captbates GROUP: Members POSTS: 12614  |
Report this
Oct. 02 2009, 2:41 pm
Okay, we all know about the Prime Directive and how important it is in Trek, other shows have adopted similar ideologies and we accept that they are necessary. But what about the non interference dilema if a pre warp species is about to be wiped out, and the Federation just stands by doing nothing. Is that idea outdated in our "modern" world of do gooders? Can anyone really see a future where we would just stand idly by and do nothing to help in the name of natural evolution.
Should any new Trek show re-address the Prime Directive?
|
|
captbates GROUP: Members POSTS: 12614 |
Report this
Oct. 02 2009, 3:34 pm
Yeah, I'm all for the "duck blinds" and preventing cultural contamination, but if it comes down to letting a species die off just because they're not advanced enough it's kinda selfish. These days there is even talk about bringing back extinct animals, is it hard to imagine a future that would see all species as important, not just the ones with warp drive, my question is "is the Prime Directive outdated"
|
Trekwolf164 GROUP: Members POSTS: 32043  |
Report this
Oct. 02 2009, 4:00 pm
|
|
captbates GROUP: Members POSTS: 12614 |
Report this
Oct. 02 2009, 6:56 pm
| Quote (Trekwolf164 @ Oct. 01 2009, 9:00 pm) | Look at your own planet.
South Africa |
We suck!  |
lostshaker GROUP: Members POSTS: 2293 |
Report this
Oct. 02 2009, 7:14 pm
The prime directive is not about if a race is technologically evolved enough to save itself. It's about allowing a civilization to determine its own fate and not play God on the part of an outsider. There is no way to predict how alien cultures will perceive outsiders. And by going in and solving someone's problems, responsibility gets shifted to the one solving the problem. It robs one civilization of a chance to grow and unfairly delegates power to the solution's source. It's an action that at the very least borders on arrogance and it undermines the balance of power. And TOS was all about maintaining a balance of power. The times Kirk violated the PD was to reestablish that balance after it had been upset.
|
Kdbtrekkin GROUP: Members POSTS: 3634 |
Report this
Oct. 03 2009, 2:48 am
| Quote (lostshaker @ Oct. 02 2009, 7:14 pm) | | The prime directive is not about if a race is technologically evolved enough to save itself. It's about allowing a civilization to determine its own fate and not play God on the part of an outsider. There is no way to predict how alien cultures will perceive outsiders. And by going in and solving someone's problems, responsibility gets shifted to the one solving the problem. It robs one civilization of a chance to grow and unfairly delegates power to the solution's source. It's an action that at the very least borders on arrogance and it undermines the balance of power. And TOS was all about maintaining a balance of power. The times Kirk violated the PD was to reestablish that balance after it had been upset. |
Nice |
|
captbates GROUP: Members POSTS: 12614 |
Report this
Oct. 03 2009, 8:12 am
| Quote (lostshaker @ Oct. 02 2009, 12:14 am) | | The prime directive is not about if a race is technologically evolved enough to save itself. It's about allowing a civilization to determine its own fate and not play God on the part of an outsider. There is no way to predict how alien cultures will perceive outsiders. And by going in and solving someone's problems, responsibility gets shifted to the one solving the problem. It robs one civilization of a chance to grow and unfairly delegates power to the solution's source. It's an action that at the very least borders on arrogance and it undermines the balance of power. And TOS was all about maintaining a balance of power. The times Kirk violated the PD was to reestablish that balance after it had been upset. |
I do fully understand the reasoning behind the Prime Directive, my question is in a hypothetical future is it morally correct to allow a species to become extinct when we could easily help them. If it's arrogant to help, what would you call people who watch an entire species die and do nothing. Is death really better than contamination? Perhaps the "natural order" of the universe is supposed to be help thy neighbour. |
|
captbates GROUP: Members POSTS: 12614 |
Report this
Oct. 03 2009, 8:13 am
| Quote (Kdbtrekkin @ Oct. 02 2009, 7:48 am) | | Quote (lostshaker @ Oct. 02 2009, 7:14 pm) | | The prime directive is not about if a race is technologically evolved enough to save itself. It's about allowing a civilization to determine its own fate and not play God on the part of an outsider. There is no way to predict how alien cultures will perceive outsiders. And by going in and solving someone's problems, responsibility gets shifted to the one solving the problem. It robs one civilization of a chance to grow and unfairly delegates power to the solution's source. It's an action that at the very least borders on arrogance and it undermines the balance of power. And TOS was all about maintaining a balance of power. The times Kirk violated the PD was to reestablish that balance after it had been upset. |
Nice |
Thanks for contributing.  |
SLagonia GROUP: Members POSTS: 18170 |
Report this
Oct. 03 2009, 11:50 pm
| Quote (captbates @ Oct. 01 2009, 5:41 pm) | Okay, we all know about the Prime Directive and how important it is in Trek, other shows have adopted similar ideologies and we accept that they are necessary. But what about the non interference dilema if a pre warp species is about to be wiped out, and the Federation just stands by doing nothing. Is that idea outdated in our "modern" world of do gooders? Can anyone really see a future where we would just stand idly by and do nothing to help in the name of natural evolution.
Should any new Trek show re-address the Prime Directive? |
They did this - And Archer wiped an entire civilization out because he didn't want to interfear. It was one of the lowest points in Trek history. |
Camorite GROUP: Members POSTS: 5508  |
Report this
Oct. 04 2009, 10:08 am
| Quote (SLagonia @ Oct. 03 2009, 11:50 pm) | | Quote (captbates @ Oct. 01 2009, 5:41 pm) | Okay, we all know about the Prime Directive and how important it is in Trek, other shows have adopted similar ideologies and we accept that they are necessary. But what about the non interference dilema if a pre warp species is about to be wiped out, and the Federation just stands by doing nothing. Is that idea outdated in our "modern" world of do gooders? Can anyone really see a future where we would just stand idly by and do nothing to help in the name of natural evolution.
Should any new Trek show re-address the Prime Directive? |
They did this - And Archer wiped an entire civilization out because he didn't want to interfear. ¿It was one of the lowest points in Trek history. |
So Picard did nearly the same thing by putting an entire planet into withdrawl in Symbyosis, and just stood by and was prepared to watch as a primative planet was about to be destroyed by a cosmic phanominon when they met up with Worf's human brother. |
Cynic321 GROUP: Members POSTS: 8588 |
Report this
Oct. 04 2009, 11:01 am
| Quote (SLagonia @ Oct. 03 2009, 10:50 pm) | | Quote (captbates @ Oct. 01 2009, 5:41 pm) | Okay, we all know about the Prime Directive and how important it is in Trek, other shows have adopted similar ideologies and we accept that they are necessary. But what about the non interference dilema if a pre warp species is about to be wiped out, and the Federation just stands by doing nothing. Is that idea outdated in our "modern" world of do gooders? Can anyone really see a future where we would just stand idly by and do nothing to help in the name of natural evolution.
Should any new Trek show re-address the Prime Directive? |
They did this - And Archer wiped an entire civilization out because he didn't want to interfear. ¿It was one of the lowest points in Trek history. |
I VERY vaguely remember that. Phlox had the answer to the trouble right? What was the problem (I can't recall) . What was Archer's rationale for withholding it?  |
Captan_jean_luc_picard_1A GROUP: Members POSTS: 416 |
Report this
Oct. 04 2009, 5:48 pm
| Quote (captbates @ Oct. 02 2009, 2:41 pm) | Okay, we all know about the Prime Directive and how important it is in Trek, other shows have adopted similar ideologies and we accept that they are necessary. But what about the non interference dilema if a pre warp species is about to be wiped out, and the Federation just stands by doing nothing. Is that idea outdated in our "modern" world of do gooders? Can anyone really see a future where we would just stand idly by and do nothing to help in the name of natural evolution.
Should any new Trek show re-address the Prime Directive? |
Voyager got into that mess in the Seaon 1 ep, time and again. Best to let them destroy themselves if they cannot manage there technologies. The prime directive isn't perfect. But it was created in due process. |
|
Captan_jean_luc_picard_1A GROUP: Members POSTS: 416 |
Report this
Oct. 04 2009, 5:49 pm
| Quote (captbates @ Oct. 02 2009, 6:56 pm) | | Quote (Trekwolf164 @ Oct. 01 2009, 9:00 pm) | Look at your own planet.
South Africa |
We suck! ¿ |
Yeah...Pakastan and China ring a bell also. WE DO SUCK. |
|
tribblenator999 GROUP: Members POSTS: 3818 |
Report this
Oct. 04 2009, 6:16 pm
prime directive specifically states that starfleet can not interfere with the natural development or destruction of a planet of a prewarp civilization. So if a asteroid is going to destroy a pre warp species planet, too bad for those people. If a pre-warp civilization is going to nuke itself out. Too bad. Starfleet can't interfere.
|
|
captbates GROUP: Members POSTS: 12614 |
Report this
Oct. 04 2009, 6:37 pm
| Quote (tribblenator999 @ Oct. 03 2009, 11:16 pm) | | prime directive specifically states that starfleet can not interfere with the natural development or destruction of a planet of a prewarp civilization. So if a asteroid is going to destroy a pre warp species planet, too bad for those people. If a pre-warp civilization is going to nuke itself out. Too bad. Starfleet can't interfere. |
If they are going to nuke themselves then that is a choice they have made, but an asteroid could be stopped, and they wouldn't even know. |
