[Hermanator]

You can view the article at http://ufplanets.com/content.php?234...rime-Directive

[Kains]

I always found these kind of discussions to be fascinating: It produces such a wide arrangement of opinions, but the one that always surprises me is the number of folks who throw their hands in the air and decide the debate is for other people.

Personally I don't believe the Prime Directive could apply to the vast majority of the situations on Earth, since it states "As the right of each sentient species to live in accordance with its normal cultural evolution", something which, frankly, doesn't exist anywhere on Earth anymore. As much as we like to draw lines and hide behind borders and cultural differences, there is simply too much influence back and forth to assume that anywhere acts in a vacuum (Only exception I can think of is that Amazon tribe they found a few years back that had no outside influence... and even then issues such as pollution and deforestation would be something they share.)

Another example would be the United States: If they don't involve themselves in world conflict, they get Pearl Harbour, if they do they get 9/11. This is, of course, a gross over simplification of a much larger set of variables, but from a birds' eye view it helps illustrate my example.

I have heard others use such an argument against a number of engagements, or medical/essential aid, and I personally think it is us looking for an excuse so we can focus on ourselves: a perfect example of which is Syria. So many of our powers are focused on economic and diplomatic issues that the plight of the people is being swept under the carpet. If the situation were somehow purely one of civil war, I would be more inclined to agree with the Prime Directive, but with the number of factions influencing the results, and with atrocities like the sniper targeting of children, of which an estimated 11,000 have been killed, to use as an example, should not be left to a footnote on the evening's news.

The other side of that, of course, is that you cannot have one 'side' show up as 'liberators', as that will result in the same situations as is happening elsewhere in the world. Unfortunately this is one situation for which there is no good result.

[Kantazo]

It is a good article. Well written and make us think about our role in events that affect other people, we could have the best of intentions in helping someone but as long as we represent ourselves as human beings and no as gods. A lot of problem has happened when people don't take the time to explain our involvement and participation.

During WWII there was an area in the Pacific where the USA built an airport runaway to aid in the efforts against the Japanese fleet, the inhabitants of that island were so affected by this event that years later they started to worship a mock up image of an airplane.

[wat]

"Another example would be the United States: If they don't involve themselves in world conflict, they get Pearl Harbour, if they do they get 9/11. This is, of course, a gross over simplification of a much larger set of variables, but from a birds' eye view it helps illustrate my example."

They did push Japan into a corner with that.

[Christopher Halsey]

I think Pen Pals is one of my favourite 'Prime Directive' episodes of Star Trek and one of the highlights is the informal meeting that Picard hosts in his quarters, where almost every officer has a different opinion on interference and how their opinions change as Picard tosses out increasingly different scenarios from a natural disaster, to a deadly illness all the way to a military conflict.

Interference is a difficult concept. Is it right to interfere to help others? You would usually say yes but things are seldom that black or white, take Syria for example, who are the people you should be helping? There are dozens of different factions involved, to help one risks having a detrimental affect on others or worse altering the stance of others as a result. Whilst the thought of trying to ease the suffering of others is all well and good is there not a certain degree of arrogance involved in making the decision that you will get involved in someone else's troubles and try to fix them as you think they should be fixed and what damage can that do?

If you take World War Two as an example, how nice would it have been for the Allies if some all powerful force had appeared and got rid of the Nazi's? How much suffering and death would that have prevented? But then what impact would that have on our society? Whilst it was a horrific period of time and please don't think I am suggesting otherwise if you look at the technological innovation, the increase in equal opportunities, medical advances, greater unity between a number of nation states, more developed human rights etc etc that came as a direct result of the conflict then humanity turned adversity in to an opportunity, if that adversity were just removed for us would that truly be better? It isn't for me to say but I think I can say is that there must be situations where interfering does more harm than good just as there must be some situations where interfering does more good than harm.

The Prime Directive is brilliant in that it protects the Federation and Starfleet from having to try and work out which is which, where it would be better to interfere and where it would be better to leave best alone. Is it a perfect solution? No of course not but I don't think you can ever have a perfect solution.

We have no such iron clad rules, we can't, there are far too many different nations and organisations with far too many different agendas for us to have one agreed approach like the Federation does. Ultimately we just muddle by as best we can. Even if we did have rules on this sort of thing rules are made for perfect situations, it is up to people (who are of course imperfect) to try and best fit them to suit imperfect situations which most scenarios one could interfere in probably are.

[Trav]

I try not to hold any opinion of the Prime Directive, but I understand where it comes from. In interfering, the most important thing is knowing the effects of your actions - as Chris said, helping some could bring big negative side-effects to others, and if you can't be completely sure of the outcome, taking decisions that influence others would be morally wrong. If Star Trek was real, I believe with time and knowledge the Prime Directive would be reformed however and become something that's less absolute.

[Dentari]

Considering I recall you stating on several occasions that 'the Hermans are failed academics', this article is notably scholarly in both its content and format. A very smooth and enjoyable read which breaks from the usual, almost expected, monotonous writing style used in most modern scholarly works.

The subject matter is provocative and topical (with regards to Syria et al). Although I by no means claim to be an expert on Nietzsche or Burke, this did not dissuade me from reading the article nor did it hinder my enjoyment of the topic. The Prime Directive is one of the most interesting and complex aspects of Trek in that it is a set of guiding principles with the fundamental flaw (debatable) of being open to interpretation.

Needless to say, I enjoyed the article and look forward to further similarly thought provoking articles in the near future!

[Kains]

"Another example would be the United States: If they don't involve themselves in world conflict, they get Pearl Harbour, if they do they get 9/11. This is, of course, a gross over simplification of a much larger set of variables, but from a birds' eye view it helps illustrate my example."

They did push Japan into a corner with that.

Hence why I said a gross over simplification, but it is often used as an example of why the US is 'damned if they do, damned if they don't', which is also a gross over simplification. However, it continues to serve my point well in showing that there is no situation, currently, like that in Star Trek. These cultures they are concerned with influencing have no knowledge of the Federation, they simply don't exist to them, so they can continue on a natural development cycle.

I don't see how that can exist on Earth, as we all share everything, no matter how much many would like to pretend otherwise.

[Trav]

I agree, the Prime directive certainly does not apply for Earth, as contact between societies and nation-states is inevitable. Aren't there some sort of tribes in the Amazon and elsewhere though, which still live a primitive life and which are also protected from being interfered?

Regarding the U.S., I think the negative attitude towards them has come from the fact that nearly all their military interference has ended badly for the natives. Something from the recently passed Nelson Mandela: “If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America. They don’t care for human beings."

Make of it what you will.

Personally, I'd like to think of the U.S. as having the mentality of a teenager. They want to make the world a better place, and think they have all the answers, so they boldly rush into action without thinking much of it through.

[Kains]

Well, in their defense, and remember I am Canadian so this is coming from a guy who will apologize for things he didn't even do, other countries/nations have done the exact same thing, with the only difference being scale and time.

I have a great deal of respect for Mandela, but I have to say I don't agree with that particular statement, and I find it strange when considering what he had to deal with. Some would say that adds vehemence to his statement, that he finds the actions of the United States to be worse than what he has endured, but I can't help but find it to be a statement that panders to the beliefs of many in the world that are simply looking for someone to blame for their problems.

And, as was stated earlier in the thread, yes, many of those problems are caused by the United States, but if we take a step back further in history the finger can start pointing at the British, and step back from that...

... you get the idea.

Personally, I would love nothing better than to see people (key words is 'people') act to the higher goals set by the Prime Directive. Does it apply here on Earth? No, but the high ideals of holding ourselves to a higher standard I think has merit. Differences mentioned in the thread will never be fixed with blame or name calling, but attempting to better ourselves and attempting to teach our children those values will eventually change the world.

[Hermanator]

Thank you very much Dentari, i'll be writing as many as i'm allowed. From speaking to Mikester it seems there may be a constant. :mrgreen:

I'm happy to see that some of my fleetmates have jumped into the debate, which is nice. I had fears whilst writing this (which was originally intended to be published in the Herald) that the reader base would simply not be interested. I'm happy to see that I have been proven wrong on this.

Now if I dare jump into the debate on the United States; The United States is one of the first of its kind. Taking key influence from the enlightenment period with thinkers like that of John Locke, Edmund Burke et cetera. The Founding Fathers did not just shout, excrete cliches and fight; they also used to think. Thomas Paine being one of the best for example being the first person to use the word "Democratic" as a compliment. These can be origins of a Nation which anyone can admire, and Americans can be proud of.

Where I hold conflict with America is how it has developed and grown. Going from the creation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights the best political documents ever created, all the way to the arrogant belief that the United States of America should hold the whole North American continent; idea which took up until 1812 to destroy with the burning of the White House.

I like to think that we can blame most of the perhaps 'evil' and failed diplomatic incidents of the past 3 score and 5 years ago on Henry Kissinger. A man who is incomprehensibly evil and an egotist like no other. The concern is whether or not his thinking has remained in the halls of Government. It certainly seems since this man has entered Government in postwar that the United States hasn't entered a single war based on some form of morality. America shall never return to an Isolationist ideology, its simply too big. United States shouldn't and simply couldn't get away with following a foreign policy simply based on the profit of its own nation like previous Empires; exempli gratia, Britain making use of African Copper. Something which America has been accused of in Iraq and Afghanistan. So I think America may have to look back and think again.

[DevlinTrask]

Outstanding Hermanator! The articel keept me thinking a lot after I read through it. And there is nothing I could a new which was not yet said in the comments above. Thanks again for this articel.

[Farron]

Thank you for the article Hermanator, I do enjoy ruminating on the Prime Directive from time to time.

I'm also of the opinion that the Prime Directive simply won't work for us on Earth. However I enjoyed a good discussion with Mikester a while ago about interfering in other countires that drew some interesting parrallels. While the Prime Directive could never utilised on Earth some of the ideals it represents can. One in particular is preventing rash action with disastarous results whatever the intent (as Hermanator highlights by quoting Picard in his article). Take some time to think about your actions and their consequences and you'll invariably be better prepared for what comes after (See Iraq, Syria etc). We discussed non violent and seemingly benevolent forms of interference (providing education for example), again at first it could be seen as something positive but what about those you intend to help? Will they see it as such? Will they resent you and retaliate? An over simplified (but necessary for some semblance of brevity) example could be teaching evolution to creationists.

While I can't speak for Mikester my eventual conclusion is that in most but the most severe cases, it is often better to let a particular group/culture/state/etc develop on it's own, and be ready and able to provide help when they wish it.

Another conclusion I came to has already been covered in Kains' last paragraph about holding ourselves to a higher standard, bettering ourselves and passing that on. I'll simply state my agreement with it then

It's not exactly the same but as I said, I think there are some interesting parallels between that and the Prime Directive and Federation policy towards other worlds.

In the Star Trek universe, I understand the necessity, but enough has been said on that already.

[Daedalus]

This is a fascinating and interesting topic for me as well. However the analogies of human conflicts cannot be applied here. The Prime Directive is specifically designed only to address the concept of species self-determination. Thus, the directive would not apply to any situation as it relates to human interactions. A better analogy would be human vs. endangered species, where we routinely interfere with the natural development of other creatures on this planet (both negatively and positively).

Consequently, the philosophical discussion centers on the interference of other species as third-parties (with or without motive). What becomes interesting to me then is the difference between species that possess behaviors we would consider moral and selfless (such as a dog acting to save it's owner's life) vs. other species which require sacrifice to maintain the survival of the species (spiders). Side comment: The concept of a domesticated animal would technically violate the prime directive too!

However, this entire viewpoint is arguable as most of the social concepts represented by the series were obviously intended to spark commentary and debate about the human condition itself.

[Hermanator]

I don't see why it doesn't apply to human conflicts; I believe in an episode (can't exactly remember which one) with Ensign Ro, Picard mentions the reason for non-interference in the Cardassian Occupation is because they are both relatively new in terms of technology and thus direct involvement would cause an unknowable ends to the means. Can this not be compared to lets say Israel invading Lebanon in 1978 and then 1982? Obviously one has to bare in mind that Israel receives Anglo-American support in a great number of ways, though they are both could be considered new in terms of nation founding. Israel like Cardassia focused on military, whereas Lebanon like Bajor focus was more social being democracy in Lebanons case and Religion being Bajors - though this is based more on the Terek Nor novels which strictly are not cannon.

Hypothetically if we were to follow this today, I don't think it would be possible worse case scenerio to destroy humanity, or even an ethnic group, but it would be absolutely possible to destroy a fraction culture group.

Not quite sure if i'm completely missing your point, if so please tell me where so I can attempt to respond sufficiently.