[Allan Hood]

When I was younger, the Prime Directive made sense to me. Now that I'm in my 30s, I understand more and more the temptation/need to break the Prime Directive.

"The idea of leaving any species to die in its own filth when you have the ability to help them, just because you wanna let them get through their normal evolutionary processes is bunk -- it's a bunch of fascist crap," he said. "I much prefer the Cub Scout motto."
http://www.cnet.com/news/star-trek-a...-fascist-crap/

Cub Scout Motto
To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight.

fascism
: a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government

On the surface, to compare Starfleet to fascism seems to be incomprehensible and unforgivable. But, does he have a point? On the flipside, people could argue that the Cub Scout motto can be compared to fascism, too.

How do Star Trek fans feel? Should Starfleet personnel be forbidden from interfering with the internal development of alien civilizations? For a developed civilization, should we draw the line at warp technology? Should there be a better line drawn?

[Danska101]

Ah, the good ol' Prime Directive. I think TNG's Who Watches The Watches is a good exploration of why they have the Prime Directive in the first place, and the need for some sort of rule with a similar function.

The big problem is how rigidly it's enforced, being an absolute unbreakable law (unless you're the main character in a show). Voyager gives some interesting and conflicting episodes dealing with the Prime Directive, though Janeway seems to decide what to do based on what she happened to slip into her coffee that morning. Still, I'm sure I remember at least one occasion where she refused to save a species from extinction because it would violate the Prime Directive.

That is where the problems set in. As a general rule, I can see why Starfleet would want to stay away from civilisations that are not ready to meet alien life. Obviously some sort of guideline has to be put in place to say when this is. Episodes like First Contact show the dangers inherent in meeting new species, and the possible repercussions if something goes wrong.

My problem, as I say, is how it's enforced. If you have a choice between saving a species or letting it die out, you'd think the moral choice would be obvious. If there is a way to save them without interfering, it should absolutely be recommended that option be taken. If there is not, take steps to minimise the damage - like not visibly flying a giant spaceship out of the ocean! TNG showed that they have the capability to infiltrate other species and attempt to help them. This doesn't always work, of course.

The Prime Directive seems to exist because of the fear of "what if we do something wrong?" There are legitimate things to worry about, certainly, but refusing to act due to fear of repercussions or failure seems very incompatible with human nature in the 24th Century. It seems to me that this contradiction, and many of the problems, could be solved by reducing the Prime Directive to a guideline rather than a hard rule. If a Captain encounters a pre-warp species and thinks there's a (very good) reason to interact with them in some capacity, that should either be a decision he is allowed to make or one he can contact Starfleet about to discuss further. And the option to 'interfere' should be there if it is necessary. That the Prime Directive is so inflexible is my biggest issue with it, rather than the fact of its existence.


In regards to the fascism analogy - I don't buy it. That seems to be saying that because the Federation determines how it interacts with other species and cultures, it is akin to a fascist government because they don't get a say. Except the Federation has no power or control over these other societies. It's like saying "our neighbouring country refuses to talk to us and won't let us talk to them, therefore they're fascists." First of all, it is how that country's government interacts with its people that has the greatest effect of classifying what type of government it is. and second, just because they choose not to talk to you doesn't immediately make them moustache twirling villains. So yes, the Prime Directive is problematic, but to compare the Federation to fascism in any way because of it is completely ridiculous.

[Ned'ya]

I agree that it seems a bit archaic for the time period to strictly enforce this rule, I like to think the Prime directive is more a code of conduct or a mission statement more than an unbreakable rule, with the Captain (Commanding officer) of a vessel or task group having the final say upon a course of action (that is why they're in charge after all).

[Bridger]

Nobody has the right to decide what might be good or bad of another species, or culture. This ultimately lead to a point of view that we know all and everything until we fail, with the technology of the 24th Century a simple mistake could destroy an entire world.

Just imagine, what if a very powerful species decided 40.000 Years ago that the Neanderthals should survive and not the Homo Sapiens none of us would be here.
That what it make so dangerous playing god, we would assume what is the best for a species and that is a power no-one should ever posses.

The Prime Directive is hard, but we don't have the right to play fate with a species as we don't want that someone else plays with our fate.

[Danska101]

Nobody has the right to decide what might be good or bad of another species, or culture. This ultimately lead to a point of view that we know all and everything until we fail, with the technology of the 24th Century a simple mistake could destroy an entire world.

Just imagine, what if a very powerful species decided 40.000 Years ago that the Neanderthals should survive and not the Homo Sapiens none of us would be here.
That what it make so dangerous playing god, we would assume what is the best for a species and that is a power no-one should ever posses.

The Prime Directive is hard, but we don't have the right to play fate with a species as we don't want that someone else plays with our fate.

I don't think anyone's suggesting the Federation makes decisions like that. The decisions that mostly seem to cause trouble are the ones along the lines of "without intervention a lot of people - perhaps an entire species - will die." Not due to competing with another species, but due to something that can be prevented and most likely without ever letting the species know they were there.

In this situation, it's a choice between deciding whether a species should survive or die. If you choose to let them die, what exactly has been preserved? They're dead. They'll never develop, on their own or otherwise.

I cannot see how the correct decision there could possibly be to refuse to intervene. And since, at least in my mind, that is a definite case where intervention is allowable, I find it hard to say that there is any definitive line that must never be crossed. I am by no means saying it should be Starfleet policy to interfere, only that it is a bad idea to have it as an absolute unbreakable rule not to. It is still a decision never to be taken lightly and only to be made after a lot of consideration and careful planning. But it should be permissible if it can reasonably be shown to be necessary for the preservation of a species or significant number of individuals with at worst minimal risk of cultural contamination.

It definitely should not be used to decide on the direction a less advanced culture should take or alter the balance of power for a species/world.