TNG - Homeward

[Makeitstop]

Deciding to take up the mantle of godhood would be a profoundly arrogant act - which is precisely why so many here have erupted into self-righteous moral condemnation. This forum, as a collective, has hot and cold running arrogance and a little arrogance candy left on the pillow.

People in the Utopian future have learned not to meddle; if only people in the here-and-now were so enlightened.

If it's the mantle of godhood to offer humanitarian aid then sign me up, Moses.

Inaction is also a choice to act.

I've heard this before somewhere, how did it go again?

"Come take up the white man's burden..."


https://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poem/poems_burden.htm

- and remember: one of the major roles of Starfleet/the Federation is to do humanitarian work. Half the episodes of TNG feature some plot element where the Enterprise is doing some kind of humanitarian mission bringing food or medicine to some planet, bringing survivors somewhere, trying to fix the atmosphere or seismic stability of some planet, etc. When they refuse to help people just because they're at X stage of development, that's not like an average Joe not wanting to spend $10 to help a beggar on the street: it's much closer to the Red Cross deciding they aren't going to help victims of a typhoon or earthquake because the country where it happened didn't invent the internal combustion engine yet.

Humanitarian aid, when it is asked for. You can't just go around imposing "aid" on people who are not asking for it. That is the first step on the slippery road of colonialism, and it doesn't end well for anyone. And it has to be asked for equal-to-equal, not supplicant to overlord.

That road to colonialism must be very slippery indeed if sitting back and watching an entire world full of people get wiped from existence is somehow preferable to both helping in secret so as to avoid tampering with their culture, or offering to help openly so as to allow them to make their own choice on the whole question of going extinct.

Discussions about the prime directive always lead to talk of the hubris of intervention, but isn't it also hubris to anoint yourself the arbiter of who should and should not be allowed to know of alien life? Who should have access to plentiful food and life saving medical treatment and who should be forced to live short, hard lives? Certainly there are many good arguments to be made against revealing yourself to a less technologically advanced civilization, and especially to sharing the use of technology, let alone information about how it works. But this dogmatic adherence to the idea that no one could possibly be capable of handling the knowledge of beings from other worlds, unless they have someone there that built a specific type of engine, that also reeks of the kind of arrogance that views people from other societies as inherently inferior. And quite frankly, its a bit hypocritical coming from a species that was living in a post apocalyptic shithole until aliens revealed themselves and helped them turn their dystopia into a utopia. First contact with alien life transformed our world into a paradise, the last thing we should do is let that happen to anyone else.

Now I'm not saying the federation should be stopping at every planet of cave dwelling hunter gatherers and trying to teach them science. I'm just saying that there are many nuanced perspectives to be considered here and it is entirely possible to come to very different conclusions about how these situations should be handled. If only more prime directive episodes were willing to actually explore an opposing viewpoint instead of lecturing us about the sacrosanct nature of the federation's highest law.

I would love to see an episode with a Ferengi trading goods with a species living in the equivalent of the renaissance, for the enterprise to object, only for the trader to point out that he has given them a choice, dealt with them honestly, and respected their wishes, while the high and mighty federation is practicing deception and forcing views upon a people simply because they have the power to do so. Let him make his case that he treats them as equals, while they carry around the hu-mon's burden of knowing what is best for everyone else. No straw men, no contrivances that somehow prove the federation was right all along, just some real, honest exploration of a complex issue from multiple points of view.

[griffeytrek]

A classic case of worshipping the letter of the law rather than the spirit

Oh? And what is the 'spirit' of this law?

The Spirit of the Prime Directive, the "Law" at least as presented in TOS, was to avoid giving hand grenades to Chimpanzee's. To not escalate a societies technological development artificially and beyond their cultural development. It's not "don't save a drowning man" it's "While saving him, don't teach him how to build a battleship". The minimalist contact is largely to avoid unintended consequences. Being branded as Gods, or in some way disrupting a more modernized society as a perceived threat from the stars.

But the key thing is in Kirk's era the Prime Directive was mainly the guidelines. When you break it, you need to be able to reasonably justify it, mixed with a certain amount of "Shit Happens". By TNG it has moved beyond "Operational Guidelines" and has entered the territory of "Holy Writ".

[CharlesPhipps]

I've heard this before somewhere, how did it go again?

"Come take up the white man's burden..."


https://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poem/poems_burden.htm

I'm glad in the libertarian world that you live in, the rich can let the poor die in the street.

See, I can strawman too.

[pilight]

Nikolai's position is that the law prevents him from taking action and that inaction endangers people. The law therefore is bad and he is entirely justified in breaking it.

That's the same position admiral Pressman took in The Pegasus. Why are so many people defending Nikolai, who's violating a more important law to protect a much smaller number of people that the Federation have no responsibility for, and not Pressman, who's violating a lesser law to protect billions of people that Starfleet officers have sworn to protect?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Nikolai's position is that the law prevents him from taking action and that inaction endangers people. The law therefore is bad and he is entirely justified in breaking it.

That's the same position admiral Pressman took in The Pegasus. Why are so many people defending Nikolai, who's violating a more important law to protect a much smaller number of people that the Federation have no responsibility for, and not Pressman, who's violating a lesser law to protect billions of people that Starfleet officers have sworn to protect?

I'm not sure why you're attempting to compare them on the basis; merely that they are laws being broken with one presumably more important than the other.

The admiral was conducting experiments to facilitate espionage which carries with it consequences of war, not unlike the Federation's dilemma with the Cardassians along the border. Worf's brother on the other hand is directly saving lives without any pretenses of interstellar conflict.

[TGLS]

Nikolai's position is that the law prevents him from taking action and that inaction endangers people. The law therefore is bad and he is entirely justified in breaking it.

That's the same position admiral Pressman took in The Pegasus. Why are so many people defending Nikolai, who's violating a more important law to protect a much smaller number of people that the Federation have no responsibility for, and not Pressman, who's violating a lesser law to protect billions of people that Starfleet officers have sworn to protect?

Because Pressman was violating a treaty that's preventing a war that threatens the lives of billions of people Starfleet officers have sworn to protect?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Nikolai's position is that the law prevents him from taking action and that inaction endangers people. The law therefore is bad and he is entirely justified in breaking it.

That's the same position admiral Pressman took in The Pegasus. Why are so many people defending Nikolai, who's violating a more important law to protect a much smaller number of people that the Federation have no responsibility for, and not Pressman, who's violating a lesser law to protect billions of people that Starfleet officers have sworn to protect?

Because Pressman was violating a treaty that's preventing a war that threatens the lives of billions of people Starfleet officers have sworn to protect?

Well it's also just a really loaded premise of what the admiral was doing.

We're talking about going behind enemy lines to retrieve a highly incriminating and politically incendiary device that could maybe tip balance in a conflict that will exhume billions. Saying that this will in turn save lives is about as thin as assuming Worf's brother was trying to save the whole planet.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

- and remember: one of the major roles of Starfleet/the Federation is to do humanitarian work. Half the episodes of TNG feature some plot element where the Enterprise is doing some kind of humanitarian mission bringing food or medicine to some planet, bringing survivors somewhere, trying to fix the atmosphere or seismic stability of some planet, etc. When they refuse to help people just because they're at X stage of development, that's not like an average Joe not wanting to spend $10 to help a beggar on the street: it's much closer to the Red Cross deciding they aren't going to help victims of a typhoon or earthquake because the country where it happened didn't invent the internal combustion engine yet.

Humanitarian aid, when it is asked for. You can't just go around imposing "aid" on people who are not asking for it. That is the first step on the slippery road of colonialism, and it doesn't end well for anyone. And it has to be asked for equal-to-equal, not supplicant to overlord.

I don't believe that that provision satisfies the dilemma. Aside from political intrusion upon the planet, they really have no idea or concept of what a starship is. The probability that a timely mass relocation would resemble a hostile takeover is pretty close to 1 by the time you suggestively consider policy on the Federation's side.

[CharlesPhipps]

To put it another way:

"You'd probably have to kidnap these people to save them but the question then becomes whether kidnapping them to save their lives is worth it."

[MerelyAFan]

In some ways. Homeward really does make for an even worse attempt to justify the Prime Directive than Dear Doctor. The latter was based on an idiotic understanding of evolution, but at least Phlox and Archer's (wrongheaded) conclusion was that saving the Valakians would be hurting the Menk. In this one saving any of the locals would not directly harm other groups, would cause no big wars, and by its very nature whatever the consequence it would be better than complete extinction.

Heck, the fact that the crew has no real reply to Nikolai except to sadly cite the Prime Directive is telling of the story's presumption that apparently it being important is all the defense the law needs. In a series that's supposed to about the exploration and discussion of ideas, it's jarring how intellectual lazy this one comes off the more one watches it.