"My father used to say that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. I laid the first stone right there. I'd committed myself. I'd pay any price; go to any lengths because my cause was righteous. My… intentions were good. In the beginning, that seemed like enough." -- Captain Benjamin Sisko
"the road to Hell is paved with good intentions" Some times I think I have done more than pave a road. I have built a 4 lane interstate highway. Almost every good deed I have done at some point has came back to bit me. I have long ago gave up trying to do such things as more often than not they backfire on me.
Except he saved billions of lives with that one act of evil and the freedom of thousands of worlds. So really it's an argument AGAINST the prime directive.
@@Tuffsmoygles it's like Garak said, it cost the lives of 1 senator, 1 criminal, and one captains self respect. If anything, Sisko taking it upon himself to do what he did was in itself noble, because he didn't make the Federation sacrifice its (supposed) values, he took it entirely upon himself. And seeing as how the Dominion apparently killed 70 million people in the Occupation of Betazed alone, I'd say Sisko chose correctly
@@raynethackery1 as in the betazed deaths? I read it on the Dominion War entry on the Star Trek wiki. Don't know where it was initially mentioned though
Just take a moment and think of Sisko when he and Garak tried to manipulate the Romulans into entering the Dominion war... with the fake isolinear rod.. one of the most brilliant episodes ever and a clear sign that, even with the PD around, sometimes things are not that easy.
"The Hell with nature" is not really showing compassion. Its just a disregard to the possible consequences of Archer interfering. Phlox was and is a way better character then Archer.
@@ZeitdiebX GO1 doesn't really apply to In the Pale Moonlight, though. It wasn't an interference of an internal matter of the Romulan Empire, it was a political move for an interstellar matter with a species at the same technological level of the Federation. It was illegal as all hell, violated countless Federation law and Starfleet regulations... but GO1 was not one of them. Compared to the Klingon Civil War, where GO1 did come into play and where CAPT Picard refused to act upon a purely internal Klingon matter in an official capacity as a Federation officer with Federation resources (of course, we can get into a roundabout of his acting as the Arbiter of Succession and those points/counterpoints to whether that violated GO1 are well documented) until the external interference from the Romulans was discovered, which then made it an interstellar matter. And still, the Federation stayed out of the conflict once the Romulans retreated.
This show was 7/10 at best and 3/10 at worst But most often it was just 5/10 Nothing noteworthy or special and it was bad...really really bad for a long time.
This show had great potential, the problem was there were too many episodes involving time travel and for some reason they loved spoiling episodes for you. The worst way to start en episode is to show some disaster or explosions or someone dead, just to follow up with the text, last week or last month. It doesn't take long to see where they are going and how the intro is going to happen with no real consequences.
Not true. as Picard said, it was a guidelines and philosophy. Its being takes strictly only if you make the wrong choice because of emotions... Its there to make you think 10x before making a decision, because the 1st one might not be the correct one! There is an episode that even states that Picard has violated PD 9 times... I doubt he would still be captain for long, if it was an unquestionable law... But there is an episode where a civilization died, because they decided not to involve them selves... Saving live is not always good or evil....
I wish the upcoming Picard series would do something of a callback to this episode. Something like, "Yes, the Federation has a Prime directive. It was instituted to prevent Starfleet captains from committing genocide because they didn't know what else to do." For those forgetting, the Prime Directive/General Order 1 has several exceptions that apply to this episode. Civilization is pre-warp but already made first contact with other space-faring species. Civilization directly asked for help for a problem they knew existed and was actively trying to combat. Civilization is not currently engaged in any sort of domestic or interstellar war. GO1, in spirit, is supposed to be more about "we don't go down to this primitive civilization and tell them not to own slaves because that's our moral philosophy and they should adhere to it too", and less about, "oh they haven't hit some trivial technological breakthrough, oh well, sucks to be them. Let them die out". People want to get on prior Starfleet captains for breaking the rule, but from my life experience, yeah they were supposed to. Not just in the sense that of course the episodes were written that way, but because people in positions of authority are given explicit permission to break the rules and they only get to those positions of authority by demonstrating enough sense to know when to do so. There's a quote that was given to me when I became a manager and my superiors thought me too strict about following the rules. They told me, "A good employee knows the rules and adheres to the rules. A good manager knows when, how, and why to break those rules". In short: Picard, Kirk, Janeway breaking GO1 isn't some shortcoming of the captains, those episodes, or of the folly of GO1 itself. It is exactly as it should be. Were all this real, those decisions would be put before a panel of Starfleet admirals who would debate the merits of each case and most likely give a retroactive thumbs-up to each case. Or, they give a thumbs-down but give a detailed explanation why to the captain, so they might make a more accurate decision later. Even in that case, I'd be surprised if there were any consequences as long as the action was still somewhat reasonable. In either case, yay or nay, those instances would be added to Starfleet literature in the academy, so that students would be taught more instances of when/why to break GO1, and when/why not to break it.
For most of the series, I thought Archer was made too childish and impulsive in an effort to contrast the vulcans to be believable as a human, let alone a captain, but in this case, I agree with him. If an intelligent species with knowledge of extra home world life leaves their planet in search of help, I don't think their lack of warp drive should disqualify them. Having said that, if I were a captain in the Star Trek universe, I'd be grateful for a prime directive to take such dilemma off my hands.
The Bajorans built lightships to do the same thing, leading to the Cardassians refusing to believe them simply because it wasn't warp travel. That said there are many holes in the PD. What if a species relies on another for warp travel but can't do it themselves? What if the people are Federation citizens who have forsaken technology of a high level? What if a species didn't develop but buy warp travel (the Ferengi) ? What if they just use wormholes? What if they are hyperintelligent but don't travel (Cytherians)? What if they don't even exist physically (e.g the Green Lantern Drxy Rrr, a living mathematical equation)
@@SantomPh The lightships were BS, there was never any indication that the ancient Bajorans had any technology to get them into space, and they certainly couldn't get to space by "sailing" there. They also wouldn't have been able to soft-land at the other end, and get back into space again for a return trip. Also, without a warp field generator you can't go faster than light, even if you mumbo-jumbo "capture tachyons in your sail" which means sailing to Cardassia would likely take centuries, and for most of that time there would be no appreciable "solar wind..." That episode was BS claptrap nonsense from start to finish.
Their lack of warp drive technology or even experience with antimatter led Archer to not "give them" technology that they'd likely just blow themselves up with. That was separate from just handing them a cure.
Then you'd be a weak Captain. Do we not have our principles? Are they so brittle that they need to be told what shape to take form? Do you need a Directive to shape a will so malleable? Seems like a stern suggestion was enough. "I can help these people..." "But think about how you can instead condemn them. If you help them think of the future you will alter." "You're right, I'll let them die and choose this future instead. I am in command here." "Yes sir you are."
It's only after rewatching ENT after For All Mankind that I get what they were doing with Archer -- he's starts out as this gung-ho astronaut who is absolutely not ready for what's out there (like the Vulcans say), so in the beginning he is constantly getting in over his head and causing disasters, and through these repeated painful experience he's forced to become the first archetypical explorer-warrior-diplomat Starfleet captain. It was an interesting idea, maybe not executed the best
"Some day my people will come up with some sort of a doctrine saying what we can and can't do out here"... Then every captain of notable mention will ignore that doctrine.
When he did the things he could do, and drew the wrong attention to the ones he loved, then the bad things happen... to us. - Gwen Stacy (If her neck wasn't broken)
Besides, homo sapiens _bred with_ homo neanderthalensis. There is evidence of Neanderthal DNA within ours. Homo sapiens just outnumbered them heavily. Around 40000 years ago there lived at most 100k Neanderthals.
I don't believe there really is a right answer here. I absolutely agree with not giving them warp tech, that is extremely irresponsible. I don't want to go amongst the stars and "save" everyone we come across, but in cases like this I could at least stomach the idea of giving them a chance of saving themselves. A nudge towards a cure.
OP You missed his point entirely. Flox was relating the Valakian Menk situation to that of homo sapiens and homo neanderthalensis. Without intervention from an outside agent. Flox was claiming that the disease harming the Valakian's could allow for the Menk to become the dominate species. He's arguing against intervention by asserting that humanity was also in competition for dominance of their world and outside intervention could have also been justified to prevent that. Seeing as how homo neanderthalensis, along with several other homo branch races(the biological term, not the social) went extinct. It's a sound argument, which is made even more sound when Archer is apparently incapable of forming a counter ethical argument. That's not to say that there aren't any though.
@@Dwarf_Lord_Thoden Yeah but the general consensus is that they all went extinct via breeding with our species, That's not the case on the planet in the show.
The incidents before TOS that caused the Prime Directive to come into being would have made for one helluva season of episodes. I wish they would have explored that side of Star Trek more than the "destroy the doomsday device" line....
Interesting dilemma. In TOS, the Prime Directive was about not interfering with a living, growing culture whether or not we agreed with that culture (The Omega Glory). It did not apply to cultures that were stagnant (Return of the Archons, The Apple), and certainly didn't apply to cultures that were in danger of complete destruction (The Paradise Syndrome). By TNG, it seemed that it applied to any and every situation, which always seemed excessive to me.
PD originally was plot device ignored when writers wanted to push specific morals. Later Writers started treating as something more important, eventually leading to flanderized dogma from VOY and ENT. K*rtzman era ditched it most of time but only because new shows just want to subvert Trek for sake of it, instead actually improving franchise
I like to think the explicit exemption the Prime Directive has for people who actually ask for help was the direct result of the drafters' utter horror and disgust at this decision.
Then stone-age villagers praying to their pillar of quartz would have to be helped. People may ask for help, but they need to be accountable for any consequences (intended or unintended) that result. A pre-warp civilization can't make such informed decisions.
@@Raja1938 Are you one crack? They're dying because of a (plot driven) genetic defect and need a cure. They're not asking for free energy or weapons they're asking for someone to help them not go extinct while already being aware of and in contact with warp capable civs previous to the nx01 arriving, they literally sent a sleeper ship at relativistic speeds to find help. Don't make excuses for poor writing.
@@Raja1938 This was not a stone-age civilisation, this was a species with space-faring technology. And they did not ask some imaginary deities on an altar, they made direct contact with a more advanced civilisation with the means to help them and asked for that help. A warp drive *is just a vehicle engine* and nothing else, it does not mean *anything* in relation to being capable of making informed decisions. It is like saying that Europe should not send aid to Africa because most Africans do not drive a Ferrari. Just to point out how insane the logic you are using is, the Valakians, the pre-warp species in this episode, has more advanced technology than our real world 21st century Earth, yet by your standards they can not make "informed decisions". The fact that the Prime Directive actually *has* this exception built into it means that your ideas would not fly in this fictional universe.
@@marinusvonzilio9628 Your argument is premised on Phlox's treatment being a perfect cure that would be certain to have no unintended consequences. This is an alien ecosystem, so it's impossible to predict what may happen in the months/years after Enterprise leaves them. Phlox's cure may lead to the destruction of pollinating insects for example, and lead to affecting other species on that world aside from the Valakians. Now this is where the species being warp-capable vs space-faring is an important distinction. If Phlox's cure does go haywire, a warp-capable society can leave and resettle elsewhere. A merely space-faring society can't (recall the Valakian ship had been traveling for a year through space looking for other species when Enterprise happened upon them), so the responsibility for any damage would fall squarely on Starfleet. Starfleet would be responsible for babysitting this world indefinitely to ensure nothing went awry from the tech they gave them. To your point about the Valakians having more advanced tech than our real world 21st century Earth, I would similarly argue that an advanced extraterrestrial species shouldn't provide us with advanced tech. We're not at a stage where we can make an informed decision about tech that we don't understand and would have to live with any unintended consequences. In the worst case scenario, we can't resettle on the moon or Mars let alone in another star system.
"Some day my people will come up with some sort of a doctrine saying what we can and can't do out here"...Every Starfleet officer afterward will bend that doctrine when the situation calls for it!
Gene Roddenberry never intended for the Prime Directive to prevent the Federation from giving humanitarian aid. The Federation could give aid to species whose plight was desperate but could not give them military assistance. THAT was what the Prime Directive was SUPPOSED TO BE.
5 років тому+24
The argument has a bigger line: the subservient race is already evolved past the point when it's an obvious "neanderthals vs. sapiens" situation. Humans survived because they adapted, neanderthals died because they couldn't. Interfering with that process is like the government telling people how to raise their children.
@ But the whole Neanderthal VS Us thing ignores the fact that they weren't another species. We still carry up to 5% Neanderthal DNA in our genome depending on where in this world your ancestry is from. Had an alien race mucked about with them then we'd probably have become a little more homogeneous with them. Remember, our taxonomy is based on words and ideas we imposed. Nature is a lot less literal and doesn't always recognize the barriers we've put in place.
5 років тому+3
@@umachan9286 Describe your criteria for a different species. For me, anatomical difference suggests enough. We share DNA with 99% of all the fauna on this planet, so separating species by DNA is not a smart idea.
I'm pretty sure the Prime Directive does NOT state "we must cull the weak from the herd, and leave! Only those! In the crucible! WITH THE MIGHT! TO EXPAND! *EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINAAAAAATE!*" there, Archer.
I'm really not understanding how Star Trek "fans" don't see why this is an example of why the prime directive exists. The Prime Directive would have told them to stay away from this species to begin with. This keeps them from getting involved in "moral" decisions that they should never have had to make in the first place.
@@UncleSam13 That's the problems with the writing for the various characters. They made Janeway break it on more than one occasion as an example. I think Kirk did it also (never really watched TOS). But the principle of the Prime Directive is still there and as much as people will disagree I think should be upheld. This is the Valakians version of the Great Filter. If they can get through it. Archer phrased it perfectly at the end of the clip.
The prime directive does not regard species who has already been exposed to warp capable societies, which this society already had. The where aware of the existence of more advanced societies out there and where activly searching for a more advanced society for help. And they discovered the cure. A normal "doctor" on a normal exploring mission where able to find the cure within days, it was obviously not that complex and he even said that they themselves where close, but had not yet discovered it. Instead of filling in the blank spaces for them, they abandoned them. They could have given the cure to them and still said that they need to figure warp speed out by themselves. Phlox's response about Humans and Neanderthals where irrellevant, we don't know why the "pure" Neanderthals died out, but we know that we could interbreed with them, since we already are part Neanderthals. They didn't didn't truly die of, they interbred with our other ancestors and today more or less all humans with a Euroasian heritage are part Neanderthals. And the fact of the matter is, they less intelligent species on that planet, where not treated badly, they where more or less equals in that society, it's just that since they did not have the same intelligence, they where not able to get "higher standing" jobs. It's the same on earth, we don't treat people with Downs syndrome badly, but they are just not capable of becoming medical doctors or engineers, because they just lack the intelligence for it. And Phlox said that the less intelligent people where undergoing evolution already. It would happen eventually. Now had they been mistreated etc there could have been another discussion, but this episode just did not hit the mark it tried to hit. I understood what they where going for, but it just didn't work.
The opposite is Star gate. In the end earth was given the role of protectorate by a dying race who was the former protectorate. Earth received that honor because were weren't like the Vulcan. Arrogance led to the death of a few civilizations in that series. The dying race wanted a humble civilization to take it's place. I would want to help others but I wouldn't want to babysit a civilization for a few centuries. If it were up to me a new sg1 series wouldn't try to continue to raise the power levels but to explore concepts such as disclosure & colonization.
@@Mukation As far as i know the theory behind the Neanderthals "Extinction" Wasnt something that easily solved without directly killing Homosapians. Some of the pros Neanderthals had where: Stronger, Tougher, "Smarter?" then humans Cons: Less social(max of 10 in a group with humans going above 50), The before mentiond pros ment more energy was needed, Their stronger tougher build also allowed them to be more Melee focussed where as humans focussed on range. I do dislike how Phlox reacts to Archer saying its just a theory. Archer wasnt debasing evolution, he was stating that the "Lesser" species are not garantued to evolve to the point of what Phlox expected. also i dont remember if the "Lesser" species where imune but what was there to prefend both species form dying out. As an extra at the end where he states we are not here to play god. In this context isnt that what Doctors are doing every day, prefenting dead.
Archer's initial retort was bang on. Not to provide medical assistance having been asked for it would be a violation of the hippocratic oath. End of. Phlox needs to decide if he is a doctor or a scientist as a man can't serve two masters in good conscience.
The hippocratic oath, at its core, says do no harm. Phlox didn't actively intervene. He didn't try to convince the Valakians that they shouldn't try to find a cure themselves, or destroy any research they already had.
@@cgavin1 Not at all an apt comparison. Are you morally bankrupt because you didn't donate to Save the Children? Did you commit murder through your own inaction?
@@cgavin1 No, that's difference, hotly disputed to this day. You also forget that by "HELPING" he'd be promoting timid, but still an enslavement and providing generally UNTESTED cure with unknown LONG TERM effects to population.
That was mentioned in another episode when the Doctor wouldn't treat an enemy. The Captain said 'hippocratic oath,' the doctor said 'im not human I took no such oath.'
"The Prime Directive is not just a set of rules. It is a philosophy, and a very correct one. History has proved again and again that whenever mankind interferes with a less developed civilization, no matter how well intentioned that interference may be, the results are _invariably disastrous_." - Jean-Luc Picard
True, but as humans and intelligent beings we "imho" also have a duty and moral obligation to help if and when people ask or needed. Letting people die when you have the knowledge and power to help is wrong.
Like when the Romans spread their civilization and brought together many sorts of people into one empire. Their culture spread even further than that outside the borders. It is the reason that Western civilization as we know it even exists. No, Picard was wrong. Even Picard himself violated the Prime Directive more than once.
At least Picard recognized that there were times when the Prime Directive wasn't the thically right solution though he did use as a moral yardstick. Too many Starfleet Captains in the franchise (TV, movies, games, books, comics) often seem to use the Directive as an excuse to not make tough choices.
We seem to be overlooking the fact that these people have been actively searching for help from warp-capable species, or at least, more advanced ones. Although I do agree with Picard's quote on the Prime Directive, in this instance the people have already been aware of the galactic community. It would be like someone seeking help from a neighbour with more advanced tools or know-how to help with a repair on the house or car. On the other hand, Phlox did raise several valid points in his argument. This truly IS a dilemma!
that not entirely true if i recall the have ways of observing other alien in there solar system and just out side but not reach them they did manage to launch a nuclear powered ship at the Enterprise just to get there attentions and it worked
I miss old Star Trek with its questions about right and wrong. This moral dilemma is what I love about Star Trek, something that's missing entirely in the new show.
This episode ends with casual passive-aggressive genocide based on a psychotic misunderstanding of race and evolution. It's not thoughtful. And anyone who thinks it's "classic Trek" to be slapped upside the head, until their brain resets and starts working again. Kirk made it clear how he felt about the doctor's views, in "Patterns of Force."
@@juststatedtheobvious9633 what outcome or decision wouldn't END in genocide of one or the other? What if "the cure" caused long term adverse, uninteded effects? Shall we say, limited fertility or increased number of birth defects?
The Prime Directive operates at a time prior to actual engagement with less advanced cultures; it's about not revealing yourself or opening contact with those cultures, or at best only observing them. In that way you avoid ethical & moral quandaries like the one we see here. After contact has been made, that probably changes the ethical calculus. Even the awareness by a less advanced culture that extra-terrestrial civilizations exist, can be enormously disruptive. Once contact is actually made, the superior civilization may be obligated to continue the relationship and play a paternal role, the way the Vulcans did with Earthlings.
Late reply I know, but Vulcans waited until humans achieved warp technology and were intelligent enough to understand what the Vulcans were. I think here the humans just came out of curiosity, the Vulcans themselves had a doctrine that told them not to contact pre warp civilizations.
I don't remember the entire episode but I'm not sure using evolutionary arguments would be ethical if someone was asking for help. They could say no, let evolution figure it out and in a couple of years an asteroid takes out everyone.
Right. To consider only some evolutionaly probabilities (of ONE single doctor even) is completely idiotic. What if the Menk turn out to become the dominant species and in turn enslave the dying out, weakened Valakians - then, emboldened, going on to become the next big warfaring species in the line of the Klingon Empire or even the Borg. You cannot prove otherwise...
The help they ask for may have unintended consequences. For instance, what if Phlox's cure ends destroying all their pollinating insects? That would be Starfleet's fault, not the native inhabitants because they weren't technologically developed enough to make an informed decision.
They had a certain advantage. The Menk were evolving into a more intelligence species as the Valakians were dying off, but the Valakians had reached an early space age. Imagine if while we were still figuring off how to make a spear, the Neanderthals had put a man on the moon, and then all died off. We, as a species, would have thousands of years of technologically advancements already at our disposal just as we finished reaching our peak in evolutionary inteligence. It might have taken us a century or two to figure out how everything worked, sure, but the fact that we wouldn't have to build an engine from scracth, but just figure out how a combustion engine works means that we could accomplish in just a couple of centuries what other species would have taken a couple millenia. The Menk live in a world which gave them such an advantage: The Valakians are all dying as they are all evolving, with a perfect planetary infrastructure ready to go for them to use. In a century or two (just as the show shows us in the movie) the Menk have deveolped warp technology.
@@LuckyBird551 authors already wrote about such things, what you put forth is the plot for warhammer 40,000, where the old human galactic empire was so vast and so powerful it made the most war mongering species in the galaxy make peace with them rather then risk a war. The technology the human empire of the modern 40k can do is figure out how their remains tech works, sustain it, but they can’t really make more of it without an STC, and genocidal campaigns have been waged with the small chance of finding one
I’m surprised by the amount of hate this episode has received. I think it’s one of the finest episodes of Star Trek. It challenges us to think about an uncomfortable subject. It also challenges us to debate the morality of Phlox’s (and ultimately Archer’s) decision.
It definitely was one of the finest for the Enterprise series, and was one of the better ones for the franchise. The Prime Directive was a fundamental philosophy of Star Trek, and we saw its application (and its violation) many times through Star Trek's run... but this? You got to look at just why GO1 was such a necessity, when it didn't even exist yet. And then you scroll through the comments section here, and see every single argument that just keeps hammering that point home.
Challenges? Nothing to challenge, what Phlox and Archer did is morally repugnant, they sentenced entire sapient species to die despite having means to save them, and its for sake of species what have peaceful coexistence with it. This is worst, absolute lowest for Star Trek
@@rcslyman8929 Prime Directive degenerate from something what had valid moral ground to thing what Archer and Phlox are doing. Allowing civilizations to die for sake of "not playing God" or "nature taking its course", even if it could be easily avoided. And also it become dogma close to fanatical religious beliefs on it own
@@MikeCloud666 It's human arrogance that says we have the not only the right, but the moral obligation to go interfering with others' natural development, just because we can.
You take the good You take the bad You take them both and there you have The facts of life The facts of life When the world never seems To be living up to your dreams Then suddenly you're finding out The facts of life are all about you When it's more than just the birds and the bees You need someone telling you please There's only one conclusion There will always be confusion over you It takes a lot to get 'em right When you're learning the facts of life You'll avoid a lot of damage And enjoy the fun of managing The facts of life You got the future in the palm of your hand All you gotta do to get you through is understand You think you'd rather do with out You'll never muddle through Without the truth The facts of life are all about you -The Prime Directive
ST could never decide what the prime directive was. Initially: it was a proscription from coming in and mucking about. You didn't pop down and disprove god. You didn't find some steam-age planet and hand them warp drives. Literally, it was about not interfering in primitive cultures ("primitive" being a loose term that seems to fall somewhere between "when they sent signals asking for contact" and "when they developed warp"). There's also arguably a rule that says "don't muck in the internal affairs of non members unless invited"... somewhat similar to the idea that you don't put troops in a country unless there's a clear government and they ask you to. But they kept making it "whatever makes artificial conflict for this episode". So there are episodes where they say that interacting with the Klingons would violate the prime directive. They apply it to warp-capable civilizations and, like here, they say "we'll come talk to you but not save you". And it was always about cultural development. It was *never* about species survival. There is at least one TNG episode where they relocated a species to save them from disaster.
The one episode you're talking about was Worfs brother who went against the prime directive by secretly beaming those people on board the Enterprise. Everyone found out only after the sun destroyed the planet. Picard and Worf were pissed. They were going to let those people die to preserve the Prime Directive.
In Pen Pal, the episode of TNG you are referring to, they only helped because they were explicitly asked and then did so without being seen and erased the one person who knew of star fleet's memory to violate the prime directive as little as possible
I remember the episode where Worfs Russian brother was observing a primitive people and their world was going to be irradiated/destroyed by cosmic occurrence and he snuck an entire village into the enterprise Holodeck. A big part of his reason for doing so was that he actually got way too involved with the people and took a local wife and he wasn’t going to let them die.
Why? Let's say a primitive civilisation asked for help from some visiting aliens...and those aliens were the Klingons? Or the Cardassians? Or even the Ferengi? And one of those were only to happy to help-and completely exploit or perhaps subjugate their entire planet? And now they are under the heel of some vastly superior power...because they should get whatever they ask for?
@@Robert_St-Preux That's taking things to quite an extreme. It depends on the help that's asked for. Medical supplies? No problem. Big Freaking Guns? Problematic. Heating devices for communities facing harsh winter, who already have their own but want more? Sure, but tell them they owe you one and save that favor for a rainy day.
"Someday, my people...a group, or say fleet of them...will come up with a rule or let's say directive. It'll be the first time so we can call this the...prime rule...? but it will establish a kind of general order about meddling or say, non-interfe..." THANK YOU ENOUGH WE GET IT
if the species can talk, and it asks for help, don't let it die because it's pathogens might take it's place as the dominant life form. you could always try making a big petri dish sort of thing for the developing race if you really wanna save em
Notice how both the Captain and the Doctor called them people. They're people, sentient and intelligent. We go to any lengths to save any other kind of sentient and non-sentient animal, but it is too much to help PEOPLE.
@@The_Gallowglass False, we go to enormous lengths to save children with birth defects, we don't throw them off the cliff like in the good old Sparta days. People always like to play god and seem generous to feed their own ego.
Obviously, the solution is to completely misunderstand the mechanics of evolution and then do nothing so that you don't have to take any responsibility.
Archer only needs to look back when the Vulcans game to earth and changed everything. I’m glad that he made the right decision. Not only does the Prime Directive protect other species, but it protects them from us.
@Darth Revan At least Kirk would be willing to violate said directive if it was the only way to prevent extinction, unlike Picard and Janeway, and apparently Archer here. I haven't watched much DS9, so I'm not sure about Sisko's track record with the Prime Directive.
I always thought that the Prime Directive was a bit harsh. This video is a great example of that aspect. Starfleet ships cannot help a pre-warp species at risk of exterminating themselves through any means because it would radically change their societal evolution. But I would rather completely crush the 'we-are-the-center-of-the-universe' worldview of some Atomic Age primitives than let them be destroyed by a planet-kiler asteroid hurtling at them as we speak, because all life is precious, and we should seek to protect it. *pushes button, phaser discharge annihilates planet-killer asteroid* Because I believe it's the right thing to do. *taps combadge* Captain to First Officer, prepare a first-contact team.
This is why Kirk is the best captain. He would not hesitate to break the Prime Directive if an entire species was at risk of extinction. Sure, he might have reservations about getting involved in their internal affairs, but when the survival of their entire species or civilization was at risk? He'd do the right thing and forget the Directive even existed.
According to the trek universe (I hope it does not happen in ours. Seems unlikely, but still) the nuke exchange made humans become what they become in the end. Take the 3th world war away, and humans may never become warp capable, or made it much, much later, and with no help of the vulcans, which may end up in a colossal disaster. The thing with the directive is, you never know what the future may hold, so your better think twice before playing god.
I saw this episode years ago, and after it surfaced in my mind earlier today I spent the last hour or so tracking down this exact scene. It really left quite an impression on me
Archer didn't specify when this Directive would be established, or what might be the main triggering event. Picard knew, but that was ~100+ years later.
I'm not certain I agree with the premise of this decision at all. That said, I would have loved to have seen a direct follow up to this ep. Perhaps the Valackians were somehow made aware of Archer's decision as well as the public back on Earth and Vulcan. What would the response have been? What kind of debate would have ensued?
You see - Star Trek was never about COMPULSORY AGREEING WITH SOMETHING BY THE END CREDITS IN OBLIGATORY HAPPY ENDING. IT was supposet to PROVOKE DISCUSSION, THOUGHT, REFLECTION. Remember episode about scientist who was accompanied by Laxwana Troy back to his homeworld for euthanasia ?
@@piotrd.4850 Yes, this is a key difference between the Trek of old and the Trek of today. Today's Trek is preachy and egotistical in that whomever the hero is, is right, and everybody who disagrees is wrong. What was wrong in S1 Picard, some of TOS, and much of Discovery and Picard. Don't tell the audience what to think, make them think instead.
Personally, I think its because Phlox said the word "Evolution" and "Fact" in the same sentence. You know how crazy and polarizing religious nuts can get about that.
Just to remind people but the Prime Directive has an exemption if a member of StarFleet is asked directly to provide aid, you can't give them technology but you can aid them. Also for the other time this comes up in Cogenitor, they would be exempt entirely since the Prime Directive only covers less advanced species and granting asylum is a common practice. In these two cases Archer would have done the exact opposite of what he did.
In Archer's time there was NO STARFLEET - and this is one more reason, why ENT as both great and misunderstood: it was supposed to show how stable universe came into being, how it shaped up, not give it as granted.
"History has proven again and again that whenever mankind interferes with a less developed civilization, no matter how well-intentioned that interference may be, the results are invariably disastrous." - Jean-Luc Picard.
This is the problem with people using word "just a theory" as what they mean is "just a hypothesis". Theory of Evolution. Theory of General Relativity. Theory of Special Relativity. Theory of Gravity. Game Theory. Information Theory. Quantum Theory. ..... Theory is a scientifically confirmed argument. Usually started with series of arguments that are hypothesis's but are via scientific method found to be. Same thing is with word "Proof". There is no "proof" in law. There is no "proof" in any other areas than a high theoretical physics or mathematics. Everyone else is using "Evidence". And evidence becomes meaningful depending it value, is it supporting a hypothesis or rejecting one. Common people should use words "Hypothesis", "Guess" and "Evidence" and leave words "Theory" and "Proof" out, unless really talking about the actual things off those (like "Theory of Evolution"). And that something being a theory doesn't mean it is weak or questionable "Guess".
They are being viewed as two completely independent species, when in fact they experience social and biological pressures from each other. The less intelligent species is getting smarter due to artificial selection on the part of the more intelligent species. Even if it's not on purpose, the more intelligent species will want smarter member of the less intelligent species so it's easier to communicate with them on what they want. Tsk tsk on forgetting that writers.
This crew committed genocide because of some distant possibility. By choosing not to interfere, they took sides in this theoretical contest. This was a monstrous action that I cannot condone.
@@therealamerica2423 compassion is not wrong. Meditate on that.
5 років тому
Genocide would be infecting the subservient race with a similarly effective virus and healing the dominant race. People often have problems letting go of certain things, it's a thing we all have.
You have to give credit to Archer and his crew. They went on an exploration mission of what them was "deep space" during a period before the Prime Directive, before Replicators, before they had sufficient knowledge, guidelines and the experience to deal with the many species, situations and dangers they would face in this new universe they were entering. And I think that given the circumstances things could have gone a lot worse. In the end they distrustful species together to create something good: the Federation.
Funny, how we expected somebody like Superman to save the humans, but we human should not interfere with natural selection. Better yet, we human choose to save the furry cuddly animals, but absolutely motivated to destroy the pests.
In fairness this debate goes on wrt superman also - it's argued superman should not do too much for humans, leave them to stand on their own two feet in most cases, so as not to interfere with their natural development - if superman weren't following this principle given his superspeed and super hearing he'd be solving nearly all humans' problems for them, preventing all accidents, for example. IIRC this is the key subplot of Red Son, lex luthor defeats superman by telling him that in doing everything for humans he's subjecting them to a form of captivity. That said, it's true that we are more tolerant of super assistance to us than we are to giving assistance to alien species.
About the Superman thing, I love that because Lex Luthor, at least in the comics, not sure about other media, hates that Superman saves people on the grounds that he thinks that if humanity allows an alien to help save them all the time, they will never evolve to reach their full potential as a species. Which, when you think about it, he makes an excellent point. Is Superman saving us a good thing for us? Or by doing so is he keeping us down?
Much as I adore _TNG,_ there was one episode in particular (after Season One, mind you) that also played poorly on the Prime Directive where so many other episodes had used it correctly. That episode was Season 7 Episode 13, "Homeward". In it, Picard used the Prime Directive to not help the pre-industrial (and scientifically-ignorant) Boraalans escape their dying homeworld. It is only Worf's adoptive human brother, Nikolai Rozhenko, who is stationed there as a Duck Blind observer ("Who Watches The Watchers", "Star Trek: Insurrection") that the _Enterprise_ has been ordered to pick-up. Picard claims that the Prime Directive prevents him from helping the Boraalans because that would be working against Nature, which has deemed the seed-like intelligent race required for extinction. In the Conference Room beforehand... *Nikolai* "...They deserve the chance to survive. And isn't that what the Prime Directive was truly intended to do? To allow cultures to survive and grow naturally?" *Troi* "Not exactly. The Prime Directive was designed to ensure non-interference." *Dr. Crusher* "But aren't we interfering either way? If we take no action, it's a conscious decision to let the Boraalans die." *Nikolai* "Exactly. We have the power to save some of them. All we have to do is exercise it." ...and later on the Bridge, as they watch the atmosphere disappear... *Picard* "This is one of those times when we must face the ramifications of the Prime Directive and honor those lives which we cannot save." *Nikolai* "I find no honor in this whatsoever, Captain." The Prime Directive is about non-interference in regards to evolution, culture and government (i.e. Goddenberry saying humans have no right to play god or morality police). But that being said, the PD does _not_ say anything about 'standing by and watching an innocent and helpless civilization get blown away by forces they do not understand'! IMO, this was a bad use of the PD by the writers and it should _never_ have been applied, referenced or used in this episode since it was a non-issue! (Indeed if the Federation was so smart, they would have anticipated and trained Starfleet personnel for this issue; such as using Nikolai's idea of the holodeck as a temporary shelter while they are transfered to another safe world.)
EVA, I honestly felt that TNG subtlety changed the Prime Directive from what it was in TOS. I think that example you gave is a pretty good example. It seems to me that Worf's brother came up with a good way to help the Boraalans without actually making them aware of it. And it seems to me that there's something wrong with a Prime Directive that prevents you from helping in a situation like the Boraalans. On the other hand, in the situation in this particular video, I can see where doing nothing is probably the correct Prime Directive reading. This wasn't a case of a single race facing extinction, but two competing (sort of) races in the most extreme of situations, which is of course why the writers used it, to highlight the reasons for and difficulties of a Prime Directive.
@@robinhyperlord9053 Actually that episode is one of my favorites. Oh, I suppose that it could have been a smidge more friendly to religious faith as a choice. But what did you seriously expect? Picard to go down to the surface as a Christian missionary?
I love these interactions in this ST Show. It's ... grounded in a bit of realism, real hesitation to an ideology expressed by very talented and skilled Actors, as far as I can tell. Much of it's dialogue offers the audience a chance to think. I love this. But then we have goddamn timetravel shenanigans and sense of realism is thrown out the window.
Archer " Am I going to be without my doctor this winter?" Phlox " Only for six days." Archer " I feel you should have to,d me this BEFORE we left Earth, so we could get additional medical staff in case they were needed."
lol but they do have additional medical staff phlox is just the main doctor. it is brought up though because a problem happened that they needed phlox and it became a comedy because of waking him up early.
So why is evolution the infallible "she who must be obeyed"? I think that relief of pain, suffering, and death supersedes any idolatrous fealty to a scientific theory, or even a philosophical belief.
Are you for uplifting every non-sentient species in the galaxy too? Where do you draw the line? The stone age? Opposable thumbs? Plants? Bacteria, viruses?
Not sure but thought I saw The menk..on a map in the Picard series..would love it if The Menk became a big threat to the Federation/Alpha Quadrant in a future Star Trek series!
Consider yourselves fortunate when extraterrestrial forces punched a hole in the Chelyabinsk meteor causing its destruction in a more benign way. Also consider how those forces also disabled the nuclear missile tests and activated in ground nuclear missile facilities to show the seriousness at hand.
Sam Beckett: "OH BOY!" My first first impression, I've thought I was watching a clip from a Quantum Leap episode that I've never seen! Hated that the series ended on a down note, nice to see that Scott Bakula was still quite busy after that!
"Some day, my people will draft a directive. A 'prime directive' if you will. And then someone named Jefferies will come along and make these tubes that run through the ship. And then another day, someone named Holo Deck will make a kind of room where you can see holograms of different locations."
The Orville cast this in a more stark light. They showed their intervention lead to the death of the entire planet. They had their prime directive out of shame and guilt and caution.
Silly thing is, never once does Flox and Archer consider the third option, give the cure to the Valakians but also tell them the Menk are evolving, and that by all rights they would have been chosen by nature to succeed them, but because strangers were willing to show compassion and not desire to see the potential of another species squandered, they chose to save them. Now, with their fate averted, the Valakians have to decide what to do with their second chance and how they intend to treat the Menk they once considered inferior. As the Menk evolve, the Valakians could help them progress, become as intelligent and capable as they are, both species could come together as one culturally, and achieve many things. But then again that's the old optimistic Trek way of thinking Roddenberry had in mind when he first made Star Trek and nobody wants that today right?
Nature doesn't make conscious choices, that's pure pseudo-science on Phlox's part, just field by the Division Fallacy that if evolution is true then any cockamamie thing said about evolution must also be true.
@@MikeCloud666 how is what we’re going through now any different from what’s happening here? Other then the fact we haven’t gone out into space in a last ditch effort to ask Aliens for help
This episode was one of the better ones Enterprise ran. The moral and ethical decisions having to be made would have driven any sane person crazy. What do you do? Help the already advanced race and allow an emerging one to be stifled, or worse, driven to extinction? Or the reverse? Which one would be friendly towards aliens, or hostile? Neither Archer or Phlox could answer those questions to any degree of certainty. In the end, I honestly don’t know what I’d do. As for Archer, I appreciate the pressure he was under. It probably broke his heart to make the decision he did.
If the Valakians deserved to die then so do Star Trek's Humpback Whales and by extension the entire human race! Where two members of the Humpback species namely George and Gracie saved the Earth and possibly the entire human species by getting transported into the 23rd century from the 20th century!
Fluffy words like "deserve" aren't useful in this context. Nobody is suggesting that a race of people deserves to die. It's an ethical question about interfering as outsiders in a zero sum game with billions of lives at stake.
@@awkwardcultism Letting billions of people die in the here and now based on some absurd theory you've got that you might possibly be helping out a few billion more people a million years down the road (a conclusion you've reached because you are really bad at science and don't know how evolution works) isn't an ethical choice. Its pure lunacy.
And phlox can't really base it legitimately on evolution because that's not how it works, unless he's a Q and can see the future...🤦♂️🤷♂️ he should stick with doctoring because he's a terrible scientist...
If I remember the episode correctly, the disease that was killing them wasn't a bacteria or a virus, but a congenital disease, as in, they were dying because of their own genetics. Which was why the Menk were unaffected by said disease.
That's not how evolution works, you don't ”evolve” to extinction, you evolve to avoid extinction. It was really ”part” of there own genetics then there would've been no cure for it, but Phlox whipped up one in a few days so clearly it was no ”intended” to happen. Their is no set path in evolution, no creature can ever become ”the prefect being”, evolution at it's core is adaption of your environment over time.
The writers really werent tryna be subtle or they just half assed the dialogue and called it a day lmaoo "someday my people are going to come up a doctrine on what we can and cant do, and until someone drafts that ... directive"
The hard part is telling the Volakians that Enterprise and The Federation won't help them...kinda like aliens coming here and saying: "We won't save you from nuclear war the bacteria need to evolve and they can't do it with you here...you keep killing them"
I've always had a small problem with this episode. The scope of this ethical dilemma should have been a recurring theme throughout the show or maybe this one episode should have been a two parter. This was the kind of crew conflict they needed imo
"We didn't come out here to play god". By devising the technology to travel between the stars, faster than the speed of light, and explore new worlds, possessing the ability to make changes to interstellar civilizations, you already are playing god to an extent. You have to be a responsible god, rather than condemning an entire species to extinction because you want to hand off responsibility to evolution as if it's acting with a purpose in mind. If this show was well written at all this decision should have come back to bite them in the ass. Have some other interstellar player come along and give the cure freely, and then turn them against the Federation.
@@piotrd.4850 There's no evidence to support that, other than Phlox being terrible at his job and not understanding how evolution actually works. Also, to add to the "playing God" thing, the one thing a god needs above all else is compassion, and letting an entire sentient civilized species die is very much an absence of compassion. So, I guess Archer is right about not playing God, since he'd be a really terrible one.
First, ENT held to episodic storytelling; but done well, we'd have three episode Argument-like story arc, where in similar situation they act differently, "help" and THAT bites them.
@@piotrd.4850 That's a big, big problem with Enterprise. Its storytelling was not done well. And remember that TNG, while episodic, did sometimes revisit old plot threads to look at the repercussions of past actions. Enterprise, were it well written, would have done the same a season or two later.
The conundrum with the captains compassion, is that it could have caused major problems with other sentient species on the planet. With far reaching and unforeseen bad consequences. Though it may have seemed callous, he made the right decision. Curing a disease or helping heal an injury is a far cry from monkeying with genetics.🤔
A good teacher doesn't manipulate nor coerce, but leads by example and encourages the individual to stand on their own. We have seen them throughout history in the form of as Quan Yin, Lao-tzu, Emmanuel, Buddha, and the myriad of philosophers who reminded us of who we are and of our potential.
I have been rewatching this show recently and im starting to understand why this episode is so irritating to me. A few episodes later an alien life form takes over the Enterprise cargo bay and Reid wants to test how much energy it will take to knock the creature out without killing it and Phlox goes on a rant about how its sentient and he can't alow him to test it beacuse it would hurt it. And i was just thinking to myself "you essentially helped commit genocide, not actively but you knew how to stop it but this is where you draw a moral line?". The hypocrisy is glaring.
Yeah but they allowed countless crews to become effected without removing the virus from the area in the first place. They also made it clear that humans had done something no one else had. I dont disagree with you, I just think that the two situations are somewhat different
I don't get why you don't see the difference. Reid was actively hurting the life form. Of course a doctor would intervene. The "genocide" was a whole other matter. There were two species at stake and giving the cure to the genetic disease, which happens to be evolutionary, would've put the upcoming species at a severe disadvantage. Not giving the cure only minimizes the chance of the dominant species to survive, but it's not a zero-chance. They could still find the cure on their own. But it's up to them. Actively eradicating the dominant species to help the upcoming one would be comparable. But it's simply not.
This would be so great if the whole HES TALKING ABOUT THE PRIME DIRECTIVE thing wasnt so heavy handed. If archer had left it to "We didnt come out here to play god and Im not qualified to make such an enormous decision" or some shit it would be great cause we would all know hes talking about the Prime Directive without him literally saying ONE DAY WERE GONNA HAVE TO MAKE A RULE BOOK ON THIS. A DIRECTIVE EVEN! Tee hee he said directive. Still a good show
To seek out new life and civilizations and leave them to die! To explore strange new worlds and ignore their problems! To boldly keep to ourselves and not interfere with anything at all!
"My father used to say that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. I laid the first stone right there. I'd committed myself. I'd pay any price; go to any lengths because my cause was righteous. My… intentions were good. In the beginning, that seemed like enough."
-- Captain Benjamin Sisko
"the road to Hell is paved with good intentions" Some times I think I have done more than pave a road. I have built a 4 lane interstate highway. Almost every good deed I have done at some point has came back to bit me. I have long ago gave up trying to do such things as more often than not they backfire on me.
Except he saved billions of lives with that one act of evil and the freedom of thousands of worlds. So really it's an argument AGAINST the prime directive.
@@Tuffsmoygles it's like Garak said, it cost the lives of 1 senator, 1 criminal, and one captains self respect. If anything, Sisko taking it upon himself to do what he did was in itself noble, because he didn't make the Federation sacrifice its (supposed) values, he took it entirely upon himself. And seeing as how the Dominion apparently killed 70 million people in the Occupation of Betazed alone, I'd say Sisko chose correctly
@@jeffreypeters2803 Can you tell me where that statistic came from? I haven't watched DS9 in a long time.
@@raynethackery1 as in the betazed deaths? I read it on the Dominion War entry on the Star Trek wiki. Don't know where it was initially mentioned though
"My compassion guides my judgement". The most honest of all Captain's. Truly caught between a rock and a hard place.
Just take a moment and think of Sisko when he and Garak tried to manipulate the Romulans into entering the Dominion war... with the fake isolinear rod.. one of the most brilliant episodes ever and a clear sign that, even with the PD around, sometimes things are not that easy.
"The Hell with nature" is not really showing compassion. Its just a disregard to the possible consequences of Archer interfering. Phlox was and is a way better character then Archer.
@@ZeitdiebX GO1 doesn't really apply to In the Pale Moonlight, though. It wasn't an interference of an internal matter of the Romulan Empire, it was a political move for an interstellar matter with a species at the same technological level of the Federation. It was illegal as all hell, violated countless Federation law and Starfleet regulations... but GO1 was not one of them. Compared to the Klingon Civil War, where GO1 did come into play and where CAPT Picard refused to act upon a purely internal Klingon matter in an official capacity as a Federation officer with Federation resources (of course, we can get into a roundabout of his acting as the Arbiter of Succession and those points/counterpoints to whether that violated GO1 are well documented) until the external interference from the Romulans was discovered, which then made it an interstellar matter. And still, the Federation stayed out of the conflict once the Romulans retreated.
Why isnt our American government like this?
Compassion guides all Starfleet captains, no matter your moral.
I think this show was under rated.
This show was 7/10 at best and 3/10 at worst But most often it was just 5/10
Nothing noteworthy or special and it was bad...really really bad for a long time.
season 3 was great.
Maybe i am biased, but Trek is Trek ...i would trade in any additional episode for the whole reboot JJ Abrams stuff
This show had great potential, the problem was there were too many episodes involving time travel and for some reason they loved spoiling episodes for you. The worst way to start en episode is to show some disaster or explosions or someone dead, just to follow up with the text, last week or last month. It doesn't take long to see where they are going and how the intro is going to happen with no real consequences.
Funny, most of us would agree it is OVERRATED
I think Phlox is the only Star Trek doctor who made an argument FOR genocide.
McCoy and Crusher where always: Screw the Prime Directive.
Not true. as Picard said, it was a guidelines and philosophy. Its being takes strictly only if you make the wrong choice because of emotions... Its there to make you think 10x before making a decision, because the 1st one might not be the correct one! There is an episode that even states that Picard has violated PD 9 times... I doubt he would still be captain for long, if it was an unquestionable law... But there is an episode where a civilization died, because they decided not to involve them selves... Saving live is not always good or evil....
Latvanis Picard wasn’t a doctor.
I feel Phlox had better character than Crusher. I also think that he was more qualified, though I could be wrong.
@@O1OO1O1 I'd say, Phlox was one of the best and most underrated characters in ALL Star Trek.
Phlox merely wanted to let evolution happen naturally. Genocide is unnatural.
I wish the upcoming Picard series would do something of a callback to this episode. Something like, "Yes, the Federation has a Prime directive. It was instituted to prevent Starfleet captains from committing genocide because they didn't know what else to do."
For those forgetting, the Prime Directive/General Order 1 has several exceptions that apply to this episode. Civilization is pre-warp but already made first contact with other space-faring species. Civilization directly asked for help for a problem they knew existed and was actively trying to combat. Civilization is not currently engaged in any sort of domestic or interstellar war.
GO1, in spirit, is supposed to be more about "we don't go down to this primitive civilization and tell them not to own slaves because that's our moral philosophy and they should adhere to it too", and less about, "oh they haven't hit some trivial technological breakthrough, oh well, sucks to be them. Let them die out".
People want to get on prior Starfleet captains for breaking the rule, but from my life experience, yeah they were supposed to. Not just in the sense that of course the episodes were written that way, but because people in positions of authority are given explicit permission to break the rules and they only get to those positions of authority by demonstrating enough sense to know when to do so. There's a quote that was given to me when I became a manager and my superiors thought me too strict about following the rules. They told me, "A good employee knows the rules and adheres to the rules. A good manager knows when, how, and why to break those rules".
In short: Picard, Kirk, Janeway breaking GO1 isn't some shortcoming of the captains, those episodes, or of the folly of GO1 itself. It is exactly as it should be. Were all this real, those decisions would be put before a panel of Starfleet admirals who would debate the merits of each case and most likely give a retroactive thumbs-up to each case. Or, they give a thumbs-down but give a detailed explanation why to the captain, so they might make a more accurate decision later. Even in that case, I'd be surprised if there were any consequences as long as the action was still somewhat reasonable. In either case, yay or nay, those instances would be added to Starfleet literature in the academy, so that students would be taught more instances of when/why to break GO1, and when/why not to break it.
I like that quote of yours & it definitely seems appropriate.
If only Picard was anything even REMOTELY like TNG... Or even Enterprise.
That would require that they actually know and understand the Star Trek canon lul
Could you write a book or make a video series?
You have a beautiful perspective on things.
@@chosentonessournotes hell, I'd have settled for Voyager at this point
For most of the series, I thought Archer was made too childish and impulsive in an effort to contrast the vulcans to be believable as a human, let alone a captain, but in this case, I agree with him. If an intelligent species with knowledge of extra home world life leaves their planet in search of help, I don't think their lack of warp drive should disqualify them. Having said that, if I were a captain in the Star Trek universe, I'd be grateful for a prime directive to take such dilemma off my hands.
The Bajorans built lightships to do the same thing, leading to the Cardassians refusing to believe them simply because it wasn't warp travel.
That said there are many holes in the PD. What if a species relies on another for warp travel but can't do it themselves? What if the people are Federation citizens who have forsaken technology of a high level? What if a species didn't develop but buy warp travel (the Ferengi) ? What if they just use wormholes? What if they are hyperintelligent but don't travel (Cytherians)? What if they don't even exist physically (e.g the Green Lantern Drxy Rrr, a living mathematical equation)
@@SantomPh The lightships were BS, there was never any indication that the ancient Bajorans had any technology to get them into space, and they certainly couldn't get to space by "sailing" there. They also wouldn't have been able to soft-land at the other end, and get back into space again for a return trip. Also, without a warp field generator you can't go faster than light, even if you mumbo-jumbo "capture tachyons in your sail" which means sailing to Cardassia would likely take centuries, and for most of that time there would be no appreciable "solar wind..." That episode was BS claptrap nonsense from start to finish.
Their lack of warp drive technology or even experience with antimatter led Archer to not "give them" technology that they'd likely just blow themselves up with. That was separate from just handing them a cure.
Then you'd be a weak Captain. Do we not have our principles? Are they so brittle that they need to be told what shape to take form? Do you need a Directive to shape a will so malleable? Seems like a stern suggestion was enough.
"I can help these people..." "But think about how you can instead condemn them. If you help them think of the future you will alter." "You're right, I'll let them die and choose this future instead. I am in command here." "Yes sir you are."
It's only after rewatching ENT after For All Mankind that I get what they were doing with Archer -- he's starts out as this gung-ho astronaut who is absolutely not ready for what's out there (like the Vulcans say), so in the beginning he is constantly getting in over his head and causing disasters, and through these repeated painful experience he's forced to become the first archetypical explorer-warrior-diplomat Starfleet captain. It was an interesting idea, maybe not executed the best
Well, I mean, he came there with a starship. What sort of a god needs a starship?
Apollo had a chariot
A non-fictional one.
That will take you a while, I am certain
I got that reference. Good work my good sir.
One who wants to show off!!
Underrated comment
"Some day my people will come up with some sort of a doctrine saying what we can and can't do out here"...
Then every captain of notable mention will ignore that doctrine.
It's because it's guidelines. Not dogma. Their aloud to break it. They just have to explain why
when you can do the things that I can, but you don't... and then the bad things happen... they happen because of you.
-peter parker
@Darth Revan you bet
You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have the facts of life, the facts of life.
-Gloria Loring
It thought that was: "With great power comes a great responsibility to use that power"?
When he did the things he could do, and drew the wrong attention to the ones he loved, then the bad things happen... to us.
- Gwen Stacy (If her neck wasn't broken)
The correct quote is "with great power, comes great responsibility".
Phlox was wrong on this one. Neanderthals are a bit different from a species that literally built a spaceship to reach aliens for help.
Besides, homo sapiens _bred with_ homo neanderthalensis.
There is evidence of Neanderthal DNA within ours.
Homo sapiens just outnumbered them heavily. Around 40000 years ago there lived at most 100k Neanderthals.
I don't believe there really is a right answer here.
I absolutely agree with not giving them warp tech, that is extremely irresponsible.
I don't want to go amongst the stars and "save" everyone we come across, but in cases like this I could at least stomach the idea of giving them a chance of saving themselves. A nudge towards a cure.
OP You missed his point entirely. Flox was relating the Valakian Menk situation to that of homo sapiens and
homo neanderthalensis. Without intervention from an outside agent. Flox was claiming that the disease harming the Valakian's could allow for the Menk to become the dominate species.
He's arguing against intervention by asserting that humanity was also in competition for dominance of their world and outside intervention could have also been justified to prevent that. Seeing as how
homo neanderthalensis, along with several other homo branch races(the biological term, not the social) went extinct.
It's a sound argument, which is made even more sound when Archer is apparently incapable of forming a counter ethical argument.
That's not to say that there aren't any though.
@@Dwarf_Lord_Thoden Yeah but the general consensus is that they all went extinct via breeding with our species, That's not the case on the planet in the show.
@@cyrusol the gay sapiens bred with the gay neanderthals?
The incidents before TOS that caused the Prime Directive to come into being would have made for one helluva season of episodes. I wish they would have explored that side of Star Trek more than the "destroy the doomsday device" line....
Both were/are needed; Star Trek lore said earth N the federation faced life altering challenges before the famous captions came along
Interesting dilemma. In TOS, the Prime Directive was about not interfering with a living, growing culture whether or not we agreed with that culture (The Omega Glory). It did not apply to cultures that were stagnant (Return of the Archons, The Apple), and certainly didn't apply to cultures that were in danger of complete destruction (The Paradise Syndrome). By TNG, it seemed that it applied to any and every situation, which always seemed excessive to me.
PD originally was plot device ignored when writers wanted to push specific morals. Later Writers started treating as something more important, eventually leading to flanderized dogma from VOY and ENT. K*rtzman era ditched it most of time but only because new shows just want to subvert Trek for sake of it, instead actually improving franchise
This episode was sufficient in making us appreciate all the moral and ethical exceptions made for the Prime Directive by Kirk and Picard.
Especially Kirk. I'd like to list Picard, but... not after his handling of Boraalis. No way in hell am I gonna let him off the hook for that one.
@@BioGoji-zm5ph Borealis, what exactly is that story?
@@BladePocok Picard chose to let an entire civilization die so that HE wouldn't have to risk violating the Prime Directive.
@@BladePocok TNG 7x13 where Worfs foster brother tries to rescue the people of a planet undergoing a catasrophical breakdown of the athmosphere
@@momokochama18447 seasons in? Wow, the producers/creators made a daring decision on that one.
"Let nature take it's course."
"We are _part_ of nature!"
If we just "let nature take it's course" we would have no need for doctors at all.
Yes but we're not part of their nature, they're separate, isolated
Nature is universal.
@@edwardheaney3641 a meteor crashing into their planet isn't part of their nature, yet is still part of nature.
@@r0bw00d Then our worldwide deforestation and making hundreds of species extinct is also 'part of nature'
I like to think the explicit exemption the Prime Directive has for people who actually ask for help was the direct result of the drafters' utter horror and disgust at this decision.
Then stone-age villagers praying to their pillar of quartz would have to be helped. People may ask for help, but they need to be accountable for any consequences (intended or unintended) that result. A pre-warp civilization can't make such informed decisions.
@@Raja1938 Are you one crack? They're dying because of a (plot driven) genetic defect and need a cure. They're not asking for free energy or weapons they're asking for someone to help them not go extinct while already being aware of and in contact with warp capable civs previous to the nx01 arriving, they literally sent a sleeper ship at relativistic speeds to find help. Don't make excuses for poor writing.
This. This is Unit 731-material.
"We have the means to help you....but we're not gonna, just gonna sit here and watch what happens, lol"
@@Raja1938 This was not a stone-age civilisation, this was a species with space-faring technology. And they did not ask some imaginary deities on an altar, they made direct contact with a more advanced civilisation with the means to help them and asked for that help. A warp drive *is just a vehicle engine* and nothing else, it does not mean *anything* in relation to being capable of making informed decisions. It is like saying that Europe should not send aid to Africa because most Africans do not drive a Ferrari.
Just to point out how insane the logic you are using is, the Valakians, the pre-warp species in this episode, has more advanced technology than our real world 21st century Earth, yet by your standards they can not make "informed decisions".
The fact that the Prime Directive actually *has* this exception built into it means that your ideas would not fly in this fictional universe.
@@marinusvonzilio9628 Your argument is premised on Phlox's treatment being a perfect cure that would be certain to have no unintended consequences. This is an alien ecosystem, so it's impossible to predict what may happen in the months/years after Enterprise leaves them. Phlox's cure may lead to the destruction of pollinating insects for example, and lead to affecting other species on that world aside from the Valakians. Now this is where the species being warp-capable vs space-faring is an important distinction. If Phlox's cure does go haywire, a warp-capable society can leave and resettle elsewhere. A merely space-faring society can't (recall the Valakian ship had been traveling for a year through space looking for other species when Enterprise happened upon them), so the responsibility for any damage would fall squarely on Starfleet. Starfleet would be responsible for babysitting this world indefinitely to ensure nothing went awry from the tech they gave them.
To your point about the Valakians having more advanced tech than our real world 21st century Earth, I would similarly argue that an advanced extraterrestrial species shouldn't provide us with advanced tech. We're not at a stage where we can make an informed decision about tech that we don't understand and would have to live with any unintended consequences. In the worst case scenario, we can't resettle on the moon or Mars let alone in another star system.
"Some day my people will come up with some sort of a doctrine saying what we can and can't do out here"...Every Starfleet officer afterward will bend that doctrine when the situation calls for it!
Gene Roddenberry never intended for the Prime Directive to prevent the Federation from giving humanitarian aid. The Federation could give aid to species whose plight was desperate but could not give them military assistance. THAT was what the Prime Directive was SUPPOSED TO BE.
The argument has a bigger line: the subservient race is already evolved past the point when it's an obvious "neanderthals vs. sapiens" situation. Humans survived because they adapted, neanderthals died because they couldn't. Interfering with that process is like the government telling people how to raise their children.
There's also a case to be made that giving humanitarian aid to one side of a conflict also aids that side militarily.
@@darksim1930 which has already happened in our time
@ But the whole Neanderthal VS Us thing ignores the fact that they weren't another species. We still carry up to 5% Neanderthal DNA in our genome depending on where in this world your ancestry is from. Had an alien race mucked about with them then we'd probably have become a little more homogeneous with them. Remember, our taxonomy is based on words and ideas we imposed. Nature is a lot less literal and doesn't always recognize the barriers we've put in place.
@@umachan9286 Describe your criteria for a different species. For me, anatomical difference suggests enough. We share DNA with 99% of all the fauna on this planet, so separating species by DNA is not a smart idea.
I'm pretty sure the Prime Directive does NOT state "we must cull the weak from the herd, and leave! Only those! In the crucible! WITH THE MIGHT! TO EXPAND! *EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINAAAAAATE!*" there, Archer.
._.
For one, there was no GO1 for Archer at the time.
@@piotrd.4850 Yeah, but him clumsily foreshadowing it here implies that Picard or Janeway would have done the same thing.
I'm really not understanding how Star Trek "fans" don't see why this is an example of why the prime directive exists. The Prime Directive would have told them to stay away from this species to begin with. This keeps them from getting involved in "moral" decisions that they should never have had to make in the first place.
The Prime Directive: to be followed, or ignored, when convenient.
@@UncleSam13 That's the problems with the writing for the various characters. They made Janeway break it on more than one occasion as an example. I think Kirk did it also (never really watched TOS). But the principle of the Prime Directive is still there and as much as people will disagree I think should be upheld. This is the Valakians version of the Great Filter. If they can get through it. Archer phrased it perfectly at the end of the clip.
The prime directive does not regard species who has already been exposed to warp capable societies, which this society already had. The where aware of the existence of more advanced societies out there and where activly searching for a more advanced society for help. And they discovered the cure. A normal "doctor" on a normal exploring mission where able to find the cure within days, it was obviously not that complex and he even said that they themselves where close, but had not yet discovered it. Instead of filling in the blank spaces for them, they abandoned them.
They could have given the cure to them and still said that they need to figure warp speed out by themselves. Phlox's response about Humans and Neanderthals where irrellevant, we don't know why the "pure" Neanderthals died out, but we know that we could interbreed with them, since we already are part Neanderthals. They didn't didn't truly die of, they interbred with our other ancestors and today more or less all humans with a Euroasian heritage are part Neanderthals.
And the fact of the matter is, they less intelligent species on that planet, where not treated badly, they where more or less equals in that society, it's just that since they did not have the same intelligence, they where not able to get "higher standing" jobs. It's the same on earth, we don't treat people with Downs syndrome badly, but they are just not capable of becoming medical doctors or engineers, because they just lack the intelligence for it. And Phlox said that the less intelligent people where undergoing evolution already. It would happen eventually.
Now had they been mistreated etc there could have been another discussion, but this episode just did not hit the mark it tried to hit. I understood what they where going for, but it just didn't work.
The opposite is Star gate. In the end earth was given the role of protectorate by a dying race who was the former protectorate. Earth received that honor because were weren't like the Vulcan. Arrogance led to the death of a few civilizations in that series. The dying race wanted a humble civilization to take it's place.
I would want to help others but I wouldn't want to babysit a civilization for a few centuries.
If it were up to me a new sg1 series wouldn't try to continue to raise the power levels but to explore concepts such as disclosure & colonization.
@@Mukation As far as i know the theory behind the Neanderthals "Extinction" Wasnt something that easily solved without directly killing Homosapians.
Some of the pros Neanderthals had where:
Stronger, Tougher, "Smarter?" then humans
Cons:
Less social(max of 10 in a group with humans going above 50), The before mentiond pros ment more energy was needed, Their stronger tougher build also allowed them to be more Melee focussed where as humans focussed on range.
I do dislike how Phlox reacts to Archer saying its just a theory. Archer wasnt debasing evolution, he was stating that the "Lesser" species are not garantued to evolve to the point of what Phlox expected. also i dont remember if the "Lesser" species where imune but what was there to prefend both species form dying out.
As an extra at the end where he states we are not here to play god. In this context isnt that what Doctors are doing every day, prefenting dead.
Archer's initial retort was bang on. Not to provide medical assistance having been asked for it would be a violation of the hippocratic oath. End of. Phlox needs to decide if he is a doctor or a scientist as a man can't serve two masters in good conscience.
The hippocratic oath, at its core, says do no harm. Phlox didn't actively intervene. He didn't try to convince the Valakians that they shouldn't try to find a cure themselves, or destroy any research they already had.
@@Raja1938 That kind of reminds me of the old excuse: "I didn't kill him, I just didn't save his life." Morally bankrupt argument imho.
@@cgavin1 Not at all an apt comparison. Are you morally bankrupt because you didn't donate to Save the Children? Did you commit murder through your own inaction?
@@cgavin1 No, that's difference, hotly disputed to this day. You also forget that by "HELPING" he'd be promoting timid, but still an enslavement and providing generally UNTESTED cure with unknown LONG TERM effects to population.
That was mentioned in another episode when the Doctor wouldn't treat an enemy. The Captain said 'hippocratic oath,' the doctor said 'im not human I took no such oath.'
"The Prime Directive is not just a set of rules. It is a philosophy, and a very correct one. History has proved again and again that whenever mankind interferes with a less developed civilization, no matter how well intentioned that interference may be, the results are _invariably disastrous_."
- Jean-Luc Picard
True, but as humans and intelligent beings we "imho" also have a duty and moral obligation to help if and when people ask or needed.
Letting people die when you have the knowledge and power to help is wrong.
Like when the Romans spread their civilization and brought together many sorts of people into one empire. Their culture spread even further than that outside the borders. It is the reason that Western civilization as we know it even exists. No, Picard was wrong. Even Picard himself violated the Prime Directive more than once.
Picard violated the prime directive whenever it suited him, so even if his quote was inspirational, it's sad that his actions and words are opposed
At least Picard recognized that there were times when the Prime Directive wasn't the thically right solution though he did use as a moral yardstick. Too many Starfleet Captains in the franchise (TV, movies, games, books, comics) often seem to use the Directive as an excuse to not make tough choices.
and jean luc picard also admitted he acted against the prime directive. im currenlty on a clip marathon and i saw that clip a while ago
We seem to be overlooking the fact that these people have been actively searching for help from warp-capable species, or at least, more advanced ones. Although I do agree with Picard's quote on the Prime Directive, in this instance the people have already been aware of the galactic community. It would be like someone seeking help from a neighbour with more advanced tools or know-how to help with a repair on the house or car. On the other hand, Phlox did raise several valid points in his argument. This truly IS a dilemma!
that not entirely true if i recall the have ways of observing other alien in there solar system and just out side but not reach them they did manage to launch a nuclear powered ship at the Enterprise just to get there attentions and it worked
no its not
Don’t play God was the jist I think.
no he didn't, evolution has been debunked
@@Zero11s Citation please, and preferably from a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
I miss old Star Trek with its questions about right and wrong. This moral dilemma is what I love about Star Trek, something that's missing entirely in the new show.
When we have the next series, Discovery will be "old Star Trek" to you and thousands of other people.
Contrarianism is a disease among Trekkies.
@@rippspeck
Bullshit.
@@rippspeck no
This episode ends with casual passive-aggressive genocide based on a psychotic misunderstanding of race and evolution.
It's not thoughtful.
And anyone who thinks it's "classic Trek" to be slapped upside the head, until their brain resets and starts working again.
Kirk made it clear how he felt about the doctor's views, in "Patterns of Force."
@@juststatedtheobvious9633 what outcome or decision wouldn't END in genocide of one or the other? What if "the cure" caused long term adverse, uninteded effects? Shall we say, limited fertility or increased number of birth defects?
The Prime Directive operates at a time prior to actual engagement with less advanced cultures; it's about not revealing yourself or opening contact with those cultures, or at best only observing them. In that way you avoid ethical & moral quandaries like the one we see here. After contact has been made, that probably changes the ethical calculus. Even the awareness by a less advanced culture that extra-terrestrial civilizations exist, can be enormously disruptive. Once contact is actually made, the superior civilization may be obligated to continue the relationship and play a paternal role, the way the Vulcans did with Earthlings.
Late reply I know, but Vulcans waited until humans achieved warp technology and were intelligent enough to understand what the Vulcans were.
I think here the humans just came out of curiosity, the Vulcans themselves had a doctrine that told them not to contact pre warp civilizations.
I don't remember the entire episode but I'm not sure using evolutionary arguments would be ethical if someone was asking for help. They could say no, let evolution figure it out and in a couple of years an asteroid takes out everyone.
Right. To consider only some evolutionaly probabilities (of ONE single doctor even) is completely idiotic. What if the Menk turn out to become the dominant species and in turn enslave the dying out, weakened Valakians - then, emboldened, going on to become the next big warfaring species in the line of the Klingon Empire or even the Borg. You cannot prove otherwise...
So, if you help one - why not every other? What if helping ONE condemns OTHER to miserable fate or extinction?
The help they ask for may have unintended consequences. For instance, what if Phlox's cure ends destroying all their pollinating insects? That would be Starfleet's fault, not the native inhabitants because they weren't technologically developed enough to make an informed decision.
Kirk and Spock prevented a volcano from wiping out a species, who's to say a tiny Mammal wasn't waiting in the wings for their turn to thrive
“It may take millennia” didn’t they become dominate and part of the federation in the 2nd Stark Trek movie?
They had a certain advantage. The Menk were evolving into a more intelligence species as the Valakians were dying off, but the Valakians had reached an early space age. Imagine if while we were still figuring off how to make a spear, the Neanderthals had put a man on the moon, and then all died off. We, as a species, would have thousands of years of technologically advancements already at our disposal just as we finished reaching our peak in evolutionary inteligence. It might have taken us a century or two to figure out how everything worked, sure, but the fact that we wouldn't have to build an engine from scracth, but just figure out how a combustion engine works means that we could accomplish in just a couple of centuries what other species would have taken a couple millenia.
The Menk live in a world which gave them such an advantage: The Valakians are all dying as they are all evolving, with a perfect planetary infrastructure ready to go for them to use. In a century or two (just as the show shows us in the movie) the Menk have deveolped warp technology.
In reality we just cross bred
@@LuckyBird551 authors already wrote about such things, what you put forth is the plot for warhammer 40,000, where the old human galactic empire was so vast and so powerful it made the most war mongering species in the galaxy make peace with them rather then risk a war. The technology the human empire of the modern 40k can do is figure out how their remains tech works, sustain it, but they can’t really make more of it without an STC, and genocidal campaigns have been waged with the small chance of finding one
I’m surprised by the amount of hate this episode has received. I think it’s one of the finest episodes of Star Trek. It challenges us to think about an uncomfortable subject. It also challenges us to debate the morality of Phlox’s (and ultimately Archer’s) decision.
It definitely was one of the finest for the Enterprise series, and was one of the better ones for the franchise. The Prime Directive was a fundamental philosophy of Star Trek, and we saw its application (and its violation) many times through Star Trek's run... but this? You got to look at just why GO1 was such a necessity, when it didn't even exist yet. And then you scroll through the comments section here, and see every single argument that just keeps hammering that point home.
Challenges? Nothing to challenge, what Phlox and Archer did is morally repugnant, they sentenced entire sapient species to die despite having means to save them, and its for sake of species what have peaceful coexistence with it.
This is worst, absolute lowest for Star Trek
Oh look, another argument showing why GO1 was necessary.
@@rcslyman8929 Prime Directive degenerate from something what had valid moral ground to thing what Archer and Phlox are doing. Allowing civilizations to die for sake of "not playing God" or "nature taking its course", even if it could be easily avoided. And also it become dogma close to fanatical religious beliefs on it own
@@MikeCloud666 It's human arrogance that says we have the not only the right, but the moral obligation to go interfering with others' natural development, just because we can.
You take the good
You take the bad
You take them both and there you have
The facts of life
The facts of life
When the world never seems
To be living up to your dreams
Then suddenly you're finding out
The facts of life are all about you
When it's more than just the birds and the bees
You need someone telling you please
There's only one conclusion
There will always be confusion over you
It takes a lot to get 'em right
When you're learning the facts of life
You'll avoid a lot of damage
And enjoy the fun of managing
The facts of life
You got the future in the palm of your hand
All you gotta do to get you through is understand
You think you'd rather do with out
You'll never muddle through
Without the truth
The facts of life are all about you
-The Prime Directive
ST could never decide what the prime directive was.
Initially: it was a proscription from coming in and mucking about. You didn't pop down and disprove god. You didn't find some steam-age planet and hand them warp drives. Literally, it was about not interfering in primitive cultures ("primitive" being a loose term that seems to fall somewhere between "when they sent signals asking for contact" and "when they developed warp").
There's also arguably a rule that says "don't muck in the internal affairs of non members unless invited"... somewhat similar to the idea that you don't put troops in a country unless there's a clear government and they ask you to.
But they kept making it "whatever makes artificial conflict for this episode". So there are episodes where they say that interacting with the Klingons would violate the prime directive. They apply it to warp-capable civilizations and, like here, they say "we'll come talk to you but not save you".
And it was always about cultural development. It was *never* about species survival. There is at least one TNG episode where they relocated a species to save them from disaster.
The one episode you're talking about was Worfs brother who went against the prime directive by secretly beaming those people on board the Enterprise. Everyone found out only after the sun destroyed the planet. Picard and Worf were pissed. They were going to let those people die to preserve the Prime Directive.
In Pen Pal, the episode of TNG you are referring to, they only helped because they were explicitly asked and then did so without being seen and erased the one person who knew of star fleet's memory to violate the prime directive as little as possible
I remember the episode where Worfs Russian brother was observing a primitive people and their world was going to be irradiated/destroyed by cosmic occurrence and he snuck an entire village into the enterprise Holodeck. A big part of his reason for doing so was that he actually got way too involved with the people and took a local wife and he wasn’t going to let them die.
The very essence of the Prime Directive is not just to protect the human beings but a guideline for humans to make peace
If they ASK for help, it should be rendered.
Why? Let's say a primitive civilisation asked for help from some visiting aliens...and those aliens were the Klingons? Or the Cardassians? Or even the Ferengi? And one of those were only to happy to help-and completely exploit or perhaps subjugate their entire planet? And now they are under the heel of some vastly superior power...because they should get whatever they ask for?
@@Robert_St-Preux That's taking things to quite an extreme. It depends on the help that's asked for. Medical supplies? No problem. Big Freaking Guns? Problematic. Heating devices for communities facing harsh winter, who already have their own but want more? Sure, but tell them they owe you one and save that favor for a rainy day.
@@Robert_St-Preux Do you think that the Klingons or other baddies feel constrained because the Federation has a Prime Directive? Of course not.
What to do before the prime directive - turn the chronoviser on, and steal technology.
"Someday, my people...a group, or say fleet of them...will come up with a rule or let's say directive. It'll be the first time so we can call this the...prime rule...? but it will establish a kind of general order about meddling or say, non-interfe..."
THANK YOU ENOUGH WE GET IT
Was waiting for him to wink at the camera
The prime directive of none interference but is a necessity. And it's something that should be implemented now. No matter how hard it is.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Salarians from Mass Effect were inspired by the alien in this clip. I hear the Salarians whenever he talks.
pretty good observation. that series took a lot from farscape too
SOME SORT OF DIRECTIVE.
IF ONLY. WE HAVE MANY DIRECTIVES BUT IF WE ONLY HAD A PRIMARY DIRECTIVE TO TELL ME HOW TO BE MORAL.
if the species can talk, and it asks for help, don't let it die because it's pathogens might take it's place as the dominant life form.
you could always try making a big petri dish sort of thing for the developing race if you really wanna save em
Notice how both the Captain and the Doctor called them people. They're people, sentient and intelligent. We go to any lengths to save any other kind of sentient and non-sentient animal, but it is too much to help PEOPLE.
@@The_Gallowglass exactly
@@The_Gallowglass Just watched this episode and thought Archer got it totally wrong.
@@The_Gallowglass False, we go to enormous lengths to save children with birth defects, we don't throw them off the cliff like in the good old Sparta days. People always like to play god and seem generous to feed their own ego.
@@thespecter6416 that's a bit of a stretch. We're not talking about ancient times. We're talking now and within context of this media
Obviously, the solution is to completely misunderstand the mechanics of evolution and then do nothing so that you don't have to take any responsibility.
Archer only needs to look back when the Vulcans game to earth and changed everything. I’m glad that he made the right decision. Not only does the Prime Directive protect other species, but it protects them from us.
I was looking at the "April 5 2063" and was like "they still have UA-cam in 2063?"
Of course, Google is eternal.
Well, if first contact DOES happen on April 5, 2063, I'm sure there will still be UA-camrs claiming to have covered it first.
i like how he dances round the wording at the end "if someone made a directive, maybe of the prime variety wink wink"
@Darth Revan At least Kirk would be willing to violate said directive if it was the only way to prevent extinction, unlike Picard and Janeway, and apparently Archer here. I haven't watched much DS9, so I'm not sure about Sisko's track record with the Prime Directive.
It's right up there with the Reed Alert.
@@BioGoji-zm5ph Sisko was a holy figure in the Bajoran religion, you draw your own conclusion.
I always thought that the Prime Directive was a bit harsh. This video is a great example of that aspect. Starfleet ships cannot help a pre-warp species at risk of exterminating themselves through any means because it would radically change their societal evolution. But I would rather completely crush the 'we-are-the-center-of-the-universe' worldview of some Atomic Age primitives than let them be destroyed by a planet-kiler asteroid hurtling at them as we speak, because all life is precious, and we should seek to protect it.
*pushes button, phaser discharge annihilates planet-killer asteroid*
Because I believe it's the right thing to do.
*taps combadge*
Captain to First Officer, prepare a first-contact team.
This is why Kirk is the best captain. He would not hesitate to break the Prime Directive if an entire species was at risk of extinction. Sure, he might have reservations about getting involved in their internal affairs, but when the survival of their entire species or civilization was at risk? He'd do the right thing and forget the Directive even existed.
According to the trek universe (I hope it does not happen in ours. Seems unlikely, but still) the nuke exchange made humans become what they become in the end. Take the 3th world war away, and humans may never become warp capable, or made it much, much later, and with no help of the vulcans, which may end up in a colossal disaster. The thing with the directive is, you never know what the future may hold, so your better think twice before playing god.
I saw this episode years ago, and after it surfaced in my mind earlier today I spent the last hour or so tracking down this exact scene. It really left quite an impression on me
Was the impression about how wrong and misguided the captain and doctor are?
And here I thought the Prime Directive came out of disastrous first contact with the klingons.
This was prior to the Federation being form.
Archer didn't specify when this Directive would be established, or what might be the main triggering event. Picard knew, but that was ~100+ years later.
They asked for help though, they have already established contact and they have a cure. I don't think the prime directive would apply here.
Tuvok's words in VOY's pilot.
This was the kind of story that made me love the series, Enterprise.
Man, so many people here should watch the series
I'm not certain I agree with the premise of this decision at all. That said, I would have loved to have seen a direct follow up to this ep. Perhaps the Valackians were somehow made aware of Archer's decision as well as the public back on Earth and Vulcan. What would the response have been? What kind of debate would have ensued?
You see - Star Trek was never about COMPULSORY AGREEING WITH SOMETHING BY THE END CREDITS IN OBLIGATORY HAPPY ENDING. IT was supposet to PROVOKE DISCUSSION, THOUGHT, REFLECTION. Remember episode about scientist who was accompanied by Laxwana Troy back to his homeworld for euthanasia ?
I'm just saying, maybe there's a reason the Breen were so insistent on getting Earth.
@@piotrd.4850 Yes, this is a key difference between the Trek of old and the Trek of today. Today's Trek is preachy and egotistical in that whomever the hero is, is right, and everybody who disagrees is wrong.
What was wrong in S1 Picard, some of TOS, and much of Discovery and Picard. Don't tell the audience what to think, make them think instead.
It's from this episode that fandom gave him the name Archer the Executioner, after Kodos.
@@christopherwall2121 sfdebris thinks the valakians are the Breen, while Lore Reloaded thinks the menk are the Breen.
I am actually surprised at how polarizing this episode was, I didn't really expect that strong of a reaction.
Personally, I think its because Phlox said the word "Evolution" and "Fact" in the same sentence. You know how crazy and polarizing religious nuts can get about that.
This was very polarizing, without clear cut good choice and that's why it was SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO GOOOD. Hell, Phlox was conflicted himself.
Yeah genocide tends to be controversial.
The prime directive…. I loved this show!!
"The hell with nature, you're a doctor"
Was Archer this cool?
We should have watched Enterprise
Jeezus!
I really miss this show. 😭
Just to remind people but the Prime Directive has an exemption if a member of StarFleet is asked directly to provide aid, you can't give them technology but you can aid them. Also for the other time this comes up in Cogenitor, they would be exempt entirely since the Prime Directive only covers less advanced species and granting asylum is a common practice.
In these two cases Archer would have done the exact opposite of what he did.
In Archer's time there was NO STARFLEET - and this is one more reason, why ENT as both great and misunderstood: it was supposed to show how stable universe came into being, how it shaped up, not give it as granted.
@@piotrd.4850 there was Starfleet, but it was United Earth Starfleet, not the successor Federation Starfleet.
"History has proven again and again that whenever mankind interferes with a less developed civilization, no matter how well-intentioned that interference may be, the results are invariably disastrous."
- Jean-Luc Picard.
This is the problem with people using word "just a theory" as what they mean is "just a hypothesis".
Theory of Evolution.
Theory of General Relativity.
Theory of Special Relativity.
Theory of Gravity.
Game Theory.
Information Theory.
Quantum Theory.
.....
Theory is a scientifically confirmed argument. Usually started with series of arguments that are hypothesis's but are via scientific method found to be.
Same thing is with word "Proof". There is no "proof" in law. There is no "proof" in any other areas than a high theoretical physics or mathematics. Everyone else is using "Evidence". And evidence becomes meaningful depending it value, is it supporting a hypothesis or rejecting one.
Common people should use words "Hypothesis", "Guess" and "Evidence" and leave words "Theory" and "Proof" out, unless really talking about the actual things off those (like "Theory of Evolution"). And that something being a theory doesn't mean it is weak or questionable
"Guess".
They are being viewed as two completely independent species, when in fact they experience social and biological pressures from each other. The less intelligent species is getting smarter due to artificial selection on the part of the more intelligent species. Even if it's not on purpose, the more intelligent species will want smarter member of the less intelligent species so it's easier to communicate with them on what they want. Tsk tsk on forgetting that writers.
That's why that could and should have been mini story arc, like with Arguments and follow-up episode.
This crew committed genocide because of some distant possibility. By choosing not to interfere, they took sides in this theoretical contest. This was a monstrous action that I cannot condone.
Phlox is using SJW logic.
@@therealamerica2423 compassion is not wrong. Meditate on that.
Genocide would be infecting the subservient race with a similarly effective virus and healing the dominant race. People often have problems letting go of certain things, it's a thing we all have.
@@joshabadie1431 Who says so? Also: by interefering they would have also taken a side.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
if this was the john archer of the terran empire he would say conquer them.
You have to give credit to Archer and his crew. They went on an exploration mission of what them was "deep space" during a period before the Prime Directive, before Replicators, before they had sufficient knowledge, guidelines and the experience to deal with the many species, situations and dangers they would face in this new universe they were entering. And I think that given the circumstances things could have gone a lot worse. In the end they distrustful species together to create something good: the Federation.
Funny, how we expected somebody like Superman to save the humans, but we human should not interfere with natural selection. Better yet, we human choose to save the furry cuddly animals, but absolutely motivated to destroy the pests.
That's because the cute and cuddly ones have only four legs and two eyes and don't look like they were spewed forth from Tartarus.
We should exterminate all other life forms
In fairness this debate goes on wrt superman also - it's argued superman should not do too much for humans, leave them to stand on their own two feet in most cases, so as not to interfere with their natural development - if superman weren't following this principle given his superspeed and super hearing he'd be solving nearly all humans' problems for them, preventing all accidents, for example. IIRC this is the key subplot of Red Son, lex luthor defeats superman by telling him that in doing everything for humans he's subjecting them to a form of captivity. That said, it's true that we are more tolerant of super assistance to us than we are to giving assistance to alien species.
About the Superman thing, I love that because Lex Luthor, at least in the comics, not sure about other media, hates that Superman saves people on the grounds that he thinks that if humanity allows an alien to help save them all the time, they will never evolve to reach their full potential as a species. Which, when you think about it, he makes an excellent point. Is Superman saving us a good thing for us? Or by doing so is he keeping us down?
Much as I adore _TNG,_ there was one episode in particular (after Season One, mind you) that also played poorly on the Prime Directive where so many other episodes had used it correctly. That episode was Season 7 Episode 13, "Homeward".
In it, Picard used the Prime Directive to not help the pre-industrial (and scientifically-ignorant) Boraalans escape their dying homeworld. It is only Worf's adoptive human brother, Nikolai Rozhenko, who is stationed there as a Duck Blind observer ("Who Watches The Watchers", "Star Trek: Insurrection") that the _Enterprise_ has been ordered to pick-up. Picard claims that the Prime Directive prevents him from helping the Boraalans because that would be working against Nature, which has deemed the seed-like intelligent race required for extinction.
In the Conference Room beforehand...
*Nikolai* "...They deserve the chance to survive. And isn't that what the Prime Directive was truly intended to do? To allow cultures to survive and grow naturally?"
*Troi* "Not exactly. The Prime Directive was designed to ensure non-interference."
*Dr. Crusher* "But aren't we interfering either way? If we take no action, it's a conscious decision to let the Boraalans die."
*Nikolai* "Exactly. We have the power to save some of them. All we have to do is exercise it."
...and later on the Bridge, as they watch the atmosphere disappear...
*Picard* "This is one of those times when we must face the ramifications of the Prime Directive and honor those lives which we cannot save."
*Nikolai* "I find no honor in this whatsoever, Captain."
The Prime Directive is about non-interference in regards to evolution, culture and government (i.e. Goddenberry saying humans have no right to play god or morality police). But that being said, the PD does _not_ say anything about 'standing by and watching an innocent and helpless civilization get blown away by forces they do not understand'! IMO, this was a bad use of the PD by the writers and it should _never_ have been applied, referenced or used in this episode since it was a non-issue! (Indeed if the Federation was so smart, they would have anticipated and trained Starfleet personnel for this issue; such as using Nikolai's idea of the holodeck as a temporary shelter while they are transfered to another safe world.)
EVA, I honestly felt that TNG subtlety changed the Prime Directive from what it was in TOS. I think that example you gave is a pretty good example. It seems to me that Worf's brother came up with a good way to help the Boraalans without actually making them aware of it. And it seems to me that there's something wrong with a Prime Directive that prevents you from helping in a situation like the Boraalans.
On the other hand, in the situation in this particular video, I can see where doing nothing is probably the correct Prime Directive reading. This wasn't a case of a single race facing extinction, but two competing (sort of) races in the most extreme of situations, which is of course why the writers used it, to highlight the reasons for and difficulties of a Prime Directive.
@@robinhyperlord9053 Actually that episode is one of my favorites. Oh, I suppose that it could have been a smidge more friendly to religious faith as a choice. But what did you seriously expect? Picard to go down to the surface as a Christian missionary?
@@crucisnh yes, and then burn all unbelievers
I love these interactions in this ST Show. It's ... grounded in a bit of realism, real hesitation to an ideology expressed by very talented and skilled Actors, as far as I can tell. Much of it's dialogue offers the audience a chance to think. I love this.
But then we have goddamn timetravel shenanigans and sense of realism is thrown out the window.
Archer " Am I going to be without my doctor this winter?"
Phlox " Only for six days."
Archer " I feel you should have to,d me this BEFORE we left Earth, so we could get additional medical staff in case they were needed."
lol but they do have additional medical staff phlox is just the main doctor. it is brought up though because a problem happened that they needed phlox and it became a comedy because of waking him up early.
There are other sickbay staff members who likely have an equivalent to a medical degree.
So why is evolution the infallible "she who must be obeyed"? I think that relief of pain, suffering, and death supersedes any idolatrous fealty to a scientific theory, or even a philosophical belief.
Are you for uplifting every non-sentient species in the galaxy too? Where do you draw the line? The stone age? Opposable thumbs? Plants? Bacteria, viruses?
ever heard of the law of unintended consequences?
I sincerely hope that Archer realized the grave error turned back and gave the Valakians the cure!
He did give the cure, just didn't say it really is.
@@vincentchang2259 So, sort of a "I'll just put this here and let them figure things out for themselves" stance, then.
Not sure but thought I saw The menk..on a map in the Picard series..would love it if The Menk became a big threat to the Federation/Alpha Quadrant in a future Star Trek series!
Consider yourselves fortunate when extraterrestrial forces punched a hole in the Chelyabinsk meteor causing its destruction in a more benign way. Also consider how those forces also disabled the nuclear missile tests and activated in ground nuclear missile facilities to show the seriousness at hand.
Sam Beckett: "OH BOY!"
My first first impression, I've thought I was watching a clip from a Quantum Leap episode that I've never seen! Hated that the series ended on a down note, nice to see that Scott Bakula was still quite busy after that!
This is why he was never allowed to return home...
I would have been interested in a follow up to this episode.
"Some day, my people will draft a directive. A 'prime directive' if you will. And then someone named Jefferies will come along and make these tubes that run through the ship. And then another day, someone named Holo Deck will make a kind of room where you can see holograms of different locations."
Love this show !!!
The Orville cast this in a more stark light. They showed their intervention lead to the death of the entire planet. They had their prime directive out of shame and guilt and caution.
Silly thing is, never once does Flox and Archer consider the third option, give the cure to the Valakians but also tell them the Menk are evolving, and that by all rights they would have been chosen by nature to succeed them, but because strangers were willing to show compassion and not desire to see the potential of another species squandered, they chose to save them. Now, with their fate averted, the Valakians have to decide what to do with their second chance and how they intend to treat the Menk they once considered inferior. As the Menk evolve, the Valakians could help them progress, become as intelligent and capable as they are, both species could come together as one culturally, and achieve many things. But then again that's the old optimistic Trek way of thinking Roddenberry had in mind when he first made Star Trek and nobody wants that today right?
Or the Valakians exterminate the Menk because they're a threat.
@@Galactipod Yeah, there's no way of knowing how things will turn out, which is why the Prime Directive was formed in the first place.
@@Galactipod They could uplift both of them.
Nature doesn't make conscious choices, that's pure pseudo-science on Phlox's part, just field by the Division Fallacy that if evolution is true then any cockamamie thing said about evolution must also be true.
@@AndrewMellor-darkphoton and having Menk die off as result of nuclear exchange between Valakian tribes xD / countries.
The prime directive is apart of my life as well as the temporal prime directive as well for it works.
I love how the captain is just a dude in a t-shirt. Imagine Picard in his silk pj's with a cup of earl Grey talking to Data in the mess hall.
Here’s a terrifying thought. What if aliens were to come into contact with us during COVID-19, and had to make a similar decision like this
Not perfect analogy but still it shows how fucked up Archer and Phlox decision was
Maybe aliens did when the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs hit. Thanks, prime directive.
@@MikeCloud666 how is what we’re going through now any different from what’s happening here? Other then the fact we haven’t gone out into space in a last ditch effort to ask Aliens for help
@@MikeCloud666 F...ed up...from WHOSE perspective?
Not really the same thing. There was no contagion here such as a virus, bacteria, or protein folding. It was a genetic issue going on.
This episode was one of the better ones Enterprise ran. The moral and ethical decisions having to be made would have driven any sane person crazy. What do you do? Help the already advanced race and allow an emerging one to be stifled, or worse, driven to extinction? Or the reverse? Which one would be friendly towards aliens, or hostile? Neither Archer or Phlox could answer those questions to any degree of certainty. In the end, I honestly don’t know what I’d do. As for Archer, I appreciate the pressure he was under. It probably broke his heart to make the decision he did.
Or (and here me out here): don't commit genocide by inaction. This wasn't an ethical dilemma. This was appalling writing.
If only this video had carried on for a little bit longer.
Before the Prime Directive, there was the law of... mine? Mine. MINE! MOAR!!!
Lets let nature take its course! Says the Denobulan to the Human in space...
It had taken with them. Had Voth not migrated, had dinosaurs not died by asteroid ...
If the Valakians deserved to die then so do Star Trek's Humpback Whales and by extension the entire human race! Where two members of the Humpback species namely George and Gracie saved the Earth and possibly the entire human species by getting transported into the 23rd century from the 20th century!
Fluffy words like "deserve" aren't useful in this context. Nobody is suggesting that a race of people deserves to die. It's an ethical question about interfering as outsiders in a zero sum game with billions of lives at stake.
@@awkwardcultism Letting billions of people die in the here and now based on some absurd theory you've got that you might possibly be helping out a few billion more people a million years down the road (a conclusion you've reached because you are really bad at science and don't know how evolution works) isn't an ethical choice. Its pure lunacy.
And phlox can't really base it legitimately on evolution because that's not how it works, unless he's a Q and can see the future...🤦♂️🤷♂️ he should stick with doctoring because he's a terrible scientist...
If I remember the episode correctly, the disease that was killing them wasn't a bacteria or a virus, but a congenital disease, as in, they were dying because of their own genetics. Which was why the Menk were unaffected by said disease.
That's not how evolution works, you don't ”evolve” to extinction, you evolve to avoid extinction. It was really ”part” of there own genetics then there would've been no cure for it, but Phlox whipped up one in a few days so clearly it was no ”intended” to happen. Their is no set path in evolution, no creature can ever become ”the prefect being”, evolution at it's core is adaption of your environment over time.
@@brandonlyon730 Your understanding of evolution is rather sophomoric. See: evolutionary traps
The writers really werent tryna be subtle or they just half assed the dialogue and called it a day lmaoo
"someday my people are going to come up a doctrine on what we can and cant do, and until someone drafts that ... directive"
The hard part is telling the Volakians that Enterprise and The Federation won't help them...kinda like aliens coming here and saying: "We won't save you from nuclear war the bacteria need to evolve and they can't do it with you here...you keep killing them"
the Federation didn't exist yet.
This was about 800 years before the complexity of Brannigan's law. No wonder they were misguided.
This was really hard for Captain Archer. Even though it was immoral, he made the right choice in the end.
Janeway would've just blown them up to speed up the process.
I've always had a small problem with this episode. The scope of this ethical dilemma should have been a recurring theme throughout the show or maybe this one episode should have been a two parter. This was the kind of crew conflict they needed imo
Like wonderful three-episode "Argument" arc. Or had follow up / recall in next season.
@Darth Revan I'd say, they should help in similar case, leaving this episode as is, motivated by these events and THEN be haunted by consequences.
"We didn't come out here to play god".
By devising the technology to travel between the stars, faster than the speed of light, and explore new worlds, possessing the ability to make changes to interstellar civilizations, you already are playing god to an extent. You have to be a responsible god, rather than condemning an entire species to extinction because you want to hand off responsibility to evolution as if it's acting with a purpose in mind.
If this show was well written at all this decision should have come back to bite them in the ass. Have some other interstellar player come along and give the cure freely, and then turn them against the Federation.
Point is, whatever they did, one of these would die.
@@piotrd.4850 There's no evidence to support that, other than Phlox being terrible at his job and not understanding how evolution actually works.
Also, to add to the "playing God" thing, the one thing a god needs above all else is compassion, and letting an entire sentient civilized species die is very much an absence of compassion. So, I guess Archer is right about not playing God, since he'd be a really terrible one.
First, ENT held to episodic storytelling; but done well, we'd have three episode Argument-like story arc, where in similar situation they act differently, "help" and THAT bites them.
@@piotrd.4850 That's a big, big problem with Enterprise. Its storytelling was not done well. And remember that TNG, while episodic, did sometimes revisit old plot threads to look at the repercussions of past actions. Enterprise, were it well written, would have done the same a season or two later.
The conundrum with the captains compassion, is that it could have caused major problems with other sentient species on the planet. With far reaching and unforeseen bad consequences. Though it may have seemed callous, he made the right decision. Curing a disease or helping heal an injury is a far cry from monkeying with genetics.🤔
A good teacher doesn't manipulate nor coerce, but leads by example and encourages the individual to stand on their own. We have seen them throughout history in the form of as Quan Yin, Lao-tzu, Emmanuel, Buddha, and the myriad of philosophers who reminded us of who we are and of our potential.
I have been rewatching this show recently and im starting to understand why this episode is so irritating to me. A few episodes later an alien life form takes over the Enterprise cargo bay and Reid wants to test how much energy it will take to knock the creature out without killing it and Phlox goes on a rant about how its sentient and he can't alow him to test it beacuse it would hurt it. And i was just thinking to myself "you essentially helped commit genocide, not actively but you knew how to stop it but this is where you draw a moral line?". The hypocrisy is glaring.
Bad writing for ya.
Yeah but they allowed countless crews to become effected without removing the virus from the area in the first place. They also made it clear that humans had done something no one else had. I dont disagree with you, I just think that the two situations are somewhat different
I don't get why you don't see the difference.
Reid was actively hurting the life form. Of course a doctor would intervene.
The "genocide" was a whole other matter. There were two species at stake and giving the cure to the genetic disease, which happens to be evolutionary, would've put the upcoming species at a severe disadvantage.
Not giving the cure only minimizes the chance of the dominant species to survive, but it's not a zero-chance. They could still find the cure on their own. But it's up to them.
Actively eradicating the dominant species to help the upcoming one would be comparable. But it's simply not.
@@UltimateTobi i don't care if the disease was evolutionary. He committed genocide by witholding the cure the moment he knew he could save them.
By that logic if you don't donate money to starving African children you're a child murderer.
The fact that the civilization specifically asked for a cure is an incredibly significant variable here.
Cue several hundred years of enterprise captains ignoring said directive
I remember our Lord and Savior the Piccard!
@Darth Revan I sacrifice puppies at midnight to the Piccard.
They made the wrong choice. The doctor's reasoning is invalid.
The prime direction, that thing every captain preaches about but also disregards without a second thought, violating it on a daily basis.
Great, since it's horribly flawed anyway...
This would be so great if the whole HES TALKING ABOUT THE PRIME DIRECTIVE thing wasnt so heavy handed. If archer had left it to "We didnt come out here to play god and Im not qualified to make such an enormous decision" or some shit it would be great cause we would all know hes talking about the Prime Directive without him literally saying ONE DAY WERE GONNA HAVE TO MAKE A RULE BOOK ON THIS. A DIRECTIVE EVEN! Tee hee he said directive. Still a good show
How to justify not doing your job
To seek out new life and civilizations and leave them to die! To explore strange new worlds and ignore their problems! To boldly keep to ourselves and not interfere with anything at all!