Sean’s Cream is a proud sponsor of Heroes In My Pants (rated M for Mature).
Agreed. There were times when I was laughing so hard I almost cried, and I definitely blushed at times.
Also, I’d like to echo whoever (someoned! sorry) said how lovely it was that you all had the twitter board up, even though I fear we were at times a bit of a distraction. It definitely made me, a 3rd time missup attendee, feel as close to being at the meetup as any other year. Though I hope to not be a missup attendee next year, it was lovely to feel a part of it all.
And with the new podcast arc: I kind of went crazy on Twitter, and some of my initial thoughts were:
Screw the Prime Directive! (I love Star Trek) #GWCMeetup
(only because the Federation’s inconsistent) #GWCMeetup
assumption of constant progress; that people never steal ideas from other people #GWCMeetup
the prime directive has some underlying assumptions that are pretty self-aggrandizing, i think
I wonder what this has to do with some of the inter-Fed. conflicts i.e. DS9’s “In the Pale Moonlight” #GWCMeetup
And then also: how does this apply to the world we live in? #GWCMeetup
so how do the Borg work with the Prime Directive? #GWCMeetup
right but the Federation faced with the Borg? doesn’t fit in paternalist policy because more ‘advanced’? #GWCMeetup
Let’s have a postcolonialist party! #GWCMeetup
like the idea that there are universal rights? @Gwcaudra #GWCMeetup
On second thought (or 3rd or 4th): I think Sean mentioned that he’s really interested in where the line is between “not advanced enough” and “technologically our peer,” and that’s still the kind of negotiation that we go through every day when dealing with cultures not our own. That said, the Prime Directive as such (and strictly applied) can devolve into cultural relativism, which I personally disagree with when applied rigidly, as I do believe that there are certain universal human (or sentient? if we’re talking SF/F) rights. These are themes and topics that science fiction and fantasy explore, but it’s also near and dear to my heart as it’s also the kind of discussion that feminist, anti-racist, progressive, postcolonial, etc. theories and critics (in the academic sense) have been struggling with for the past 2 decades at the least. So: I’m very excited to see where this leads us all. 
A couple other considerations for the noninterference arc:
- The Tollan in SG-1 not wanting to give tech to Earth because they had to another planet before and the people on that planet wiped themselves out in a war over it.
- Ascended beings in Stargate in general.
Had to stop listening to the cast to read your post. Sorry I didn’t get to read your tweets until now. I was in the back of the room Friday. Very insightful points you made!
Non-interference (IMHO) should be used with civilizations that have very low technology…they are still developing and throwing tech at them would stifle their own creativity. Civilizations with more advanced tech should be approached with caution and asked if they need/want help their tech, areas where they have hit a roadblock so to speak.
Just making contact with another civilization changes them. Once first contact is made you’ve already interfered!
Exactly. It’s the give a man a fish/teach a man to fish argument.
Here’s an example from the Honor Harrington books: Nobody told Grayson how to make inertial compensators, so they weren’t bound by what other people knew wouldn’t work. Then when they signed a treaty with Manticore, the Manticorians discovered that Grayson’s compensators were actually more efficient.
And to keep with the David Weber examples, in the Safehold series, Merlin isn’t just handing Charis all the tech he can. There’s a religious aspect to it too, but part of it is that if you just give people all the answers, they won’t feel the need to figure stuff out and will just stagnate again at a higher tech level. He did hand them a few things at the beginning (Arabic numerals for one), but for the most part, he just made suggestions and nudged them in the right direction.
I am so so very embarrassed. So ashamed! And I think you all know why…Oh you do. But you’ve all be so nice to not say anything about it.
Obviously you know what I’m talking about.
You don’t? Oh. Come on. You’re too nice.
Okay. Here it is: During the Live Podcast I was on Twitter and tweeted that General Order Number 7 is the Prime Directive (in Star Trek).
Well, OBVIOUSLY. That’s not true. The Prime Directive is General Order Number 1.
I know everyone read that and thot to themselves “Omg, what has Thot been drinking? How could he make a mistake that no geek who was in a 7th grade Star Trek club in 1977 could rightfully make.”
Well, I deeply apologize. I mean, we all know what General Order 7 is, so I won’t repeat that here.
Anyway, here’s the verbiage of the Prime Directive. Discuss. 
General Order 1: The Prime Directive
As the right of each sentient being to live in accordance with its normal cultural evolution is considered sacred, no Starfleet personnel may interfere with the normal and healthy development of alien life and culture. Such interference includes introducing superior knowledge, strength, or technology to a world whose society is incapable of handling such advantages wisely. Starfleet personnel may not violate this Prime Directive, even to save their lives and/or their ships, 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.
You know, re-listening to the cast and the whole issue of non-involvement, there’s the constant assumption that it’s for the benefit of the “lesser” race/species/ethnicity/group. However, Nika’s comment got me thinking about the reverse direction that it can take, and who not just culturally, but technologically, entering into a “lesser” group’s civilization and subsuming their cultural and technological track of development eliminates their future uniqueness. To that end, it may be just as beneficial for the Federation / Ascended / Whomever It May Concern to not interfere.
If we (us here being, say, the Federation) give a group our advanced technology and artificially progress their society hundreds or thousands of years, we wipe out their unique progress toward technological sophistication that could possibly one day yield technology we would never even think of creating. By allowing to develop on their own track, we get something entirely new and unique and possibly outside the realm of our own imaginations.
The prime directive may, in the end, exist just as much for the benefit of us as for them.
It’s all my fault. I was there, distracting you. You were trying to warn people to stay away from ‘talos’ tweets.
General Order 7:
Starfleet General Order 7 was a directive that forbade contact with the planet Talos IV. It was made part of Starfleet policy in 2254. In 2267, it was the only Starfleet regulation that carried the threat of capital punishment.
I was so not ready for a philosophy bull session on Friday night. Too giddy, too full of drink. As I listened to the cast today I thought about so many issues related to nonintervention/the Prime Directive.
Like Casilda, all this feminist, anti-racist, progressive, postcolonial critical theory is fun for me. Especially when applied to things I love outside of academia, like sci-fi and fantasy. I’ll be doing some hard thinking over the next fews days because I want to really engage with this arc.
I don’t think it is the give a man a fish/teach a man to fish argument, actually. I think that that is one part of it, but the other parts are philosophical (is it messing with destiny? Can you even mess with destiny?) and ruthlessly practical (Who cares if this will help or hurt them–will this hurt us??). In short, it’s damn complicated.
When morality is involved, looking at the evidence isn’t a perfect guide, but with something this complex it can be helpful. I see six potential outcomes to test:
[ol]
[li]You violate the Prime Directive and things work out great for you and the other party
[/li][li]You violate the Prime Directive and it works out well for you but badly for them
[/li][li]You violate the Prime Directive and it works out badly for you but great for them
[/li][li]You violate the Prime Directive and everyone is boned
[/li][li]You violate the Prime Directive and nothing happens
[/li][li]You violate the Prime Directive and things happen but it’s too hard to tell exactly what the causal relationships are
[/li][/ol]
I’m trying to think up examples for all of them. That particular example from the Honor Harrington books sprang immediately to mind.
In the end, the autonomy/self-governance/self-maximization concerns tend to carry the most weight in my mind but that’s just me.
I am really looking forward to continuing this conversation in the next few weeks!
So, we shouldn’t introduce the Yanamamo to penicillian? 'Cause it would destroy their culture and all?
Did we pass along the disease that necessitates the penicillin? On purpose? Not on purpose?
What is the impact of displacing medical cultures adjusted to the environment in which people live?
I just want to clarify that I’m not a strict no-interventionist. But these are questions that I think one in a position of power ought to think through, weigh costs and benefits, and make a decision.
(and do you mean the Yanomami? or am I out of it)
The nomenclature is difficult, but yes.
What is the impact of displacing medical cultures adjusted to the environment in which people live?
Um, it’s more efficacious?
Yeah, there’s some value in traditional medicines (which we are still learning about) but in general you’re better off with first world meds.
Maybe Sean’s Cream is a flavor of Ben and Jerry’s. A whiskey flavor.
In the immediate situation, yes. But what about the next time a disease comes around that you need a different drug for? and diseases like HIV/AIDS? I’m not saying don’t give people the drugs they need to stay alive - I’m saying you can’t pretend that by giving them the drugs you’ve solved all the problems. Some negative results/side effects from what can be seen as positive interventions include social upheaval, dependence on the more “advanced” culture, as social change happens the environment in which a group lives can no longer support the population, etc. It’s never as simple as we want it to be.
Just finished listen to the cast…damn I missed out on a really good time 
Why do I get the tag lines of
‘Melts in your mouth and not on your face/hands’
What would you do for Sean’s Cream
‘A little dab’ll do ya!’
‘Sean’s Cream is forever’
shrugs
I always thot, and I could be wrong, that the Prime Directive mostly dealt with inter-planetary space travel. Only an enlightened culture (planet) is ready to join the Federation…that and achieving warp speed.
As far as cultural (planetary) evolution goes, I say if you have a more advanced technology or medicine- help a brother out (or at least charge him a reasonable rate).
My question is simple - What’s the difference between guidance and interferance? I agree that you do not want to tamper with the natural path. I see it like when you help your child with their homework. You don’t want to give them the answer as they will not learn anything, however by giving them the tools for analysing and develop the critical thinking, then they can develop their own methods. I suppose it goes back to the whole A.I argument.
Also is the Prime Directive just limited to technology and/or technology that can be scanned? Can you be advanced in pursuits such as standard of living, ideals and more social paths (I’m thinking like the Na’vi in Avatar). What if we went to a place where they had developed telepathy but still rode wagons. Who are we to say that we are more advanced.
The way it seems like the prime directive is constructed is like the tech tree that you get in games like Age of Empires or Civilisation - You have to have certain
pre-requistists before you can get to the ultimate space travel.
I mean, what if we as a technology advanced species went to a planet that had the tech/knowledge of some of our ancient civilisations. I’m sure some of them would be more technology advanced than us (just in different ways).
Correct me if I’m wrong but haven’t there been instances in the real world where the first world nations have said ‘Nope, we’re going to prevent you from developing this tech because we think its going to be bad for the rest of us’. I’m sure the CO2 targets (while good) are preventing some of the more up and coming nations from really progressing. I’m sure I’ve heard arguments to
the tune of (from the developing country POV) - “You had your industrial revelotion - why can’t we have ours now”. They were just lucky to have it when there wasn’t any rules or regulations to stifle them.
Nice! It starts so innocently. Let us know when that first 35 pages is out.
Mass Effect 1 Spoilers ahead:
The Reapers do this in Mass Effect (leaving their technology for each race to find) so that their individual technological achievements happen the way the Reapers want them to. As a result, all the races in the game use extremely similar technology, and all research is directed down the same paths, preventing any alternate(and unpredictable) advancements. In this way, the Reapers are able to find and wipe out all intelligent life in the galaxy with little resistance, as they already know what types of defense technology will exist, and how to defeat it.