Switch Theme:

The Prime Directive  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

Anyone ever considered that the Prime Directive from Star Trek is based on the same logic as statutory rape? The Federation begins by assuming the existence of a potential harm: succinctly stated, interference with the development of a less technologically advanced culture by a more technologically advanced culture. Crucially, that harm is defined without any reference to the perspective of the subject cultures. It is a unilateral imposition of the Federation's values over other cultures' values.

Likewise in real life, we impose laws on those defined by law as minors despite them having no say in said laws. The rationalization is that they are not mature enough to contribute. For the purposes of statutory rape, furthermore, we say that lack of maturity (defined arbitrarily in terms of years) makes someone unable to consent as a matter of law. Now, I am not really interested in debating the validity of the assumptions and logic of statutory rape. What's interesting to me is that those same assumptions and logic are the basis for the Prime Directive.

While it may ultimately be justifiable to assert these conditions upon the children of one's own culture, I can't see how it is valid to impose such strictures on people who are not part of your culture. I understand that the supposed purpose is the protection of "primitive" societies. But the general upper limit of that protection, achievement of warp travel*, seems as arbitrary as simply counting the years someone has been alive. And while reference to age may just be a practical abstraction, the warp capability standard flies in the face of the notion that the diversity of cultural experience is of such paramount importance that it justifies the Prime Directive in the first place.

Furthermore, we got a taste of what the Prime Directive means when it is foisted upon us in Star Trek: Enterprise, where Starfleet and Captain Archer constantly chafed at the limits Vulcan High Command imposed on humans following first contact. The Prime Directive did not only mean the Vulcans remained aloof, regardless of what human beings in fact preferred one way or other, before Dr. Cochrane discovered warp travel but also that the Vulcans continued to assert a paternalistic influence over human culture long after first contact.

*I realize that is oversimplifying the issue but it is the most common parameter.

   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

The fundamental point of the Prime Directive as being a technological and diplomatic version of the Hypocratic Oath (do no harm), and developed into a generalized policy of non-interference. Personally I always thought the most interesting part of it was that for a culture that epitomized non-interference to such importance of making it General Order No. 1, the Federation sure interferes a whole fething lot in practically everyone's business. DS9 might as well be subtitled "feth the Prime Directive and Interfere for 45 minutes every week." Of course I also see DS9 as being part deconstruction of the Roddenberry era of Star Trek, because as nice as the Prime Directive sounds when you start applying reality it becomes wholly unworkable in so many situations. Oddly enough I think Star Gate and Mass Effect spent more time exploring the disastrous results that can come from hyper accelerating a culture technologically. The Goa'uld stole everything they have, and as the Asgard might saw "possess the knowledge but lack the wisdom," and of course Mass Effect has the Salarians elevating the Krogan into a galaxy wide super threat that was only stopped via genocide.

As to you're point, I think it is entirely debatable that harm in either case is "potential." Both IRL for statutory rape and in universe for the Prime Directive, numerous example exist of the harm that can be caused. The ENT episode Dear Doctor was completely about this, in Archer's time before the Prime Directive existed.

The issue is the ambiguous gray area. A child/culture that is almost an adult/almost as advanced as the Federation will be arbitrarily lumped into the lower "not mature enough to handle it" category with little regard for the minutia of the individual/culture in question. I think a distinction can be drawn though in that the Prime Directive is a guideline with lots of room for interpretation while Statutory Rape laws are clear cut lines "not to be crossed." A good example of the Federation using the Prime Directive as a guideline rather than a hard rule is the TNG episode First Contact, in which the Federation is preparing to approach and open relations with a culture on the cusp of warp technology, but is not willing to trade advanced technology to them. They're expected to develop on their own, but unlike the ENT era Vulcan High Command the Federation isn't interested in sequestering an infant warp capable species within their own system and doesn't actively discourage/sabotage their advancement.

But yeah I guess they're pretty similar on a general level.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/08/22 19:48:59


   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

Not being willing to trade "advanced technology" can be easily interpreted as resting secure in a superior strategic position. There is a TNG episode about this, or rather its half-hearted decronstruction, called the Samaritan Trap where the haughty Enterprise crew get temporarily bamboozled by pre-warp capable starfarers. In that episode, the antagonist Pakled are arguably more morally mature than the Federation protagonists, in that the Enterprise crew pretend to be ruthless barbarians to overpower the Pakleds. The episode is played mostly for comedy but just how much the Enterprise crew was "pretending" if push really came to shove is troubling.

   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

The prime directive, like a lot of genre fiction concepts, tends to mean whatever the writer felt like that week, but yeah, I think there's pretty strong overlap between the prime directive and statutory rape laws.

   
Made in us
[DCM]
-






-

There are a lot of lawyers in this thread!!!

I love the discussion though...

Fascinating!

   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

 Manchu wrote:
Not being willing to trade "advanced technology" can be easily interpreted as resting secure in a superior strategic position.


And indeed the natives in TNG First Contact interpreted it as such

There is a TNG episode about this, or rather its half-hearted decronstruction, called the Samaritan Trap where the haughty Enterprise crew get temporarily bamboozled by pre-warp capable starfarers. In that episode, the antagonist Pakled are arguably more morally mature than the Federation protagonists, in that the Enterprise crew pretend to be ruthless barbarians to overpower the Pakleds. The episode is played mostly for comedy but just how much the Enterprise crew was "pretending" if push really came to shove is troubling.


Do you mean Samaritan Snare (only episode I can think of with Pakleds in it)? Not sure I see it since the Pakled were basically actively engaged in kidnapping and assaulting Geordi, and theft while playing on the good nature of others. There's not really anything moral about any of that

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/22 20:11:25


   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

The Pakleds were indeed thieves but they assumed that murder was a disproportionate response to theft. (It is implied throughout the episode that even those jerk Romulans felt the same.) Riker "outwitted" the Pakleds by pretending to be willing to kill all of them and Geordi purely out of spite. This wanton violence shocked the Pakleds and their morale crumbled.

I think if someone told me, an adult from what I think of as a fairly sophisticated society, that we "are not ready" for certain advanced technologies that may prevent global crises such as starvation, disease, climate change, etc., I would honestly wonder about what they stood to gain from our misery.

   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter





SoCal

I don't recall any episodes about the Prime Directive where following it was portrayed as the morally correct thing to do.

   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

 Manchu wrote:
The Pakleds were indeed thieves but they assumed that murder was a disproportionate response to theft. (It is implied throughout the episode that even those jerk Romulans felt the same.) Riker "outwitted" the Pakleds by pretending to be willing to kill all of them and Geordi purely out of spite. This wanton violence shocked the Pakleds and their morale crumbled.


Ah. I remember this now.

I think if someone told me, an adult from what I think of as a fairly sophisticated society, that we "are not ready" for certain advanced technologies that may prevent global crises such as starvation, disease, climate change, etc., I would honestly wonder about what they stood to gain from our misery.


Fix starvation and disease and you then become forced to fix overpopulation, which is a whole other basket of egg shells. Fixing climate change would be great, but likely fruitless if you don't deal with the underlying attitude that allows it to occur in the first place; casual apathy toward entities not like yourself (alternatively, ignorance to long term consequences, which is pretty much a constant). That isn't really a moral or ethical failing in an instant but can over centuries have radical consequences. Finite beings tend to be blind to the long term consequences of even tiny seemingly insignificant changes. I doubt any of the Caliphs who started handing out Waqf endowments thought that 1300 years later it would bring about the near complete financial collapse of the Islamic world. Even altruistic intent can cause horrible consequences, such as the Assimiliation period of America policy on Native Americans following the Indian Wars which can not very nebulously be called attempted genocide. I have zero doubt men like Richard Henry Pratt meant well in their actions and earnestly wanted to help the "red man" but the way they went about it was disastrous and today would be morally reprehensible.

I think that when you get to the point that we're talking about interactions between a civilization with space lasers, and another that is still figuring out basic astronomy it's hard for me to conceptually hold it against the space laser guys that they are timid to interfere. Sure they could fix starvation and disease, but what about over population? Will they just pick up and start moving people to other planets? What if they don't want to go? What if they'd rather wage wars to control the rapidly diminishing territory of their own planet? Will space laser guys use their space lasers to force peace? How does that solve the underlying issue?

It just becomes ethical and moral quagmires built upon ethical and moral quagmires and I think that's a pretty good way to describe hard choices in general, you enter another realm when you move past making decisions for yourself and start trying to make them for others. EDIT: Which isn't to say I think it's wrong to interfere and non-interference is always right, but its definitely hard. You can't just jump in wanting to help and have everything work out hunky dory. The US keeps trying to do that, and then just backs out when it realizes that "this whole build a new democracy thing is hard and bloody" which just spirals everything back into disaster.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/08/22 20:53:50


   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

I agree that finite beings have a finite scope of vision. But having advanced technology, at least in the sense of the Federation, does not make human (or Vulcans or Andorians, etc) any less finite. And besides the franchise simply assuming it was so (until DS9) I saw no real reason to believe the Federation, as opposed to maybe just Picard (as Polonius would say, when the script wanted it), has any more nuanced vision than 1990s America. There is a whiggish assumption undergirding Star Trek, and it is really evident in a number of TNG episodes*, that greater technology is the result of greater wisdom. Not sure that is ever demonstrated, however.

For example, as far as the Prime Directive-driven worldview is concerned, wouldn't Romulans and Klingons be the cultural "peers" of the Federation? at the very least, in terms of material culture? And yet they do not seem to have come to the same conclusions about ethics, much less articulated a Prime Directive.

*Troi gives a heck of an analysis of the Pakleds - talk about "culturally insensitive"!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/22 20:56:35


   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

 Manchu wrote:
Not being willing to trade "advanced technology" can be easily interpreted as resting secure in a superior strategic position. There is a TNG episode about this, or rather its half-hearted decronstruction, called the Samaritan Trap where the haughty Enterprise crew get temporarily bamboozled by pre-warp capable starfarers. In that episode, the antagonist Pakled are arguably more morally mature than the Federation protagonists, in that the Enterprise crew pretend to be ruthless barbarians to overpower the Pakleds. The episode is played mostly for comedy but just how much the Enterprise crew was "pretending" if push really came to shove is troubling.


for me, the problem with the Prime Directive isn't the policy. I mean, it makes sense to allow cultures to develop on their own, and to run their own affairs, to the extent possible. the problem is that it's consistently presented as this ironclad law, but violated simply constantly. The characters act like their committing high treason every time, but across everything done for Star Trek, there are probably more instances of violations of the prime directive than times I broke drinking age laws, and I was in a frat.

To use your analogy, I think setting the limit at warp travel is arbitrary in a weird way, especially since every civilization has different resources and different response to the environment. OTOH, setting the limit at Warp Travel makes it so that only cultures that are clearly into exploring space are contacted. I'm not an expert in Star Trek lore, so I don't know how common Warp Travel is. If you look at human civilizations, some things arise independently, whenever the resources allow. Fro example, nearly every group of humans that lived near animals or plants prone to domestication did so (hardly any major domestic animals have been added to the fold for thousands of years). Still, large scale stable agricultural cultures have required a grain, of which only four really exist, and neatly correspond to the four major civilizations that arose independently (maize/Mesoamerican, wheat/Mesopotamia, barley/Indus valley, rice/china). The aborigines would likely never have advanced past hunter gatherer, simply because they did not have access to good domesticatible animals or plants. So, even if Warp Travel is pretty common, there are plenty of species that might never make that leap.

However, it's almost trivial to think of a post industrial, but pre warp civilization that could easily handle first contact. In fact, I'd argue we live in one!
   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

 Manchu wrote:
There is a whiggish assumption undergirding Star Trek, and it is really evident in a number of TNG episodes, that greater technology is the result of greater wisdom. Not sure that is ever demonstrated, however.


I think this is a common conception in a lot of sci-fi (Star Gate), that is indeed a very fallacious assumption.

For example, as far as the Prime Directive-driven worldview is concerned, wouldn't Romulans and Klingons be the cultural "peers" of the Federation? at the very least, in terms of material culture? And yet they do not seem to have come to the same conclusions about ethics, much less articulated a Prime Directive.


One of my favorite scenes from DS9;




Which is of course played for laughs, but outside the main cannon it's a common theme in stories focused on Romulans or Klingon's that the Federation is a deceptively arrogant and aggressive culture that lures in the gullible and convinces them to surrender their own ideals with niceties like "root beer." The only ones better at assimilation than the Borg are the Feds


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Polonius wrote:
So, even if Warp Travel is pretty common, there are plenty of species that might never make that leap. !


I also think this goes with the afforementioned assumption that technology inherently comes with wisdom. There is no reason to presume that moral/ethical advancement is intrinsically tied to technological development. A culture could for whatever reason decide to be like the Amish, that plowing your own field and build cool barns with your buddies is a just fine and dandy life and have limited interest in advancing their technology beyond that point.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/22 21:02:41


   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

An argument could be made, even from within the setting of the show, that TNG "aliens" are all just humans and therefore, at some basic level, the playing field is even as to ultimate cultural assumptions. But this is so trite and, I think in a very basic way, contrary to the spirit of a show about exploring the unknown, that we had best discard it.

Similarly, we know the Prime Directive is just a device to deploy dramatic tension: IS IT ETHICAL TO SAVE THE CHILDREN FROM SPACE AIDS??? This is the kind of drivel TNG served up all too often, when it comes to the Prime Directive. But for the purposes of this conversation, I'm trying to take it more at face value in terms of actually being the basic ethical orientation of a functional society.

I agree Polonius that the policy of respecting self-determination is broadly acceptable in contrast to the notion of the Prime Directive as an ethical philosophy. Is there really any difference between that and some kind of sense of sovereignty extrapolated into the interstellar context?

   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

It's actually hard to find too many examples of Star Trek main characters actually praising the federation, at least as an actual political entity as opposed to a set of ideals. Any time an admiral or other high ranking figure appears, they are always, if not villains, clearly obstacles to the success of the enterprise.

The Federation also changes daramtically depending on the narrative. In TOS it focuses on exploration, trading... the frontier. The space western never fully recedes. It's understood that the enterprise is on it's own, because there are no other ships in the area. By TNG, the focus has shifted to diplomacy and investigation, with the Enterprise operating in borderlands (political frontiers) instead of the unexplored wild frontier. By DS9, we see the federation in war footing against a genuine invasion, as opposed to the banana wars of prior settings. That's enough to dramatically change how a society views its founding ideals and taboos.
   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

 Manchu wrote:
An argument could be made, even from within the setting of the show, that TNG "aliens" are all just humans and therefore, at some basic level, the playing field is even as to ultimate cultural assumptions.


It's not even an argument technically. TNG's "The Chase" borderline states that all humanoid life in the Milky Way galaxy (and possibly beyond) was seeded by an alien race, commonly equated to the Preservers from Voyager though technically there is no connection between the two in official canon. Non-humanoids play relatively little part in the grander tales of Star Trek, with races like the Tholians and the Tzenkethi generally being little more than background names. About the only thing any of them have in common is that they're all xeno-phobic aholes when it comes to humanoids (with the Founders being the champions of the rousing game of "hate humanoids" ball).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/22 21:14:29


   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

LoH - Yes, it's pretty bad but probably indicative of the "end of history" spirit of those times, where there was thought to be no meaningful challenge to liberalism. In that sense, the Romulans today are more fascinating than ever, in that they could represent "third wayism." They were obviously supposed to be the main villains of TNG but were ultimately replaced by the Borg. The only challenge facing liberalism being liberal society losing its humanity.

Polonius, that is a wonderful summary of the development of the shows - from open frontier, to political boundary, to war front.

   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

 Manchu wrote:
I agree Polonius that the policy of respecting self-determination is broadly acceptable in contrast to the notion of the Prime Directive as an ethical philosophy. Is there really any difference between that and some kind of sense of sovereignty extrapolated into the interstellar context?


Well, I think if we take planetary or cultural sovereignty as a bedrock of the federation, which appears to be the case, then the prime directive arises out of the logical conclusion that making contact with a pre warp culture will inherently affect it's trajectory as a culture. It's also a policy that arises very naturally from our own history, which shows that contact between more technologically advanced culture and a simpler one often ends in some form of annihilation of the simpler culture. Outside of providing convenient plot points, it's probably somewhat unlikely to find a planet with a genuinely critical resource, and a pre warp civilization. We really can leave and respect their sovereignty.

In practice, it's laughable. Unless you blockade every planet, free traders and the like will be making all manner of first contact. The Federation isn't the only group of people exploring the galaxy.
   
Made in gb
Assassin with Black Lotus Poison





Bristol

 Polonius wrote:
It's actually hard to find too many examples of Star Trek main characters actually praising the federation, at least as an actual political entity as opposed to a set of ideals. Any time an admiral or other high ranking figure appears, they are always, if not villains, clearly obstacles to the success of the enterprise.


What about Admiral Kirk?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Polonius wrote:

In practice, it's laughable. Unless you blockade every planet, free traders and the like will be making all manner of first contact. The Federation isn't the only group of people exploring the galaxy.


I wouldn't be so sure. Many examples exist throughout the series of absolutely disastrous first contacts. Without taking the time and spending the resources to investigate the culture of a species, you have absolutely no idea how your appearance will be received. Is it worth that risk for a free trader over just skipping the planet and going to the next one which has already made contact with the galaxy?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/22 21:21:11


The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.

Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
 
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

 Manchu wrote:
LoH - Yes, it's pretty bad but probably indicative of the "end of history" spirit of those times, where there was thought to be no meaningful challenge to liberalism. In that sense, the Romulans today are more fascinating than ever, in that they could represent "third wayism." They were obviously supposed to be the main villains of TNG but were ultimately replaced by the Borg. The only challenge facing liberalism being liberal society losing its humanity.

Polonius, that is a wonderful summary of the development of the shows - from open frontier, to political boundary, to war front.


I think there's a reason TNG, despite the name, is set multiple generations after TOS. TOS is basically the tail end of the golden age of sci-fi, with all of it's gee whiz, sexless, and technophillic optimism. Even by the 60s, it was becoming clear that technology had a price, and a dark side, and rising social tensions needed more than the mild balm of Roddenberries utopia. Outside of uniforms and ship design, the themes of DS9 have almost nothing in common with the themes of TOS. But, that has to do with how sci fi was written and accepted. Reading the original 1950s Foundation books followed by the 80's ones is jarring as well, and you'd almost think they were written by different authors.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I wouldn't be so sure. Many examples exist throughout the series of absolutely disastrous first contacts. Without taking the time and spending the resources to investigate the culture of a species, you have absolutely no idea how your appearance will be received. Is it worth that risk for a free trader over just skipping the planet and going to the next one which has already made contact with the galaxy?


Given the number of people that have, and still are, willing to smuggle goods regardless of the threat, I think that assuming a polite "do not disturb" sign wont' deter too many free traders.

Even in a post scarcity world, there is ambition and a desire for power, fame, etc.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/22 21:26:24


 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

So what made me think of this in the first place is playing a really great Star Trek-themed 4X board game called Ascendancy. Each faction has an advantageous and disadvantageous feature. Ironically, the Federation disadvantage is called "The Prime Directive." In the game, you semi-randomly create the board in a new configuration each session by discovering systems and the links between them. When you draw a system disc, you also draw an exploration card. One of the card types is "Civilization" and a sub-type is Pre-Warp Civilization. A system inhabited by a Pre-Warp Civilization will have some number of resource tokens that a player may collect for free by colonizing that planet. Once the planet is colonized, you can build nodes to produce further resources. But the Prime Directive disadvantage means the Federation can never colonize or invade a planet!

Early on in the last game I played, as the Federation, I discovered two Pre-Warp Civilizations back to back. Not only could I not exploit the fruits of my exploration at all, I was now faced with the prospect of very tempting "free" resources laying around just outside of my home system, to tempt the Klingons and Romulans. The immediate disadvantage of the Prime Directive is not being able to collect the resources, colonize the planet, and farm further resources. (The even more immediate disadvantage is wasting a turn exploring these dead ends!) But the long term disadvantage of the Prime Directive in Ascendancy is not only can I not "use" (or if your prefer, incorporate) these systems but I also have to defend them against the less ethical empires of the Alpha Quadrant.

So I hope that gave you a taste of how awesome Ascendancy is and how it really captures the themes of Star Trek. Anyhow, this conversation has gotten around to exactly this problem: how exactly is the Federation supposed to keep these Pre-Warp Civilization hermetically sealed in the face of major (and even minor) powers that don't share its basic ethical orientation to the situation? And isn't the issue, ultimately, of a rival power interfering with a Pre-Warp Civilization tantamount to a security threat to the Federation, depending on the strategic importance of the system? In the game, I could afford to abandon Pre-Warp Civs located safely away from my home system to the predations of Klingons and Romulans. Isn't the same true in the Star Trek setting? The Prime Directive apparently promotes no affirmative duty to protect such cultures. I mean, Federation officers will lay down their lives rather than violate the Prime Directive - but will they cross the Neutral Zone to enforce it?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/22 21:40:26


   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

To get back to Manchu's point, there is a big difference between the Prime Directive and Statutory rape laws, not in their argued rationale, but in the real rationale. I don't think we have any reason to suspect the Federation of benefiting from the Prime Directive. however, there is plenty of evidence that statutory rape laws were created to protect, not innocence, but the parent's rights to that innocence. Under common law, there was no age of consent, but age limits were imposed in the progressive/Victorian age to criminalize taking the virginity of young women before they could be married off.

In many ways, statutory rape laws deprive young people of their rights to sexuality, based solely on a crude age limit. There's nothing inherently wrong with a 19 year old dating a 17 year old, we have just decided as a society we don't like it. But that's illegal in California.

You can argue that the prime directive is similar, that a culture can make a rational choice to trade with a warp capable society. Of course, that assumes that the pre warp culture understands the value of items in the exchange (essentially, consent)

The one way to distinguish the two is that all 15 years olds reach 18, while not all preindustrial societies will ever become warp capable. In that way, the distinction is not arbitray, because while there's no real difference between a 17.5 year old and an 18 year old, there's a huge difference between a stone age, but agrarian society on a planet with no metal or fossil fuels, and an industrial society that is already exploring at least it's local system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Manchu wrote:
So I hope that gave you a taste of how awesome Ascendancy is and how it really captures the themes of Star Trek. Anyhow, this conversation has gotten around to exactly this problem: how exactly is the Federation supposed to keep these Pre-Warp Civilization hermetically sealed in the face of major (and even minor) powers that don't share its basic ethical orientation to the situation? And isn't the issue, ultimately, of a rival power interfering with a Pre-Warp Civilization tantamount to a security threat to the Federation, depending on the strategic importance of the system? In the game, I could afford to abandon Pre-Warp Civs located safely away from my home system to the predations of Klingons and Romulans. Isn't the same true in the Star Trek setting? The Prime Directive apparently promotes no affirmative duty to protect such cultures. I mean, Federation officers will lay down their lives rather than violate the Prime Directive - but will they cross the Neutral Zone to enforce it?


I would guess so. Are there any stories of a federation crew fighting another empire to prevent contact? I would think they're just screwed, although once they've been contacted, I suppose you could try to liberate them. Which strikes me as a very callous approach to the inevitable.

To the game, I think that the game mechanic captures the themes of Star Trek well, but in practice, there are a huge number of worlds, only a small minority of which can possibly contain pre warp sentient life. Those are the best stories (even Avatar, for all of it's bloodless narrative, mined the trope), but the reality has to be the bulk of resources are on planets with no life, with another large chunk on planets with life but not sentient life. The economics of Star Trek are a hot mess, but the main trade goods seem to be rare raw materials: metals, gases, plant/animal matter, etc. There seems to be little market in manufactured goods or bulk commodities. Which makes sense, the only things that make sense to ship from one star system to another are probably only things that cannot be mined, grown, or synthesized by the buyer.

Even with that, I just do not see any practical means to enforcing the prime directive outside of Federation ships. Just the trade in "uncontacted" artifacts, as genuinely rare goods, must be worth making first contact. You can keep Star Fleet logs secret, but you can't hide stars, and smugglers will eventually explore everywhere.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/22 21:50:27


 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

It seems like what we are getting around to is the notion that the Prime Directive is more about those who hold it and what they think of themselves than those who it would supposedly protect from "contamination."

   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

 Manchu wrote:
It seems like what we are getting around to is the notion that the Prime Directive is more about those who hold it and what they think of themselves than those who it would supposedly protect from "contamination."


Yes, I think so. Much like how at some point, every guy makes the decision to stop dating "girls" (defined in the broadest sense) and only dating "women," I think that the federation may make the ostensibly high-minded, but actually sanity saving decision to simply not get entangled with pre warp civilizations.

Let's say the federation steps in to save a civilization from a pandemic, or natural disaster, or war, or whatever. what then? Do they just peace out? Or are they now on the hook for education, training, technical support... for an entire population?

Maybe the Prime Directive isn't about protecting anybody but the Federation, who realize that outside of genocide or colonization, a liberal and fair minded first contact is a ton of freaking work for very marginal benefit.
   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

 Polonius wrote:
Much like how at some point, every guy makes the decision to stop dating "girls" (defined in the broadest sense) and only dating "women," I think that the federation may make the ostensibly high-minded, but actually sanity saving decision to simply not get entangled with pre warp civilizations.


Wow. Just boil all this philosophical babble down into something that anyone can understand and makes complete sense why don't you XD

   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

Not getting entangled with? Or just stalking from behind holographic blinds and using all kinds of advanced spy technology that the target civ "is not ready for"? Apply your analogy about girls and women, if you dare!

As for the marginal benefits of first contact - yes marginal to you and I, and our primitive culture of believing in "God" and valuing "currency," but I thought that was the stuff the enlightened Federation valued above all else?

   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

I think the whole spying bit just kind of goes back to my hypocrisy point. The Federation sure seems to have a poor grasp of the Observer Effect.

   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

I know we are raking them over the coals but when you see how the Federation rails at people, on those occasions where they end up violating the Prime Directive, for holding their own values ... well, it rankles. I guess I just expect more from these characters and their culture because there is so much signalling in the show that they are wise and rational and tolerant and a little more thoughtful than blankly assuming their superiority. I guess Q kind of puts the pin to their balloon from time to time, but he's almost always portrayed as a trickster villain rather than a trickster teacher.

Plus it's more than just hypocrisy. When Picard talks about the privilege and responsibility of making first contact, his cheeks (and pate) flush with pride and excitement. This is clearly what he is all about. Creeping on people they consider primitive ("differently advanced"?) is definitely how they get their jollies.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/22 22:16:31


   
Made in gb
Mighty Vampire Count






UK

Even the Culture struggles with this sort of thing and they are pretty near too utopia.

I AM A MARINE PLAYER

"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos

"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001

www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/528517.page

A Bloody Road - my Warhammer Fantasy Fiction 
   
 
Forum Index » Geek Media
Go to: