Is the Prime Directive Just?

Author: Jeff_Goldblum

Posts

Total: 64
#31
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Singularity
Why would we care to make their lives better anyway?

Empathy I suppose. It is much easier to have empathy for a fellow sapient than a hill of mindless bugs. And why not help them? No point not doing so when sending them the blueprints to a primitive fission reactor costs us nothing. Sure in the Star Trek universe giving someone technology might backfire on you because they may become your enemy in the future and use that tech against you but in the real world Earthlings are going to so far surpass any primitive sapients we do come across that it won't even be funny.
#32
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
Suppose we are the primitive culture even now observed by Prime Directived Betegeuseans who mastered death 5 million years ago but fear what might happen if they shared the secret of immortality with humans?  What culture have we ever met that didn’t wish to benefit from another culture’s advancements?  Do we owe a sovereign intelligent species the right to represent and promote their own priorities rather than unilateral non-communication? What if unilateral non-communication is perceived as hostile to an alien civ?

i think it would be a mistake to underestimate the fear and loathing any alien intelligent species will likely provoke in the human heart. We haven’t even progressed beyond irrationally fearing intraspecies gender differences or phenotype differences like skin color or ideological differences like religion.   Imagine how we’ll fear telepathic octopi who eat their young as a religion. Or whatever.  I will be pleasantly surprised if humans don’t knee jerk & nuke the first aliens we meet.  Think of all the treaties superior human militaries have signed with aboriginal cultures and how seldom the mightier civ abided by their promises.  If humans are superior and aliens are sitting on something humans really want- history advises that woe betide the aliens in our way. 
#33
blamonkey
blamonkey's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 532
3
5
8
blamonkey's avatar
blamonkey
3
5
8
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I could make a case for either side. I think strict adherence for or against the Prime Directive is an untenable position in the globalized world. Trade relations, outsourcing, and global conflicts sometimes necessitates intervention. How we intervene, and to what extent intervention begets positive results are more important questions to me. The moral quandary of the Prime Directive is one I set aside though. When debating values, the assigned weight of arguments is nebulous and differs from person to person.
#34
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@blamonkey
I am not sure exactly what 'strict adherence against the Prime Directive' would entail. If there is some good reason to not interact with some specific culture then not interacting with them for that hypothetical reason is perfectly consistent with my proposal of banning the Prime Directive entirely.
#35
blamonkey
blamonkey's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 532
3
5
8
blamonkey's avatar
blamonkey
3
5
8
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
That was worded weirdly. Let me give an example.

If the US were to intervene as a first response to a perceived problem instead of looking for less intrusive alternatives with a lower price tag, I would consider that strict adherence against the Prime Directive.

#36
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@blamonkey
I think that is less pro-Prime-Directive and more anti-nuke-a-bunch-of-people-for-the-lulz but I get your point and as you can likely tell from earlier posts I agree.

158 days later

#37
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Any interesting people you can think of that might disagree with me?
(IFF) you believe the "prime directive" is immoral (THEN) you must believe all personal privacy rights and sovereign states rights are immoral
#38
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you suggesting that the prime directive is a form of privacy law?

It isn't...

You can literally get high tech plastic surgery to look like a native and spy on them for years at a time without breaking the directive. Such activity os not prohibited by the directive and the Federation regularly engages in such activity in the show.

If the prime directive is a privacy law it is the most permissive one known to me.
#39
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
@Jeff_Goldblum
Basically, Star Trek's heroes must abide by the Prime Directive, an order that forbids them from interfering in the affairs of primitive civilizations. Hardcore fans could probably argue it's more complicated than that, but let's assume it is this simple for the sake of this thread.

You can literally get high tech plastic surgery to look like a native and spy on them for years at a time...
This in-and-of-itself would appear to be a gross violation of "an order that forbids them from interfering in the affairs of primitive civilizations."

How can one live in a society without influencing it?
#40
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Have you ever watched Star Trek? I want you to answer that question before saying anything else because it sounds like you have no idea what the prime directive is and are just making unreasonable mental leaps to interpret it despite having no actual info about the topic.

The prime directive is a prohibition against interference with less technologically advanced civilizations. It is as relevant to the issue of protecting the privacy of natives as the Magna Carta is relevant to the issue of nuclear proliferation.

Like I said before the Federation regularly engages in archeological studies of technologically primitive species such as in the episode "Who Watches the Watchers?".

They literally use invisibility technology to spy on them and when the cloak fails temporarily they send a team disguised as natives into a nearby settlement to determine the extent of "cultural contamination". These actions are allowed and encouraged by the prime directive. If this is your idea of what privacy laws should look like then you are a horrible horrible person.

If you want to have a conversation about privacy rights then make a thread about privacy rights rather than necroposting on a thread whose OP and title have nothing to do with the topic.
#41
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
How can one live in a society without influencing it?

Thanks for sharing your "rush-to-disqualify".

Nobody's forcing you to have this conversation.
#42
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
How can one live in a society without influencing it?

They literally use invisibility technology to spy on them and when the cloak fails temporarily they send a team disguised as natives into a nearby settlement to determine the extent of "cultural contamination". These actions are allowed and encouraged by the prime directive. If this is your idea of what privacy laws should look like then you are a horrible horrible person.

If you want to have a conversation about privacy rights then make a thread about privacy rights rather than necroposting on a thread whose OP and title have nothing to do with the topic.
#43
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
the Prime Directive, an order that forbids them from interfering in the affairs of primitive civilizations.

Hardcore fans could probably argue it's more complicated than that,

but let's assume it is this simple for the sake of this thread.

My understanding is that the Vulcans merely posted some "warp drive" detectors near planet earth and only "made contact" when they detected a "warp drive".

They weren't studying our breeding habits.

I've never agreed with the surreptitious "monitoring" or "study" of "pre-warp" cultures and I've always believed it's a clear breech of the prime directive.

The episodes you describe are prime examples of how hypocritical the federation is.
#44
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Posessing the trait of hypocrisy requires that they say they believe some thing then act against that same thing they say they believe.

The thing that the Federation says is "cultural contamination"/ interference is bad.

The thing that they do is violate privacy

Therefore to say that they are hypocritical is to say that the philosophy of avoiding cultural contamination/interference and the philosophy of respecting privacy are synonymous.

The problem is that these are actually not synonymous.

The prime directive is a prohibition against interference with less technologically advanced civilizations. It is as relevant to the issue of protecting the privacy of natives as the Magna Carta is relevant to the issue of nuclear proliferation.

#45
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
The thing that the Federation says is "cultural contamination"/ interference is bad.
Ok.

But don't you set yourself up for a high risk of "cultural contamination" if you put boots-on-the-ground?

Don't they routinely detect incredibly detailed information from orbit?

Couldn't they just send swarms of cloaked probes?

Didn't the Picard accidentally start an entire new religion (in a "pre-warp" society)?

Doesn't that qualify as "cultural contamination"?


How can one live in a society without influencing it?
#46
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm not supporting the practice of studying ancient cultures in that way. To imply that I do support that practice by trying to get me to defend it is misleading.

I'm just pointing out that doing so doesn't violate the prime directive.

Oh and also I am saying I don't like the prime directive.
#47
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Oh and also I am saying I don't like the prime directive.
What do you prefer?
#48
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
What do you prefer?
I think all interactions with alien sapients should be performed in an above-board and honest manner. This is all millions of years off realistically speaking and we will detect them many generations before we could come into physical contact even if we wanted to do so sooner, plenty of time to devise a way of revealing ourselves and introducing them to advanced technology in a way that is tailored to their particular psychological and cultural norms with minimal harm without relying on some one-size-fits-all approach like "just hide 'till they make big ships then pop down and say hi lul"

What do you have to say about my other points in post 46?
#49
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I'm not supporting the practice of studying ancient cultures in that way.
Ok.

To imply that I do support that practice by trying to get me to defend it is misleading.
Ok.

I'm just pointing out that doing so doesn't violate the prime directive.
Ok.
#50
simplybeourselves
simplybeourselves's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 129
0
2
6
simplybeourselves's avatar
simplybeourselves
0
2
6
I think it's *perhaps* just from the POV of Rule Consequentialism but definitely not always just from the POV of Act Consequentialism.
#51
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
...plenty of time to devise a way of revealing ourselves and introducing them to advanced technology in a way that is tailored to their particular psychological and cultural norms with minimal harm without relying on some one-size-fits-all approach...
What PRINCIPLES do you believe should guide such a policy?

Should we introduce "technology" to the apes?

Should we introduce "technology" to the dolphins?

What about ants?

Would their lives be "vastly improved" by "technology"?

Do you believe human "culture" has been "vastly improved" by "technology"?
#52
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Should we introduce "technology" to the apes?

Should we introduce "technology" to the dolphins?

What about ants?
Well, no because doing so would be impossible to do...

All those examples would require biological uplifting of different degrees before technological uplifting would be possible, the two are very different topics.
#53
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Well, no because doing so would be impossible to do...

All those examples would require biological uplifting of different degrees before technological uplifting would be possible, the two are very different topics.
Doesn't "technology" include CRISPR?

Skip to 185 seconds,

And does "technology" always make things (sentient lives) "better"?

I mean, just think about the Hopi.  Are their lives "vastly improved" by "technology"?

Isn't "primitive" "culture" exactly how people learn to survive without "technology"?

Isn't "culture" a collection of traditions, rituals, and foods that are adaptive responses to a native environment?
#54
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Doesn't "technology" include CRISPR?
You didn't ask if I wanted to apply tech to them you asked if I wanted to teach them how to use tech.

My answer was "no" and my explanation was "because it is impossible to do".
#55
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
And does "technology" always make things (sentient lives) "better"?

I mean, just think about the Hopi.  Are their lives "vastly improved" by "technology"?

Isn't "primitive" "culture" exactly how people learn to survive without "technology"?

Isn't "culture" a collection of traditions, rituals, and foods that are adaptive responses to a native environment?
#56
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't recall making any grandiose one-size-fits-all statements like "tech always good lul". All I said is I don't believe the prime directive is just, and in fact I even said my desire to avoid grandiose one-size-fits-all solutions was one of the reasons for thinking that.

So, why is the prime directive just?
#57
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Culture is merely the modus-operandi of a particular society or sub-grouping, in both historical and ongoing terms. So as technology now plays a significant role in social function,  therefore technology is  now undoubtedly a part of human culture. 

The prime objective is seemingly the evolution of matter rather than just the development of human kind and human society...So whether or not the "prime directive is just" is perhaps out of human hands.

Best ask Spock.
#58
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I don't recall making any grandiose one-size-fits-all statements like "tech always good lul".
Except for this gem.

...plenty of time to devise a way of revealing ourselves and introducing them to advanced technology in a way that is tailored to their particular psychological and cultural norms with minimal harm...
PRINCIPLED POLICY =/= ONE SIZE FITS ALL (PROCRUSTEAN)
 
CUSTOM TAILORED - PRINCIPLED POLICY = AD HOC, WHIMSICAL, APPEAL TO IGNORANCE, fertile ground for corruption and abuse (no accountability)

So, why is the prime directive just?
The "prime directive" is poorly defined and even more poorly executed in the context of the show.

THE PRINCIPLE OF SOVEREIGNTY is "just" because it conforms to all individual human instincts.

THE PRINCIPLE OF SOVEREIGNTY is "just" because it protects every individual's autonomy.

THE PRINCIPLE OF SOVEREIGNTY is "just" because it protects the autonomy of every individual city, state, and country.

THE PRINCIPLE OF SOVEREIGNTY is "just" because it mitigates coercion and promotes voluntarism.

THE PRINCIPLE OF SOVEREIGNTY is "just" because the counter option is to either force or manipulate (intentionally or unintentionally) everyone who sees things differently.
#59
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
So as technology now plays a significant role [for some humans] in social function,  therefore technology is  now undoubtedly a part of [some humans] human culture. 
I think the point here is the idea that we should let a culture develop their own "technology" and not thrust it upon them.

At least, not until they wander into "international waters".

Should we intervene (perhaps with surreptitious genetic manipulation) to stop chimpanzees from eating baby monkey brains (because the practice seems repulsive to most humans)?

#60
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Some humans.
Show me a society/culture that isn't influenced by technology in some way.