Go to expressvpn.com/orangeriver and find out how you can get 3 months of ExpressVPN free! And check out Trekspertise's Prime Directive video: ua-cam.com/video/17knGMdX4cU/v-deo.html
If the Prime Directive is racist, don't let me hear you complain about the ethics of AI and the potential election interference. Is our society ready for the big leap that's coming? 😅
@Dragon Smith Is this directed at me? If so, did you even watch the whole video? It doesn't seem like it. Also have no idea what the hell you're talking about with AI
I like The Orville's version of the prime directive better. Where they don't contact young civilizations unless they start sending messages into space asking if anyone's out there. Because the first ones to respond might not be friendly like the Union
Agreed. I also like The Orville's episode in season 3 where they explain to that girl why they don't try to help or share technology with civilizations and let them get to that point on their own.
I think one thing about the warp barrier being broken really isn't so much a value judgment on how mature a species is so much as that that's actually the point at which it becomes *impossible* to 'shelter' a world from finding out they aren't alone, regardless of if you wanted to. If nothing else, shortly before or after that, subspace radio tech is right there, after all.
I think it's a mistake to take every action by Starfleet to be entirely altruistic. They have the Kardasians and Klingons constantly screwing with them, the Klingons especially seeming to be culturally incompatible with intergalactic politics. Youd really want a chance to take a society that just discovered warp technology under your wing and lead them down a better intragalactic political path. I think Mass Effect actually did a better job with their "Klingon" race, the war-like people that the "Vulcan" race culled through questionably unethical eugenics. Nobody WANTED to nearly wipe them out, but they were an absolute menace, and the galaxy deeply regretted helping them achieve space travel. And they were then afraid to let humans in their ranks in case a similar thing happened.
@@skeetsmcgrew3282 That'll be kind of a different topic, really. When it comes to whether or not you should shelter a society from contact, once a world gets warp drive and the tech that comes with it, you simply *can't* shelter them at least for long even if you wanted to. Someone else'd notice em sooner rather than later anyway, and yeah, they might be less-scrupulous species anywhere from the Ferengi to the Cardassians or Orion Syndicate or whathave you.
In ST, there are several instances of species evolving a spacefaring cultural - even warp-capable - but then something happens to them and they are pushed back technologically for a time. That causes a big problem with the PD, in that they would be a species that already attained the right to be contacted - does that mean everyone needs to just ignore them moving forward?
@@marktaylor6553 I believe there's instances, like with the Baku where they didn't actually turn out to be Prime Directive-limited cause they *used* to have warp drive, just chose to stop using it. Also of course cases where someone *else* spilled the beans, maybe shared tech,
The warp drive cutoff for contacting a civilization has nothing to do with judging them as being 'savage' or 'advanced'. The idea is simply to let a civilization develop on its own for as long as reasonably possible. But once they have warp drive, contact with other species is inevitable, and the priority shifts to trying to give them a calm and controlled first contact with aliens rather than a random encounter in space.
I think another reason why the cutoff exists is that if there is any unintended harm that results from contact (e.g. Phlox's cure ends up destroying all their pollinating insects, etc), the natives have the option of leaving their home world to settle elsewhere. Civilizations without that ability are stuck with the effects and can rightly blame outside aliens who in their eyes should've known better.
The question though is who gets to define what is "reasonably possible," and what the implications of that metric are. We see many violations of the PD with the intent to save a civilization from natural disasters, but we also see it used to justify letting them die. In the end, the implication is that if those who suffer natural disasters simply had warp drive and were in proximity to the federation then the moral quandary wouldn't arise. They would simply offer aid. Thus it follows that, whatever your intent, the principle fails as a moral guide because it implies that warp capable civilizations are somehow more worthy of life-saving aid.
Ok, so here's an aspect not mentioned here that always bothered me. Quite often the prime directive was utilized solely because Star Fleet was effing around on a primitive planet literally for no reason other than academic curiosity. Before they even got into the situation they were already being unethical. Like, if you play with a loaded gun and somebody gets shot, you don't get to say "Ooops, well my moral compass says you've gotta make it to the hospital on your own." Or maybe a better analogy, you break into someone's home and live in the walls to get some sick kick. Then somebody breaks in while they are sleeping to kill them, and you say "Hey this was inevitable, not my problem." You have an entire galaxy of examples of cultures to learn from, find commonalities, etc. Do you really need to be all up in the grill of every damn intelligent species in the galaxy? If you want to leave them alone, ACTUALLY leave them the hell alone. Make a star chart that excludes certain star systems from travel unless remote monitoring suggests they are about to develop warp technology
I think the Prime Directive is important, but I don't think the attitude should exist that it should never be violated. It's more beneficial to realise that there are times when it actually SHOULD be violated, as well as there being times when it should not be; and therefore to be able to identify each of the two situations, when they occur.
Id argue the time it should be violated aren’t actually a violation. Like we should respect out friend’s boundaries and not rat them out to their parents however if they are doing something dangerous you know will hurt them is it more respectful to tell someone to protect them? If argue its not taddling to tell in such situations. Platos republic is all about such things. Justice is more a boundary than a rule. Boundaries are two way streets and can change in context hence why boundaries arent rules.
One thing I did like in the new movies was that when they broke the directive even for the best of reasons it wasnt just ignored but the beurocrats jumped on it and instantly demoted Kirk
23:05 I left this comment on the Trekspertise video, too. In a way, there IS an example within Star Trek of what you're talking about: it's in the Alternative Timeline book “Infinity’s Prism”, specifically the second of the three novellas in the book, “Places of Exile”. The fact that it’s in a book automatically makes it beta-canon; however, the story begins with events portrayed in the Voyager episode “Scorpion”, before the event that created the alternate timeline; the perspective of Chakotay perfectly matches what we see in the canon episode. Therefore, I would argue that the following excerpt from the book could ALMOST be considered canon: “I'm not convinced this is a Prime Directive situation,” Chakotay said. “These aren't the Kazon trying to steal our replicators. The Vostigye have just developed differently than we did. They were forced off their planet early by a geological cataclysm, concentrated on building artificial habitats instead of warp drive. They're behind us in some ways, but they could teach us plenty about environmental engineering & robotics.”
I think one way we can avoid talking about whether having warp drive makes a culture "civilized enough" can be avoided by instead thinking about what warp drive grants that culture: interstellar agency. Before developing warp drive or an equivalent manner of travelling to other worlds, a culture is limited to its home planet. It is easy for a starship to avoid someone from that culture and influence their internal affairs; all the agency is in the hands of the warp-capable species to visit that planet, inform them of the existence of other intelligent life, and influence their internal affairs. The responsible thing then becomes to hide your existence from them. Once a culture develops a way of actively reaching out into the rest of the galaxy, hiding your existence no longer works -- if we don't seek them out, they might still seek us out, and if they don't meet us, they'll meet somebody else who might exploit them. Starfleet is almost obliged at that point to contact the culture in order to inform them of the galactic situation that they are introducing themselves to should they use their technology to travel to the stars. This also avoids the question of whether the Prime Directive means letting a prewarp culture die out from natural calamity, war, or other disaster. The would-be Starfleet crew should still feel morally driven to help them. The drama would then be from how to save that culture without doing damage through direct, open contact (kind of like the strangest heist movie). If aliens are here and monitoring us, they probably haven't contacted us out of enlightened procrastination: they're holding off on opening relations until they have to
Excellent response. Agency of the civilization is something that critiques of the PM really never discuss. I would further clarify it as informed agency. In the "Dear Doctor" episode, Phlox's cure could conceivably have unintended consequences like wiping out pollinating insects. Even if the native civ asked for the cure, they wouldn't have responsibility for dealing with the effects since they didn't understand the tech enough to accept the cons that come might come with it. And since they can't leave and resettle on another planet (as a warp-capable civ could), they'd rightly place the blame on Starfleet.
I think that the prime directive is an excellent rule when it comes to stopping the federation from becoming an imperialistic monster, but is simultaneously a detriment to its humanitarian efforts. In the real world, the US has a tendency to justify military invasions, CIA coups of democratic governments to install dictators or military juntas (Guatemala 1954, Iran 1953, Chile 1973, etc.), bombings, drone strikes, material support to dictatorships (Suharto, Pinochet, etc.), & material support to questionable paramilitary terrorists (the contras, the mujahideen, etc.) in the name of national security, preserving our global economic hegemony, stopping the spread of communism, & even democracy. These actions betray the very ideals upon which the nation was supposedly founded though. How can we say we believe in democracy, freedom, & justice for all after doing everything in our power to support the Suharto dictatorship during their genocide in East Timor or after installing the Pinochet dictatorship so they could “disappear” leftists by the thousands? Even when we weren’t directly throwing our ideals in the trash, think of the unintended consequences decades later. The mujahideen (an Islamic extremist paramilitary organization that was fighting the Soviets during their occupation of Afghanistan) was directly funded & supplied by the USA. What did it get us? Sure, the Soviets were defeated & ruined their economy by sinking billions of rubles and tons of resources into their doomed, decade-long occupation of Afghanistan in the 80s. However, some of the mujahideen broke off & formed the Taliban. Another well known mujahideen leader, Osama bin Laden, moved to Somalia to start training his new group of fighters known as Al Qaeda… we all know what happened next. My point is: the prime direct is the thing stopping the federation from making those same kinds of errors. Undoubtedly, they looked back at human history & Vulcan history, & said “shit, well, we shouldn’t do that again.” The prime directive went too far in other areas though. Yes, it’s an essential bulwark against the looming threat of imperialism coming from within the federation itself, but they didn’t carve out the necessary exceptions for humanitarianism. If you see another species dying from a plague for example *cough* ARCHER *cough* & you have a cure for the plague, GIVE THEM THE DAMN CURE. Even if you don’t want to teach them how to manufacture it or even let them know that you’re there, you could certainly covertly disseminate it throughout the populous (e.g. Data putting the cure for radiation sickness into the drinking water of that alien, renaissance-era village). The same logic applies to stopping a super volcano from erupting, diverting giant asteroids away from inhabited planets, or whatever. Basically, I 100% support the prime directive when it comes to political & cultural matters in the interest of stopping the UFP from becoming a monstrous imperialist power (remember, the road to hell is paved w/ good intentions), but you gotta have some common sense exceptions for humanitarianism.
It's a "guideline" if it works in the Federation's favor. If it blows back in their faces or gives them a black eye, then The Law was violated and needs to be punished.
I’ve always wondered if Rule 24 was a bluff as in “back me up on this” as was the Corbormite maneuver. Also, while I am in awe of the accomplishments of Meso-Americans they used that brilliance to cut people’s hearts out. I’m willing to draw the line there.
Europeans regularly engaged in cannibalism until the 20th century, and had equally torturous methods of execution. They weren't the right people to say "hey, don't do that."
22:18 I generally agree with your opinion on warp drive as a metric but, like you point out with the Aztecs, what about something like the Iconians? To my recollection, they didn't have warp drive, yet they were one of the biggest empires in this quadrant.
I see the prime directive as a guideline; a reminder to think about the ramifications before you interact with other cultures. To realize that not everyone has the same values and that the difference between being helpful and imposing your will is very much slimmer than one might think. Remember, non-interference is not the same as non-intervention. Interference is a negative action. Intervention is a neutral one.
Intervention is what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan, We were shot at because we intervened in the intertribal wars both countries were having! Half the population in Iraq was tribal in its thinking, so we had some success. But Afghanistan was 90% tribal and so we failed. So you need to pick your conflicts carefully!
@lproth we definitely interfered in Afghanistan as nobody there asked us to invade, and there wasn't anything happening there that hadn't already been happening for centuries. The UN/NATO action in the balkans in 1998 was a better example of an intervention. The Afghanistan war started as purely a vengeance endeavor for 9/11, and then we tried to whitewash it as intervention after the fact.
The entire point of the Prime Directive is that interfering with other cultures, to ANY degree (or, to use your word, intervening) can have far-reaching and unforeseen consequences. This is why real-world researchers take pains to prevent the subjects of their research from becoming aware of their presence, because even the knowledge that one is being observed can influence one's behavior. Trying to justify breaking that rule by saying you had good intentions just means you think the philosophy that guides the entirety of the Federation is stupid and that you know better than every other human and vulcan in existence.
Thanks for another thoughtful discussion. I’m only partway through Treskpertise’s video and - due to my wonky schedule - won’t be able to finish it until later, by which time I’ll probably have forgotten what I’m thinking now, sooooo…. One thing about the warp metric that I don’t recall having been considered by either video which both do well to critique the Prime Directive (blunt and fragmented as one would expect from pulp TV) is that it is when a planet/culture achieves warp capacity is when they will inevitably encounter the more technologically advanced (on this front) planets, Federations, Empires, etc. As a result, it does make some sense to say, “well, if not now then when?” and offer them some context for what they’re about to encounter. Going from “our planet is the only one with life) to “wait, Klingons, Romulans and Borg? Oh my!” could be a real shock to the system. A destabilizing one. (See also TNG episode, First Contact - not the movie). That’s not to fully justify the PD itself or this criteria, but I do think it’s another layer that needs addressing. FC isn’t exactly a bullet-proof episode, either. I don’t think that any series that runs on the production development cycles that Trek has mostly had to contend with, is really capable of creating a thorough philosophy of any sort. Not one that’ll hold wide audiences’ attentions, anyway. So things like “47 sublaws” (I forgot the term) is a writer’s tool to say, “yeah, this isn’t consistent so let’s just say it’s more complicated than a single line of text with overly wide parameters that we are aware can be very problematic, but to get into it would kill the story’s pace and limit time for soap commercials.” None of this is at all to dismiss any of what I’ve heard discussed. I love it. And I find the problems of the Prime Directive, um, “fascinating.” One of the things I like best about Trek (at its best) is that it bothers to raise moral questions even of their own rules and norms. Thankfully, as a culture we’ve become more inclusive and thoughtful (as a whole… and I like to think) over the decades, so it’s all the more interesting to look at the older series’ through our larger lens. It’s one of those ways we learn how far we’ve come, how far we have yet to go, and to refine our delineations to be less sold on our own advancement or superiority. … I wish I had time to skim this stupid, glitchy iOS typing box but, ugh. So forgive lapses, redundancies, bloviating, accidental bad faith statements, and typos. It’s 6 am and this video sparked my first hazy thoughts of the day. Thanks again. I enjoy these immensely. Edit to add: I’ve just finished the other video, which wisely suggests communication with pre-warp being a beneficial approach. I agree. It does become much more nuanced at that point with how to reveal what and in what way that could pave the way towards fairer and more stabilized introduction to the vaster universe. Also, that video’s final off the cuff statement of “f*ck colonialism.” Amen.
This was a great idea to follow up on. It would have been good to have added the context of the man who came up with the Prime Directive, Gene L. Coon. If memory serves. I wish that Trek would delve into where the Prime Directive fails in its altruistic motivations and how the Vulcans had to deal with such issues in the past before the formation of the Federation. I do agree that there needs to be a "softening" of the interpretation of the directive.
Star Trek has always had a schizophrenic outlook when it comes to the Prime Directive. Sometimes to the point of idiocy. All throughout the story arcs, they champion the ideals of this law while at the same time trampling it into unrecognizability. From the unchecked colonization of "uninhabited" worlds, like Omicron Ceti III, in This Side of Paradise, Bringloid V, and Mariposa in Up the Long Ladder on one end of the spectrum, to worrying about the possibility of interference with life on individual single cell primitive level in Wrath of Khan. The practice is all over the map, and has no real logic to it. The most basic tenants conflict with one another from story to story. It has become more of a tool to fuel a storyline rather than an honest attempt to create an actual philosophy in which to adhere. So the debate over its morality is rendered moot. If the Federation is so doggedly worried about contamination and extermination of other embryonic civilizations, then colonization would be banned, and each adherent member would be restricted to their own world. Does anyone else see the ludicrous nature of these story arcs?
I would definitely agree with you. I would however add that a large part of the problem is that it is a product of its time and written by someone who had a very romantic and idealised idea of things that just never were.
Like that episode when they were testing the new phase-canons on some dead planet. I think it was a moon of Jupiter? Archer was worried about killing bacteria.
The real-world parallels kind of highlight the issue. In real life, people don't use the many examples of political and military intervention going badly as an argument against giving humanitarian aid. So why does Starfleet's rule against the former also restrict the latter?
One other source of looking at this is thinking about primatologists like Jane Goodall. They generally have an obverse only, never interfere when studying natural communities methodology. Interfering could lead to dependence, and would take away self determination, and possibly result in the loss of identity amongst the group.
Hello River. I agree that the Prime Directive is a bit 'too harsh', or too strictly interpreted. What is the difference between the Universe wiping out a species, and our society doing so? In the objective sense, nothing. If Star Trek's societies want to be a 'kinder and gentler' civilization, they should be MORE willing to 'interfere', not less. A strict interpretation of the Prime Directive should have caused Star Fleet to hunt down all Pakled ships and return the society to pre-warp status, and then strictly monitor their advancement.
I think that humanity exists in a "frontier zone" in our galaxy. To my thinking a frontier zone is an area of space that does not have any interstellar civilizations and should be avoided until such civilizations do exist. Coming here in almost any imaginable space craft would be like driving blindly into the Rocky Mountains. You might get lucky and find all the resources you need for your health and your car might be extremely sound but it's honestly a big risk. We don't have the infrastructure to support visitors at this time and it would take an incredible amount of logistical strength to visit an undeveloped solar system from any society that isn't millions of years old. If extraterrestrials do visit Earth I imagine that it would be a science vessel that launched from a space station in a nearby solar system, a generation ship that scouted Earth long before we existed, or a derelict ship with millennia old dead bodies inside.
Wish I could upvote this more! Very thought-provoking discussion about the nuances of the prime directive. I’ve alerted wondered how other species (outside Vulcans and eventually the UFP) such as the Klingons, Romulans, Ferebghi, Cardassians, erc. though about non-interference. This might make for an interesting episode!
Most aliens don't give a crap. Klingons, Romulans, Cardassians are fully willing to invade a world if they need to. The Ferengi are always willing to exploit the less advanced when required.
There is an episode of "It's Garry Shandling's Show" from the early 90's where Garry explains that Star Trek stole the idea of the Prime Directive from him since Garry was able to break the 4th wall in the show. It was an entertaining take on the whole thing.
The problem like anything else on TV is it's a mild inconvenience to violate sometimes and "we would let a planet die rather than violate the PD" in others depending on the needs of the story and its real life writers.
According to the TNG Writer's Guide (I did a multi-article review once about the first season guide) there are two exceptions to the Prime Directive: the safety of the ship (the part of "The Apple" everyone forgets is a good example--Vaal was the one who taught the natives how to kill and everything started because it wouldn't let the landing party leave even when they were ready to have the planet labeled "hands off") and what was in the interest of Starfleet (which is kind of self-serving when you think about it). I believe there should also be an exception when it comes to not letting innocent beings die. We don't know they won't become like the Daleks or whomever was responsible for the Borg, but we don't know that they will.
"not letting innocent beings die" sounds like a problematic exception. Do you mean individuals or species? In either case, that's what happens in a natural system. Individuals die. Species go extinct while new ones arise. It's a natural process.
Sadly good intentions rarely produces good results. Taking away peoples ability to learn from consequences parentifies them often causes regress not progress. Sadly maturity cannot be transfered, it has to be experienced. Then that experience can be built on. Plus no one thinks they are wrong or the bad guy, we have to always think we could be wrong. Granted if death tolls rise one has to pick the lesser of two evils . For example ww2 i think was a just war however no war is good or just…it still will cause horrible unintended consequences. A just war just means its better than not having it. Its like relationships, if you violate personal boundaries in another’s intimate relationships it will often destroy it. However if you respect their space and just make yourself available for help if both consent then it rarely hurts. Cases of abuse obviously changes the boundaries however its still tricky since the abused will often just find another abusive person if they dont come to leaving on their own…assuming your beliefs aboutt the abuse is correct. Usually its better to recommend a professional get involved and stay out if it outside if the relationship you already have with the person. Every time i thought i was helping in an abuse situation turned out to be codependent and i just made both lives worse. Civilizations like people have boundaries and need them to be respected as relationships develop.
Thinking about Kirk and the declaration episode, I'd like to hear your thoughts on why TOS got so bad in it's last season, which episodes do you think were good and what do you think would have happened if it wasn't cancelled, do you know much of the history of the what the writers were doing or thinking about back then? It seems weird because some of the worst episodes of TNG were adapted from the TOS continuation that never happened, so I think a possible fourth season would have been evern worse. I forget what it's called but theres a name for the failed sequel project that was replaced by the movies, maybe the next phase but maybe that's just a TNG episode.
The sequel series that was cancelled to make way for the movies was Phase II :D To my recollection, TOS Season 3 suffered from subpar scripts because Gene Roddenberry was no longer showrunner (still executive producer but not actual showrunner)
There's a problem with how to carry it out, but I think the prime directive should be treated like the North Sentinelese, and other uncontacted tribes. They know we're out here, but they don't want to talk to us. So we leave them alone, and leave it up to them to initiate contact. The problem with this is how do you let a civilization know you're out here without doing harm to them
The threshold of "do they have warp drive?" does make sense in a purely practical way. You may as well make first contact with them now, because they will make first contact themselves in whatever way they wish, with somebody. And discouraging them from exploiting vulnerable aliens who can't defend themselves is important. (BTW, I think "warp drive" isn't quite the right criterion, since we've seen some technologically advanced species that used wormholes or interstellar transporters to explore the universe.)
Yeah I always hated how it got used as an excuse to not help people, and honestly cultural development should also be more important than technological, like if a pre-warp society has eliminated homelessness and hunger and doesn't have any red flags like slavery or eugenics, then screw it, drop by and say hi, see if they need anything, help them record their culture for posterity so it doesn't get lost in the inevitable deluge of other cultures, and see what cool art and stories they have to tell.
Arent you taking away their ability to develop? I mean technology always challenges values. Are you so sure introducing new things wont cause corruption without having developed their own foundations to understand maturity with technology? To me to interfere is a major power imbalance. I could be wrong
@@darthdank1993What if the utopian pre warp planet is about to send generational or sleeper ships to Federation space? Does the Federation say "sorry, you can't enter until you have warp drive."?
@@TheMrPeteChannel I would say it would keep them from waisting time with sending out ships that would take hundred of years to arrive in systems that are already populated by the fedration.
@@ThommyofThenn Geordie mentions that due to the Prime Directive, they couldn't leave the saucer section on Veridian 3. Just a tongue in cheek response because I loved seeing the end of episode 9 a ton.
@@indieIist Veridian IV was the planet with the pre-warp civilization, not III. They had all the time in the world assuming that race even gained space flight.
Kirk ignored the Prime Directive so of course people are all ga ga over that. Picard tried to follow the rule far more strictly. It's not Starfleet's job to fly around and save everyone from a volcano or other such things. Should they get involved in every petty war to stop the killing? The USA has often gotten involved in petty wars and it has rarely turned out great for us. We didn't really need to get involved in Vietnam but we did and after a lot of deaths, a lot of money and alot of destruction we gained nothing from it.
Let's not delude ourself into thinking Vietnam was anything short of a proxy war with the Soviets. The US military didn't even try to act like they were there to aid the locals.
Pre-warp being the cut off doesn't seem racist at all. If you can leave your home system, you will come in contact with other species in time. A species can be the most technologically advanced in the galaxy, but none of that matters if they aren't going anywhere that contact can occur.
Fantastic video as always. The prime directives are noble on the surface but get ever greyer the deeper you look at the fine print. If nothing else it has given scope for some terrific stories that often have no right or wrong answer. Moving into the real world… it would have been an important point to establish the difference between equality and equity. Although you state do this, I often see it portrayed as if European/ Christian nations were the only ones to try and create an Empire. I am British and proud of it, there were many good things done in the name of Britain but there were also many bad things. Whether you are on the left or the right, too often only one of those sides gets portrayed as the truth. Never the truth in its entirety. As I said, this last part of my comment is not a criticism of you or this video. Love your work as always.
My main issue with the episode Dear Doctor is that they enforeced the Prime Directive when it didn't even exist yet! As a prequel series, I would have like to see them give the cure, only to find out a year later that the Valkians totally enslaved the Menk or worse, massacred them. Then Archer would have realized the need for non interference, thus the PD being written into law.
@@asahearts1 i don't see how your comment has anything to do with the Prime Directive. The Prime Directive has nothing to do with destroying a species, but with not interfering in their development.
There is a thorny problem, though. In societies where one group is oppressed, we must be careful about saying that the people in the society simply like it that way. Often, it's the dominant group that likes it. It can be a problem, often, for women. When they are oppressed, some groups say that these women do not see it that way. They say this is the way their culture likes it. But often, it's the MEN in the culture who like it, and we listen to them and ignore the plight of the women. I know an activist who was a former Muslim. She told some terrifying stories. Regarding the hijab, she said that the men of the society say, "You either wear it willingly, or we'll kill you and you'll wear it at your funeral. You're gonna wear it either way, so you might as well just wear it." She said that when she saw Bill Maher and Sam Harris talking about radical Islam, they were giving a voice to everything she went through, and then Ben Affleck and the people who stood behind him silenced that voice. As for why we haven't encountered alien life yet, I think the Drake equation accounts for it better than an alien prime directive.
Cogenitor is an episode about a warp capable species that really hasn't learned anything. Even ignoring the enslaved cogenitor themselves, it is heavily implied that the species had unwilling "servants". I'm with trip there. That culture is disgusting.
i don't think "undeniably" means what you think it means. however likely or unlikely, you can't predict what would have happened in a different timeline that didn't happen anymore than you can predict the future. i would deny anyone who said they could predict the future especially when it concerns human behaviour...
Gonna play Devil's Advocate here: I kind of always hated the prime directive. Like I get it. You wouldn't want to drop levels of technology onto primitive people before they're ready, but that's like never the case. It always seemed like avoiding responsibility. Shirking your obligations. It's like drunk driving and crashing a UFO into an infirmary, breaking a little kid's arm in the process, and responding with "I would literally reset your arm perfectly, and and wrap it in a special material that will heal and strengthen your arm, but you're not supposed to know about ANY of this technology..." byeeee (in Snake's voice) Maybe it's more like drunk driving a McLaren into a Pakistani Children's Hospital and... (sorry, sick sense of humor...) Again, I FULLY believe in the Prime Directive, and ultimately think, like you said, its interpretation will be different captain to captain, but overall, I think its interpretation should be much more flexible. Otherwise, you essentially get to hurt people, acknowledge that injury, avoid the responsibility, and leave with a sense of righteousness... The Prime Directive seems cruel unless you help, and why would you ever NOT help? Why allow yourself to be seen? Or remembered...
The Prime Directive in Star Trek is inconsistent over the length of the franchise because writes change its parameters to fit what ever story they want to tell.
Maybe it should be a “if___, then___” kind of scale Like “do they have warp?> no. Are they aware of intergalactic affairs? (I just rewatched insurrection recently) Yes? Ok if they are aware of the galactic community but don’t personally have the ability then they’re allowed to avoid the directive!
Dear Doctor is a great episode. The Valaki had their moment of "Prime Directive" dilemma when the Menk needed help. And without the Valaki would the Menk survive? Who knows? Perhaps without guidance the Menk are self destructive. But Earth and others have 200 years to thoroughly study the relationship between the Valaki and the Menk. Luck is a four letter word. What if an alien civilization happens upon warp drive before almost destroying themselves. What lessons have they learned about cooperation?
Very well argued. It's funny how often I find that "it's complicated" is the simplest answer I can give to a question. So few "good" questions have a simple black and white answer
The prime directive makes sense in every case except for saving a civilization from total annihilation when you can save them without even making contact. What harm is done to a society if you can stabilize their plate tectonics from orbit? A society can’t naturally progress if they’re all dead.
Someone's gotta be first. This universe we find ourselves in is very yuong from the looks of it, with trillions of years ahead of it.We may be needing to set a good example.
After World War 2 ended, and if Germany's leader wouldn't have offed himself, if Germany accepted surrender under the conditions that their leader could stay in power would we accept that? That's essentially what Japan wanted at the end of World War 2. They wanted their leader, who had sided with a horrible person, to stay their leader and they would surrender. We, obviously, wouldn't accept that and had to do something to get the Japanese government to surrender. FYI, more people were unalived and more property was destroyed by fire bombings by America, not the 2 nuclear bombs we dropped. I have watched Barefoot Gen.
The book The Ethics of Star Trek by Judith Barad is a great exploration of the ideas in this video but she uses historical examples/philosophies to explain the issues with the Prime directive (as well as plenty of other stuff in the shows!). If you haven’t heard of it already, I think you’d like it! She doesn’t condemn or advocate for the prime directive but she goes into the ideas that shape it like Aristotles virtue ethics and Prima facie/ethics of duty etc. love your work as usual! 💛🖖
Moral inaction does not equate with moral culpability. The idea that you are committing evil for choosing not to act is a postmodern moral and logical fallacy where trying to do something morally/logically good is good enough to deflect most guilt if things so off the course you meant your intervention to go. The Prime Directive exists to remind humanity that the best (most moral/logical?) subjective intentions do not necessarily lead to the best objective results. It is better to begin at non-interference so that we do not apply our cultural/species moral values on other cultures/species of whom we probably do not have a complete understanding/experience.
Saw the Trekspertise video. It was excellent. So is yours. I think I lean a little more toward your conclusions than Kiel's. It seems that the general consensus is that the Prime Directive isn't all bad, it just needs some adjustment, not eradication. It appears to have been in part founded on some genuine, reasonable, and justifiable notion and ideals of doing no harm to others and in the Star Trek Universe has probably done more good than bad. However, what I want to know, what I want to know, what I want to, is, what is, GENERAL ORDER 24!
They wanted to kill Wesley for falling on some flowers!? Hope they weren’t watching me as I used a lawn mower to trim some rosé bushes down to a much safer height of 2 inches.
Well why did they even beem down to that planet, Edo 3. They were a pre warp culture before the Federation knew about the "Orbiting Gods Space Station"
I hate the Enterprise episode where they decide it's better to let evolution take its course than save an entire species. Richard Dawkins said in one of his books (paraphrasing) how frustrating arguements against evolution are that conflate the way *nature is*... with the way human society *should be*, as does this episode. Yes, evolution is a tragic and inhumane process, but as inteligent beings capable of creating a society, we have the power and duty to do better than nothing. Doing nothing and letting nature take its course when you have the power to create a better outcome isn't a humanist moral high ground, it's the purest form of apathy and evil. If real life were like this we wouldn't care about endangered species lists or conservation, we would be a soceity of sociopaths, unwilling to lift a finger to help others.
While your points nail home, I do have to point one thing, the atomic bombing was one of two horrific options, the bombings likely killed upwards of 200,000 overall where as the other option, invading japan would of likely killed millions. See the resistance on Iwo Jima and Okinawa and how the civilians on Okinawa reacted. Another thing to add, the US involvement in the pacific theater was not an intervention, it was provoked, until pearl harbor the us was mostly isolationist, doing little more than sending war materials to the allies who where at the time under attack. Japan swung a punch and the US swung back.
The implementation of the Prime Directive is based on one's own moral compass. For lack of a better term. Let's say there is a pre-warp yet technologically sufficient society that the is currently being observed. And that society has become so divided and polarized that reconciliation is impossible due to opposing yet equally radically unhinged beliefs each side clings to. A starfleet captain could conclude "They're hopeless. Let the rabble take itself out."
In Star Trek Online, the Iconians had a prime directive, and all the 'lesser races' teamed together and blasted the Iconians into near extinction. IF the federation falls, it will probably involve the prime directive biting em on their ass.
I think the episode where Wesley fell in those flowers was particularly egregious. It should have been "Yeah we are taking him with us and we will glass this whole planet if you try to stop us." I realize it's meant to be analogous to committing a crime in another country that is not a crime in your own country. But that is why extradition is a thing, and is often a bone of significant contention. That football player that Russia arrested for having a weed pen is a good recent example.
Disagree. Remember the planet's god prevented Wesley from leaving. It's only after Picard's impassioned plea that their god allowed the transporter to finally work. Since that entity was the highest authority for that civ, there was no interference.
@@Raja1938 That feels like a writing ploy to prevent the obvious solution. Rather than address the ridiculousness of the situation they chose to force the characters to engage with the premise of the episode. Which I suppose was a pretty common tactic of Star Trek since it kinda wrote itself into a corner with their own god-like technology. Hence the very first episode cutting them down at the knees with Q.
@@skeetsmcgrew3282 What was the obvious solution? Throughout the episode, it was shown that the Enterprise was powerless against the being, was almost destroyed even. So it was either appeal for mercy or leave Wesley behind.
@@Raja1938 No, I meant the powerful being itself was the writing ploy to get around the obvious solution. The show always tried to be pretty hard science fiction, except for when it was inconvenient. I could point out a bunch of other prime-directive related problems with that whole episode, like how common it is for them to toss civilian crew members at planets without knowing common knowledge information about said planet. Maybe find out if a god controls the landscaping before you let a child play on some random planet where they could do something stupid. Or fall in love with a person from genderless society and convince them to become a woman. You know, normal Trek stuff 😂.
You could also say the Prime Directive came from U.S. inaction during WWII. Advocates of War later pointed to Pearl Harbor as a consequence of non-interference. I've heard some conservative thinkers say that if you don't interfere, you allow the problem to get big enough to blow up in your face. Personally, I feel if people NATURALLY come to a position, they are more likely to adopt that position for longer periods of time and are less resistant to the change.
Inaction during WWII? They agreed with Britain, and later the USSR that the pacific would take a backseat to the European theatre. And before the war, The US followed The Monroe doctrine. It’s own ‘non-interference treaty.’
Thank you for this fun and thoughtful video. I would definitely enjoy more like it. My wife and I have been watching through TNG lately, and I do enjoy the episodes where Picard is forced to reluctantly bend or break the PD despite his support of it in principle. I think I agree with your conclusion overall about needing a guideline, but not a hard and fast rule for these situations. God be with you out there everybody. ✝️ :)
The Prime Directive has been the Prime Suggestion since its inception. It's hard to pinpoint the worst infraction ever, but each series has many. "Pen Pals" from TNG Season 2 is one of the worst, but by no means only trip away from General Order #1. Then again, General Order #4 is don't go to Talos IV, so the entirety of the General Orders is silly to begin with.
Just once, in one of these heated debates about the Prime Directive, I'd like to see just one character (in Star Trek: Lower Decks, most likely) blurt out, "The whole point of the Prime Directive is so that Roddenberry could have a pre-existing, star-spanning civilization while at the same time postulating a plausible explanation for the Fermi Paradox - I just said the quiet part out loud, didn't I!"
Let's not forget that sometimes intervention is absolutely necessary. Nineteen thirty nine. Nazi germany. The holocaust. Sometimes you absolutely must interfere
Well I think one idea of the warp drive metric is that a society would pretty much have to apply the full force of it's resources. Every nation pitching in; scientist's, laborers, politicians. (I do admit it breaks down in a few instances lol)
The problem with the Prime Directive is that it doesn’t allow for virtue ethics. What the Prime Directive needs is a clause for dealing with humanitarian crises in a way that doesn’t require direct contact and communication with pre-warp civilizations. How difficult would it be for Dr Phlox, as an example, to leave the test results and formula on the back of a napkin at a science lab that’s just within the technological reach of a civilization. The other common problem is the “oh, we discovered a human pretending to be one of us!” Instead of all the subterfuge, the Prime Directive needs a clause for saying “let’s say we are aliens, and we came in so few numbers and so unarmed so as not to misconstrue our purposes as anything except anthropological research.”
That still doesn't address Phlox's point in the episode about the neanderthals. Starfleet can't go around the galaxy trying to save every species, so if it were to do so selectively, what would be the threshold? Dinosaurs no, but dolphins yes? Species arise and either adapt or fall as an environment changes. And if Phlox's cure has some unforeseen consequence years or centuries down the line, wouldn't Starfleet be responsible? The native inhabitants didn't understand the science enough to make the informed decision to implement it.
Let's explore the Galaxy and even contact pre-warp societies by "active observation"... So we can refuse to help them with our two miraculous technologies (warp and replicators). Star Trek in a nutshell.
How can the Prime Directive be 'racist' when one of its main functions is to protect 'different' cultures from interference by holier than thou Federation types? It's literally saying 'sometimes we can't help but feel that we know better, even though we don't, and people different from us should be allowed to go about their business'. It's one of the least racist ideas I can think of.
Perhaps all our most ethical decisions should be based more on the potential of the present rather than that of the past. Because the preference to avoid historical dangers can also beg the question: How far is too far? The Prime Directive may be a very important law in the real universe and for good reasons. Though nowadays I personally prefer how an Ancient Aliens episode addresses the subject rather than a Star Trek episode.
Interesting video and topic. My take away is that interference in non-warp cultures by The Federation via Starfleet is a philosophy that is necessary, to safe guard those societies from destroying themselves, or others. This is why it is difficult for Starfleet officers and ships to stand by when they could save a society from a natural or cosmic disaster. By saving them (and they're aware of it), this could alter their development and lead to more harm, than not interfering - because they haven't invented the technology themselves, and therefore, have not had the time to discuss it as a society and how it should be used, had time to think about the implications of it. I agree with that philosophy. I also agree it should some times be ignored, but those actions are serious and need to be reviewed, some times after the fact, but it's a rule that should make sense. Look at us now, with artificial intelligence, we have come up with it ourselves and we STILL, aren't confident we're ready to have this power.
I genuinely hate the prime directive. Yes, it's important to ensure that star fleet officers aren't playing god. But at the same time, having the technology to save a species from being wiped out in the name of preserving the natural order of things is a kind of cold indifference that I don't think works well with all the other ideals that Star Trek espouses.
Plus it'd be so cool to go to a less advanced society and mess with them. Beam on-stage during big concerts or buzz music festivals in a shuttle and do main street burnouts in those all terrain space buggies. Go in to an outlaw biker bar with Data and pick a fight. The Prime directive is a massive buzz-kill.
Chosing to not act is just as much a choice as acting, watching as civilizations die is not only abhorrent, it is cowardly and go against everything Starfleet is supposed to stand for.
The thing with the likelihood of real life extraterrestrials, it is extremely likely that they exist. But it is also extremely likely that they have no idea we exist. Yes, we've been broadcasting into space for a fairly long time, but those signals have not actually traveled as far as people think. Due to the lack of subspace transmitters in reality, our messages are limited to traveling at the speed of light. Meaning they have only reached about 50 light years. In Star Trek, the planet Vulcan was said to be approximately 16 light years from earth, which made them our closest neighbors, and explains why they were the ones that found us first. In reality, the likelihood of an alien species living that close and not being detected at all, even just by radio signal is quite low.
I wouldn't say the Prime Directive is racist in the traditional sense of the word, but I would say it's got a very human-centric worldview. Humanity got their act together when they achieved warp travel so they're viewing the galaxy through that lens. Though overall, I think it's for the best of the galaxy.
I think the Prime Directive has provided the Star Trek franchises with a way of talking about the ups and downs of resource extraction without talking about resource extraction.
That’s exactly what it is oversimplified but it is also us as a society using entertainment to hash out the principals so when we are eventually if ever in that situation we already had years if not centuries of thought into it. However, Star Trek has never been shy of tackling 20th and 21st century geopolitics in its shows.
@@GT500Shlby We have already been in that situation. It's an allegory for how western civilizations taint primitive ones, bringing them technology and problems they aren't cognitively prepared to handle, which leads to them experiencing depression and war they otherwise wouldn't have had.
If every captain interfered with every civilization what would be the result there has to be some restraint but at the same time needs to be some level of flexibility the moral standards of star-fleet is sometimes the victim of bad writing
Go to expressvpn.com/orangeriver and find out how you can get 3 months of ExpressVPN free!
And check out Trekspertise's Prime Directive video: ua-cam.com/video/17knGMdX4cU/v-deo.html
🙂🙂🙂🙂
🙃
i think the real issue is that it assumes teleology, that there is some temporal progression towards some ends
If the Prime Directive is racist, don't let me hear you complain about the ethics of AI and the potential election interference. Is our society ready for the big leap that's coming? 😅
@Dragon Smith Is this directed at me? If so, did you even watch the whole video? It doesn't seem like it. Also have no idea what the hell you're talking about with AI
@@OrangeRiver i cant see his dumb comment, would you care to un-enlighten me? :p
I like The Orville's version of the prime directive better. Where they don't contact young civilizations unless they start sending messages into space asking if anyone's out there. Because the first ones to respond might not be friendly like the Union
Agreed. I also like The Orville's episode in season 3 where they explain to that girl why they don't try to help or share technology with civilizations and let them get to that point on their own.
The Orville really needs to come back for another series I really like that show..
I think one thing about the warp barrier being broken really isn't so much a value judgment on how mature a species is so much as that that's actually the point at which it becomes *impossible* to 'shelter' a world from finding out they aren't alone, regardless of if you wanted to. If nothing else, shortly before or after that, subspace radio tech is right there, after all.
I think it's a mistake to take every action by Starfleet to be entirely altruistic. They have the Kardasians and Klingons constantly screwing with them, the Klingons especially seeming to be culturally incompatible with intergalactic politics. Youd really want a chance to take a society that just discovered warp technology under your wing and lead them down a better intragalactic political path.
I think Mass Effect actually did a better job with their "Klingon" race, the war-like people that the "Vulcan" race culled through questionably unethical eugenics. Nobody WANTED to nearly wipe them out, but they were an absolute menace, and the galaxy deeply regretted helping them achieve space travel. And they were then afraid to let humans in their ranks in case a similar thing happened.
@@skeetsmcgrew3282 That'll be kind of a different topic, really. When it comes to whether or not you should shelter a society from contact, once a world gets warp drive and the tech that comes with it, you simply *can't* shelter them at least for long even if you wanted to.
Someone else'd notice em sooner rather than later anyway, and yeah, they might be less-scrupulous species anywhere from the Ferengi to the Cardassians or Orion Syndicate or whathave you.
@@skeetsmcgrew3282 And screw diversity which the federation thrives with.
In ST, there are several instances of species evolving a spacefaring cultural - even warp-capable - but then something happens to them and they are pushed back technologically for a time. That causes a big problem with the PD, in that they would be a species that already attained the right to be contacted - does that mean everyone needs to just ignore them moving forward?
@@marktaylor6553 I believe there's instances, like with the Baku where they didn't actually turn out to be Prime Directive-limited cause they *used* to have warp drive, just chose to stop using it.
Also of course cases where someone *else* spilled the beans, maybe shared tech,
The warp drive cutoff for contacting a civilization has nothing to do with judging them as being 'savage' or 'advanced'. The idea is simply to let a civilization develop on its own for as long as reasonably possible. But once they have warp drive, contact with other species is inevitable, and the priority shifts to trying to give them a calm and controlled first contact with aliens rather than a random encounter in space.
I agree
I think another reason why the cutoff exists is that if there is any unintended harm that results from contact (e.g. Phlox's cure ends up destroying all their pollinating insects, etc), the natives have the option of leaving their home world to settle elsewhere. Civilizations without that ability are stuck with the effects and can rightly blame outside aliens who in their eyes should've known better.
still bullshit.
@@TheCastellanwhy?
The question though is who gets to define what is "reasonably possible," and what the implications of that metric are. We see many violations of the PD with the intent to save a civilization from natural disasters, but we also see it used to justify letting them die. In the end, the implication is that if those who suffer natural disasters simply had warp drive and were in proximity to the federation then the moral quandary wouldn't arise. They would simply offer aid. Thus it follows that, whatever your intent, the principle fails as a moral guide because it implies that warp capable civilizations are somehow more worthy of life-saving aid.
Ok, so here's an aspect not mentioned here that always bothered me. Quite often the prime directive was utilized solely because Star Fleet was effing around on a primitive planet literally for no reason other than academic curiosity. Before they even got into the situation they were already being unethical. Like, if you play with a loaded gun and somebody gets shot, you don't get to say "Ooops, well my moral compass says you've gotta make it to the hospital on your own." Or maybe a better analogy, you break into someone's home and live in the walls to get some sick kick. Then somebody breaks in while they are sleeping to kill them, and you say "Hey this was inevitable, not my problem."
You have an entire galaxy of examples of cultures to learn from, find commonalities, etc. Do you really need to be all up in the grill of every damn intelligent species in the galaxy? If you want to leave them alone, ACTUALLY leave them the hell alone. Make a star chart that excludes certain star systems from travel unless remote monitoring suggests they are about to develop warp technology
I think the Prime Directive is important, but I don't think the attitude should exist that it should never be violated. It's more beneficial to realise that there are times when it actually SHOULD be violated, as well as there being times when it should not be; and therefore to be able to identify each of the two situations, when they occur.
Id argue the time it should be violated aren’t actually a violation. Like we should respect out friend’s boundaries and not rat them out to their parents however if they are doing something dangerous you know will hurt them is it more respectful to tell someone to protect them? If argue its not taddling to tell in such situations. Platos republic is all about such things. Justice is more a boundary than a rule. Boundaries are two way streets and can change in context hence why boundaries arent rules.
@@darthdank1993 Agreed. Discretion is important.
One thing I did like in the new movies was that when they broke the directive even for the best of reasons it wasnt just ignored but the beurocrats jumped on it and instantly demoted Kirk
I see the Prime Directive as more like guidelines than the actual rule.
Well spoken barbosa!
23:05 I left this comment on the Trekspertise video, too.
In a way, there IS an example within Star Trek of what you're talking about: it's in the Alternative Timeline book “Infinity’s Prism”, specifically the second of the three novellas in the book, “Places of Exile”. The fact that it’s in a book automatically makes it beta-canon; however, the story begins with events portrayed in the Voyager episode “Scorpion”, before the event that created the alternate timeline; the perspective of Chakotay perfectly matches what we see in the canon episode. Therefore, I would argue that the following excerpt from the book could ALMOST be considered canon:
“I'm not convinced this is a Prime Directive situation,” Chakotay said. “These aren't the Kazon trying to steal our replicators. The Vostigye have just developed differently than we did. They were forced off their planet early by a geological cataclysm, concentrated on building artificial habitats instead of warp drive. They're behind us in some ways, but they could teach us plenty about environmental engineering & robotics.”
I think one way we can avoid talking about whether having warp drive makes a culture "civilized enough" can be avoided by instead thinking about what warp drive grants that culture: interstellar agency.
Before developing warp drive or an equivalent manner of travelling to other worlds, a culture is limited to its home planet. It is easy for a starship to avoid someone from that culture and influence their internal affairs; all the agency is in the hands of the warp-capable species to visit that planet, inform them of the existence of other intelligent life, and influence their internal affairs. The responsible thing then becomes to hide your existence from them. Once a culture develops a way of actively reaching out into the rest of the galaxy, hiding your existence no longer works -- if we don't seek them out, they might still seek us out, and if they don't meet us, they'll meet somebody else who might exploit them.
Starfleet is almost obliged at that point to contact the culture in order to inform them of the galactic situation that they are introducing themselves to should they use their technology to travel to the stars.
This also avoids the question of whether the Prime Directive means letting a prewarp culture die out from natural calamity, war, or other disaster. The would-be Starfleet crew should still feel morally driven to help them. The drama would then be from how to save that culture without doing damage through direct, open contact (kind of like the strangest heist movie).
If aliens are here and monitoring us, they probably haven't contacted us out of enlightened procrastination: they're holding off on opening relations until they have to
Excellent response. Agency of the civilization is something that critiques of the PM really never discuss. I would further clarify it as informed agency. In the "Dear Doctor" episode, Phlox's cure could conceivably have unintended consequences like wiping out pollinating insects. Even if the native civ asked for the cure, they wouldn't have responsibility for dealing with the effects since they didn't understand the tech enough to accept the cons that come might come with it. And since they can't leave and resettle on another planet (as a warp-capable civ could), they'd rightly place the blame on Starfleet.
I think that the prime directive is an excellent rule when it comes to stopping the federation from becoming an imperialistic monster, but is simultaneously a detriment to its humanitarian efforts. In the real world, the US has a tendency to justify military invasions, CIA coups of democratic governments to install dictators or military juntas (Guatemala 1954, Iran 1953, Chile 1973, etc.), bombings, drone strikes, material support to dictatorships (Suharto, Pinochet, etc.), & material support to questionable paramilitary terrorists (the contras, the mujahideen, etc.) in the name of national security, preserving our global economic hegemony, stopping the spread of communism, & even democracy. These actions betray the very ideals upon which the nation was supposedly founded though. How can we say we believe in democracy, freedom, & justice for all after doing everything in our power to support the Suharto dictatorship during their genocide in East Timor or after installing the Pinochet dictatorship so they could “disappear” leftists by the thousands? Even when we weren’t directly throwing our ideals in the trash, think of the unintended consequences decades later. The mujahideen (an Islamic extremist paramilitary organization that was fighting the Soviets during their occupation of Afghanistan) was directly funded & supplied by the USA. What did it get us? Sure, the Soviets were defeated & ruined their economy by sinking billions of rubles and tons of resources into their doomed, decade-long occupation of Afghanistan in the 80s. However, some of the mujahideen broke off & formed the Taliban. Another well known mujahideen leader, Osama bin Laden, moved to Somalia to start training his new group of fighters known as Al Qaeda… we all know what happened next. My point is: the prime direct is the thing stopping the federation from making those same kinds of errors. Undoubtedly, they looked back at human history & Vulcan history, & said “shit, well, we shouldn’t do that again.” The prime directive went too far in other areas though. Yes, it’s an essential bulwark against the looming threat of imperialism coming from within the federation itself, but they didn’t carve out the necessary exceptions for humanitarianism. If you see another species dying from a plague for example *cough* ARCHER *cough* & you have a cure for the plague, GIVE THEM THE DAMN CURE. Even if you don’t want to teach them how to manufacture it or even let them know that you’re there, you could certainly covertly disseminate it throughout the populous (e.g. Data putting the cure for radiation sickness into the drinking water of that alien, renaissance-era village). The same logic applies to stopping a super volcano from erupting, diverting giant asteroids away from inhabited planets, or whatever. Basically, I 100% support the prime directive when it comes to political & cultural matters in the interest of stopping the UFP from becoming a monstrous imperialist power (remember, the road to hell is paved w/ good intentions), but you gotta have some common sense exceptions for humanitarianism.
it's like all good ideas, they are well intentioned in principle but if they get in the way, it's considered a guideline, much like "the code"
It's a "guideline" if it works in the Federation's favor. If it blows back in their faces or gives them a black eye, then The Law was violated and needs to be punished.
I’ve always wondered if Rule 24 was a bluff as in “back me up on this” as was the Corbormite maneuver. Also, while I am in awe of the accomplishments of Meso-Americans they used that brilliance to cut people’s hearts out. I’m willing to draw the line there.
Europeans regularly engaged in cannibalism until the 20th century, and had equally torturous methods of execution.
They weren't the right people to say "hey, don't do that."
I was like “wait, Star Trek has Exterminatus???” 😂
22:18 I generally agree with your opinion on warp drive as a metric but, like you point out with the Aztecs, what about something like the Iconians? To my recollection, they didn't have warp drive, yet they were one of the biggest empires in this quadrant.
The prime directive is one of those rules which shows us why context is king and why rules need to be flexible.
I see the prime directive as a guideline; a reminder to think about the ramifications before you interact with other cultures. To realize that not everyone has the same values and that the difference between being helpful and imposing your will is very much slimmer than one might think. Remember, non-interference is not the same as non-intervention. Interference is a negative action. Intervention is a neutral one.
Holding to the "spirit" of the Prime Directive is inexorably more important (and realistic) than an absolute application of it's precepts. 👍
Intervention is what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan, We were shot at because we intervened in the intertribal wars both countries were having! Half the population in Iraq was tribal in its thinking, so we had some success. But Afghanistan was 90% tribal and so we failed. So you need to pick your conflicts carefully!
@lproth we definitely interfered in Afghanistan as nobody there asked us to invade, and there wasn't anything happening there that hadn't already been happening for centuries. The UN/NATO action in the balkans in 1998 was a better example of an intervention. The Afghanistan war started as purely a vengeance endeavor for 9/11, and then we tried to whitewash it as intervention after the fact.
@@lprothYou had mercenaries committing war crimes, torture prisons and invaded on false premises. Don't pretend any of it was benevolent.
The entire point of the Prime Directive is that interfering with other cultures, to ANY degree (or, to use your word, intervening) can have far-reaching and unforeseen consequences. This is why real-world researchers take pains to prevent the subjects of their research from becoming aware of their presence, because even the knowledge that one is being observed can influence one's behavior. Trying to justify breaking that rule by saying you had good intentions just means you think the philosophy that guides the entirety of the Federation is stupid and that you know better than every other human and vulcan in existence.
Thanks for another thoughtful discussion. I’m only partway through Treskpertise’s video and - due to my wonky schedule - won’t be able to finish it until later, by which time I’ll probably have forgotten what I’m thinking now, sooooo….
One thing about the warp metric that I don’t recall having been considered by either video which both do well to critique the Prime Directive (blunt and fragmented as one would expect from pulp TV) is that it is when a planet/culture achieves warp capacity is when they will inevitably encounter the more technologically advanced (on this front) planets, Federations, Empires, etc.
As a result, it does make some sense to say, “well, if not now then when?” and offer them some context for what they’re about to encounter. Going from “our planet is the only one with life) to “wait, Klingons, Romulans and Borg? Oh my!” could be a real shock to the system. A destabilizing one. (See also TNG episode, First Contact - not the movie).
That’s not to fully justify the PD itself or this criteria, but I do think it’s another layer that needs addressing. FC isn’t exactly a bullet-proof episode, either. I don’t think that any series that runs on the production development cycles that Trek has mostly had to contend with, is really capable of creating a thorough philosophy of any sort. Not one that’ll hold wide audiences’ attentions, anyway. So things like “47 sublaws” (I forgot the term) is a writer’s tool to say, “yeah, this isn’t consistent so let’s just say it’s more complicated than a single line of text with overly wide parameters that we are aware can be very problematic, but to get into it would kill the story’s pace and limit time for soap commercials.”
None of this is at all to dismiss any of what I’ve heard discussed. I love it. And I find the problems of the Prime Directive, um, “fascinating.” One of the things I like best about Trek (at its best) is that it bothers to raise moral questions even of their own rules and norms. Thankfully, as a culture we’ve become more inclusive and thoughtful (as a whole… and I like to think) over the decades, so it’s all the more interesting to look at the older series’ through our larger lens. It’s one of those ways we learn how far we’ve come, how far we have yet to go, and to refine our delineations to be less sold on our own advancement or superiority.
… I wish I had time to skim this stupid, glitchy iOS typing box but, ugh. So forgive lapses, redundancies, bloviating, accidental bad faith statements, and typos. It’s 6 am and this video sparked my first hazy thoughts of the day.
Thanks again. I enjoy these immensely.
Edit to add: I’ve just finished the other video, which wisely suggests communication with pre-warp being a beneficial approach. I agree. It does become much more nuanced at that point with how to reveal what and in what way that could pave the way towards fairer and more stabilized introduction to the vaster universe.
Also, that video’s final off the cuff statement of “f*ck colonialism.” Amen.
This was a great idea to follow up on. It would have been good to have added the context of the man who came up with the Prime Directive, Gene L. Coon. If memory serves. I wish that Trek would delve into where the Prime Directive fails in its altruistic motivations and how the Vulcans had to deal with such issues in the past before the formation of the Federation. I do agree that there needs to be a "softening" of the interpretation of the directive.
Star Trek has always had a schizophrenic outlook when it comes to the Prime Directive. Sometimes to the point of idiocy. All throughout the story arcs, they champion the ideals of this law while at the same time trampling it into unrecognizability. From the unchecked colonization of "uninhabited" worlds, like Omicron Ceti III, in This Side of Paradise, Bringloid V, and Mariposa in Up the Long Ladder on one end of the spectrum, to worrying about the possibility of interference with life on individual single cell primitive level in Wrath of Khan. The practice is all over the map, and has no real logic to it. The most basic tenants conflict with one another from story to story. It has become more of a tool to fuel a storyline rather than an honest attempt to create an actual philosophy in which to adhere. So the debate over its morality is rendered moot. If the Federation is so doggedly worried about contamination and extermination of other embryonic civilizations, then colonization would be banned, and each adherent member would be restricted to their own world. Does anyone else see the ludicrous nature of these story arcs?
I would definitely agree with you. I would however add that a large part of the problem is that it is a product of its time and written by someone who had a very romantic and idealised idea of things that just never were.
Imagine the star fleet landing on a planet making the aliens sick with their occultism and numbers like 777
Like that episode when they were testing the new phase-canons on some dead planet. I think it was a moon of Jupiter? Archer was worried about killing bacteria.
I like how your videos are not just all about star trek and bring in real world issues as well.
Thank you! I'm glad people appreciate that. Talking about in-universe lore is fun, but I always want to add something to the conversation.
@subraxas People can go read the wikis ;)
Btw, this wasn't meant to be condescending to anyone--it's just that, like I said, I like to add things to the conversation ;)
The real-world parallels kind of highlight the issue. In real life, people don't use the many examples of political and military intervention going badly as an argument against giving humanitarian aid. So why does Starfleet's rule against the former also restrict the latter?
"Dear Doctor" is one reason why Phlox is probably my favourite Doctor character in Star Trek.
One other source of looking at this is thinking about primatologists like Jane Goodall. They generally have an obverse only, never interfere when studying natural communities methodology. Interfering could lead to dependence, and would take away self determination, and possibly result in the loss of identity amongst the group.
Hello River.
I agree that the Prime Directive is a bit 'too harsh', or too strictly interpreted.
What is the difference between the Universe wiping out a species, and our society doing so? In the objective sense, nothing.
If Star Trek's societies want to be a 'kinder and gentler' civilization, they should be MORE willing to 'interfere', not less.
A strict interpretation of the Prime Directive should have caused Star Fleet to hunt down all Pakled ships and return the society to pre-warp status, and then strictly monitor their advancement.
Once a species encounters another warp society & gets "contaminated " the Federation can "talk" to them. Like the Bajorans
I think that humanity exists in a "frontier zone" in our galaxy. To my thinking a frontier zone is an area of space that does not have any interstellar civilizations and should be avoided until such civilizations do exist. Coming here in almost any imaginable space craft would be like driving blindly into the Rocky Mountains. You might get lucky and find all the resources you need for your health and your car might be extremely sound but it's honestly a big risk. We don't have the infrastructure to support visitors at this time and it would take an incredible amount of logistical strength to visit an undeveloped solar system from any society that isn't millions of years old. If extraterrestrials do visit Earth I imagine that it would be a science vessel that launched from a space station in a nearby solar system, a generation ship that scouted Earth long before we existed, or a derelict ship with millennia old dead bodies inside.
Its Prime Selective...not Prime Directive based on behaviours of all Captains and most admirals we've seen 😂
"A Cuchi Moya, I am significantly closer to the bones of my ancestors then I once was, yet still to far to just go walk there"
I really think The Orville hit home why you need a policy of non-interference better then any Star Trek episode.
Wasn't that a great episode?
Yeah, thankfully, it had decades of Star Trek episodes to make the perfect episode 😂. But, on a serious note they did a great job.
Oh my god! Just came here to say this. :-)
Im a Orville noob, wich episode is it and can I watch it without context?
From what little I've seen of it, The Orville seems like its more in line with the spirit of TOS (albeit as a crude comedy) than most modern Trek.
Wish I could upvote this more! Very thought-provoking discussion about the nuances of the prime directive. I’ve alerted wondered how other species (outside Vulcans and eventually the UFP) such as the Klingons, Romulans, Ferebghi, Cardassians, erc. though about non-interference. This might make for an interesting episode!
Most aliens don't give a crap. Klingons, Romulans, Cardassians are fully willing to invade a world if they need to. The Ferengi are always willing to exploit the less advanced when required.
It would be interesting to have a round table discussion between different trek UA-camrs on this topic
I'm in! Let me know when.
There is an episode of "It's Garry Shandling's Show" from the early 90's where Garry explains that Star Trek stole the idea of the Prime Directive from him since Garry was able to break the 4th wall in the show. It was an entertaining take on the whole thing.
The problem like anything else on TV is it's a mild inconvenience to violate sometimes and "we would let a planet die rather than violate the PD" in others depending on the needs of the story and its real life writers.
According to the TNG Writer's Guide (I did a multi-article review once about the first season guide) there are two exceptions to the Prime Directive: the safety of the ship (the part of "The Apple" everyone forgets is a good example--Vaal was the one who taught the natives how to kill and everything started because it wouldn't let the landing party leave even when they were ready to have the planet labeled "hands off") and what was in the interest of Starfleet (which is kind of self-serving when you think about it). I believe there should also be an exception when it comes to not letting innocent beings die. We don't know they won't become like the Daleks or whomever was responsible for the Borg, but we don't know that they will.
"not letting innocent beings die" sounds like a problematic exception. Do you mean individuals or species? In either case, that's what happens in a natural system. Individuals die. Species go extinct while new ones arise. It's a natural process.
Sadly good intentions rarely produces good results. Taking away peoples ability to learn from consequences parentifies them often causes regress not progress. Sadly maturity cannot be transfered, it has to be experienced. Then that experience can be built on. Plus no one thinks they are wrong or the bad guy, we have to always think we could be wrong. Granted if death tolls rise one has to pick the lesser of two evils . For example ww2 i think was a just war however no war is good or just…it still will cause horrible unintended consequences. A just war just means its better than not having it. Its like relationships, if you violate personal boundaries in another’s intimate relationships it will often destroy it. However if you respect their space and just make yourself available for help if both consent then it rarely hurts. Cases of abuse obviously changes the boundaries however its still tricky since the abused will often just find another abusive person if they dont come to leaving on their own…assuming your beliefs aboutt the abuse is correct. Usually its better to recommend a professional get involved and stay out if it outside if the relationship you already have with the person. Every time i thought i was helping in an abuse situation turned out to be codependent and i just made both lives worse. Civilizations like people have boundaries and need them to be respected as relationships develop.
Thinking about Kirk and the declaration episode, I'd like to hear your thoughts on why TOS got so bad in it's last season, which episodes do you think were good and what do you think would have happened if it wasn't cancelled, do you know much of the history of the what the writers were doing or thinking about back then? It seems weird because some of the worst episodes of TNG were adapted from the TOS continuation that never happened, so I think a possible fourth season would have been evern worse. I forget what it's called but theres a name for the failed sequel project that was replaced by the movies, maybe the next phase but maybe that's just a TNG episode.
The sequel series that was cancelled to make way for the movies was Phase II :D
To my recollection, TOS Season 3 suffered from subpar scripts because Gene Roddenberry was no longer showrunner (still executive producer but not actual showrunner)
@@OrangeRiver honestly I would've loved to have Phase II being in between the original series and the motion picture.
There's a problem with how to carry it out, but I think the prime directive should be treated like the North Sentinelese, and other uncontacted tribes. They know we're out here, but they don't want to talk to us. So we leave them alone, and leave it up to them to initiate contact.
The problem with this is how do you let a civilization know you're out here without doing harm to them
Drop a bit of plutonium into your star and their astrophysicists will come calling.
The threshold of "do they have warp drive?" does make sense in a purely practical way. You may as well make first contact with them now, because they will make first contact themselves in whatever way they wish, with somebody. And discouraging them from exploiting vulnerable aliens who can't defend themselves is important. (BTW, I think "warp drive" isn't quite the right criterion, since we've seen some technologically advanced species that used wormholes or interstellar transporters to explore the universe.)
Yeah I always hated how it got used as an excuse to not help people, and honestly cultural development should also be more important than technological, like if a pre-warp society has eliminated homelessness and hunger and doesn't have any red flags like slavery or eugenics, then screw it, drop by and say hi, see if they need anything, help them record their culture for posterity so it doesn't get lost in the inevitable deluge of other cultures, and see what cool art and stories they have to tell.
Arent you taking away their ability to develop? I mean technology always challenges values. Are you so sure introducing new things wont cause corruption without having developed their own foundations to understand maturity with technology? To me to interfere is a major power imbalance. I could be wrong
@@darthdank1993What if the utopian pre warp planet is about to send generational or sleeper ships to Federation space? Does the Federation say "sorry, you can't enter until you have warp drive."?
@@TheMrPeteChannel I would say it would keep them from waisting time with sending out ships that would take hundred of years to arrive in systems that are already populated by the fedration.
The PD in the 23rd century was treated like a set of guidelines.
By the 24th century it was treated more like unwavering dogma
Janeway “prime directive?? What’s that?’’
The Prime Directive made it possible for Picard Season 3's best moment yet.
@@ThommyofThenn Geordie mentions that due to the Prime Directive, they couldn't leave the saucer section on Veridian 3. Just a tongue in cheek response because I loved seeing the end of episode 9 a ton.
No shit you got me bruh. Deep cut hehe
Agreed!!!
@@indieIist Veridian IV was the planet with the pre-warp civilization, not III. They had all the time in the world assuming that race even gained space flight.
@@ThommyofThenn I'm not sure if they're going to do that, since Geordi was **restoring** the ship and not retrofitting it
Kirk ignored the Prime Directive so of course people are all ga ga over that. Picard tried to follow the rule far more strictly. It's not Starfleet's job to fly around and save everyone from a volcano or other such things. Should they get involved in every petty war to stop the killing? The USA has often gotten involved in petty wars and it has rarely turned out great for us. We didn't really need to get involved in Vietnam but we did and after a lot of deaths, a lot of money and alot of destruction we gained nothing from it.
Let's not delude ourself into thinking Vietnam was anything short of a proxy war with the Soviets.
The US military didn't even try to act like they were there to aid the locals.
Nobody brings up the Ferengi bought warp drive and instantly became a thorn for Starfleet
they purchased WD long before the PD law was passed.
I'm excited to see you with a sponsor! One of my favorite channels and success is a long hard fought battle.
Thanks Matt!
I think it’s better a a “general rule” than a “general order”.
Adventure Time episode called 'The Box Prince' is an example of how the Prime directive would have helped 😅
Pre-warp being the cut off doesn't seem racist at all. If you can leave your home system, you will come in contact with other species in time. A species can be the most technologically advanced in the galaxy, but none of that matters if they aren't going anywhere that contact can occur.
I agree
Fantastic video as always. The prime directives are noble on the surface but get ever greyer the deeper you look at the fine print. If nothing else it has given scope for some terrific stories that often have no right or wrong answer. Moving into the real world… it would have been an important point to establish the difference between equality and equity. Although you state do this, I often see it portrayed as if European/ Christian nations were the only ones to try and create an Empire. I am British and proud of it, there were many good things done in the name of Britain but there were also many bad things. Whether you are on the left or the right, too often only one of those sides gets portrayed as the truth. Never the truth in its entirety. As I said, this last part of my comment is not a criticism of you or this video. Love your work as always.
Glad you enjoyed it James!
My main issue with the episode Dear Doctor is that they enforeced the Prime Directive when it didn't even exist yet! As a prequel series, I would have like to see them give the cure, only to find out a year later that the Valkians totally enslaved the Menk or worse, massacred them. Then Archer would have realized the need for non interference, thus the PD being written into law.
@@asahearts1 i don't see how your comment has anything to do with the Prime Directive. The Prime Directive has nothing to do with destroying a species, but with not interfering in their development.
@@asahearts1 if that is what you mean then I agree with you. Sorry for misunderstanding.
There is a thorny problem, though. In societies where one group is oppressed, we must be careful about saying that the people in the society simply like it that way. Often, it's the dominant group that likes it. It can be a problem, often, for women. When they are oppressed, some groups say that these women do not see it that way. They say this is the way their culture likes it. But often, it's the MEN in the culture who like it, and we listen to them and ignore the plight of the women.
I know an activist who was a former Muslim. She told some terrifying stories. Regarding the hijab, she said that the men of the society say, "You either wear it willingly, or we'll kill you and you'll wear it at your funeral. You're gonna wear it either way, so you might as well just wear it." She said that when she saw Bill Maher and Sam Harris talking about radical Islam, they were giving a voice to everything she went through, and then Ben Affleck and the people who stood behind him silenced that voice.
As for why we haven't encountered alien life yet, I think the Drake equation accounts for it better than an alien prime directive.
Cogenitor is an episode about a warp capable species that really hasn't learned anything. Even ignoring the enslaved cogenitor themselves, it is heavily implied that the species had unwilling "servants".
I'm with trip there. That culture is disgusting.
i don't think "undeniably" means what you think it means. however likely or unlikely, you can't predict what would have happened in a different timeline that didn't happen anymore than you can predict the future. i would deny anyone who said they could predict the future especially when it concerns human behaviour...
Excellent analysis. The upshot for me is well chosen captains know when to break the rules in order change them for the better.
Gonna play Devil's Advocate here:
I kind of always hated the prime directive. Like I get it. You wouldn't want to drop levels of technology onto primitive people before they're ready, but that's like never the case. It always seemed like avoiding responsibility. Shirking your obligations. It's like drunk driving and crashing a UFO into an infirmary, breaking a little kid's arm in the process, and responding with "I would literally reset your arm perfectly, and and wrap it in a special material that will heal and strengthen your arm, but you're not supposed to know about ANY of this technology..." byeeee (in Snake's voice) Maybe it's more like drunk driving a McLaren into a Pakistani Children's Hospital and... (sorry, sick sense of humor...)
Again, I FULLY believe in the Prime Directive, and ultimately think, like you said, its interpretation will be different captain to captain, but overall, I think its interpretation should be much more flexible. Otherwise, you essentially get to hurt people, acknowledge that injury, avoid the responsibility, and leave with a sense of righteousness... The Prime Directive seems cruel unless you help, and why would you ever NOT help? Why allow yourself to be seen? Or remembered...
The Prime Directive in Star Trek is inconsistent over the length of the franchise because writes change its parameters to fit what ever story they want to tell.
Maybe it should be a “if___, then___” kind of scale
Like “do they have warp?> no. Are they aware of intergalactic affairs? (I just rewatched insurrection recently)
Yes? Ok if they are aware of the galactic community but don’t personally have the ability then they’re allowed to avoid the directive!
Dear Doctor is a great episode. The Valaki had their moment of "Prime Directive" dilemma when the Menk needed help. And without the Valaki would the Menk survive? Who knows? Perhaps without guidance the Menk are self destructive. But Earth and others have 200 years to thoroughly study the relationship between the Valaki and the Menk.
Luck is a four letter word. What if an alien civilization happens upon warp drive before almost destroying themselves. What lessons have they learned about cooperation?
If someone asks, you intervene. Even if not, if you can save, do so. It is fitting with all doctrine of real merit to do so.
Very well argued. It's funny how often I find that "it's complicated" is the simplest answer I can give to a question. So few "good" questions have a simple black and white answer
The prime directive makes sense in every case except for saving a civilization from total annihilation when you can save them without even making contact. What harm is done to a society if you can stabilize their plate tectonics from orbit? A society can’t naturally progress if they’re all dead.
Because 100 years from now(, that planet becomes the galaxies space nazis, and destroys everyone. Woops
What if some alien blew up the asteroid that killed the "terrible lizards"? We definitely wouldn't be here.
I hope real aliena are following a Prime Directive because the alternative that we are alone is too depressing.
Someone's gotta be first. This universe we find ourselves in is very yuong from the looks of it, with trillions of years ahead of it.We may be needing to set a good example.
It's all free real estate.
After World War 2 ended, and if Germany's leader wouldn't have offed himself, if Germany accepted surrender under the conditions that their leader could stay in power would we accept that? That's essentially what Japan wanted at the end of World War 2. They wanted their leader, who had sided with a horrible person, to stay their leader and they would surrender. We, obviously, wouldn't accept that and had to do something to get the Japanese government to surrender. FYI, more people were unalived and more property was destroyed by fire bombings by America, not the 2 nuclear bombs we dropped. I have watched Barefoot Gen.
The only way to be sure of never violating the Prime Directive is to stay home.
The book The Ethics of Star Trek by Judith Barad is a great exploration of the ideas in this video but she uses historical examples/philosophies to explain the issues with the Prime directive (as well as plenty of other stuff in the shows!). If you haven’t heard of it already, I think you’d like it! She doesn’t condemn or advocate for the prime directive but she goes into the ideas that shape it like Aristotles virtue ethics and Prima facie/ethics of duty etc. love your work as usual! 💛🖖
Moral inaction does not equate with moral culpability. The idea that you are committing evil for choosing not to act is a postmodern moral and logical fallacy where trying to do something morally/logically good is good enough to deflect most guilt if things so off the course you meant your intervention to go. The Prime Directive exists to remind humanity that the best (most moral/logical?) subjective intentions do not necessarily lead to the best objective results. It is better to begin at non-interference so that we do not apply our cultural/species moral values on other cultures/species of whom we probably do not have a complete understanding/experience.
Picard: "Sorry, Acting Ensign Crusher. The law's the law. You're on your own" ❤
Lmfaooo
Saw the Trekspertise video. It was excellent. So is yours. I think I lean a little more toward your conclusions than Kiel's. It seems that the general consensus is that the Prime Directive isn't all bad, it just needs some adjustment, not eradication. It appears to have been in part founded on some genuine, reasonable, and justifiable notion and ideals of doing no harm to others and in the Star Trek Universe has probably done more good than bad.
However, what I want to know, what I want to know, what I want to, is, what is, GENERAL ORDER 24!
They wanted to kill Wesley for falling on some flowers!? Hope they weren’t watching me as I used a lawn mower to trim some rosé bushes down to a much safer height of 2 inches.
When Picard saved Wesley, I often wondered if Wesley had committed a more egregious crime, would Picard have intervened?
Well why did they even beem down to that planet, Edo 3. They were a pre warp culture before the Federation knew about the "Orbiting Gods Space Station"
@@TheMrPeteChannel I'm still trying to figure that out. I forget the reason they were there
Beware those who preach tolerance, yet pressure more tolerant societies to tolerate the intolerance of objectively savage societies.
If there's one thing the Prime Directive does is gets people thinking and talking about it. That's good sci-fi right there no matter what else.
I hate the Enterprise episode where they decide it's better to let evolution take its course than save an entire species. Richard Dawkins said in one of his books (paraphrasing) how frustrating arguements against evolution are that conflate the way *nature is*... with the way human society *should be*, as does this episode. Yes, evolution is a tragic and inhumane process, but as inteligent beings capable of creating a society, we have the power and duty to do better than nothing. Doing nothing and letting nature take its course when you have the power to create a better outcome isn't a humanist moral high ground, it's the purest form of apathy and evil.
If real life were like this we wouldn't care about endangered species lists or conservation, we would be a soceity of sociopaths, unwilling to lift a finger to help others.
That was a horrible episode. Imagine if a plague was effecting humans but chimps are immune & the Vulcans refused to give us a cure.
@@TheMrPeteChannelCivilization still continue but more like the planet of apes
While your points nail home, I do have to point one thing, the atomic bombing was one of two horrific options, the bombings likely killed upwards of 200,000 overall where as the other option, invading japan would of likely killed millions. See the resistance on Iwo Jima and Okinawa and how the civilians on Okinawa reacted. Another thing to add, the US involvement in the pacific theater was not an intervention, it was provoked, until pearl harbor the us was mostly isolationist, doing little more than sending war materials to the allies who where at the time under attack. Japan swung a punch and the US swung back.
It's not racist. The point is to not bother a people that haven't left their planet yet.
The implementation of the Prime Directive is based on one's own moral compass. For lack of a better term. Let's say there is a pre-warp yet technologically sufficient society that the is currently being observed. And that society has become so divided and polarized that reconciliation is impossible due to opposing yet equally radically unhinged beliefs each side clings to. A starfleet captain could conclude "They're hopeless. Let the rabble take itself out."
Thanks for the recommendation on the other prime directive video. I'll go check it out.
In Star Trek Online, the Iconians had a prime directive, and all the 'lesser races' teamed together and blasted the Iconians into near extinction.
IF the federation falls, it will probably involve the prime directive biting em on their ass.
I think the episode where Wesley fell in those flowers was particularly egregious. It should have been "Yeah we are taking him with us and we will glass this whole planet if you try to stop us." I realize it's meant to be analogous to committing a crime in another country that is not a crime in your own country. But that is why extradition is a thing, and is often a bone of significant contention. That football player that Russia arrested for having a weed pen is a good recent example.
Disagree. Remember the planet's god prevented Wesley from leaving. It's only after Picard's impassioned plea that their god allowed the transporter to finally work. Since that entity was the highest authority for that civ, there was no interference.
@@Raja1938 That feels like a writing ploy to prevent the obvious solution. Rather than address the ridiculousness of the situation they chose to force the characters to engage with the premise of the episode. Which I suppose was a pretty common tactic of Star Trek since it kinda wrote itself into a corner with their own god-like technology. Hence the very first episode cutting them down at the knees with Q.
@@skeetsmcgrew3282 What was the obvious solution? Throughout the episode, it was shown that the Enterprise was powerless against the being, was almost destroyed even. So it was either appeal for mercy or leave Wesley behind.
@@Raja1938 No, I meant the powerful being itself was the writing ploy to get around the obvious solution. The show always tried to be pretty hard science fiction, except for when it was inconvenient. I could point out a bunch of other prime-directive related problems with that whole episode, like how common it is for them to toss civilian crew members at planets without knowing common knowledge information about said planet. Maybe find out if a god controls the landscaping before you let a child play on some random planet where they could do something stupid. Or fall in love with a person from genderless society and convince them to become a woman. You know, normal Trek stuff 😂.
Sure. If you ignore that having a weed pen while driving on a plane to another state would also be illegal here.
That's why any real captain has a fire excuse for breaking it
You could also say the Prime Directive came from U.S. inaction during WWII. Advocates of War later pointed to Pearl Harbor as a consequence of non-interference. I've heard some conservative thinkers say that if you don't interfere, you allow the problem to get big enough to blow up in your face. Personally, I feel if people NATURALLY come to a position, they are more likely to adopt that position for longer periods of time and are less resistant to the change.
Inaction during WWII?
They agreed with Britain, and later the USSR that the pacific would take a backseat to the European theatre.
And before the war, The US followed The Monroe doctrine. It’s own ‘non-interference treaty.’
Thank you for this fun and thoughtful video. I would definitely enjoy more like it. My wife and I have been watching through TNG lately, and I do enjoy the episodes where Picard is forced to reluctantly bend or break the PD despite his support of it in principle. I think I agree with your conclusion overall about needing a guideline, but not a hard and fast rule for these situations.
God be with you out there everybody. ✝️ :)
The Prime Directive has been the Prime Suggestion since its inception. It's hard to pinpoint the worst infraction ever, but each series has many. "Pen Pals" from TNG Season 2 is one of the worst, but by no means only trip away from General Order #1. Then again, General Order #4 is don't go to Talos IV, so the entirety of the General Orders is silly to begin with.
Just once, in one of these heated debates about the Prime Directive, I'd like to see just one character (in Star Trek: Lower Decks, most likely) blurt out, "The whole point of the Prime Directive is so that Roddenberry could have a pre-existing, star-spanning civilization while at the same time postulating a plausible explanation for the Fermi Paradox - I just said the quiet part out loud, didn't I!"
Let's not forget that sometimes intervention is absolutely necessary. Nineteen thirty nine. Nazi germany. The holocaust. Sometimes you absolutely must interfere
Well I think one idea of the warp drive metric is that a society would pretty much have to apply the full force of it's resources. Every nation pitching in; scientist's, laborers, politicians. (I do admit it breaks down in a few instances lol)
The part at 16:00, basically, don't force your morals on others.
The problem with the Prime Directive is that it doesn’t allow for virtue ethics.
What the Prime Directive needs is a clause for dealing with humanitarian crises in a way that doesn’t require direct contact and communication with pre-warp civilizations.
How difficult would it be for Dr Phlox, as an example, to leave the test results and formula on the back of a napkin at a science lab that’s just within the technological reach of a civilization.
The other common problem is the “oh, we discovered a human pretending to be one of us!” Instead of all the subterfuge, the Prime Directive needs a clause for saying “let’s say we are aliens, and we came in so few numbers and so unarmed so as not to misconstrue our purposes as anything except anthropological research.”
That still doesn't address Phlox's point in the episode about the neanderthals. Starfleet can't go around the galaxy trying to save every species, so if it were to do so selectively, what would be the threshold? Dinosaurs no, but dolphins yes? Species arise and either adapt or fall as an environment changes. And if Phlox's cure has some unforeseen consequence years or centuries down the line, wouldn't Starfleet be responsible? The native inhabitants didn't understand the science enough to make the informed decision to implement it.
Let's explore the Galaxy and even contact pre-warp societies by "active observation"... So we can refuse to help them with our two miraculous technologies (warp and replicators). Star Trek in a nutshell.
How can the Prime Directive be 'racist' when one of its main functions is to protect 'different' cultures from interference by holier than thou Federation types? It's literally saying 'sometimes we can't help but feel that we know better, even though we don't, and people different from us should be allowed to go about their business'. It's one of the least racist ideas I can think of.
Yeah like I said in the video, I don't agree with Trekspertise's take ;)
In the 41st Millennium Starfleet renamed General Order 24 to Exterimnatus
Perhaps all our most ethical decisions should be based more on the potential of the present rather than that of the past. Because the preference to avoid historical dangers can also beg the question: How far is too far? The Prime Directive may be a very important law in the real universe and for good reasons. Though nowadays I personally prefer how an Ancient Aliens episode addresses the subject rather than a Star Trek episode.
The dogmatic approach is definitely evil. Kirk had it right that interfering to prevent extermination is better then death.
Interesting video and topic. My take away is that interference in non-warp cultures by The Federation via Starfleet is a philosophy that is necessary, to safe guard those societies from destroying themselves, or others. This is why it is difficult for Starfleet officers and ships to stand by when they could save a society from a natural or cosmic disaster. By saving them (and they're aware of it), this could alter their development and lead to more harm, than not interfering - because they haven't invented the technology themselves, and therefore, have not had the time to discuss it as a society and how it should be used, had time to think about the implications of it. I agree with that philosophy. I also agree it should some times be ignored, but those actions are serious and need to be reviewed, some times after the fact, but it's a rule that should make sense. Look at us now, with artificial intelligence, we have come up with it ourselves and we STILL, aren't confident we're ready to have this power.
Trekspertise is a fool for thinking it’s space racism. The Orville tackles the prime directive quite well.
I genuinely hate the prime directive. Yes, it's important to ensure that star fleet officers aren't playing god. But at the same time, having the technology to save a species from being wiped out in the name of preserving the natural order of things is a kind of cold indifference that I don't think works well with all the other ideals that Star Trek espouses.
Plus it'd be so cool to go to a less advanced society and mess with them. Beam on-stage during big concerts or buzz music festivals in a shuttle and do main street burnouts in those all terrain space buggies. Go in to an outlaw biker bar with Data and pick a fight. The Prime directive is a massive buzz-kill.
@@MrMightyZ you sound like Q.
Chosing to not act is just as much a choice as acting, watching as civilizations die is not only abhorrent, it is cowardly and go against everything Starfleet is supposed to stand for.
The thing with the likelihood of real life extraterrestrials, it is extremely likely that they exist. But it is also extremely likely that they have no idea we exist. Yes, we've been broadcasting into space for a fairly long time, but those signals have not actually traveled as far as people think. Due to the lack of subspace transmitters in reality, our messages are limited to traveling at the speed of light. Meaning they have only reached about 50 light years.
In Star Trek, the planet Vulcan was said to be approximately 16 light years from earth, which made them our closest neighbors, and explains why they were the ones that found us first.
In reality, the likelihood of an alien species living that close and not being detected at all, even just by radio signal is quite low.
I wouldn't say the Prime Directive is racist in the traditional sense of the word, but I would say it's got a very human-centric worldview. Humanity got their act together when they achieved warp travel so they're viewing the galaxy through that lens.
Though overall, I think it's for the best of the galaxy.
Yeah. I mean. It’s not like a galactic group of aliens created and follow the prime directive. It’s only Humans. 🙄
@@jamesbizs the philosophy maybe antiquated, but if it still is flexible, then it doesn't need to be fixed.
I think the Prime Directive has provided the Star Trek franchises with a way of talking about the ups and downs of resource extraction without talking about resource extraction.
That’s exactly what it is oversimplified but it is also us as a society using entertainment to hash out the principals so when we are eventually if ever in that situation we already had years if not centuries of thought into it. However, Star Trek has never been shy of tackling 20th and 21st century geopolitics in its shows.
@@GT500Shlby We have already been in that situation. It's an allegory for how western civilizations taint primitive ones, bringing them technology and problems they aren't cognitively prepared to handle, which leads to them experiencing depression and war they otherwise wouldn't have had.
Great video. Your preparation must take many days of writing and editing. Great stuff.
If every captain interfered with every civilization what would be the result there has to be some restraint but at the same time needs to be some level of flexibility the moral standards of star-fleet is sometimes the victim of bad writing
This is why the Orville, “About a Girl, episode is such a great Prime Directive type episode