To:
From: "David Smith"
Reply-To: trekcreative{at}yahoogroups.com
------=_NextPart_000_0067_01C32D02.13C57CC0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The story I'm writing at the moment deals with the Prime Directive. The
plo= t is that the Ballard is in a system where a very large asteroid is
about t= o smash into a planet with a pre-warp civilization of 7 billion.
If it hits=
, the civilization will be wiped out.
The question in the story is either it is against the prime directive to
de= flect the asteroid when the asteroid is so far away from the planet
that th= e civilization won't even know they were in danger. Basically,
does saving=
a civilization from certain annihilation without them knowing about it cou=
nts as a violation of the prime directive or not.
=20
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Garry Stahl=20
To: Trek Creative List=20
Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 7:12 AM
Subject: [trekcreative] The Conundrum of the Prime Directive
I am considering the following essay for inclusion on the Epiphany Trek w=
eb site. Comments anyone?
The Conundrum of the Prime Directive
~ Prohibits Starfleet personnel or ships from interfering in the normal d=
evelopment of any society, and mandates that they sacrifice themselves is
n= ecessary to prevent such interference. ~ (No source I found exactly
words = this order. All sources only explain its intent, usually in the
terms abov= e.)
Since Star Trek first aired many people have debated the exact meanin=
g and intent of the Prime Directive. Star Trek itself has debated it
withi= n the show, and the outcomes of several episodes have hinged on how
this we= ek's writer sees it.
The main problem with the wording of the prime directive as (not) giv=
en 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 even=
t 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
o= f the sky, or not dropping out of the sky, is a natural event in the
develo= pment 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 speci= es. If you had lousy parents does that mean it is good for
everyone to hav= e lousy parents? That suddenly, "lousy parents"
are the standard everyone = should grow up by? It might be the normal
course of events that younger sp= ecies are mentored by more advanced ones,
and that Humans are the redheaded=
stepchildren of the galaxy because they lack such a mentor..=20=20
Furthermore it allows us to judge whether a culture is "naturally dev=
eloping". By what standards does one natural creature judge what is
"natur= al development" for another creature it knows nothing
about? The Prime Dir= ective, as stated, is nothing less than playing God,
and congratulating our= selves for doing so. We the meta-natural event of
the galaxy have the powe= r and right to decide if your culture is natural.
No matter how bad it mig= ht abuse you, if we think it's natural hands
off. No matter how well it wo= rks 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 savi=
ng measure when required, let us rethink the idea of the prime directive.
Let us consider the Golden Rule Treat others as we ourselves would b=
e 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
be= cause we create the creatures within and how they will behave.
Let's put a little thought into our "Prime Directive."
First, we dit=
ch the vague wording of the Prime Directive as it is. It was a straw
argum= ent 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
destr= oy that world's culture, preserve the life. The culture will
rebuild. Sen= tients 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, betwee=
n the allowed and the unallowed. We choose to place this line at warp
trav= el. 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. Princi= ples 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 pro=
tection and comfort of a totalitarian state. Others might thrive only
unde= r total anarchy. Do not judge others by our standard of decency, but
by wh= ether the culture is working for them. Someone out there may invent
a supe= rior social system we all might find better. They will not however
if we g= ive them ours.
6) Free will is paramount. If any individual feels that their native cul=
ture is not working for them they may ask Starfleet for asylum, and they
sh= ould be granted same. However, don't be stupid. Those persons clearly
cri= minal by both the standards of their own culture and the standards of
ours = cannot expect our protection. Any creature enslaved or oppressed
can and s= hould 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 see=
k peaceful resolution, but not beyond the point of reason. Then we will
th= row our full combined might against those that make war on us. Once
the fi= ghting is over we will seek reasons and resolutions.=20
I believe that this usage better covers the intent of the idea than t=
he vague wording found in other sources. Far from being a straw man that
v= arious Captains have to justify breaking for this reason or that, let us
cr= eate a Prime Directive that is usable and positive in its scope.
-- Garry Stahl, June 2003
--=20
Garry AKA -Phoenix- Rising Above the Flames
Star Trek le mort. Viva la Star Trek admiraetur.=20
Olde Phoenix Inn http://phoenixinn.iwarp.com
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
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=20
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.=20
------=_NextPart_000_0067_01C32D02.13C57CC0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
The story I'm writing at the
moment deals with the
Prime Directive. The plot is that the Ballard is in a system where
a very large asteroid is about to smash into a planet with a pre-warp
civilization of 7
billion. If it hits, the civilization will be wiped out.
The question in the story is
either it is against
the prime directive to deflect the asteroid when the asteroid is so far
away from the planet that the civilization won't even know they were in
danger.
Basically, does saving a civilization from certain annihilation without
them knowing about it counts as a violation of the prime directive or
not.
----- Original Message
-----
From:
Garry">mailto:tesral{at}comcast.net">Garry Stahl
To: Trek">mailto:trekcreative{at}yahoogroups.com">Trek Creative
List
Sent:
Saturday, June 07, 2003 7:12
AM
Subject:
[trekcreative] The Conundrum of
the Prime Directive
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
>Star
Trek; The E-mail CommandsPost message:
trekcreative{at}yahoogroups.comSubscribe:
trekcreative-subscribe{at}yahoogroups.comUnsubscribe:
trekcreative-unsubscribe{at}yahoogroups.comList owner:
trekcreative-owner{at}yahoogroups.comGet Digest:
trekcreative-digest{at}yahoogroups.comWeb only:
trekcreative-nomail{at}yahoogroups.comNormal:
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.
Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor
http://rd.yahoo.com/M=251812.3170658.453713
9.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705019987:HM/A=1564415/R=0/SIG=11t6t7kdo/*http://www.n
etflix.com/Default?mqso=60164784&partid=3170658"> http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ne/netflix/yhoo0303_a_300250.gif"
alt="" width="300" height="250"
border="0">
http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=2518
12.3170658.4537139.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1564415/rand=387376882">
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.
------=_NextPart_000_0067_01C32D02.13C57CC0--
--- 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
|