Mabus wrote: ↑Sun Apr 03, 2022 11:12 pm
Biggest issue with the Prime Directive in Trek is that the examples given as to why you should never interfere are so contrived, they're basically strawmen. It's almost always "they'll become Nazis" or "they'll radically alter their civilization after reading one stupid book" or "they'll worship the Picard and kill in his name". Very few times you get nuanced episodes, where they actually deal with more complicated matters. TNG "First Contact" is one good example done right.
You know that Trek didn't do properly? Actually show how the pre-warp culture actually suffered because of influence from the Humans/Federation. There are only two examples that I can think of that touched that in a more sensitive manner: VOY "Friendship One" and ENT "The Communicator". In case of the first one, you basically see how the accidental introduction of advanced technology lead to the destruction of that's planet civilization, while in the second case the attempt to hide the existence of alien life is arguable worse than simply telling them the truth.
Starfleet keeps repeating how interfering with a pre-warp or less advanced civilization is dangerous for those civilizations? Well, then show that danger and the consequences. Show what happens to that society. Show how the society changes, show how it leads to political instability. Show how not everyone is pleased with the Federation making themselves known to them, because in their POV their presence has increased the tensions in their society because one side considers them good, while to the other side the Feds are the boogie man they'll blame for all their ills. Show how those civilizations suddenly feel threatened because their militaries are now obsolete, and their hardliners are afraid that their entire existence is pointless and they might try excessive militarization out of fear of being easy target to space-faring civilizations.
It's funny how Stargate of all series had better episodes showcasing the danger of sticking your nose where you shouldn't.
Stargate did a great job of covering both sides, frankly. I can't think of the planet names at the moment, but I'm sure the example you're referring to is when the team's mere arrival increased tensions between the world superpowers and caused a nuclear war.
On the flip side, they literally spent months searching for a new homeworld for a race who had been nearly wiped out. And to do so, they had to interfere with ANOTHER race (one more advanced than both) that was trying to terraform the world they'd finally found.
So yeah... a much better study of the grey areas, and why a dogmatic prime directive was NEVER the direction the shows should have gone.
My opinion on the Prime Directive when it comes to this episode:
If the Prime Directive states that you must not interfere with pre-warp civilizations, then the Enterprise and its crew were correct in standing by and doing nothing as the planet lost its atmosphere, just as it would have happened if the Enterprise was not there.
Now there is the detail that if the Enterprise stood by and did nothing, the people would be wiped out entirely. There weren't many people beamed to the Enterprise, to begin with. Long term, they are doomed as a race.
This is something that I would like to see followed up in an episode of Discovery. Starfleet goes to visit the planet to see how this race is faring almost a thousand years after their relocation and we see a scientist claiming that there had to be aliens from another planet who forcefully relocated them from their original planet for some evil goal. Have him point out how every species, save for theirs, has a traceable evolution, but they don't. Then have some religious leader claim that the lack of evolution record has nothing to do with imaginary space aliens, but proof that God has created them, in his image. If done well, it could be like "Distant Origin" in Voyager. The scientist, realizing that he was onto something, is told by the Discovery crew that yes, aliens did move some of his people from their original planet to here, but not for enslavement or anything evil, but to save them from extinction.
LordFeagans wrote: ↑Mon Apr 04, 2022 6:56 am
My opinion on the Prime Directive when it comes to this episode:
If the Prime Directive states that you must not interfere with pre-warp civilizations, then the Enterprise and its crew were correct in standing by and doing nothing as the planet lost its atmosphere, just as it would have happened if the Enterprise was not there.
Legally correct perhaps. Morally, not remotely. Such a law is not fit for purpose. Such a law is the equivalent of saying you should let a drowning person drown. A decent civilisation would not have such a rule in the first place. It might have something very similar, but with some loopholes.
LordFeagans wrote: ↑Mon Apr 04, 2022 6:56 am
My opinion on the Prime Directive when it comes to this episode:
If the Prime Directive states that you must not interfere with pre-warp civilizations, then the Enterprise and its crew were correct in standing by and doing nothing as the planet lost its atmosphere, just as it would have happened if the Enterprise was not there.
Legally correct perhaps. Morally, not remotely. Such a law is not fit for purpose. Such a law is the equivalent of saying you should let a drowning person drown. A decent civilisation would not have such a rule in the first place. It might have something very similar, but with some loopholes.
Well, in point of fact, the law of many countries says it is at least acceptable to let a drowning person drown.
It is even technically legal in the United States (at least some parts of it) and some other countries to see a person drowning and pull a chair and watch, though you'd probably get sued if you did and were caught, as there is no "duty to rescue" unless it is part of your job. As long as you don't actively interfere in any attempts to rescue them or hinder them saving themselves, you are allowed to do it.
This is to prevent people from being punished for the crime of "doing nothing", which has a few defensible motives- saving a drowning person can be risky, for one., or you might fear being blamed if the rescue goes wrong, especially in the US where everyone can get sued.
If you see someone drowning, and you plunge into the water to rescue them without proper training, then pretty soon you'll have two people drowning. When it comes to ordinary people, then the best thing they can do to help rescue someone is just call for the actual professionals to come help and then do nothing so as not to add to the body count. Rescues are risky and dangerous enough as it is for the trained professionals, who do sometimes die themselves, last thing anyone wants is a have a go hero getting themselves killed too, or worse, needing rescued and having a real rescuer lose their own life in the process of trying to get them out.
Jonathan101 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 04, 2022 8:43 pm
Well, in point of fact, the law of many countries says it is at least acceptable to let a drowning person drown.
It is even technically legal in the United States (at least some parts of it) and some other countries to see a person drowning and pull a chair and watch, though you'd probably get sued if you did and were caught, as there is no "duty to rescue" unless it is part of your job. As long as you don't actively interfere in any attempts to rescue them or hinder them saving themselves, you are allowed to do it.
That's rather different from saying you must let them drown.
CrypticMirror wrote: ↑Mon Apr 04, 2022 10:46 pm
If you see someone drowning, and you plunge into the water to rescue them without proper training, then pretty soon you'll have two people drowning.
Yet the Prime Directive equivalent wouldn't even let you throw them a lifebelt that happened to be right there.
Basically what these real world laws and considerations do is are the sorts of nuances that should be part of the PD; they cover some of the aspects the PD is trying to get at (such as the fact you might just end up making things worse), without being dogmatically rigid.
It doesn't help matters that Nikolai's decision to protect this village is based on him having a girlfriend and an unborn child rather than any deep respect for Boraalan culture, a motivation that he lies to Worf and Picard about immediately upon being questioned. Atmospheric dissipation occurs very quickly. Nikolai has been visiting this village long enough to woo Dobara and get her pregnant. We don't know anything about Boraalan gestation but it's a good bet that he's been living among them for at least several months.
Linkara wrote: ↑Sat Apr 02, 2022 11:06 pm
It says something when season 2 Picard was more open about saving people's lives despite the Prime Directive than season 7. Yeah, I've got to believe this episode had rewrites or heavy notes altering it - maybe from Berman because this kind of thinking about non-interference carried over into Voyager.
And TOS' looser Prime Directive IS better - a culture is not inherently worth salvaging or preserving, particularly if it's an oppressive one or if preserving it would mean dooming them. It's one thing to get involved in a war or a quagmire with a less-advanced civilization or the like, but situations like this? Bullcrap.
Also, dumb question, but doesn't the Enterprise have multiple holodecks? Hit 'em with the knockout gas as Chuck suggested during their regular sleep time, beam 'em into holodeck 2 or whatever, fix the first holodeck, then if the second one goes out, beam 'em back to the first same way.
Shh! If you acknowledge the fact that there are other, working holodecks on a ship then we won't have anymore "Holodeck Gone Wrong" plots. And then how else would get the crew to battle against such villains like Professor Moriarty, Jack the Ripper and Evil Lincoln?
I know you're making a Futurama joke, but I must add that of those listed, only Moriarty was a holodeck villain. Jack the Ripper was an evil energy being voiced by Piglet, and Evil Lincoln was a parody of good Space Lincoln (who was totally normal and human, except for technically being a lava monster).
God, I love TOS.
Not to spoil anything, but Star Trek Online brought back Lava Monster Lincoln. And it hasn't lost any of it's weirdness. Strung Out Seven of Nine, Season 2 Mikey Burnham and Lava Monster Lincoln.
pilight wrote: ↑Tue Apr 05, 2022 1:03 am
It doesn't help matters that Nikolai's decision to protect this village is based on him having a girlfriend and an unborn child rather than any deep respect for Boraalan culture, a motivation that he lies to Worf and Picard about immediately upon being questioned. Atmospheric dissipation occurs very quickly. Nikolai has been visiting this village long enough to woo Dobara and get her pregnant. We don't know anything about Boraalan gestation but it's a good bet that he's been living among them for at least several months.
The thing about that is that it just underscores judging him is asking the wrong question. They're furious about his lack of objectivity and ties to the locals--but the more basic and primal motivation is he's trying to save his family from dying.
Which bluntly is a far MORE respectable motivation than an intellectual reason.
Just like wanting to save lives doesn't NEED defending.
