Star Trek Prime Directive Meets Ayn Rand
First of all let me say that I cannot believe I am doing an analysis of the Star Trek prime directive. The prime directive states:
“As the right of each sentient species to live in accordance with its normal cultural evolution is considered sacred, no Star Fleet personnel may interfere with the healthy development of alien life and culture. Such interference includes the introduction of superior knowledge, strength, or technology to a world whose society is incapable of handling such advantages wisely. Star Fleet personnel may not violate this Prime Directive, even to save their lives and/or their ship unless they are acting to right an earlier violation or an accidental contamination of said culture. This directive takes precedence over any and all other considerations, and carries with it the highest moral obligation.”
The associated prohibitions are given below (according to Jbrenner)
1. Providing knowledge of technologies or science
2. Taking actions to generally affect a society's overall development
3. Taking actions which support one faction within a society over another
4. Helping a society escape the negative consequences of its own actions
5. Helping a society escape a natural disaster known to the society, even if inaction would result in a society's extinction.
6. Subverting or avoiding the application of a society's laws
7. Interfering in the internal affairs of a society
What would Ayn Rand say about the prime directive. I bet her first question would be what is a sentient species? According to dictionary “sentient” means “able to perceive or feel things.” Well cows, cats, dogs, and many other species can perceive or feel things, in fact much simpler organisms would fit this definition. Based on this definition Rand would state that only rational beings have rights. Rand defined the hierarchy of knowledge integration as sensation, precepts, and conceptual. She explains it perceptual in this example.
“An animal is guided, not merely by immediate sensations, but by percepts. Its actions are not single, discrete responses to single, separate stimuli, but are directed by an integrated awareness of the perceptual reality confronting it. It is able to grasp the perceptual concretes immediately present and it is able to form automatic perceptual associations, but it can go no further.”
My guess is that Rand would then ask what is “normal cultural evolution.” Is it normal cultural evolution to allow Rachel Carson to convince countries to ban DDT and cause 100 million deaths? Is it normal cultural evolution to allow Mao to institute the cultural revolution that will starve over 30 million people to death? There is no such thing a normal cultural evolution. But it rings of Marxist ideas of a scientific progression of society.
Then Rand would ask why normal cultural evolution is considered sacred. According to the dictionary sacred means “connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration.” Rand would reject anything based on an appeal to a deity. The proof of the first sentence of the prime directive rests on an appeal to faith, not reason.
It is clear the Prime Directive is based on faith, not reason and is immoral from the first sentence. I will not take on the rest of the directive but I will look at the prohibitions. The first prohibition is “Providing knowledge of technologies or science.” Given that directive was directed to species that are “able to perceive or feel things” this is almost meaningless. Most species that able to perceive are not able to understand or take advantage of knowledge.
But what about rational beings? Why would you not provide knowledge of technologies or science? Does this mean we cannot teach our kids science and technology? That would clearly be immoral. Your objection might be that they are within our culture, but what about African cultures? Should we have not introduced DDT, or steam engines, or the Internet? While we have no obligation to introduce these sciences and technologies, to purposely prohibit them would be immoral.
All the prohibitions and the prime directives are based group think (and written by Hollywood TV writers!). The word society is mentioned nine times in the Prime Directive and in the prohibitions. Individual is not mentioned once. Societies are based on a collection of people and only have rights based on the rights of the individuals, who make up the society, but none separate from them.
Start Trek’s Prime Directive is an inherently Socialist Ideal and Evil.
I had a friend that was the tram supervisor for a copper mine in the remote jungle of Irian Jawa (spelling?) and per agreement with the Indonesian government, had to employ local natives--recent converts from cannibalism, but still essentially primitive. The men wore only a long, conical gourd appropriately placed and were used in the tram house for cleaning. Darrel had ordered several barrels of lye based cleaner for cleaning the concrete of the tram house of grease. Since it was poisonous, it had a skull and crossbones painted on the barrels. One morning, when starting the day shift, the crew found several of the natives dead in the tram house. To them, apparently, the skull and crossbones meant food.
I just offer that as the impact to otherwise primitives of exposure to modernity, not in support of the Prime Directive.
Our "prime directive" in doing so is to put ourselves in the place of primitive people who are trying to convey thoughts/sights of whatever they experienced.
We have found carvings and paintings (pictographs) which resemble things like helicopters and UFOs.
Perhaps they had close encounters?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_Park...
"...And the Game is great. Set in 1950s-era Papua New Guinea, "South Seas Treasure Hunt" relies primarily on the traditional character classes (fighter, thief, mage, cleric) - anyone even slightly familiar with RPGs will recognize the basic setup. Unfamiliarity with RPGs isn't a barrier, though - the authors helpfully include two beginners in the campaign, a perfect excuse for exposition and introductory monologues.
The authors picked a really great mythology to work from, too. Off-hand, I can't name even a single other novel that uses the Cargo Cult . . . and Dream Park does a great job introducing it to us. In fact, that's one of the elements likely to keep you reading. But, the basic premise of the mythos
Spoiler ->is a mix of traditional animistic beliefs and ancestor worship, coupled with elements of 1950s Western culture. "Helped" along by certain local strong men, the Cargo Cult was an attempt to explain why Westerners had such better technology than the locals. They came to the conclusion that God intended such things for all the peoples of the world, but "Europeans" had subverted the minor deities of the Post Office, bribing them into redirecting the crates meant for New Guinea to Western locations. And, if they could figure out how "Europeans" used radios and soda pop to subvert God's will, then maybe they could steal it all back. . ."
http://www.fandompost.com/oldforums/show...
http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/...
The other is that it arbitrarily limits trade to those civilized peoples who have risen at least to the planet-hopping level.
But in the third season of the original series, the Prime Directive was ignored completely.
And there's more. One episode ("The Paradise Syndrome") develops evidence of earlier "intervention" in human affairs--and specifically the transplantation of American Indians (Navajo, Mohican and Delaware, and maybe other nations as well) and other humans to other worlds. Which now is their way of explaining the existence of so many rational species that could walk and talk like us! But did not these Preservers violate any concept of non-interference?
"LIAR!"
My favorite Asimov robot stories were Caves of Steel, Robots of Dawn and The Naked Sun
Did your discussion of the 3 laws ever include the Prime Directive from "With Folded Hands"? (later named "The Humanoids").
"To serve and protect and guard men from harm".
Even on earth, where we are supposedly all the same species, the help we give to some can someday be turned against us when groups we didn't help get hold of weapons we provided to our favored ones.
I would not go so far as to label Roddenberry's humanist ideals as socialist and evil. Almost every episode was a morality play to enlighten humans about some benighted condition, like racism or self-sacrifice as embodied by aliens.
The spinoffs and movies were more stagnant, more about politics and culture than about exploration.
"Kaffir" is derived from kafiri, or "unbeliever". in "The Man Who Would Be King", Kipling referred to the land to which Danny and Peachy traveled "Kafiristan"... land of the unbelievers.
If a society other than mine is stupid enough to follow the idiocy of Rachel Carson or of Mao, then I will gladly let that society go to the trash heap of history. When it is MY society, I will fight that idiocy to a point. Once past that point, I will shrug and leave.
Most "normal cultural evolution" is actually de-evolution. As long as that is not my society, I don't care very much. I will focus on my attention on what I can control in my own sphere of influence.
On this, I will disagree vehemently with db.
Not letting inferior cultures have access to such technology is the SELFISH thing to do. How many of us have seen ripoffs of American technology by countries in southeast Asia that do not respect intellectual property law? That's right, all of us. If a society is going to develop properly into a functioning society, it must have the appropriate virtues first.
Now I will use db's own words and those of AR from http://hallingblog.com/atlas-shrugged-ay...
to argue the exact opposite of what the Hallings just argued tonight.
“I’m not sure it was so great-inventing this new Metal, when so many nations are in need of plain iron-why do you know the People’s State of China hasn’t even got enough nails to put wooden roofs over peoples’ heads?”
This is the attitude of an inferior society that has been given access to science and technology that has not developed such technology itself.
From AS: ”…’he didn’t invent smelting and chemistry and air compression. He couldn’t have invented HIS metal but for thousands and thousands of other people. HIS Metal! Why does he think it’s his? Why does he think it’s his invention? Everybody uses the work of everybody else. Nobody ever invents anything.’ (Jim Taggart) She (Jim Taggart’s Wife) said, puzzled, ‘But the iron ore and all those other things were there all the time. Why didn’t anybody else make that Metal, but Mr. Rearden did?’”
From dbhalling's own blog:
Rand anticipates Open Source socialists. This idea that no one invents anything is the standard argument of collectivists, but it does not stand up to scrutiny. Why has inventing been concentrated in the last two centuries in relatively small populations of the U.S. and western countries?
My conclusion: Not letting inferior cultures have access to such technology is the SELFISH thing to do. They just aren't ready for it yet.
So I'll throw a minor wrench in the works here: All Starfleet officers are MILITARY officers responsible to a chain of command. They are not independent merchants or travelers. They are bound by the oaths they swore when they joined Starfleet, one of which is the Prime Directive. To me, my personal oath and honor are bound in my doing the best I can to abide by my agreements. To casually dismiss them because I didn't think they were convenient at the time is an excuse at best.
I personally can't take the Prime Directive so rigidly. There are many episodes in TNG that dealt with Prime Directive issues. There was the one where Wesley Crusher falls into a greenhouse and is sentenced to death. According to the Prime Directive, Picard should have allowed the boy to die - even though to the crew of the Enterprise the law that was broken was A) unknown at the time and B) rather arbitrary. It was pretty hard not to sympathize with the crew on that one.
Then you have the one where Riker and Troi are in disguise on a planet and a native follows them, gets critically wounded, and the crew heals him. The native then goes back and makes a big stink about "the Picard" and his "magical" powers. According to the PD, they should have let him die - not only to protect their own identities, but to prevent the cultural shock that occurred as a result. I'm more ambivalent about that one.
A third one is where the Enterprise is sent on a potential First Contact mission to a civilization whose religion paints them as alone in the universe. They have to back out after presenting themselves to the planet's ruler because the culture of the people would endure such a shock that it might destroy them. In that case, I think the only reasonable plan was to obey the Prime Directive.
Now one can argue that the very nature of a "Federation" makes them more like the UN than a sovereign entity, to which I would agree. But that is more a commentary on the ineffective governmental structure of a federation than on the status of the Fleet.
When I see you fundamentally disagree with anything he says, then I'll believe you're "individuals".
Two people have dreams, unbeknownst to the other. In one, the person is given knowledge of an alien power source. In the other person's dream, they are warned that if the power source is built and used, it would destroy the solar system.
After much conflict, they build a spaceship based on the device, figure out the fatal flaw in the technology, and fly off to Procyon.
Once there they encounter the species that gave them the dreams. They were given the dreams so that the technology could be safely tested... safely for the aliens, not for us.
When interrogated, the aliens reveal that they learned of the technology in dreams... the end of the story is yet another alien determining that, since they didn't see a nova, the technology works, and decide to activate their un-corrected device. The last line is that the 2nd aliens don't trust technology whose source they don't know.
Sometimes giving foreign societies access to advanced technology can benefit you.
Yes, but we are talking about a starship on a mission of discovery, a scientific adventure. Interfering in the culture of any planet is more or less going to affect the purity of the observation.
db,if you are saying one must choose Kirk or Galt...I’m going to have to choose Kirk.
I think Ayn Rand said she liked Spock.
*Mimi huffs off*
db, I’m a die-hard. Surrender. Lol.
Cheers
I.E. taking people to task for deeming them not logical or rational "enough"
This is not aimed at you DB - just an observation
I believe this post to be in error. You cannot make rules based on interactions between societies. Societies do not interact with one and other, they cannot as without the individual people there are no interrelations.
The Geneva Conventions rules for war represent rules that are reasonable for individuals to use to govern themselves when in a conflict with a different society. The society can do nothing, it cannot break the rules it cannot follow the rules. Only the individual has a mind that can determine if it will follow or not follow rules of war.
Since a society cannot do anything on its own accord, the rules of war must be accepted and followed by individuals to have any meaning. If they are agreed upon by society but not by the individual the will not be followed.
Ultimately all agreements, rules, laws, pacts.... must be defined for the individual or they have no meaning at all.
The US is falling apart not because of a collective, but because individuals are buying into the ideals of that collective and choosing to live by them.
Everything boils down to individual choice and how its used.
Rulesbased on societies leads to affirmative action, slavery, caste systems. The prime directive is socialism not based on rational. Faith masquerading as science.
The Prime Directive is not socialist, is extremely rational, and not based on faith whatsoever.
If you take the "normal cultural evolution" prong literally, it is that advanced societies wipe out less advanced societies (Until very recent history). This just shows that the whole statement is nonsense. There is nothing rational about it.
Did you mean to exclude from your criteria criminals, carriers of disease, and terrorists?
"Open borders" makes checking for any criteria impossible, and is a false alternative to "closed borders". The emphasis should be on the proper procedures for entry in accordance with what proper criteria. That is neither "open" nor "closed" borders and must be addressed for the current context.
Immigration policy addressing the current crisis has to be formulated in accordance with what is possible to do to achieve meaningful reform. Being "against welfare" doesn't address the fact that the welfare state is entrenched, will remain so for a very long time, and is open to immigrants whether we approve or not. Likewise for the rising trend to allow them to vote in the name of progressive "democracy".
Immigration policies suitable for the present context are not the same as what they should and could be under better circumstances, which cannot be allowed to permit hoards of illiterates manipulated to overwhelm the country for Obama's "fundamental change" as "welfare international" while overturning what is left of the country on behalf of the progressive agenda.
Once hoards of non-Americans (in the best sense of the concept of American) are entrenched and enlisted in the progressive evolution of the political and economic system, then it is over, with no way to go back, just as surely as if we had been invaded and taken over by a foreign culture and power aided and abetted by insider forces.
From http://www.redstate.com/diary/ken_taylor...
The two references in the Constitution that specifically mention , “naturalization, ” are found in Article I, Section 8 in creating the authority of the Congress, “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Thus from a Constitutional stand point it is the responsibility of Congress to establish all laws and rules of naturalization or immigration.
Congress has made laws regarding immigration and naturalization that have been completely ignored in recent generations.
I will grant that my criteria are somewhat subjective. That is the reason for a proper evaluation period.
Anyone who has made a product before knows that if you accept any amount of any impurity into the feedstock, the product that you will produce will be unacceptable. What we have done in recent generations is accept any amount of people with no discrimination whatsoever regarding the value that they can bring into America and no discrimination regarding tendency toward lawlessness. What we have obtrained is a permanent underclass of moochers who overwhelm our vote to keep their looter masters in place over them and us both.
Immigration policies only came into being about the time of WWI, prior to that time, free travel of humanity was recognized as a natural right. Naturalization for citizenship was a different matter.
The start of your last paragraph strikes me as eugenics, and that I'm particularly adverse to.
It is simply and only the Welfare State that has caused the problem.
The standards for proper immigration policy are rarely discussed today, and that in combination with the disastrous trends in welfare policy and the cultural reasons for it makes it that much more difficult to institute a proper immigration system in accordance with actual natural rights of would-be immigrants.
2) The welfare state was made possible by the votes of moochers.
3) As for the immigrants of 100-150 years ago, I will grant that they had very little education.
The key is that they wanted to assimilate. I have not seen that in recent generations. The melting point was a good metaphor. A stew, which is what is discussed now, is the way to ruin a country.
I have no problem with poor or uneducated people. I have a problem with moochers and looters. We have too many of them ... period.
---
What? Of course you can.
Sure, you only have to act in your interest. But that is not Star Trek, they say you are morally obligated to let death, starvation and misery happen when you could prevent it.
This is not an academic question. Many economists take this point of view. They say "I can show you that certain courses of action will lead to mass starvation and other problems, but I cannot form a judgement on which course of action you take."
??????????????????????????????????
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mH-L6UC...
It is far more difficult to stand back and let someone you love go through a painful process of learning from a bad decision than it is to step in and save them from the consequences. Standing back and letting them work though it lets them learn and progress and become stronger and better. Stepping in and preventing the consequence weakens them and makes them less able to handle the next problem they face.
This is true rather you are atheist, Christian or some other religion. It is true for individuals and groups of individuals.
Take the Monroe Doctrine. The US said, we will interfere if you colonize. We will not colonize. In the first case, this did not preclude trade by individuals or companies. To the second part, did not preclude trade AND is consistent with natural rights. Imperialism went against our Constitution. Trade almost certainly means sharing knowledge and technology. Why would it be sound policy to deny those opportunities? It's like trade boycotts. I rarely support them. The battle of ideas on capitalism are won by trade. Trade is an essentially rational activity and moral.
In AS there is no analogy to the PD. Galt cannot use force to convince Dagny or Rearden. So he has to let them see the consequences on their own. That is not the PD.
The Prime Directive is largely about letting the less developed society seeing the consequences of their actions on their own.
As for the group think argument, because Starfleet is a military structure, yes, there is a group think component.
It is the opposite of what you said, although statists would agree.
Individual have individual rights. Even if most of a society is violating individual rights, it does not mean that individuals don't have individual rights.
Individual rights are derived from the natural fact that (most) men have the ability to reason to make choices to live.
His survival of the fittest morality is used by groups of animals and savages that, lack the ability or refuse to use, reason.
Humans often engage in post hoc rationalization. It's almost our default mode. But we have the power of reason if we use it and avoid logical errors. We use this non-default ability to build a republic, which is not the default mode of gov't for humankind.
We're saying rights are based on human reasoning power. That does mean we *always* use reasoning power.
Robbie was right about a month ago. You do not understand, or fail to account for, the human nature of looters and moochers.
Michael Savage once said that "Liberalism is a mental disorder." Liberals are irrational, and the mental disorder of liberalism is a combination of Freudian denial and projection.
I more or less go along with Admiral Kutuzov's philosophy regarding the Prime Directive, as accounted in "Istvan Dies".
Let's put the blame where it belongs, rather than trying to manage it by placing even more restrictions on natural rights which does as much or more damage to Objectivists. Managing the nightmare we have now, rather than eliminating it is the problem we face with RINO's now. Stop the welfare and the looting. Moochers and looters will leave or change when the incentives are removed.
Also Kathryn Janeway's battle with them in Voyager.
The popularity of Star Trek and its various slogans and metaphors are an example of how a mixture of basic ideas are transmitted through a culture and become uncritically accepted and reinforced. The reasons justifying the good ones have to be explained and the rest rejected through the kind of discussion right here on this page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Best_of...)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilSnZ1w4B...
This double episode was a better celebration of the individual over the collective and freedom over tyranny than any TV or movie I have ever seen.
Resistance is NOT futile.
The Prime Directive is a plot mechanism that furthers Star Trek episodes by creating an inherent barrier to action: If it were 'permitted' to save a crewman's life with modern tech or protect a civilization from disaster the series would have been about a bunch of godlets do-gooding around the universe. Which would have been a different program than Star Trek was.
The oft-ignored Prime Directive was interesting for a TV show (which I watched avidly for years) but it is the opposite of what I would do if I were on a ship exploring the galaxy. I would be more wysiwyg: We are from the stars. We are not gods, but we have abilities you do not. We are glad to meet you: Would you like to trade? Would you like to talk philosophy? You have some nice wine there...would you like an artificial ruby in exchange for it?
This is much more the interstellar society of Poul Anderson's Nicholas van Rijn. This is how I would hope an interstellar society worked - and that the Earth was not undergoing some secret 'test of development' whilst we were being carefully sequestered by star spanning Vulcan societies around us. I would adventure across the universe, if I had the ability...I do not need more barriers to action!
Jan
I agree with everything in your post above. At its core, it seems like the PD is saying if we have any interaction with primitive people, we will end up stealing or taking advantage in some way, so they do nothing, even if that means letting people die of a plague or disaster the advanced people could easily stop. I agree with you. All people should try to behave according to their values. They shouldn't take no action out of fear.
Definition: "A creature of volitional consciousness." Armed with that definition,
we may treat the species as we would treat ourselves at any particular stage of development. Which means a different form of encounter based on the different degree of societal evolution. And then, of course, There's the decision as to how to encounter a life form superior in development to us either technically, morally or both.
I always thought the Vulcan approach made more sense: observe, but do not contact until the alien society is preparing to venture into the broader interstellar culture.
But even those two foodstuffs are too similar for this analogy. I should have asked: "Do you walk to school or bring your lunch? Are you going to New York or by bus? I like peanut butter, can you swim?
By definition, the "Vulcans" (who were allegedly what the Starfleet Universe bases so much of their thought, rationality, and basis, including this "prime directive" behind) broke every one of the tenets of said "Prime Directive" when they initiated contact with the inhabitants of this little galactic backwater. Why?
I also wonder - as the "Johnny come lately" into this galactic socialistic experiment - how the people on Earth became the lead players, the "Federation" is based on Earth, and most of the people you see (especially the ranking officers) are either Terran or Terran-Analogues.
What happened to all the others? Why is the Federation based in San Francisco rather than ShiKahr or Vulcana Regar?
Anyway... the prime directive, if followed, would have meant the entire Space-Time continuum that the Federation exists in would never have existed, and Earth would have went on its merry way. Without influence by the Vulcans et al...
Then again, what would I expect from a socialist's fantasy-universe other than their assertion that A≠A...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwBO39Cu...
ah yes. and he referred that to the Directive
If a society is exposed to technological advancement that is not ready for it, it has not gone particularly well. America's original principle of non-interventionism served it well for a very long time. Since WW2, America has intervened where it doesn't belong, and like the Roman Empire has spread its treasure out so thinly that it will collapse very soon.
If we have any compassion at all, we do not attempt to teach calculus to students who have not shown at least competency in the underlying principles of algebra, trigonometry, and geometry. If the student is not prepared for the concept, we hold off until they are ready. That was why First Contact could only take place after a civilization in the Star Trek universe had developed warp drive - that was judged (arbitrarily or historically) to be the point at which a society could be considered ready.
If the Federation itself weren't the owners of the technology, then I would say you might have a point, but in the theoretical universe of Star Trek, that just isn't the case. I might also point out, however, that only the Federation takes this stance. The Romulans and especially the Ferengi had zero compunctions about selling advanced (even illegal) technology to the highest bidders.
My larger problem is in the notion of a stable governmental form such as a "federation" in the first place. All we have to do is look at the federations such as the UN that exist today to see that they are an unstable, corrupt, and intermediary form of government at all. In the Star Wars vs Star Trek, I think that Star Wars has a more realistic view on government.
"becomes"?
Either do commerce to get the oil or conquer them for the oil? Would our economic need for the oil override the prime directive or property rights?
(Remember Kirk's promise to the Halkans in Mirror Mirror. )
Regarding a physical Atlantis, it will be an interesting discussion to define natural resource mining. For example, if Ellis Wyatt drills and finds oil that is part of a basin that is partially under someone else's property, then how do we settle that?
Broke a few rules in that episode.
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/The_City...)
(1) McCoy was not "in love" with Christine Keeler: he just "liked" her. (2) Kirk really did love her. The loss was more hurtful to Kirk but (3) demanded by his duty to act. (4) Kirk was not changing a backward culture but re-establishing the time of our own universe, returning it to the state before the interference by Dr. McCoy.
The "he" I used above is Kirk (the subject of the sentence) not McCoy.
If Kirk had not acted, everyone and everything he ever knew, outside the city, before finding the time portal, would be gone forever. It could be argued he made the rational choice and not the emotional one.
It does beg the question, What would John Galt have done?
Basically there's no way at all to "Observe" and not-influence the subjects. Science has proven this on many facets, even in Quantum Mechanics. In some experiments, merely watching the experiment changes the outcome!
So anyone promoting the Prime Directive is a pie in the sky fool. You can either choose to interact with a civilization, or you can choose not to observe them at all. This ultimately devolves into a business transaction. Do they have something we need and are we willing to trade something we have for it?
The moment you've decided to enter their solar system, you've already changed things. You can't pretend that you haven't. And the moment you've shown them technology, even from the outside, you've changed their scientific and engineering progression. If aliens showed up on Earth today, and told us they got here through a Worm Hole, suddenly all of development would revolve around conquering this technology. And even if they didn't directly tell us, we would figure it out soon enough.
Here is a good critical analysis of it with clips from the show and humor: http://blip.tv/sf-debris-opinionated-rev...
It's very similar to how I imagine Rand viewing it. He says it's based on following the natural course of the universe (i.e. God's will) rather than doing what our reason tells us.
First of all, it is unfortunate that the writer quoted did not have a better vocabulary. The word he wanted was SACROSANCT, not sacred, which you would understand if you knew how to derive meaning from context. The word Sacrosanct (which is among the meanings of the word Sacred - so the writer wasn't far off base) has nothing to do with gods or religions, and merely means: (Especially of a principle, place, or routine) regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with: as in "the individual’s right to work has been upheld as sacrosanct" So all of your digression into anti-God /anti-religion is irrelevant.
The Prime Directive is NOT based on faith, although clearly your personal biases are based on faith or anti-faith. In fact, the Prime Direct is a statement of an anti-god anti-interference doctrine. It refutes the Deus Ex Machina that people of "compassion" want to exercise when they think they know what is best for a culture other than their own.
"Why would you not provide knowledge of technologies or science?" The PD was created with people EXACTLY like you in mind - people who don't see any harm in introducing information to a culture with absolutely no idea how that culture will be affected by such information. The answer to your question is, Because you haven't got the intelligence/insight/foresight/powers of deduction or induction necessary to determine when a culture can handle new information. Oddly enough, you would have to have the powers normally attributed to a god, in order to qualify for the job of New Information Dispersal Technician.
"Does this mean we cannot teach our kids science and technology?" You do understand that the concept involved here is that of an Advanced culture encountering another culture which is not advanced? Is your child a different culture? Try to pay attention to the meaning and proper context of the Prime Directive.
"While we have no obligation to introduce these sciences and technologies, to purposely prohibit them would be immoral." First, you are imposing YOUR sense of morality. Second, nothing about the Prime Directive says anything about prohibition of technological advancement from within the culture. Try to stick to the point and stop creating smoke and mirror distractions to make your conclusion sound reasonable.
Talking about society, in a rule that governs interaction with an ENTIRE culture, taken as a whole, is logical. It would be illogical to be talking about individuals. Just because the word "society" starts with the letters soc, doesn't make the topic under discussion a SOCialist ideal. And to say that a Socialist Ideal is Evil is YOU again imposing your morality. YOU are not logical.
Have you ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine? It is Thomas Jefferson's version of the Prime Directive, enunciated by President Monroe as the best course for the United States to adopt as a Foreign Policy. There is nothing Socialist or Capitalist about it. It is not an Economic policy any more than the Prime Directive is. It is a policy of non-interference in the affairs of developing nations (cultures/societies). The best thing that the Presidents of the United States of America could have been doing for the past 200 years is to adopt and enforce the Monroe Doctrine on ourselves. But we haven't been doing that and you only have to look around you at the world to understand how well that has been working out for us and everybody we have been trying to influence.
B) WHICH native Americans? During the mythical terrible treatment we allegedly gave the various tribes, OTHER tribes were our allies, and not only thought nothing of atrocities, but gave us ideas for atrocities.
I have to laugh rudely in the face of ANYONE who thinks Mankind would be better off if we left the North American continent to the aborigines.
Morality is objective as is government. That is the whole point of Rand.
Anyone had a right to overthrow the dictatorships of Japan and Iraq, and did not have to wait for a Pearl Harbor or its equivalent from either. That right does not make it proper for a _government_ to undertake such charity without a justification in national defense, which was the criterion in both cases. The expensive "nation-building" afterwords had no such justification.
The Prime Directive is Socialist nonsense, posing a science..
Understandably, the United States has always taken a particular interest in its closest neighbors – the nations of the Western Hemisphere. Equally understandably, expressions of this concern have not always been favorably regarded by other American nations.
The Monroe Doctrine is the best known U.S. policy toward the Western Hemisphere. Buried in a routine annual message delivered to Congress by President James Monroe in December 1823, the doctrine warns European nations that the United States would not tolerate further colonization or puppet monarchs. The doctrine was conceived to meet major concerns of the moment, but it soon became a watchword of U.S. policy in the Western Hemisphere."
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flas... The reader can determine who is right or wrong about the Monroe Doctrine, the meaning of the word sacred/sacrosanct and whether the PD talks about the rights of societies or the rights of species. You may want to reread your own post.
It seems to me, though, the characters often talk about the Prime Directive as preserving the cosmic plan for people, which is like saying respecting God's will. But we don't know God's will (if there even is a god). So the PD is telling them not to do what their reason tells them but instead to follow god's plan.
The PD is interpreted differently depending on who wrote the script, so I'm not always anti-PD and pro-PD.
Heinlein's Stranger provides interesting commentary on the practice of cannibalism, including the ritualistic form practiced by the Christian religions (and what is your view of transubstantiation?).
Is that enough of a tangential off-shoot from the original subject of the thread? I can do better, but I'm tired.
Here's a good word for you and others: meta-phor. Metaphor.
Stranger in a Strange Land *must* have been done at a time when Heinlein was indulging in LSD fueled orgies.
The cannibalism of the Martians, unlike the cannibalism of savages in the real world, was adopted as a matter of survival. The ritualization made it palatable, if you'll pardon the grotesque pun.
It was a "plot device" which was used as a mechanism to add drama/plot twists and shouldn't be considered as anything more substantial than that. Anybody promoting it as national or world policy?
History shows the best foreign policy is conquest.
"A starship captain's most solemn oath is that he will give his life, even his entire crew, rather than violate the Prime Directive." -- Captain James T. Kirk, 2268
Contrast that to the REAL Prime Directive as embodied in the John Galt Speech: "I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."
Seems to me that the Federation wants all of its officers to live for its sake, not for their own sake....
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Rules_of...
http://blip.tv/sf-debris-opinionated-rev...
"Do work for someone and they'll give you things in return? Wow, someone should write a paper on this!"
Load more comments...