"Innocent until proven guilty" is the greatest and soundest argument against the prime directive there has ever been. It's a shame the federation's stance is "Guilty until they get a warp drive."
You, also, are in error! When you say "Guilty until they get a warp drive," which when you said it, should NOT be in quotations, but Anyway . . . . you don't really know at all what you're saying. They can't just help whoever because it's "the right thing to do." You're one of those micromanaging entitled straight guys, who thinks you can just make as many kids as you choose, because you're entitled, and anyone who tries to stop you or take away your control, because of possibly not being competent or have enough financial resources to properly raise a child, or 7 of them, is some kind of "bad person." Just like America thinking they are entitled to Thrust themselves into situations in other countries in which does NOT INVOLVE THEM, but they'll just do whatever they want, anyway, JUST because they have the power to do so. No!!! The PRIME DIRECTIVE, is THERE FOR A REASON! DENSO! You do NOT get to cherry pick, and do what YOU think is right, because you're deluded, and subconsciously want to use any opportunity/excuse to flex your hetero muscles and feel powerful, because you were the "big boned" unpopular child on the playground, which no one else wanted to play with! Oh, but I have "no idea what I'm talking about . ." right? Yeah. Uh huh . .
As a soldier I had to deal with a moral dilemma, to hold to true to my oath and blindly obey the orders of those appointed above me and continue to fight a war that could see the loss of thousands of lives (even my own) out of fear of reprimand, or to follow the core values of witch in this situation is in conflict to my oath thereby potentially saving said lives even if it means that we may have a new enemy later. On my final mission I was singled out by a sniper, they missed. What happened afterward unsettles me to this day. When I was shot at I did not flinch nor tried to seek cover, I calmly looked where it hit then looked back up and continued to work. I reached my breaking point to where I did not care about anything all. Upon returning to camp after being outside the wire for 14 hours I got in contact with one of my congressmen and told him a very disturbing thing. Within 2 days I was being flown out of the country and a congressional aide was sent in to investigate. A few months later I was honorably discharged after 8 years of faithful service. It was not until later when I found out that because of my actions my commanders were removed and that the only reason why I was let go was to save face (under false pretenses). Ten years later I still question if my motives were just or I committed my actions out of fear for my own well being. Were lives saved? I honestly do not know and I doubt I ever will. Is it wrong that now I defer action for inaction out of fear of societal outlash. I know that because of my training that there is a lot that I can do, would it be good or bad in the long run?
"We don't know what the consequences of letting these people live might be. Good God, some day they might turn into the kind of monsters that would kill off an entire planet for no good reason!"
There is a difference between ignoring someone in trouble and purposely causing that trouble in the first place but I still agree that if they claim to uphold a moral center then they need to dismiss the prime-directive sometimes.
You know the reason why the damn thing never seems to make the slightest bit of sense and never seems to compel the same set of moral choices and actions even in two consecutive instances whenever somebody on the show it invokes during any discussion...? It's because none of the writers ever read it before they began plotting out the next storyline and nobody even knows what it actually SAYS. In the Original Series, there was this whole big hand-waving Wu-Wu mystification, whereby generally, Spock would flag up the purely abstract existence of this dreaded rule, usually as the immediate prelude to Kirk deciding that the present circumstance necessitated that he proceed to openly and shameless act in direct violation of the PD because he just felt like it, and it provided him a swift resolution to the situation, and in his favour - which is pretty much fine, in and of itself. But unlike rules, suggestions or guidelines, laws, directives and written orders actually have to be made up of a specific, properly worded and structured collection of actual words that make clear what is being required of people to do in order to remain in compliance, as well as describing in strictly technical aspect the intent of the law in terms of its reason for existing, making a clear sense of how it should be applied, in particular, how you could be able to knowthat it was in force and tell how well, or whether (or not) it is working or having the effect originally intended. But the PD doesn't have any of those qualities - because the fandom had deified the thing as Holy Writ before it ever occurred to Gene's Self-Mythologising Historical Revisionism that he had forgotten to ever actually write the whole thing out in full, using the proper and precise legal wording you would need for such a legalistic statement of principle - and at some stage or other, he just began to make things up about what was actually meant to be in it, and what it was supposed to be for.
That's completely correct. The Prime Directive originally existed as legalese that gets in the way of Kirk saving the day, only for him to tell Spock or whomever throws it into his face to shove it up their ass, because he's saving the day and nothing's getting in the way of it. Stepping on the Prime Directive was a way for Kirk to show that he's a man. But unlike the Star Wars fandom which questions the justifications for the Jedi Code, or the Warhammer 40K fandom that openly accepts the fact that the Imperium they love is a bastion of ignorance and dogmatism, the Trek fans have their heads up their ass and they deify almost everything about the Federation's way of life, which includes the Prime Directive. The fact that in TNG, they even debate on whether or not to save lives or follow the directive is absurd; it goes to show how both the show and the fans can't even tell what's right or wrong anymore based on a logical deduction of right or wrong. They seriously think letting people die just so they don't have culture shock from seeing spaceships and space men is a valid idea. Which goes to show that they've become a joke unto themselves. The original Trek used the Prime Directive to stroke Kirk's manhood and show how brave he is by saving the day against orders. The new Trek took this obstructive rule that prevents them from saving lives and ran with it as an honest-to-God rule. Almost as if it was a commandment from God. Just look at the comments of the Trek fans here who support it. They just don't get the fact that they've become a joke.
It's weird because there was an episode of TOS that never mentioned the Prime Directive, but showed clearly that if they can, their mission is to save a planet from decimation by natural forces. In "The Paradise Syndrome", their job is to stop an asteroid from hitting the planet. They didn't know at the beginning the planet already had a deflector for that purpose, but still went ahead. Spock nearly crippled The Enterprise trying. That's why the TNG episode always bugged me. If you can stop a disaster without cluing the locals in, do it.
@@Maximara It was introduced as an OBSTACLE to doing the right thing. It was bureaucracy made law. BUT... Can't have the Feds having "bad" laws. So they made an increasingly convoluted explanation for why they have it.
"Yes Professor I know! What if that person, that I save down there, is a child that turns out to be the next Adolf Hitler or Khan Singh. Every first year philosophy student has been asked that question since the day the first wormhole was discovered." -Captain Jean-Luc Picard(Sir Patrick Stewart)
Even if we can't always see future consequences, the urge to help people who are in great need should be a good way to honor the natural laws of the universe. Because if that's not natural enough, then I don't know what is. The Prime Directive may be a most important law in both Star Trek and the real universe. But the ways that Star Trek would endlessly dramatize it have become wearisome for me. Thank you, Richard, for this video.
This entire video was amazing!. I love the Star Trek universe but have always been confused by its need to desperately justify and apply a flawed philosophy (prime directive) in every situation. There have been so many wonderful episodes crossing series showing how this directive should be applied and how it shouldn't yet they use it as a wide sweeping broom for all the dirty situations. This has been the one aspect of Star Trek i didnt agree with. Thank you for this video !!!!!!
Janeway's application seemed to center more on whether or not another species was interfering with the internal development of another. She was essentially enforcing the prime directive on others.
I can safely say the Prime Directive makes the United Federation of Planets worse than the Empire. At least the Empire will help out sectors that swear allegiance to them. They built a TIE Fighter factory above Nar Shaddaa on Hutt Space, giving jobs to citizens in Hutt space in return for loyalty and regular shipments of TIE fighters. They reached out to the Nohgri people of the planet Honoghr, helping their population recover from the damage caused by the Clone Wars in return for the Nohgri serving alongside Imperial special forces under Darth Vader's command. They even went to the junk planet of Raxus Prime, and started processing all the junk, turning all that trash into starships, effectively cleaning up a planet that was covered from top to bottom with trash. The same thing goes for the many corporations that fought for the Confederacy of Independent Systems like the Trade Federation, the Corporate Alliance, the Banking Clan, the Techno Union: sure, they had a lot of war-crimey behavior towards some primitives, but they helped arm some freedom-seeking backwater yokels and made them capable of defending themselves when they seceded from the Republic and the Republic fought back with an army of super-soldier clones. The Empire would look at a planet of primitives dying from some plague, and heal them from said plague in exchange for the natives swearing their fealty to the Emperor. The Federation would look at the same planet, let the people die from the plague, and have their captains go back to bed with a clean conscience since they didn't break their precious Prime Directive. It's sickening that a good-guy faction is marketed as such despite them being such selfish twats, and it's even more sickening that their fans in the real world defend this kind of thinking and see it as good. They've got their heads up so far in their asses, they can see what they had for breakfast. A sin of omission (ie. not doing anything to help those you could have helped) is still a sin, and in old-world moralities and religious systems, that's the kind of thing that lands you in hell. It's funny how other villainous factions in sci-fi like the Trade Federation and the Galactic Empire are actually more virtuous than the United Federation of Planets. It gets especially grating with how preachy the Federation bigshots like Picard were. He spends hours talking about how they're superior, how they've solved all sorts of problems such as greed and disease with science and technology, yet they're not going to share those miracles of science with those in need just because those people don't have warp drives. How egotistically selfish. Brag about all the things you're immune to thanks to your science, but keep all that helpful science to yourself. Picard can take that Prime Directive he slobbers over, and he can shove it up where the sun don't shine. The Federation deserves to be eradicated for that kind of selfishness. They make the damn Trade Federation look like Mother Teresa meets Santa Claus. Getting conquered by the Empire is too good for them, especially since they're the kind of people who stand aside and let entire worlds die because of their precious Prime Directive.
Bit of a stretch but one example of the "Child Hitler" argument I can think of is Ratchet and Drift in the IDW Transformers comics. Ratchet is a staunch atheist but firmly believes in his duty as a medic to heal and help. So one day he saves a bot named Deadlock from an overdose. That same bot goes on to be one of the deadliest marksmen in the Decepticon army. So was that Ratchet's fault or was it better for him to stick to his principles than leave someone to suffer? Deadlock later reforms and joins the Autobots as Drift, and becomes a zealous spiritualist ((much to Ratchet's annoyance)) so did he also take responsibility for the good Drift did afterwards?
To be fair, Archer predates the prime directive. As a whole, I agree with the Order if not the application. The Protected Planets Treaty from Star Ocean makes more sense to me personally.
Cpt_Carmal Yeah, Archer predates the Prime Directive, but "Dear Doctor" is clearly trying to show the origin of the PD. The writers are intentionally invoking it.
If it is only supposed to apply to pre-warp civilizations, then the prime directive is not something to be consulted in regards to a Klingon civil war, or a Borg civil war. If anything, I'd say encouraging the Borg to tear themselves apart would aid the prime directive since they are the type who see forced assimilation as THEIR prime directive. They don't see cultures, societies, and independence being obliterated as bad things.
Imagine if Voyager discovered a Federation-like organization in the Delta quadrant...an assemblage of various alien civilizations...except they would 'break the prime directive' at the drop of a hat. Stopping wars, healing plagues, and interferring with natural disasters willy nilly. Seems some of the time it doesn't work out, but some (even most) of the time it does.
Sometimes The Prime Directive Should Be A Non-Binding Concept !!!! If It Is Aware That To Save A Culture Is Better Than It's Non-Stop Distruction !!!! Then Do Your Best To Work Out The Prevention Of Said Distruction !!!!
I am thinking that the prime directive helps the "monster of the week" episodes rather than connected episodes. There should be an overseeing organization for civilization interference. That organization could of been an entire series of multiple seasons or what happens as the overseeing team instructions manages in example that the society stops slavery or whatever else.
To be fair with the Ferengi, Janeway did use technology to duplicate what their religius texts said. So while it was interference, she did so in a way that affected their civilization as little as possible.
If a child is trapped in a burning car, you do what you can to get that child out of the burning car, if a house is on fire and people are trapped inside you get help and do what you can to help them get out of it, that's the morality of the situation but if two people are fighting, I wouldn't get involved unless they throw you under the bus and get you into it otherwise, I would be leaving them alone!
Agreed. The Amendments in the Constitution are there for the same reasons. These concepts are there to stimulate debate not to create dogma. All things must be questioned and debated and then decisions must be made. Conversation is a hallmark of an enlightened society.
This will probably get lost in the rubble, but this video isn’t by the person who uploaded the video(as they stated) it is by Internet reviewer SFDebris. He reviews all kinds of sci-fi. Check him out on SFDebris.com
The Prime Directive originally existed as legalese that gets in the way of Kirk saving the day, only for him to tell Spock or whomever throws it into his face to shove it up their ass, because he's saving the day and nothing's getting in the way of it. Stepping on the Prime Directive was a way for Kirk to show that he's a man. But unlike the Star Wars fandom which questions the justifications for the Jedi Code, or the Warhammer 40K fandom that openly accepts the fact that the Imperium they love is a bastion of ignorance and dogmatism, the Trek fans have their heads up their ass and they deify almost everything about the Federation's way of life, which includes the Prime Directive. The fact that in TNG, they even debate on whether or not to save lives or follow the directive is absurd; it goes to show how both the show and the fans can't even tell what's right or wrong anymore based on a logical deduction of right or wrong. They seriously think letting people die just so they don't have culture shock from seeing spaceships and space men is a valid idea. Which goes to show that they've become a joke unto themselves. The original Trek used the Prime Directive to stroke Kirk's manhood and show how brave he is by saving the day against orders. The new Trek took this obstructive rule that prevents them from saving lives and ran with it as an honest-to-God rule. Almost as if it was a commandment from God. Just look at the comments of the Trek fans here who support it. They just don't get the fact that they've become a joke.
No they created the PD to provide some tension and reason why a captain of such a superior military and technological force couldn’t just do whatever they wanted. If they wanted to set up Kirk to be a “big man hero” they’d have just left it out. Then he could just do what he wanted without any dithering about.
@@IAmTheRealBill I think Holyknight was just saying without saying, that's he's never seen or read anything involving any of those universes but wanted to rant on something. Likely he was just really pent up at the time.
@@IAmTheRealBill No. Just look at how Kirk reacts to how saving people might violate the Prime Directive. He just tosses it aside and says that saving these people is better than sticking to the rule and letting people die. Meanwhile, all the other captains and their crew seriously think that abiding by legalese is better than saving lives, which is bullshit.
@@Deepingmind No, I knew what I was saying. And yes, I studied enough sci-fi from different cultures to know that the PD is absolute bullshit the way they apply it from TNG onwards. In TOS, at least, it's just a common-sense protocol that they might have to break if they're to save lives in an unorthodox situation, in TNG onwards, it's practically religion.
The Prime Directive is just a way to fill plot holes. The whole series of Voyager is based on the way Star Fleet takes or leaves the Prime Directive as they please. By destroying the array they even chose to wander around in an quadrant where they can only be of influence and not of any help. Something like the PD is the base rule of any intelligence operation, never influence whomever you try to gain information from or the information will be tainted. So it is a logical directive for an exploration mission. maybe Star Fleet should give their explorers cloaking devices.
this is quite an amazing take on it, and i completely agree that the prime directive has many many flaws as you pointed out in your video, but i do have some problems in what you pointed out. one being the argument janway said to tom, as that wasn't only about the prime directive, but also they had traveled back in time meaning it goes also into the temporal prime directive. the second problem i had lies with your pointing out about jonathan archer, as he was before the forming of the prime directive his actions can't really be sighted as evidence against it, although the valkens did have a similar rule about noninterference with nonwarp capable species. that aside i agree with how they seam to always overlook the dilemma the prime directive should promote and that it should be handled differently when we next see it in the movies or new shows. thank you for the good video :D
Zenikk I'm glad you liked the video but to be clear it's not mine as I wrote in the description the prolific star trek reviewer SFDebris created this and deserves the praise. If you Google his name you'll find a lot more videos.
While I know people have problems with the reboot, I actually like their take on the prime directive in some ways. We see both why it sometimes is not worthy of your bum and why it exists. Kirk saved a primitive civilization that didn't otherwise have a chance, but we then see how destabilizing the sight of a starship is, with the natives' holy text being tossed aside after seeing a massive metal thing emerge from the waves and fly to the stars.
Passion is not advanced....it is timeless and the same at any time... except with me it is amplified by a large factor...so it's my rules since I'm the only one that can traverse time
Prime Directive? More like Prine Defective! Although maybe it depend on your prime perspective. Maybe it’s good as long as your aren’t too prime reflective for it to be prime effective.
Argument from ignorance...as stated, no one knows. ANY argument is an argument from ignorance. We would be left with 2 options: 1. Unknowable probabilities of various scenarios playing out "naturally". In the episode of TNG "symbiosis", war between the 2 planets is highly possible. Once the drugged planet recognizes its slavery and the exploitation by the other, fighting for control of the drug could be the result. The only way to ensure that doesn't happen, barring non-interference, is 2. Assuming control over the course of events ..the very thing the PD was supposed to stop: playing god with other people. It's clear from the captains' violations and lack of punishment that the PD isn't absolute, but violation is discouraged without good reason. As Picard explains "it is a PHILOSOPHY", not dogmatic laws.
The idea behind the prime directive is to limit the federation from becoming a holier than thou empire. Besides most of your mental exercises are covered in the prime directive. If a planet is in trouble and asks for help from the federation then it is well within the rights of the fedration to help them.
6 років тому+1
Surely you know after many series where captains disobey the Prime Directive, they've been making a choice AFTER they've involved themselves into the situation, and the choice was already between two bad options. The idea of the Prime Directive is that explorers are not meant to play gods. Notice how all of the captains make a conscious decision to disobey the Prime Directive and make damn sure this goes to Starfleet so that, while the General Order n.1 is primarily a good idea to follow, there are known and well documented occasions where it should be disregarded.
and yet there are plenty of times they have held to it and watched or were willing to watch people die. Worf's brother had to step in a save a species from extinction because Starfleet wouldn't help.
@@KnightRaymund - Totally agree with you. Captain Picard had a perfectly "viable" alternative and chose to ignore it. Nikolai didn't. He saw the opportunity and took it.. he was doing the right thing (and just because Captain Picard didn't agree with it, Nikolai was reprimanded for his actions when he actually should have been thanked). Sometimes there are obligations that go beyond the Prime Directive.
Travis Broforce Richard It's exemplified in Riker's "cosmic plan" argument. You can call it Fate if God offends you, but this is just to say that this approach to the PD is to believe that your own agency comes second to a higher power.
When your argument is relying on a "cosmic plan" yeah your talking about god/a force beyond our control or understanding. The prime directive started like all religious teachings, as a set of ideas meant to help people but it warped into a sort of dogma that must be followed even if it makes no sense and literally is being used to justify complete annihilation, so id say those arguments are very valid
You're right. Religion and concepts of God typically give people a moral framework in which they can evaluate whether or not intervention is good or not. Oh, wait, that's exactly what the escalation of "nature" to the level of dogma does. I get that there's a sort of differentiation, but there's very, very much in common with religion. To say it has "nothing to do with" them is to be ignorant of what religion is like.
0:33 Speak for yourself , Anglo .The Hispanic Empire pioneered the Secular recognition of Human Rights to protect its new subjects and culturally incorporated them as equals while maintaining their identity .Which is why 85% of Hispanic America is Amerindian or Mestizo while only 1% of the U.S. is .
I'm not he's credited clearly in the info and video is unaltered. Where do you see me claim ownership or credit? Also what other videos are you refering to?
The scene with Archer and Phlox really laid out the dilemma and brought together one species for, and one against the Prime Directive (but of course before The Federation implemented it). As a long-time ST fan, and watching a few of the series' several times now, it becomes easy to spot when the PD is either being bent or outright ignored which it supposedly shouldn't have been. Enterprise was of course pre-PD, so we'll exclude that. But Voyager used it's delta quadrant distance as an excuse to disregard it many times, but while also maintaining it per Captain's whim. But...I happened to agree with the Captain almost every time she stuck to it. And at least the discourse was there to at least try to insert some critical thinking, because they could, because they were so far from home without having any consequences to deal with. As an ex-idealist and modern cynic/nihilist/pessimist, it _used to be_ always easy for me to side with The Federation's rules. But as time has passed, AND we are in a much different political and social climate of shit, it's far easier for me to question and challenge a lot of ST's ideas, even though I still enjoy it as much as I ever did. I agree with the overall assessment completely. Ditch the PD, in favor of making decisions on a case by case, well-thought-out basis. It is ridiculous to just default to the PD. As if we can determine the future in every instance. Who's to say the PD isn't fundamentally flawed in its objective. Perhaps us being in the very situation we're in is reason enough to assume we have a right to impact it, with our own moral standards and ethics. "Yes," this approach can be abused...but so definitely can simply defaulting to the PD. Cheers.
You have for the most part, Zero idea what you are talking about. Picard being assimilated by the Borg, against his will, and the Borg USING him, And his knowledge to do whatever they wanted, and Picard in no way being able to defy or rebel against them, of COURSE IS NOT PUNISHABLE! What is WRONG WITH YOU???
"Innocent until proven guilty" is the greatest and soundest argument against the prime directive there has ever been. It's a shame the federation's stance is "Guilty until they get a warp drive."
Guilty of innocence. 😇
Existence without destroying AND creating the universe
or
Existence without creating AND destroying the universe.
Warp Drives are like insurance.
You, also, are in error! When you say "Guilty until they get a warp drive," which when you said it, should NOT be in quotations, but Anyway . . . . you don't really know at all what you're saying. They can't just help whoever because it's "the right thing to do." You're one of those micromanaging entitled straight guys, who thinks you can just make as many kids as you choose, because you're entitled, and anyone who tries to stop you or take away your control, because of possibly not being competent or have enough financial resources to properly raise a child, or 7 of them, is some kind of "bad person." Just like America thinking they are entitled to Thrust themselves into situations in other countries in which does NOT INVOLVE THEM, but they'll just do whatever they want, anyway, JUST because they have the power to do so. No!!! The PRIME DIRECTIVE, is THERE FOR A REASON! DENSO! You do NOT get to cherry pick, and do what YOU think is right, because you're deluded, and subconsciously want to use any opportunity/excuse to flex your hetero muscles and feel powerful, because you were the "big boned" unpopular child on the playground, which no one else wanted to play with! Oh, but I have "no idea what I'm talking about . ." right?
Yeah.
Uh huh . .
Here's something I once wrote in a bit of a breaking point moment while writing a paper: "Basic human decency is not a political stance!"
As a soldier I had to deal with a moral dilemma, to hold to true to my oath and blindly obey the orders of those appointed above me and continue to fight a war that could see the loss of thousands of lives (even my own) out of fear of reprimand, or to follow the core values of witch in this situation is in conflict to my oath thereby potentially saving said lives even if it means that we may have a new enemy later. On my final mission I was singled out by a sniper, they missed. What happened afterward unsettles me to this day. When I was shot at I did not flinch nor tried to seek cover, I calmly looked where it hit then looked back up and continued to work. I reached my breaking point to where I did not care about anything all. Upon returning to camp after being outside the wire for 14 hours I got in contact with one of my congressmen and told him a very disturbing thing. Within 2 days I was being flown out of the country and a congressional aide was sent in to investigate. A few months later I was honorably discharged after 8 years of faithful service. It was not until later when I found out that because of my actions my commanders were removed and that the only reason why I was let go was to save face (under false pretenses). Ten years later I still question if my motives were just or I committed my actions out of fear for my own well being. Were lives saved? I honestly do not know and I doubt I ever will. Is it wrong that now I defer action for inaction out of fear of societal outlash. I know that because of my training that there is a lot that I can do, would it be good or bad in the long run?
"We don't know what the consequences of letting these people live might be. Good God, some day they might turn into the kind of monsters that would kill off an entire planet for no good reason!"
There is a difference between ignoring someone in trouble and purposely causing that trouble in the first place but I still agree that if they claim to uphold a moral center then they need to dismiss the prime-directive sometimes.
ThePoshBoy 1 I probably should have said “let die” rather than “kill off” and it would have made a stronger point :)
5:23 That joke became even funnier after _Star Trek Into Darkness_
a trick: you can watch movies at kaldrostream. Been using them for watching a lot of movies lately.
@Jaden Lukas definitely, I have been using KaldroStream for since december myself :)
You know the reason why the damn thing never seems to make the slightest bit of sense and never seems to compel the same set of moral choices and actions even in two consecutive instances whenever somebody on the show it invokes during any discussion...?
It's because none of the writers ever read it before they began plotting out the next storyline and nobody even knows what it actually SAYS.
In the Original Series, there was this whole big hand-waving Wu-Wu mystification, whereby generally, Spock would flag up the purely abstract existence of this dreaded rule, usually as the immediate prelude to Kirk deciding that the present circumstance necessitated that he proceed to openly and shameless act in direct violation of the PD because he just felt like it, and it provided him a swift resolution to the situation, and in his favour - which is pretty much fine, in and of itself.
But unlike rules, suggestions or guidelines, laws, directives and written orders actually have to be made up of a specific, properly worded and structured collection of actual words that make clear what is being required of people to do in order to remain in compliance, as well as describing in strictly technical aspect the intent of the law in terms of its reason for existing, making a clear sense of how it should be applied, in particular, how you could be able to knowthat it was in force and tell how well, or whether (or not) it is working or having the effect originally intended.
But the PD doesn't have any of those qualities - because the fandom had deified the thing as Holy Writ before it ever occurred to Gene's Self-Mythologising Historical Revisionism that he had forgotten to ever actually write the whole thing out in full, using the proper and precise legal wording you would need for such a legalistic statement of principle - and at some stage or other, he just began to make things up about what was actually meant to be in it, and what it was supposed to be for.
That's completely correct. The Prime Directive originally existed as legalese that gets in the way of Kirk saving the day, only for him to tell Spock or whomever throws it into his face to shove it up their ass, because he's saving the day and nothing's getting in the way of it. Stepping on the Prime Directive was a way for Kirk to show that he's a man.
But unlike the Star Wars fandom which questions the justifications for the Jedi Code, or the Warhammer 40K fandom that openly accepts the fact that the Imperium they love is a bastion of ignorance and dogmatism, the Trek fans have their heads up their ass and they deify almost everything about the Federation's way of life, which includes the Prime Directive. The fact that in TNG, they even debate on whether or not to save lives or follow the directive is absurd; it goes to show how both the show and the fans can't even tell what's right or wrong anymore based on a logical deduction of right or wrong. They seriously think letting people die just so they don't have culture shock from seeing spaceships and space men is a valid idea. Which goes to show that they've become a joke unto themselves.
The original Trek used the Prime Directive to stroke Kirk's manhood and show how brave he is by saving the day against orders. The new Trek took this obstructive rule that prevents them from saving lives and ran with it as an honest-to-God rule. Almost as if it was a commandment from God. Just look at the comments of the Trek fans here who support it. They just don't get the fact that they've become a joke.
It's weird because there was an episode of TOS that never mentioned the Prime Directive, but showed clearly that if they can, their mission is to save a planet from decimation by natural forces. In "The Paradise Syndrome", their job is to stop an asteroid from hitting the planet. They didn't know at the beginning the planet already had a deflector for that purpose, but still went ahead. Spock nearly crippled The Enterprise trying.
That's why the TNG episode always bugged me. If you can stop a disaster without cluing the locals in, do it.
@@HolyknightVader999 The funny thing is as a fan of Star Trek I always questioning the Prime Directive even before TNG turned it into an abomination.
@@Maximara It was introduced as an OBSTACLE to doing the right thing. It was bureaucracy made law. BUT... Can't have the Feds having "bad" laws. So they made an increasingly convoluted explanation for why they have it.
"Yes Professor I know! What if that person, that I save down there, is a child that turns out to be the next Adolf Hitler or Khan Singh. Every first year philosophy student has been asked that question since the day the first wormhole was discovered."
-Captain Jean-Luc Picard(Sir Patrick Stewart)
Even if we can't always see future consequences, the urge to help people who are in great need should be a good way to honor the natural laws of the universe. Because if that's not natural enough, then I don't know what is. The Prime Directive may be a most important law in both Star Trek and the real universe. But the ways that Star Trek would endlessly dramatize it have become wearisome for me. Thank you, Richard, for this video.
This is the best discussion on PD that i have heard.
This entire video was amazing!. I love the Star Trek universe but have always been confused by its need to desperately justify and apply a flawed philosophy (prime directive) in every situation. There have been so many wonderful episodes crossing series showing how this directive should be applied and how it shouldn't yet they use it as a wide sweeping broom for all the dirty situations. This has been the one aspect of Star Trek i didnt agree with. Thank you for this video !!!!!!
Janeway's application seemed to center more on whether or not another species was interfering with the internal development of another. She was essentially enforcing the prime directive on others.
I can safely say the Prime Directive makes the United Federation of Planets worse than the Empire. At least the Empire will help out sectors that swear allegiance to them. They built a TIE Fighter factory above Nar Shaddaa on Hutt Space, giving jobs to citizens in Hutt space in return for loyalty and regular shipments of TIE fighters. They reached out to the Nohgri people of the planet Honoghr, helping their population recover from the damage caused by the Clone Wars in return for the Nohgri serving alongside Imperial special forces under Darth Vader's command. They even went to the junk planet of Raxus Prime, and started processing all the junk, turning all that trash into starships, effectively cleaning up a planet that was covered from top to bottom with trash.
The same thing goes for the many corporations that fought for the Confederacy of Independent Systems like the Trade Federation, the Corporate Alliance, the Banking Clan, the Techno Union: sure, they had a lot of war-crimey behavior towards some primitives, but they helped arm some freedom-seeking backwater yokels and made them capable of defending themselves when they seceded from the Republic and the Republic fought back with an army of super-soldier clones.
The Empire would look at a planet of primitives dying from some plague, and heal them from said plague in exchange for the natives swearing their fealty to the Emperor. The Federation would look at the same planet, let the people die from the plague, and have their captains go back to bed with a clean conscience since they didn't break their precious Prime Directive. It's sickening that a good-guy faction is marketed as such despite them being such selfish twats, and it's even more sickening that their fans in the real world defend this kind of thinking and see it as good. They've got their heads up so far in their asses, they can see what they had for breakfast.
A sin of omission (ie. not doing anything to help those you could have helped) is still a sin, and in old-world moralities and religious systems, that's the kind of thing that lands you in hell. It's funny how other villainous factions in sci-fi like the Trade Federation and the Galactic Empire are actually more virtuous than the United Federation of Planets.
It gets especially grating with how preachy the Federation bigshots like Picard were. He spends hours talking about how they're superior, how they've solved all sorts of problems such as greed and disease with science and technology, yet they're not going to share those miracles of science with those in need just because those people don't have warp drives. How egotistically selfish. Brag about all the things you're immune to thanks to your science, but keep all that helpful science to yourself. Picard can take that Prime Directive he slobbers over, and he can shove it up where the sun don't shine.
The Federation deserves to be eradicated for that kind of selfishness. They make the damn Trade Federation look like Mother Teresa meets Santa Claus. Getting conquered by the Empire is too good for them, especially since they're the kind of people who stand aside and let entire worlds die because of their precious Prime Directive.
The Prime Directive:
Never do anything to anybody, first!
Bit of a stretch but one example of the "Child Hitler" argument I can think of is Ratchet and Drift in the IDW Transformers comics. Ratchet is a staunch atheist but firmly believes in his duty as a medic to heal and help. So one day he saves a bot named Deadlock from an overdose. That same bot goes on to be one of the deadliest marksmen in the Decepticon army. So was that Ratchet's fault or was it better for him to stick to his principles than leave someone to suffer? Deadlock later reforms and joins the Autobots as Drift, and becomes a zealous spiritualist ((much to Ratchet's annoyance)) so did he also take responsibility for the good Drift did afterwards?
To be fair, Archer predates the prime directive. As a whole, I agree with the Order if not the application. The Protected Planets Treaty from Star Ocean makes more sense to me personally.
But generally speaking, I do agree with you.
What is that treaty about?
I second the motion. That Treaty make more sense then the Prime Directive.
Cpt_Carmal Yeah, Archer predates the Prime Directive, but "Dear Doctor" is clearly trying to show the origin of the PD. The writers are intentionally invoking it.
If it is only supposed to apply to pre-warp civilizations, then the prime directive is not something to be consulted in regards to a Klingon civil war, or a Borg civil war. If anything, I'd say encouraging the Borg to tear themselves apart would aid the prime directive since they are the type who see forced assimilation as THEIR prime directive. They don't see cultures, societies, and independence being obliterated as bad things.
I would like to add that there are omnipotent races like the Q for example that do have a plan for most species.
Imagine if Voyager discovered a Federation-like organization in the Delta quadrant...an assemblage of various alien civilizations...except they would 'break the prime directive' at the drop of a hat. Stopping wars, healing plagues, and interferring with natural disasters willy nilly. Seems some of the time it doesn't work out, but some (even most) of the time it does.
They sort of did a few times, Think Tank was kinda like that.
Sometimes The Prime Directive Should Be A Non-Binding Concept !!!! If It Is Aware That To Save A Culture Is Better Than It's Non-Stop Distruction !!!! Then Do Your Best To Work Out The Prevention Of Said Distruction !!!!
I am thinking that the prime directive helps the "monster of the week" episodes rather than connected episodes. There should be an overseeing organization for civilization interference. That organization could of been an entire series of multiple seasons or what happens as the overseeing team instructions manages in example that the society stops slavery or whatever else.
To be fair with the Ferengi, Janeway did use technology to duplicate what their religius texts said. So while it was interference, she did so in a way that affected their civilization as little as possible.
They really need to define the Prime Directive.
If a child is trapped in a burning car, you do what you can to get that child out of the burning car, if a house is on fire and people are trapped inside you get help and do what you can to help them get out of it, that's the morality of the situation but if two people are fighting, I wouldn't get involved unless they throw you under the bus and get you into it otherwise, I would be leaving them alone!
I would rather deal with the annoyances and inconveniences of the Prime Directive than deal with the annoyances and inconveniences of not having it.
Agreed. The Amendments in the Constitution are there for the same reasons. These concepts are there to stimulate debate not to create dogma. All things must be questioned and debated and then decisions must be made. Conversation is a hallmark of an enlightened society.
Not having it? So, you'd rather have a race wiped out rather than have them deal with culture shock?
Extinction and genocide are 'annoyances'? JFC. It has good ideas at the core but it's taken way, way too far.
Ah Star Fleet and the Prime Directive. A set of rules only to be adhered to or ignored when the end justifies the means.
I know its not an "Episode" review directly, more of a Lore review. But I wish chuck would do more like this, similar to the Worf and Honor deal.
This will probably get lost in the rubble, but this video isn’t by the person who uploaded the video(as they stated) it is by Internet reviewer SFDebris. He reviews all kinds of sci-fi. Check him out on SFDebris.com
The Prime Directive originally existed as legalese that gets in the way of Kirk saving the day, only for him to tell Spock or whomever throws it into his face to shove it up their ass, because he's saving the day and nothing's getting in the way of it. Stepping on the Prime Directive was a way for Kirk to show that he's a man.
But unlike the Star Wars fandom which questions the justifications for the Jedi Code, or the Warhammer 40K fandom that openly accepts the fact that the Imperium they love is a bastion of ignorance and dogmatism, the Trek fans have their heads up their ass and they deify almost everything about the Federation's way of life, which includes the Prime Directive. The fact that in TNG, they even debate on whether or not to save lives or follow the directive is absurd; it goes to show how both the show and the fans can't even tell what's right or wrong anymore based on a logical deduction of right or wrong. They seriously think letting people die just so they don't have culture shock from seeing spaceships and space men is a valid idea. Which goes to show that they've become a joke unto themselves.
The original Trek used the Prime Directive to stroke Kirk's manhood and show how brave he is by saving the day against orders. The new Trek took this obstructive rule that prevents them from saving lives and ran with it as an honest-to-God rule. Almost as if it was a commandment from God. Just look at the comments of the Trek fans here who support it. They just don't get the fact that they've become a joke.
No they created the PD to provide some tension and reason why a captain of such a superior military and technological force couldn’t just do whatever they wanted. If they wanted to set up Kirk to be a “big man hero” they’d have just left it out. Then he could just do what he wanted without any dithering about.
@@IAmTheRealBill I think Holyknight was just saying without saying, that's he's never seen or read anything involving any of those universes but wanted to rant on something. Likely he was just really pent up at the time.
@@IAmTheRealBill No. Just look at how Kirk reacts to how saving people might violate the Prime Directive. He just tosses it aside and says that saving these people is better than sticking to the rule and letting people die. Meanwhile, all the other captains and their crew seriously think that abiding by legalese is better than saving lives, which is bullshit.
@@Deepingmind No, I knew what I was saying. And yes, I studied enough sci-fi from different cultures to know that the PD is absolute bullshit the way they apply it from TNG onwards. In TOS, at least, it's just a common-sense protocol that they might have to break if they're to save lives in an unorthodox situation, in TNG onwards, it's practically religion.
Thank you holy for proving my point.
The Prime Directive is just a way to fill plot holes.
The whole series of Voyager is based on the way Star Fleet takes or leaves the Prime Directive as they please. By destroying the array they even chose to wander around in an quadrant where they can only be of influence and not of any help.
Something like the PD is the base rule of any intelligence operation, never influence whomever you try to gain information from or the information will be tainted. So it is a logical directive for an exploration mission. maybe Star Fleet should give their explorers cloaking devices.
Cloaking devices were banned in the Federation thanks to a little treaty between the Federation and the Romulan Empire called the Treaty of Algeron.
this is quite an amazing take on it, and i completely agree that the prime directive has many many flaws as you pointed out in your video, but i do have some problems in what you pointed out. one being the argument janway said to tom, as that wasn't only about the prime directive, but also they had traveled back in time meaning it goes also into the temporal prime directive. the second problem i had lies with your pointing out about jonathan archer, as he was before the forming of the prime directive his actions can't really be sighted as evidence against it, although the valkens did have a similar rule about noninterference with nonwarp capable species. that aside i agree with how they seam to always overlook the dilemma the prime directive should promote and that it should be handled differently when we next see it in the movies or new shows. thank you for the good video :D
Zenikk I'm glad you liked the video but to be clear it's not mine as I wrote in the description the prolific star trek reviewer SFDebris created this and deserves the praise. If you Google his name you'll find a lot more videos.
This same argument can be made of the Ancients in Stargate SG-1.
You play god either way.
Parody!Janeway: I take my worship in fetus blood and virgin fornication. Eyes and hearts if I get angry.
Excellent. ♡ T.E.N.
While I know people have problems with the reboot, I actually like their take on the prime directive in some ways. We see both why it sometimes is not worthy of your bum and why it exists. Kirk saved a primitive civilization that didn't otherwise have a chance, but we then see how destabilizing the sight of a starship is, with the natives' holy text being tossed aside after seeing a massive metal thing emerge from the waves and fly to the stars.
However we are left to assume the worst. We have nothing to indicate that this not a neutral change or a beneficial one.
Better than them being wiped out by the volcano.
Passion is not advanced....it is timeless and the same at any time... except with me it is amplified by a large factor...so it's my rules since I'm the only one that can traverse time
8:16 I dunno. Is my name Odysseus in this scenario?? If so…then maybe?
RIGHT it's true
Prime Directive? More like Prine Defective!
Although maybe it depend on your prime perspective. Maybe it’s good as long as your aren’t too prime reflective for it to be prime effective.
3:37 This is the same morra dilemma that Doctor Flox is faceing
FATBRUCELOL APPLEBEE * moral *Phlox *facing
i suck at spellling ok
Truth a menace
Logic the enemy
An interest topic, Too bad the US Government doesn't consider this.
Anyone know what Starfleet general order 7 is, without looking it up? If you have to look it up then you fail the Trek fan test.
amongst higher tier's of civilizations
universal speed varies
PD was meant to recalibrate
-- compensate --
.... till next time
----
Argument from ignorance...as stated, no one knows. ANY argument is an argument from ignorance. We would be left with 2 options:
1. Unknowable probabilities of various scenarios playing out "naturally". In the episode of TNG "symbiosis", war between the 2 planets is highly possible. Once the drugged planet recognizes its slavery and the exploitation by the other, fighting for control of the drug could be the result. The only way to ensure that doesn't happen, barring non-interference, is
2. Assuming control over the course of events
..the very thing the PD was supposed to stop: playing god with other people.
It's clear from the captains' violations and lack of punishment that the PD isn't absolute, but violation is discouraged without good reason. As Picard explains "it is a PHILOSOPHY", not dogmatic laws.
7:40 which episode it was?
PawelK198604 Time And Again, I think? Voyager S1E3
The idea behind the prime directive is to limit the federation from becoming a holier than thou empire.
Besides most of your mental exercises are covered in the prime directive.
If a planet is in trouble and asks for help from the federation then it is well within the rights of the fedration to help them.
Surely you know after many series where captains disobey the Prime Directive, they've been making a choice AFTER they've involved themselves into the situation, and the choice was already between two bad options. The idea of the Prime Directive is that explorers are not meant to play gods. Notice how all of the captains make a conscious decision to disobey the Prime Directive and make damn sure this goes to Starfleet so that, while the General Order n.1 is primarily a good idea to follow, there are known and well documented occasions where it should be disregarded.
and yet there are plenty of times they have held to it and watched or were willing to watch people die. Worf's brother had to step in a save a species from extinction because Starfleet wouldn't help.
@@KnightRaymund - Totally agree with you. Captain Picard had a perfectly "viable" alternative and chose to ignore it. Nikolai didn't. He saw the opportunity and took it.. he was doing the right thing (and just because Captain Picard didn't agree with it, Nikolai was reprimanded for his actions when he actually should have been thanked). Sometimes there are obligations that go beyond the Prime Directive.
Are you the SF Debris guy?
Star Trek & the Prime Directive has Nothing to do with religion or GOD.
Travis Broforce Richard It's exemplified in Riker's "cosmic plan" argument. You can call it Fate if God offends you, but this is just to say that this approach to the PD is to believe that your own agency comes second to a higher power.
When your argument is relying on a "cosmic plan" yeah your talking about god/a force beyond our control or understanding. The prime directive started like all religious teachings, as a set of ideas meant to help people but it warped into a sort of dogma that must be followed even if it makes no sense and literally is being used to justify complete annihilation, so id say those arguments are very valid
You're right. Religion and concepts of God typically give people a moral framework in which they can evaluate whether or not intervention is good or not. Oh, wait, that's exactly what the escalation of "nature" to the level of dogma does. I get that there's a sort of differentiation, but there's very, very much in common with religion. To say it has "nothing to do with" them is to be ignorant of what religion is like.
Mostly due to Kirk proclaiming himself to be the All-Mighty as well as the Admirals taking the god-complex to paradox-breaking levels.
You got Pholx and his view completely wrong. He was arguing from science not any kind of god. He is also right about the Neanderthal argument.
Completely wrong science. Hell, he put forward 2 conflicting ideas of evolution within the same argument it was so bad.
The Prime Directive is bullsh.
0:33 Speak for yourself , Anglo .The Hispanic Empire pioneered the Secular recognition of Human Rights to protect its new subjects and culturally incorporated them as equals while maintaining their identity .Which is why 85% of Hispanic America is Amerindian or Mestizo while only 1% of the U.S. is .
Why are you stealing SFDebris's videos and crediting them to yourself?
I'm not he's credited clearly in the info and video is unaltered.
Where do you see me claim ownership or credit? Also what other videos are you refering to?
The scene with Archer and Phlox really laid out the dilemma and brought together one species for, and one against the Prime Directive (but of course before The Federation implemented it). As a long-time ST fan, and watching a few of the series' several times now, it becomes easy to spot when the PD is either being bent or outright ignored which it supposedly shouldn't have been. Enterprise was of course pre-PD, so we'll exclude that. But Voyager used it's delta quadrant distance as an excuse to disregard it many times, but while also maintaining it per Captain's whim.
But...I happened to agree with the Captain almost every time she stuck to it. And at least the discourse was there to at least try to insert some critical thinking, because they could, because they were so far from home without having any consequences to deal with.
As an ex-idealist and modern cynic/nihilist/pessimist, it _used to be_ always easy for me to side with The Federation's rules. But as time has passed, AND we are in a much different political and social climate of shit, it's far easier for me to question and challenge a lot of ST's ideas, even though I still enjoy it as much as I ever did.
I agree with the overall assessment completely. Ditch the PD, in favor of making decisions on a case by case, well-thought-out basis. It is ridiculous to just default to the PD. As if we can determine the future in every instance. Who's to say the PD isn't fundamentally flawed in its objective. Perhaps us being in the very situation we're in is reason enough to assume we have a right to impact it, with our own moral standards and ethics. "Yes," this approach can be abused...but so definitely can simply defaulting to the PD.
Cheers.
Janeway defies it to save Neelix, but allows whole species to die. Talk about a huge double standard...
You have for the most part, Zero idea what you are talking about. Picard being assimilated by the Borg, against his will, and the Borg USING him, And his knowledge to do whatever they wanted, and Picard in no way being able to defy or rebel against them, of COURSE IS NOT PUNISHABLE! What is WRONG WITH YOU???