ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Prime Directive

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 Is that idea outdated in our "modern" world of do gooders?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that would see all species as important, not just the ones with warp drive, my question is "is the Prime Directive outdated"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

Look at your own planet.

South Africa

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: 3648

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: 5510

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?

:question:

Captan_jean_luc_picard_1A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 426

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: 426

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.

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: King B IX

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum