The Prime Directive

nyarlothothep

Interesting vid on this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_ZbVk_Dh9E

I think that the prime directive has often been used in a really dogmatic fashion throughout trek on many occassions, the point about Janeway in the vid sums up my feelings on her captaincy (that she was the archetypal manager from hell, incompetent and moronic, lacking any capacity for self reflection). But essentially the way the application of the directive has been in many cases misjudged resulting in needless deaths under the aegis of supposed enlightenment. If there were a trek series in the future I would like to see an episode where this religious adherence to the directive is completely overturned.

Myrddin

What exactly is here trying to say? The Prime Directive is flawed, & pre-warp societies should be included in inter-planetary affairs? It's hard to listen intently when he keeps making stupid analogies, i.e. nature allows ants to enslave other ants so obviously nature condones slavery.

The Prime Directive is there to prevent potential destructive interference in the natural development of a society. It's been bent on occasion, broken at times, but ultimately it's clearly there for the protection of both parties. Does he really need to bring God into the equation?

nyarlothothep

EnterNow wrote: »

What exactly is here trying to say? The Prime Directive is flawed, & pre-warp societies should be included in inter-planetary affairs? It's hard to listen intently when he keeps making stupid analogies, i.e. nature allows ants to enslave other ants so obviously nature condones slavery.

The Prime Directive is there to prevent potential destructive interference in the natural development of a society. It's been bent on occasion, broken at times, but ultimately it's clearly there for the protection of both parties. Does he really need to bring God into the equation?

well he's pretty much saying that the prime directive is being treated in a reverential/religious fashion. The bit where he brings God into it is when he mentions how starfleet begins talking about the evolution of a species as if its part of a pre ordained plan that shouldn't be interefered with under any circumstances whatsoever, no matter how serious those reprecussions might be for the pre warp civilization ie total extinction. I don't think he means to say that they should be included in interplanatary affairs, only that with regards things like plague, total genocide, nuclear holocaust, these are legitimate reasons to consider very carefully whether its a good idea to follow the PD rather than just saying oh well the PD is valid in all cases ergo I must stand by and observe the total annihiliation/gross suffering of a sentient people. As regards the ants argument I think its perfectly valid, he uses the verb endorse and he makes it clear that nature isn't conscious, its central to his argument. By using the verb endorse I'm guessing he means it in this context

to approve, support, or sustain: to endorse a political candidate.

If we're to think of nature as a process system then the rewards obtained by ants enslaving other ants indicates that the system supports slavery as a means of survival.

As regards the questions that the video poses it would be interesting to see whether people think that the PD has been applied without much forethought, for example with regards Janeway pulling rank with Tom when she had no adequate explanation for her decision to invoke the PD? Thats really telling, when rank is used to silence debate and would indicate that the fed isn't free from its own religious dogma just like in our times despite its progressiveness.

Myrddin

nyarlothothep wrote: »

As regards the questions that the video poses it would be interesting to see whether people think that the PD has been applied without much forethought, for example with regards Janeway pulling rank with Tom when she had no adequate explanation for her decision to invoke the PD? Thats really telling, when rank is used to silence debate and would indicate that the fed isn't free from its own religious dogma just like in our times despite its progressiveness.

I see what you mean now. But to be honest, the PD for me has absoloutely nothing to do with region/God/destiny. It's simply a directive, born solely out of past mistakes. I know it's all fiction, but I do see the logic in it. Yes it doesn't fit every scenario, and has caused many moral battles, but on the whole, I think a policy of non-interference is the only directive that is sustainable. Even if cultures/societies are saved from potential disasters (pre-warp, I think if the Federation is approached for help then the PD doesn't apply), the culture is lost is any event. Either be it from the disaster itself, or from the fact that the very knowledge of advanced people from the heavens have saved them, turning said people into objects of worship. It could also contribute to unforeseen horrors, if that knowledge were passed publically into a culture that revolved heavily around deities/religion/only sentient society in the universe etc etc.

Regards Janeway, for me the whole point is not how flawed the Prime Directive is, but more so a case of demonstrating that people are still people in the 24th century. Nobody is perfect, and if Janeway pulls rank due to something she believes in over everyone else, it's more a case of exploring the human condition, and it's presence in even the highest echelons of command.

Again, for me, none of it has anything to do with region/God/destiny...it's all about humanity for me.

Cookie_Monster

the PD is just another plot device, used as needed, ignored when needed, twisted when needed, stretched to breaking point when needed

Myrddin

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

the PD is just another plot device, used as needed, ignored when needed, twisted when needed, stretched to breaking point when needed

Thats essentially it, it's a tool used by the writers to aid in exploring "The Human Condition", which is what Roddenberry wanted to do a lot. I think the youtube guy is seriously over-analyzing it. You can do the same to many things, find complications/paradoxes/hidden meanings in a bottle of milk if you wish & post a video about it, doesn't mean your right.

nyarlothothep

hmmm the thing I find though is that what the characters are espousing is remarkably close to religion in maintaining the mystery of an evolutionary plan even though evolution isn't planned to begin with. In one respect I think the PD was almost a subtext for religion in America, whether the writers knowingly or unknowingly meant it to be, an expression of religious fervour that may be found in the culture of the United States is essentially what it could be construed as.

As regards approaching the fed, theres another review up there about the ENT crew actually facing this, once again even though a plague is going to with out millions within that civilization Archer believes letting them die is the better option even though the culture in question knows of warp civs and went out of their way to find assistance.

Janeway was made an admiral, I think this too is almost an unconscious outpouring of what is valued in america, namely brute force actions and the imposition of authority (being...the decider)... Imo she is the most morally dubious star fleet captain, ahead of Sisko who actually wrangled with his conscious. The reason I say this is that the argument she had with Tom and her decision to let an entire civilization die is just one of the many incidents where she acted like a despot and made totally unethical decisions.

helimachoptor

Interesting discussion, while the PD is "noble" it can sometimes but stupid and ultimately as mentioned is a plot device.

Lantus

A totally flawed argument. This vid aims to be confusing in an attempt to baffle the viewer into thinking the PD is valued and interpreted so differently that it has no real value.

Firstly, there was no PD in Archers time so any argument or example involving him and any other argument before that time should be discounted as non of those people were working with the PD in mind.

The PD in the context of the show makes perfect sense. Basically you dont want to interfere with a prewarp civilisation because they have yet to master FTL travel and ventue out of their solar system. Prior to that they will likley have inferior technology, a more fearful view of the world and universe and much more potential to screw themselves up.

The point is they cannot predict what will happen which is why they dont get involved. Obviously for plot reasons it's more interesting if sometimes they do. It's called dramatic tension.

nyarlothothep

Lantus wrote: »

A totally flawed argument. This vid aims to be confusing in an attempt to baffle the viewer into thinking the PD is valued and interpreted so differently that it has no real value.

Firstly, there was no PD in Archers time so any argument or example involving him and any other argument before that time should be discounted as non of those people were working with the PD in mind.

The PD in the context of the show makes perfect sense. Basically you dont want to interfere with a prewarp civilisation because they have yet to master FTL travel and ventue out of their solar system. Prior to that they will likley have inferior technology, a more fearful view of the world and universe and much more potential to screw themselves up.

The point is they cannot predict what will happen which is why they dont get involved. Obviously for plot reasons it's more interesting if sometimes they do. It's called dramatic tension.

You're right that there was no PD in Archers time. However many of the concerns raised and the way they're dealt with in the episode might as well constitute how starfleet is wrangling with the issue of the Prime Directive. Its a PD episode without the PD as a formalized piece of legislation with similar or the same arguments used in other episodes where the PD is in effect.

Secondly while the PD is good rule the point of the argument isn't that it should be ignored, in fact its expressly stated that it should be followed in most instances, but that not every case is clear cut, that the directive isn't some divine commandment which should be applied unaminously in all situations. The reason I use the phrase divine commandment is to basically highlight that its treated in a transcendental sense, rather than as a human fallible law that can be incorrectly applied in certain circumstances where intervention is better. Its a mixture of subjective and objective judgement, as with any political/legal case and frankly I would ask anyone whether they would be willing/comfortable to let an entire civilization die out from the plague just because such intervention may or may not result in further catastrophe.

AndrewS

The prime directive was adopted from the Vulcan principal of non interference. So to say it didnt exist in Archers time is wrong. It simply wasnt part of Starfleet's regulations. It came about with the birth of the United Federation of Planets through experiences of the first Earth starships and discussions with the Vulcan High Command.

Myrddin

AndrewS wrote: »

The prime directive was adopted from the Vulcan principal of non interference. So to say it didnt exist in Archers time is wrong. It simply wasnt part of Starfleet's regulations. It came about with the birth of the United Federation of Planets through experiences of the first Earth starships and discussions with the Vulcan High Command.

Your contradicting yourself. If it came about during the birth of the Ferderation, then seeing as the Ferderation didn't exist until the end of the show then how could the PD?

Yes the Vulcans had a policy of non-interference, but Starfleet didn't. And seeing as the NX-01 was a Starfleet ship, there was no policy of non-interference.

AndrewS

EnterNow wrote: »

Your contradicting yourself. If it came about during the birth of the Ferderation, then seeing as the Ferderation didn't exist until the end of the show then how could the PD?

Yes the Vulcans had a policy of non-interference, but Starfleet didn't. And seeing as the NX-01 was a Starfleet ship, there was no policy of non-interference.

Archer's time, meaning the duration of the show. If you read my post, I didnt say that the crews of NX class starships obeyed a non interference directive. I said that the Federation charter included the directive based on experiences of said crews and that of the Vulcans.

Myrddin

AndrewS wrote: »

Archer's time, meaning the duration of the show. If you read my post, I didnt say that the crews of NX class starships obeyed a non interference directive. I said that the Federation charter included the directive based on experiences of said crews and that of the Vulcans.

I did read your post. You stated that to say the prime directive didn't exist during ENT is wrong. It's not wrong however, the Federation didn't exist during the run of ENT. And the finale episode showing the Federation ceremony was set years after the events we seen in the show.

There was a policy of non-interference by the Vulcans, not by Starfleet.