Pros and Cons of the Prime Directive in Star Trek

[TimAZ]

LOL -- I enjoyed Star Trek as much as anyone. It is a bit odd though that some people can't grasp that it was 100% fiction.

As far as the Prime Directive, it reminds me of the woes inflicted by do-gooders throughout history. Benjamin Franklin summarized the antidote to meddling with the phrase "Mind your business". He even wanted it printed on U.S. Currency and coins.

[sholomar]

The TNG Episode "Symbiosis" was one of my favorites that debated the prime directive. Some other interesting episodes related to the prime directive... Star Trek Voyager, the Year of hell episodes, and the episode "Omega"

In the end helping a less advanced civilization probably does more harm than good unless you help through direct education.. teaching them how to fish versus just giving them fish, and they are accepting and non resistant towards your philosophy and generally advanced enough to use it for the good of their species.. hence the rules on "first contact." The episode "Malon" where Voyager offers to give them technology to clean their toxic waste so they no longer have to dump it, but they reject the technology because it would take away their profitable industry is such an example. I also like the TNG Episode "First Contact" (not the movie.. season 4 episode 15) along with "Who watches the watchers?" an example where you would not share advanced technology with a civilization.

[Arach Angle]

in real life, there is always an exception. The problem is most people don't know when that exception is. And the rest make mistakes every now and again.

take any story and make it good and then make it bad. In hollywood, bad sells. Take the borg for example, what if in the episodes they asked?

"would you like to be assimilated". "those that do can come along". Now, in real space, there is plenty of resources. And the borg, with that much power, could steal a thing or two and not worry. If they had to that is. and then they leave.

[Phil75230]

Originally Posted by TimAZ

LOL -- I enjoyed Star Trek as much as anyone. It is a bit odd though that some people can't grasp that it was 100% fiction.

Fiction, but many stories based on historical facts. One episode, about a 1/4 Romulan before a Federation hearing with an overzealous prosecutor, recalls the McCarthy hearings. And real-history-based or not, the series does deal with some challenging philosophical issues.

Originally Posted by TimAZ

As far as the Prime Directive, it reminds me of the woes inflicted by do-gooders throughout history. Benjamin Franklin summarized the antidote to meddling with the phrase "Mind your business". He even wanted it printed on U.S. Currency and coins.

I suppose every action or non-action can be called an infliction in some way (even a "good infliction", notwithstanding the negative connotation of "infliction").

One issue I see is nuclear war or other society-destroying WMD. If you were a Starfleet captain who came across a "primitive" but rapidly advancing civilization, and that civilization started full-fledged nuclear or other heinous WMD attack, is it moral to vaporize the missiles or not? That's clearly interfering in a pre-warp civ's development. Yet it's saving hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, from death and many times more from agony.

If you don't intervene, then it's back to at least the pre-industrial age (with the added bonus of fallout) at best. If you do intervene, then there'll be a Federation presence to keep the peace. Why stop the missiles if they'll just find some other way to continue fighting, which surely will happen absent a Federation presence? If another war breaks out on that planet, the Federation will inevitably have to take sides, like other past real world wars of intervention here by a major world power.

So what is it? Save the "primitives" at the price of entering a potential situation like Vietnam or Iraq? Or let the primitives destroy themselves for the sake of avoiding a quagmire?