To: Trek Creative List
From: Garry Stahl
Reply-To: trekcreative{at}yahoogroups.com
--Boundary_(ID_pPRLOcHStvyydMj96Hjm3A)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
I am considering the following essay for inclusion on the Epiphany Trek web
site. Comments anyone?
The Conundrum of the Prime Directive
~ Prohibits Starfleet personnel or ships from interfering in the normal
development of any society, and mandates that they sacrifice themselves is
necessary to prevent such interference. ~ (No source I found exactly words
this order. All sources only explain its intent, usually in the terms
above.)
Since Star Trek first aired many people have debated the exact
meaning and intent of the Prime Directive. Star Trek itself has debated it
within the show, and the outcomes of several episodes have hinged on how
this week's writer sees it.
The main problem with the wording of the prime directive as (not)
given is that the most strict interpretation would require everyone to go
home and hide under the bed. We cannot interfere. We cannot more
specifically "unnaturally interfere". I ask, what is unnatural
interference?
The "Prime Directive" assumes that we are somehow a meta-natural
event I strongly disagree. We are natural. Human cities are complete
analogs in nature to termite mounds. How we are fit to judge if our
dropping out of the sky, or not dropping out of the sky, is a natural event
in the development of a culture? It could well be argued that the human
race is in the muddle it is in because we have lacked the mentoring of a
more mature species. If you had lousy parents does that mean it is good
for everyone to have lousy parents? That suddenly, "lousy
parents" are the standard everyone should grow up by? It might be the
normal course of events that younger species are mentored by more advanced
ones, and that Humans are the redheaded stepchildren of the galaxy because
they lack such a mentor..
Furthermore it allows us to judge whether a culture is "naturally
developing". By what standards does one natural creature judge what
is "natural development" for another creature it knows nothing
about? The Prime Directive, as stated, is nothing less than playing God,
and congratulating ourselves for doing so. We the meta-natural event of
the galaxy have the power and right to decide if your culture is natural.
No matter how bad it might abuse you, if we think it's natural hands off.
No matter how well it works for you, if we think it's unnatural, we can
interfere all we want.
If we desire not to force our views on others or to allow a life
saving measure when required, let us rethink the idea of the prime directive.
Let us consider the Golden Rule Treat others as we ourselves would
be treated. The Golden Rule has served humanity for thousands of years and
has been expressed in every culture and every wisdom tradition. For us at
least it works.
Star Trek is full of "people". Even the aliens are mostly human, so
we can assume that the Golden Rule is as close to a universal principle as
we will come up with. In Star Trek we can declare it to be so universal
because we create the creatures within and how they will behave.
Let's put a little thought into our "Prime Directive." First, we
ditch the vague wording of the Prime Directive as it is. It was a straw
argument in The Apple. It was not thought out at all. So we create the
G-Trek "Prime Directive" to replace it.
Starfleet General Order Number One (The Prime Directive)
1) Life is scared. Do what you can to preserve life while following the
rest of these principles.
2) First, Do no harm. Examine you actions for potential harm, if acting
is significantly worse than not acting, do not act. 3) Second, Allow no
harm. This calls upon principle one. Life is more important than anything
else. If preserving the life of a world will destroy that world's culture,
preserve the life. The culture will rebuild. Sentients have been creating
cultures for millions of years, and cultures have been dying out for as
long. There is nothing sacred about a culture.
4) There are players (warp capable), and non-players (non-warp capable).
Leave the non players alone. Yes, this principle is arbitrary. Like any
set of rules, a line has to be drawn between one point and another, between
the allowed and the unallowed. We choose to place this line at warp
travel. Non-players must be left be to develop their own right ways. They
do not need to have them delivered on duralloy tablets from the stars.
Principles 1 and 3 can over ride this, but remember principle 2.
5) Our way is not the universal way. Don't shove it down anyone throat.
This applies even to players. If someone asks us to let them be, and lets
us be also, we will follow their wishes. Some sentients might need the
protection and comfort of a totalitarian state. Others might thrive only
under total anarchy. Do not judge others by our standard of decency, but
by whether the culture is working for them. Someone out there may invent a
superior social system we all might find better. They will not however if
we give them ours. 6) Free will is paramount. If any individual feels that
their native culture is not working for them they may ask Starfleet for
asylum, and they should be granted same. However, don't be stupid. Those
persons clearly criminal by both the standards of their own culture and the
standards of ours cannot expect our protection. Any creature enslaved or
oppressed can and should expect our help, even unto risk to ourselves. 7)
These rules are suspended for those that make war on us. We will not make
war on anyone that does not attack us first. If attacked we will seek
peaceful resolution, but not beyond the point of reason. Then we will
throw our full combined might against those that make war on us. Once the
fighting is over we will seek reasons and resolutions.
I believe that this usage better covers the intent of the idea than
the vague wording found in other sources. Far from being a straw man that
various Captains have to justify breaking for this reason or that, let us
create a Prime Directive that is usable and positive in its scope.
-- Garry Stahl, June 2003
--
Garry AKA -Phoenix- Rising Above the Flames
Star Trek le mort. Viva la Star Trek admiraetur.
Olde Phoenix Inn http://phoenixinn.iwarp.com
--Boundary_(ID_pPRLOcHStvyydMj96Hjm3A)
Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I am considering the following essay for inclusion on the Epiphany Trek web
site. Comments anyone?
The Conundrum of the Prime Directive
~ Prohibits Starfleet personnel or ships from interfering in the normal
development of any society, and mandates that they sacrifice themselves is
necessary to prevent such interference. ~ (No source I
found exactly words this order. All sources only explain its
intent, usually in the terms
above.)
Since Star Trek first aired many people have
debated the
exact meaning
and intent of the Prime Directive. Star Trek itself has debated
it within the show, and the outcomes of several episodes have hinged on how
this week's writer sees it.
The main problem with the wording of the
prime directive as
(not) given
is that the most strict interpretation would require everyone to go home
and hide under the bed. We cannot interfere. We cannot
more specifically
"unnaturally interfere". I ask, what is unnatural
interference?
The "Prime Directive" assumes that
we are somehow a
meta-natural event
I strongly disagree. We are natural. Human cities are
complete analogs
in nature to termite mounds. How we are fit to judge if our
dropping out of the sky, or not dropping out of the sky, is a natural event
in the development
of a culture? It could well be argued that the human race is in the muddle
it is in because we have lacked the mentoring of a more mature
species. If you had lousy parents does that mean it is good for
everyone to have lousy parents? That suddenly, "lousy
parents" are the standard everyone should grow up by? It
might be the normal course of events that younger species are mentored by
more advanced ones, and that Humans are the redheaded stepchildren
of the galaxy because they lack such a mentor..
Furthermore it allows us to judge whether a culture is
"naturally developing".
By what standards does one natural creature judge what is "natural
development" for another creature it knows nothing about?
The Prime Directive, as stated,
is nothing less than playing God, and congratulating ourselves for doing
so. We the meta-natural event of the galaxy have the power and
right to decide if your culture is natural. No matter how bad it
might abuse you, if we think it's natural hands off. No matter
how well it works for you, if we think it's unnatural, we can interfere all
we want.
If we desire not to force our views on
others or to allow a
life saving
measure when required, let us rethink the idea of the prime directive.
Let us consider the Golden Rule
Treat others as we
ourselves would
be treated. The Golden Rule has served humanity for
thousands of years
and has been expressed in every culture and every wisdom
tradition. For us at least it works.
Star Trek is full of
"people". Even the aliens are
mostly human, so
we can assume that the Golden Rule is as close to a universal principle as
we will come up with. In Star Trek we can declare it to be so
universal because we create the creatures within and how they will
behave.
Let's put a little thought into our
"Prime Directive."
First, we ditch
the vague wording of the Prime Directive as it is. It was a straw argument
in The Apple. It was not thought out at
all. So we create the G-Trek
"Prime Directive" to replace it.
Starfleet General Order Number One (The Prime
Directive)
1) Life is scared. Do what you can
to preserve life while
following
the rest of these principles.
2) First, Do no harm. Examine you
actions for potential
harm, if
acting is significantly worse than not acting, do not act.
3) Second, Allow no harm. This calls
upon principle
one. Life is
more important than anything else. If preserving the life of a
world will destroy that world's culture, preserve the life. The
culture will rebuild.
Sentients have been creating cultures for millions of years, and cultures
have been dying out for as long. There is nothing sacred about a
culture.
4) There are players (warp capable), and non-players (non-warp
capable).
Leave the non players alone. Yes, this principle is
arbitrary. Like
any set of rules, a line has to be drawn between one point and another,
between the allowed and the unallowed. We choose to place this
line at warp travel.
Non-players must be left be to develop their own right ways. They
do not need to have them delivered on duralloy tablets from the
stars. Principles
1 and 3 can over ride this, but remember principle 2.
5) Our way is not the universal way.
Don't shove it down
anyone
throat. This applies even to players. If someone asks us to let
them be, and lets us be also, we will follow their wishes. Some sentients
might need the protection and comfort of a totalitarian state.
Others might thrive only under total anarchy. Do not judge others
by our standard of decency, but by whether the culture is working for
them. Someone out there may invent
a superior social system we all might find better. They will not
however if we give them ours.
6) Free will is paramount. If any individual
feels that their
native
culture is not working for them they may ask Starfleet for asylum, and they
should be granted same. However, don't be stupid. Those
persons clearly
criminal by both the standards of their own culture and the standards of
ours cannot expect our protection. Any creature enslaved or
oppressed can and should expect our help, even unto risk to
ourselves.
7) These rules are suspended for those that make war on
us.
We will
not make war on anyone that does not attack us first. If attacked
we will seek peaceful resolution, but not beyond the point of
reason. Then we will
throw our full combined might against those that make war on us.
Once the fighting is over we will seek reasons and resolutions.
I believe that this usage better covers the
intent of the
idea than the
vague wording found in other sources. Far from being a straw man
that various
Captains have to justify breaking for this reason or that, let us create a
Prime Directive that is usable and positive in its scope.
-- Garry Stahl, June 2003
--
Garry AKA -Phoenix- Rising Above the Flames
Star Trek le mort. Viva la Star Trek admiraetur.
Olde Phoenix Inn http://phoenixinn.iwarp.com;">http://phoenixinn.iwarp.comhttp://phoenixinn.iwarp.com">http://phoenixinn.iwarp.com;
Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor
http://rd.yahoo.com/M=247865.3355058.4641699.1261774/
D=egroupweb/S=1705019987:HM/A=1482387/R=0/SIG=16n1quun2/*http://ads.x10.com/?bH
lhaG9vaG0xLmRhd=1054966294%3eM=247865.3355058.4641699.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=170
5019987:HM/A=1482387/R=1=1054966294%3eM=247865.3355058.4641699.1261774/D=egroup
web/S=1705019987:HM/A=1482387/R=2" target=_top>
http://ads.x10.com/?Z3lhaG9vaG0xLmRhd=1054966294%3eM=247865.3355058.464169
9.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705019987:HM/A=1482387/R=3" alt=""
width="300" height="250"
border="0">
http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=2478
65.3355058.4641699.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1482387/rand=959862772">
Star Trek; The E-mail Commands
Post message: trekcreative{at}yahoogroups.com Subscribe:
trekcreative-subscribe{at}yahoogroups.com Unsubscribe:
trekcreative-unsubscribe{at}yahoogroups.com List owner:
trekcreative-owner{at}yahoogroups.com Get Digest:
trekcreative-digest{at}yahoogroups.com Web only:
trekcreative-nomail{at}yahoogroups.com Normal:
trekcreative-normal{at}egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
--Boundary_(ID_pPRLOcHStvyydMj96Hjm3A)--
--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4
* Origin: Email Gate (1:379/100)
SEEN-BY: 633/267 270
@PATH: 379/100 101 1 106/1 2000 633/267
SOURCE: echomail via fidonet.ozzmosis.com
Email questions or comments to sysop@ipingthereforeiam.com
All parts of this website painstakingly hand-crafted in the U.S.A.!
IPTIA BBS/MUD/Terminal/Game Server List, © 2025 IPTIA Consulting™.