had finally killed a close relative. So there is something to be said about hampered psychosocial development, if aliens were to intervene. After all, even if they could magically fix the disease itself, such a thing would not fix the underlying psychological mindset that causes MAGA folk to throw conventions in a medical crisis or Indians to hold river bathing festivals in one either.




I will admit tho, that the entire prime directive's principle is mute if the protected species is 100% anhialated, so extreme events like a dinosaur era meteorite hitting our world during a primitive era like the middle ages should be stopped. However, if such a thing allowed any of the protected species to survive then it shouldnt be intervened with. Even that meteorite is a learning opportunity. A stronger species would arise from an incomplete cataclysm the same way antibacterial-resistant bacteria arise from a heavy dose of penicillin in a petri dish

Your point about the dinosaurs is true. If someone had prevented the meteor that killed the dinosaurs then humans probably wouldn't have evolved in the way that we have. Being more technology advanced doesn't mean we know what's best for another society, even if they are doomed.