Oh no worries, I’m just imagining the disaster that would be. A trainwreck. Insert your disaster metaphor of choice.
I haven’t seen Sucker Punch, but one of the commercials combined with a review or two I’ve read, creating the thought “It looks like Brazil with boobage.”
Haven’t finished the cast yet, but this is what I think about too. I think it’s interesting that the Spanish and Portuguese had developed this procedure of conquering land and rewarding the conquerors with the labor of the peasants, so long as they converted them to Christianity. They used this procedure against the Moors in southern Spain, the people of the Canary Islands, the Caribbean islands, and then “New Spain.” It was a part of their culture for hundreds of years before they arrived in the Americas. So I guess they were following their “prime directive,” in some ways.
I also think about the history of European conquest as seen through the eyes of a 1960s Gene Roddenberry. A lot of white Americans felt shame for what they understood to be the history of American conquest. They viewed natives as innocent children living in harmony with nature, and Anglo-Americans as violent, greedy, and corrupt. I think it’s important to acknowledge injustices and crimes against humanity from the past (and the Anglo-Americans committed many). And it’s important to recognize there are privileges that I enjoy by being born “white” in the US in the 20th century. As a result, there are things that I do in my life to try to work toward social justice. But feeling shame for what John Smith did in 1607 is not one of them (let alone what Hernan Cortes did in Mexico City in 1517 or Jacob Greathouse in the late 1700s in northern WV). Furthermore, some native tribes had extremely violent cultures as well while others were welcoming to strangers. I just think the history of conquest in the Americas is more complex. Boy, even this explanation of what I was thinking has gotten complicated.
My point is: I think the perceived history of conquest in the Americas had a lot to do with the creation of the prime directive and I think about that history when I think of the prime directive.
One of my old prof’s got a lot of press last year when she published definitive records that U.S. government scientists purposely infected Guatemalans with syphilis without their knowledge or consent in the 1940s.
My only point here is that regardless of which example you highlight, it’s pretty decisive that the U.S. government has gone down that path in the past. And we all feel pretty icky about it now.
Of course, the U.S. for much of its history (Jeffersonian era aside) has had the opposite of a non-intervention policy. The Monroe Doctrine is pretty much the inverse of the Prime Directive, right? From democracy-building foreign aid projects to purely pragmatic investments in less technologically advanced societies, the motivations are varied but we sure do like to stick our fingers in everyone’s pie.
And here is a very interesting thought that I think I might agree with that is almost totally contrary to what I just wrote, above. Hmph.
Wow, I don’t think I’ve disagreed more with you guys before (even more than the discussion of Adama’s dealing with Chief’s insubordination), as the Prime Directive is probably one of Gene Roddenberry’s coolest inventions. IMHO, you are completely missing the point in accusing the Feds of being arrogant for suggesting that different planets should develop in the same way that Earth did. They are in fact saying the exact opposite; each society (that is separated by interstellar void) should be given the chance to undergo their own cultural evolution regardless of the pace and direction.
It may be the biologist/anthropologist in me but the key effect of the PD is to maintain diversity. Each society is its own independent manifestation of the processes of biological and social evolution and thus has inherent value. Thus to interfere contaminates it and lessens it. Hey, I’m all about “Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations”.
Pulling parallels from our own history is not a perfect analogy, as few Earth societies are truly isolated like they would be on separate planets in the STvers. I also get why the PD would be seen unfavorably around here because as scifi fans we are generally predisposed to being techy-philes. I too would dream of the aliens coming down and showing us the secret to faster than light travel, cold fusion, and no calorie trans-fats. However, I can’t help but to ascribe more to the Stephen Hawking view of what contact with ET would likely mean to us. Even if the intentions weren’t Big-E evil, I cannot think of an example from our history where contact between cultures of different technological abilities was particularly beneficial to the lesser advanced. Even the apparently noble goal of improving a separate culture’s existence through the introduction of new technologies is alarmingly similar to the Conquistador’s intentions of saving the natives’ mortal soul with the introduction of Christianity. They too thought they were fighting the noble fight.
I am certainly no Luddite and can only hope that technological advances will get us out of some of the challenges our society currently faces, however there are multiple instances where improvements in technology has actually been detrimental to humanity on the individual level. For example, agriculture arguably led to decreased health of the populous due to an over dependence on starch-rich monoculture compared to hunter-gatherer societies. It dominates because it enables a society to accumulate wealth and differentiate the work force, while at the same time pushing those cultures still engaging on a more basic subsistence strategy on to more marginal land. The same can be said for the invention of individual automobiles. Therefore, I think it is the height of arrogance to think that we could in fact improve a different society’s existence by meddling and giving them our own technology. In essence you are saying that our way is the better way.
Now the issues that are brought up by pre-warp societies facing global disaster are interesting and difficult. While I may be favorably disposed to saving a planet facing a cometary impact where there would be no interference at all to the planet, in the specific case of the TNG episode discussed in the 'cast, I would actually have to agree with Picard on this one. Their planet was dying. Dems da breaks. Sucks to be you. They just rolled snake-eyes in the cosmic game of craaaaaaaaaaaps. If the enterprise could have fixed the problem on the planet in a discrete way then maybe I would condone acting, but the big problem is the fact that the solution required recolonizing a new planet. Why are their lives more sacred than the life (animals, plants and future societies) that already exists there? Do we mourn the dinosaurs or every other extinct species? In fact to tie this in to the previous discussion of time travel, if it were possible would be obligated to go back in time to fix every bit of suffering in human history? Should we have given better weapons to the Aztecs so they had a fighting chance against Hernán Cortés? Should we have stopped the holocaust before it happened? It certainly sucked (to understate it a bit), but if so I wouldn’t be here (no Eisenhower presidency, no Kennedy presidency, no peace corps, no Mr. Phil’s Dad and Mrs. Phil’s Mom getting it on). Anyway, I don’t see how in the STvers if you argue that interference in isolated societies is okay, why it isn’t also okay to muck with the time line.
Hmmmm, sorry to have gotten all riled up. Oh, BTW, I love this week’s podcast!
Me too.
Awesome post Phil. As everyone knows, I’m a huge Star Trek fan and have been since I was a kid. And as such, I’ve kinda always just presumed the Prime Directive is an inherently good thing and never really questioned it. Love this arc, because it takes an opportunity to question its value and it’s good to question things.
I wish I was more knowledgeable about Stargate so I can be more conversant in that side of the perspective, but I’m not.
Been trying to keep an open mind in this arc, and though my gut feeling has been that the Prime Directive is actually a smart idea I didn’t know how to articulate it. But Phil, you pretty articulated my view above. I agree with everything you say.
I guess an argument against the Prime Directive is that the free exchange of science and technology is inherently good for all. That’s a valid idea, but probably naive in a universe with threats and politics and differences.
So, here’s my question to those that are anti-Prime Directive:
What would your policy be for dealing with new races?
I’m trying to imagine an interstellar civilization, lets call it “The United Chuck Federation” (not picking on you Chuck just making an example) and that civilization was expanding and exploring and encountering new planets all the time. Not the Star Trek verse per se, but any space verse with a richness of planets to explore.
Would your policy be “Do whatever you want”? “Take or give or whatever technology you feel like”?
Civilizations thrive in terms of trade and culture etc when there is the rule of law. Take anti-pollution laws for example in our country (and our world).
If we didn’t have such laws any corporation could do what ever it wanted and pollute and exploit to their heart’s content. And the companies that polluted and exploited the most would make the most profits and put the “nicer” companies out of business. But with government enforced anti-pollution laws all companies can play on the same playing field and any costs or lost profits they incur by being environmentally good citizens are the same as those of their competitors.
In the same way, I think a law like The Prime Directive would let everyone in the Federation play on the same playing field. If there was a free and open license for private vessels and corporations to go to any planet and interfere and interact unrestricted, that’s a recipe for a chaos. Is that kind of chaos a good thing? I dunno. I doubt it.
So I think if you put my United Thot Federation of Planets (UTFP) (pro PD) side by side with the United Chuck Federation of Planets (UCFP) (anti PD), I think the UTFP would thrive more that the UCFP cuz we’ll have the rule of law and better trade and commerce as a result. And Chuck, your UCFP will have a lot of fighting and civil wars and corporate exploitation of planetary resources.
But then again, does that mean my UTFP ends up being like the douchey Alliance in Firefly? Maybe.
Anyway that’s my blah blah blah. I don’t know if I’m right, but that’s my take on the non-interference right now.
Great discussion. Love the arc, love the podcast. 
I’m about halfway through the 'cast, and I just have to echo what Phil and ThotFullGuy have said: y’all are completely wrong on this one. The Prime Directive is not about keeping native populations ignorant; it’s about allowing them to progress without outside interference. Perhaps they would use the new advanced technology to start a war, but it doesn’t have to be that extreme. Maybe just the certain knowledge of extraterrestrial life would so dramatically alter their society that they would worship the newcomers as gods — which, BTW, is the entire premise of Stargate — or create a kind of existential crisis that could set back their development for centuries. As outsiders, there’s just no way to know how it would affect their society. I’m reminded of cargo cults: isolated societies that completely altered their cultures based around the accidental contact with more advanced technology. Who knows how they would have progressed if left to their own devices?
Also, we need to recognize, both in the case of the Federation and the Tollan, we’re talking about societies that are significantly more advanced. It’s not analogous to the United States helping a third world country to build a computer network. It’s more like teaching chimpanzees to run a nuclear power plant: a really terrible idea, both for the chimpanzees and everything around them. For all intents and purposes, the more advanced society almost has to look at the lesser as children, innocent and ignorant. Of course the eight-year-old wants to drive a car, smoke a cigarette, have a credit card, etc., because they see the grownups around them doing it. But we don’t let them do those things, because they don’t fully understand the ramifications of their actions and are, in fact, incapable of understanding the ramifications, no matter how much it is explained to them. Teaching them about the universe around them, sharing technology, even just letting them know you exist, all of these things can have wildly unpredictable consequences when you have no idea how that knowledge would affect them.
In regards to Stargate, it’s true that Earth had little regard for non-interference, but that’s because we were on the other end of it. We trust Jack O’Neill to do the right thing with advanced technology (in keeping with the child metaphor, he’s mature for his age), but what about the rest of our world? Rogue elements in our government, chief among them the NID, as well as private individuals, who managed to get a hold of advanced technology certainly used it in less than optimal ways. Consider also the world (whose name escapes me) that was thrown into civil war merely because SG-1 walked through a stargate and told them that their entire concept of history was absolutely wrong. I think if you look hard enough, you can see Stargate promoting a lot more non-interference than you did at first glance.
Obviously, the Prime Directive is the go-to concept when thinking about non-interference, but my first thought is the Watchers from Marvel comics. They learned not to interfere the hard way: their well-intentioned attempt to assist another world with their advanced technology led to total nuclear devastation and virtual extinction of the race they helped. (This also was an element of the Ancients’ history on Stargate, as well.) Eventually they even decided that the very act of observation altered events around them (thank you Dr. Heisenberg), so the entire race committed suicide! (They got better.) Now that’s non-interference. 
Perhaps this is my professional bias showing (like I’ve said elsewhere, 15thcentury Hispanic world onward is important to my work), but I’m curious what you mean by “perceived history.” I don’t mean to pick on you or anything (and I apologize if it comes across in that way) but what is the difference between perceived history as you use it, and our current knowledge of the past?
I agree with you about Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations, but the PD makes me step back and think again about something someone (sorry!) said about Trek being essentially religion-less (again, I apologize I’m a bit vague here, it’s off the top of my head). If the Federation (and in later series like DS9 we get a lot about how people “get in” to the Federation with the example of Bajor) trusts that there’s some sort of inevitable pattern of development, then I have to ask myself - how is that pattern determined? Who or what determines it? In the chaos of the universe, what are the ethics of assuming we will all follow the same (or different) path?
In terms of the idea that we know what’s best - as noted, other groups think they do things in the best interest and it doesn’t work out well. Also, just because the analogy isn’t perfect doesn’t mean that it can’t be illustrative. Good science fiction is (in my mind) supposed to help us to reflect on the world in which we live, so Star Trek is excellent science fiction, as it’s prompting many of us to think critically about the way that we (in our various polities) engage with the larger world, and those that are different from ourselves.
I haven’t seen much DS9 (working on fixing that but it’s gonna take a lot of time. I’m watching all of Trek, in chronological order. I’m in season 1 of TOS now so…) but my thought has always been that the Prime Directive was the result of experience. The races found that unless you leave newer races alone, the feldercarb hits the fan. Also, the Federation has found that there are some common things to look for that indicate when a race is out of the danger zone, so that race can be introduced to the larger ideas that the Federation represents.
If a race was significantly different in its development, I’m sure Starfleet would be all over them trying to figure out how best to handle (or ignore) them. It’s possible, though, that it’s just never happened.
EDITed for clarity. I had a lot of “they” and “them” in there originally that meant different things.
Those are some really great points in favor of the Prime Directive.
I was using “perceived history” to refer back to earlier in my post when I said that I thought the Prime Directive was a product of how Gene Roddenberry understood the history of the conquest in the Americas, in other words the popular memory in the 1960s of the conquest, which was probably heavily bound up in that decade’s issues with race in America. To elaborate on that, natives in various parts of the Americas would not have had the same concept of race, making the history of the conquest more complex than many understood it in the 1960s.
I found the entry on Prime Directive at memory-alpha.org, and I’m going to try to watch some of the original series episodes that deal with it: Bread and Circuses, the Paradise Syndrome, Errand of Mercy, and Return of Archons. There are others listed there as well.
And now I’ll search for the “elsewhere” where you talked about your work, Casilda!
Shoot. I thought the original series was available on Netflix instant. Did they change that recently? Now, I have to get them one disc at a time.
Thanx Thot and Badge.
This reminds me of another point that Sean was making about how one douche-bag (or was it a bag of dicks?) like Kia Winn could keep a planet from joining the Federation. Actually, its not that she is a lone crazy voice, but it’s that one radical politician can use xenophobia and religious intolerance to rile up the populous and gain such a strong following. It’s the fact that a significant proportion of the people of Bajor are willing to follow her that keeps them out of the Federation.
Good science fiction is (in my mind) supposed to help us to reflect on the world in which we live, so Star Trek is excellent science fiction, as it’s prompting many of us to think critically about the way that we (in our various polities) engage with the larger world, and those that are different from ourselves.
Really? I don’t see many parallels between ST and with the real world… 
They oughtta reboot Sucker Punch.
Just sayin’.
No, still haven’t actually seen it. I’m not gonna encourage Snyder, you know?
Not having seen Sucker Punch yet this comment might be off base, but your description that what was left could be interpreted as rape sounds very much like the love scene in Blade Runner between Deckard and Rachael in the Directors Final Cut DVD. I came away from that scene with a distinct taste in my mouth that Deckard was raping Rachael, whether he actually was or wasn’t raping Rachael. So I can see without proper context how certain sex/love scenes could be interpreted either way.
~Shooter Out
Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk
I’d just like to add to your description of a 1960’s view of the world and remorse over past actions. The 60’s presented America with a whole generation of 40ish/45ish year old men that had served for 1 to 4 years abroad in the military during WWII. Among other issues that generation brought back with them first hand knowledge of seeing a mass technology infusion into previously “isolated” communities and societies. This was particularly true in the Pacific Theater of Operations were tribal inhabited islands were transformed into massive mechanized battlezones or staging points. Even a large part of Japan herself could be considered like that and the last US Calvary charge was attempted in the Philippines in early 1942. So this 1960’s thought process was by no means limited in scope to Native Americans, but more the result of an entire world spoiled and tainted by war.
~Shooter Out
Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk
That’s an interesting observation because I felt the same way when I saw the first directors cut in 1992bas a college student. I always wondered if it was just a difference in the way that scene played between the 1982 & 1992, or was it always meant to play that way. I can’t really trust my initial reaction because I was only 11 when I saw the original version in the theater and didn’t pick up those nuances.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They changed that a while ago.
But most Star Trek episodes (all the series-es) are available on You Tube-- google 'em.
For TNG, this episode “Who Watches the Watchers” is a MUST see for any serious discussion about the Prime Directive and non-interference.
Phil,
You brought up some great points but I have a slightly different take with your examples. Maybe it’s because I grew up on a farm, but I think agriculture led to an increase in health. We’re living longer than we ever were before. A more well rounded an available nutritious diet is part of that. We’re not eating rock soup and dirt pies, for instance. Now many some of us are getting too much of that plentiful food based on our activity levels. But the “bread basket” of America and our vast cattle grazing ranges are a big part of the success of this country.
Also automobiles have allowed even the most remote societies to gain access to trade and markets that can benefit both parties.
So I understand what you are trying to say, but those two examples I can easily point to the places were they benefited a society with lesser technology.
Also, if you’ve read into David Weber’s Honorverse Grayson is a great example of giving technology successfully to a society of lesser technology. Now in Grayson’s case they stemmed from an anti-technology religion that left the “civilized worlds” centuries before, but they were in a state of being the less developed when Manticore began to integrate with them. I’m not saying it happens in every case, but the Grayson-Manticore example is one in which the free-trade worked to both societies benefit.
~Shooter Out
I’m going to have to ride the middle ground here. Though I agree with much of what Phil, Badger, and Thot said. I have some problems with the Prime Directive especially when it is touted as the LAW. I think that is where the contention is here, letter of the law vs. spirit of the law. Picard is a letter of the law vs. spirit of the law kinda guy. He tries to weigh the best of the situation. OTOH, Kirk is an I am the law kinda guy.
Kirk treats the Prime Directive as guidelines at best and suggestions when deemed necessary. I always thot of the Prime Directive as a nice ideal for the bureaucrats back home while the grunts had to face real life out in the field.
Kirk made plenty of decisions that broke the Prime Directive to safeguard the lives of his crew and his ship. Those decisions are judged and convicted by the Almighty Prime Directive. IMO, you mess with the bull you get the horns.
At its heart, the Prime Directive is about not playing god but when it is idolized it becomes god. The Prime Directive is a guiding principle, a law, and a philosphy. It has all the makings and trappings of a religion minus the supernatural being.
The more you try and not play god with your resources, power, etc. You eventually become god because you are holding out on folks. Hey look, I get to travel the universe free from disease and money and whutever while you sit on your tiny planet suffering. Sorry.
All that being said, non-interference is not really a big deal if one guy shows up in a foreign environment. It’s a problem when thousands with vessels and weapons show up.
Good points Shooter. I guess I wasn’t specific enough in my points. True enough that a lot of our modern progress in health and extended life does come from our modern practices of agriculture which actually provides us with a diverse array of highly nutritious food. However, I certainly didn’t make it clear that I was talking about when agriculture was first adopted say 10,000 years ago in the Mid-East and a few thousand years ago in the Americas. Some of the skeletal evidence can be interpreted that people in agricultural societies showed more pathologies than hunter and gathers. For instance dental cavities are rarely seen in hunter gatherers, but start getting most of your calories from sugary corn and then cavities start multiplying in the Americas. Now there are certainly other confounding effects such as increased population densities that can allow for easier transmission of disease.
Anyway, my point is that not all technological advances actually helps people on the individual or societal level, and even those that are viewed as being nearly universally positive can have some costs. So certainly introducing new technology to an unprepared society can be quite dicey.
Hopefully, I’ll get to check out the Honorverse sometime, as I’ve liked the podcasts discussing it. But thanks for reminding me of the author’s name; I’ll probably direct it to my wife as she is the one who has more time to read (for fun at least) in the family.