The USA and the "Prime directive"

Quantum Quack

Quantum Quack

Life's a tease...
Valued Senior Member
One of the USA movie industries biggest successes would have to be the famous Trekie films ( Star trek ) I must admit I am a bit of a fan and have enjoyed many hours watching the imagination at work.
So often these science fiction fantasy films delve into moral and ethical issues that we face every day of our lives, so often these films produce an ethical or moral "punch" line that can not be ignored.
One series stands out and that is the one where “The Prime Directive” is mentioned.
This philosophy stands out as one of good sense and suggest greater grace of the “Federation”

Firstly, I was wondering if any one wanted to discuss the merits of such a philosophy and how a major power such as the USA can employ it’s wisdom in it’s dealings with other less powerful countries?

Secondly, ideas of what constitutes unconscionable conduct come to mind. What makes the difference between acceptable and unconscionable behaviour?

Here in Australia we have Trade practice laws that apply to unconscionable conduct of major corporations. Does the USA have similar and how does that apply to domestic and foreign affairs?
 
Havn't I heard in various Star Trek episodes that on Earth no one uses money? And they only go to work if they want to? This sounds like some sort of crazy communeism to me. Either that or Earth oppresses the other members of the federation to get thier work done for them (like build all those giant star ships) personaly I don't think these are ethical standards we should follow.

As for the 'Prime Directive' the ban on sharing technology with pre-warp civilizations, I don't think that applies to us either, but it is needlessly crule. I think it was more a plot device so they could move about and observe these primitive cultures that are allegorys for elements of our own, not a solid or responcible political ideology.
 
If I remember correctly the lack of real work due to the advantages of technology were the main reason for people not needing to work. This of course is a real problem occuring now in Australia and I'm sure America is not immune. Technology may increase employment in the short term but in the long term the need to work becomes less.
So we have a looming problem where people are not needed to work and how to fund their existence without resorting to welfare.

I was under the impression that the main reasoning for the "prime directive" was to avoid culture shock and allow cultures to evolve as naturally as possible with out intervention.

It's a pity that here in Oz the early British Government didn't have a similar policy with regards to Australias Idigenous peoples, in other words allow them to evolve free from the paternalistic attitudes of the Coloniser.

But back to the posted questions

How do you define unconscionable conduct?
 
Quantum Quack said:
How do you define unconscionable conduct?
Click to expand...

Maybe insisting on economic equality for citizens of yours who do not work, while insisting that more primitive races toil on in the mud and filth until they are worthy of trade with you.

Also, as for the 'technology destroying jobs in Australia' thing, funny their politicians make it sound like its all those people arriving on boats who have to be hoarded into concentration camps in violation of international law that are taking away the jobs.
 
so, you give a race of people a nuclear reactor so they don't have to burn brown coal to generate power. The race gains relatively cheap power and also access to nuclear technology that gives them the ability to destroy themselves and because of the lack of wisdom, do so.

Also who is to say that our way of life is in any way superior in the long term any way.

I think this is the main thrust of it, in that the so called superior culture is smart enough to know that it may not be so superior in that the emergent culture has the potential to do much better than oberving culture.
 
That’s all Ad Hoc reasoning. If you aren’t going to help out then at least don’t act like you care about these primitive races. It seems absurd to me that the UFP would have a utopic economic system where no one must suffer, but they will let horrific things happen to other races just because they have not reached an arbitrary state of technological development. If I recall correctly Earth discovered warp in the wake of a cataclysmic third world war! Enlightened indeed! They love to play the enlightened card. "What would other races do with such potentially dangerous technology?" they ask "Only people as wise and non-violent as we can safely wield it." these are their reasons. But I wonder what the Romulans, the Borg, the Marquee (SP), and off and on the Klingons think of the UFP's non violent wisdom?
The federation are nothing but a band of sanctimonious elitists. They are too frightened that their position of dominance in the world may give them some responsibility to stuart less advanced races and they are defiantly not interested in allowing them any sort equality in matters of trade. The 'Prime Directive' is either cowardly, elitist, hypocritical, or all three.
 
SpyMoose said:
Havn't I heard in various Star Trek episodes that on Earth no one uses money? And they only go to work if they want to? This sounds like some sort of crazy communeism to me. Either that or Earth oppresses the other members of the federation to get thier work done for them (like build all those giant star ships) personaly I don't think these are ethical standards we should follow.

As for the 'Prime Directive' the ban on sharing technology with pre-warp civilizations, I don't think that applies to us either, but it is needlessly crule. I think it was more a plot device so they could move about and observe these primitive cultures that are allegorys for elements of our own, not a solid or responcible political ideology.
Click to expand...

No one uses money because money is absolutely worthless in 24th century. With matter replicator as common as microwave, you can create just about anything. Accumulation of wealth is no longer meaningful goal for anyone. People work only to benefit themselves instead of working for something tangible in return.

The purpose of prime directive is that when a culture still thinks the world is flat and the sun orbit their planet, they are not ready to accept aliens. Misunderstanding can happen and you do them more harm than good. It's better just to leave them alone. There are many episodes which discuss what would happen if prime directive is violated.
 
I believe the character Piquard put it this way, "We don't use money any more. We work for the betterment of ourselves and humanity." I may be paraphrashing a bit. Ah, me thinks we are going to have to create such a paradigm soon or see all sorts of valuable options, life and limb, ecosystems, species, knowledge, hopes, prayers, love etc. get lost and destroyed. In fact, finding such rationality may be a necessity to make it into the realm of self-sustaining intelligent life, as opposed to self-destroying.
 
In fact, finding such rationality may be a necessity to make it into the realm of self-sustaining intelligent life, as opposed to self-destroying.
Click to expand...
Mr Chips, "self sustaining intelligent life" the key words being "self sustaining".
So often the case when you go in to help someone and end up having to do it for ever because they develope a dependency. Here in Australia the dependency may be alcohol, tobacco and welfare for our indigenous peoples.
The culture needs to evolve too and intervention could be tradgic in the longer term.
 
Does anybody else find it odd that even though humans are the last species to have discovered warp drive, we seem to be the leaders of the Federation? Or at least Star Fleet, which is about our only glimpse into the Federation? Star Fleet HQ and Star Fleet Academy are in San Francisco; most Federation starships are named after persons or places on Earth; the crews of most Federation starships (and space stations like DS9) are overwhelmingly human. In fact, other member races like the Vulcans seem to still have their own fleets of starships!

An interesting question. All the more so when it seemed to pop up on Babylon 5. Again, we were the last race to join the interstellar community yet we were building Bab 5. At least on that show the writers had the guts and skill to address the question. Delenn said that humans were the only race out there that had an instinct to build communities, and we seemed to do it everywhere we went.

That is a great observation, because it rings true throughout our own prehistory. Way back when humans were the only "people" that we knew, we nonetheless happily built a community with another species: Canis familiaris. Humans and dogs formed the first multi-species community this planet had ever seen (except for sociologically less interesting cases like parasitism and symbiosis).

No doubt a number of you have already heard me say this, but for the others: I believe that our ability to join in a community with dogs was one of the primary attributes that enabled us to build civilization. Civilization requires us to care about people we don't even know. Prior to civilization we lived in tribes where everybody more or less knew everybody else and was even more or less a blood relative. It could have been very difficult to transfer that tribal sense of caring beyond the boundaries of a tribe.

But we learned to love "people" who were not even human! People and dogs love each other boundlessly! After having that experience, perhaps we found it not too difficult to learn to love somebody who is really almost just like us, differing only in minor attributes such as skin color, language, or religion.

If it weren't for dogs, there would be no Federation and no Babylon 5! I find it touching that Captain Archer took his dog with him on the first Starship Enterprise. A nice touch and a symbol of what his successors are going to accomplish. :)
 
You all seem to have a lot of hyperbole about how wonderful the human race is. Will any of you quantify just what makes a race "ready" for contact with an alien race? What is it that makes pre-warp civilizations "Not ready yet"? It sounds to me like just an ad-hoc excuse. I'm fairly certain that if the federation is 'advanced' enough that everyone works for the common good or to benefit their character, then they could probably throw together an introduction to the federation for pre-warp civilizations that doesn’t involve getting them hooked on alcohol and tobacco. If they are so morally upright as to all work for the common good, then why would they allow all those people to suffer and die under their primitive circumstances that are no more their fault than Earth having developed warp was?
 
I was under the impression that the reason the feds wait until post "warp " is simply that the race in question poses no threat to the Feds until it does achieve warp status. Then it is in the interests of the Feds to introduce themselves.

The other is that they may feel that they are incapable of judging whether a culture is inferior of not and allow for the fact that they can't make thoses sorts of dterminations. Also the thinking that for a culture to achieve long term success that it must make it's mistakes and learn from them.

The issue of whether the prime directive should be absolute in that the Feds have to watch helplessly and watch a culture destroy itself is debatable I think.
Possibly emergency intervention would be allowed.

Any way the Prime directive was only a analogy or scenario to start a discussion on unconscionable conduct which I might add there has been little discussion on so far.
 
You've got it all wrong!

I've noticed several inconsistencies in this thread relating to the StarTrek universe. Firstly, the prime directive is not about pre-warp cultures. The prime directive is about not interfering with any alien culture (Unless they ask).

Secondly, the Federation (And only the federation) wait until the culture develops warp technology. Until they can figure it out on their own, they don't deserve/need it.

The Klingons wouldn't care about a pre-warp civilization, because they pose no threat, but the Klingons don’t go by the prime directive, so they could screw with a pre-warp civilization all they want.

I'm fairly certain that if the federation is 'advanced' enough that everyone works for the common good or to benefit their character, then they could probably throw together an introduction to the federation for pre-warp civilizations that doesn’t involve getting them hooked on alcohol and tobacco.
Click to expand...

This is true. Humans in the future work to better themselves; they have no material wants or needs. They might need food, but walk over to a replicator and BAM! You got a four course dinner. Of course that doesn't mean that people don't cook anymore. People open and run restaurants for the pure fun of it - people become doctors because they want to be doctors, not because they want to buy a nice car.

There is, however, trouble in paradise. A group known as the Marquis seek to separate themselves from the federation (They almost did until the Dominion wiped them out). The Marquis want to grow and eat there own food, they make everything themselves, they don't use replicators unless they have too. Of course in order to separate themselves from the federation and declare themselves a sovereign nation, they have to fight for it. Which brings into my mind that terrorism is still rampant in the Star Trek universe (The Marquis raided ships, hated Cardassians, and stole federation secrets).

Now, The Marquis consisted of Bajorans as well as Vulcan’s and Terrains (Humans). What happened was this: The Bajorans went through a war with the Cardassians, the Cardys (Which is what I'm calling them for short) occupied Bajor (The Bajoran home planet). The Bajorans were enslaved until the occupation got broke by constant terrorist attacks taken out by the Bajorans. Then in comes the Federation and they help out to. And a border, known as the demilitarized zone, was drawn up. Now out on the rim there is no control, no federation, and people are left to fend for themselves. Which is exactly what the Marquis wanted to do?

The Marquis go out there and help the Bajorans and all that jazz. The Federation dis-owns the Marquis because it's there citizens are carrying out terrorist attacks on Federation and Carrdasians citizens.

So really, the Star Trek universe is not perfect. Peace is not absolute. And the parallels are unusually similar to what’s going on in the Middle East right now.

How the frell did I miss this thread for so long? Also, you've managed to turn a trekkie rabid, watch out.
 
How the frell did I miss this thread for so long? Also, you've managed to turn a trekkie rabid, watch out.
Click to expand...

Ha ...may be you need another chip implanted that can browse the internet better, I here MicroSoft have developed and intergalctic internet chip that is far superior to the one developed 200 years ago in the 90's

Any way, Counsler coffee, how can we take the wisdoms offered by the trekie imagination and apply it to the present day.

The Prime Directive could be applied better here in the present I feel.

Maybe the United Nations should amend the Charter of human rights to include some of the wisdoms. What do you think?
 
Maybe the United Nations should amend the Charter of human rights to include some of the wisdoms. What do you think?
Click to expand...

Star Trek doctrine can be adapted to today's issues. However, it's not a question of whether or not it would work (We know it would, in theory). The problem with applying this doctrine is simple:

1. Humans do not work to better themselves at this point in time. They only wish to acquire.
2. Humans still suffer (Hunger, war, crime, etc).
3. Technology.

When humans learn to get along, and get the appropriate technology, we can be as peaceful as the ST universe. Of course the ST doctrine is a form of isolation, and trouble still happens in an isolated society. Klingons would eventually come knocking on our doors.
 
Well as the ole' saying goes...." the battle is in the getting there"
And of course another is simply that you need to know what direction to take if you have any chance at all.

I wonder though if the USA took a more Trekie approach to it's behaviour both domestically and abroad would it not inspire greater results than it is currently achieving?
 
I wonder though if the USA took a more Trekie approach to it's behaviour both domestically and abroad would it not inspire greater results than it is currently achieving?
Click to expand...

The role of America in the world would greatly change. For intance, no more Israel. That would be a direct result of our interference with the Middle East. We would no longer send aid to other countries, unless they ask. We would not interfere with other wars, unless they ask. We would be in a state of isolationism.
 
I am not sure that isolationism is the right word for it.
Certainly the USA would become more insular and a little more passive rather than so pro-active in world affairs.
If we assume for a minute that the USA's involvement in Irak is altruistic in nature and it may very well be, the big heart of America is costing it enourmously.

I wonder if such expenditure could be more wisely spent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top