Captain Picard faces the ramifications of Prime Directive.

S07E13

[@lordlossize]

remember that episode where picard said "fuck it" to the prime directive to save wesley? ...pretty sure a planet is worth more than wesley

[@chancegamesone]

yes but as he stated, his first priority is to protect his crew and their families. In the case in this episode, that was not at play.

[@tonoornottono]

Siren i hate this rationalization man. yeah it’s a tv show. but as consumers of the media all of us make the choice to talk about it within the boundaries of the fiction. we want internal consistency and to say it’s just a tv show is a total cop out. we all agree on what it is, we’re trying to talk about what happens in the show. that’s like if two people were arguing about politics and you walked in and said “it’s a government bro.” no shit what did you add to the discussion.

[@hmartinspliff]

Captain Picard broke the Prime Directive to save that POS Wesley?? He should be left marooned for all eternity in the center of a dead planet, buried alive, buried alive......like what Captain Kirk did to Khan.

[@emjay9280]

No-one would have missed Wesley.

[@bobagorof]

@@emjay9280 His mother may have?

[@stevehagen9804]

In this situation, Kirk would have found a way around the Prime Directive, save everyone on the planet, hang out with the hottest alien woman, and find a Klingon to punch in the face.

[@titanhades4331]

Kirk was a complete idiot.

[@allanfifield8256]

Kirk was The Man!

[@stevehagen9804]

titan hades perhaps we need to run a Tribble test, it looks like we may have a Klingon spy among us :)

[@stevehagen9804]

Allan Fifield Yeah he was! :D You know what’s up 👍

[@RAFMnBgaming]

Bold of you to assume Kirk follows the Prime Directive when no one's looking over his shoulder.

[@toamatau8785]

Same Picard who said ""I was just following orders" has been used to justify too many tragedies throughout history."

[@az21bob666]

he could only have save maybe a 1000 people, it not like he could have save the whole planet.

[@dakotaway2441]

@@az21bob666 1000 is better than none at all

[@Graeme_Lastname]

It's still being used.

[@InfernosReaper]

@@dakotaway2441 Yeah, in fact, it's enough to get a stable-enough population to keep the inbreeding to 2nd cousins or farther out, thus avoiding most of the issues with inbreeding.

[@hardwirecars]

atrocities*

[@majorlagg9321]

Picard-"Those people will be happy that we spared their culture from contamination!"

[@oddish4352]

I'm sure they'll be very comforted as they watch their children die an agonizing death from asphyxiation.

[@Dowlphin]

@@oddish4352 Well, they won't bother for long, and there are so many other people in the galaxy, and everybody eventually has to die anyway, ... right, Starfleet?

[@hardwirecars]

@Cyrus McWind the fact it sounds like you dont and believe this is the right coarse is why america is crashing and burning. how does spiderman put it? the new spiderman. when you have the power to do something then the bad things happen they happen because of you.

[@apeture_explorer4810]

@@hardwirecars Spiderman is definately opposed to prime directive stuff huh. He'd see this as a gross neglect of responsibility.

[@hardwirecars]

@@apeture_explorer4810 i think so and apparently rodenbury thought so to the prime directive was only supposed to count on matters of government not this.

[@DrownedInExile]

To paraphrase Homeworld Cataclysm: "Look at yourselves! The aloof, the mighty enlightened Federation! Standing by with indifference while millions die. All because you're terrified you might contaminate their culture. You're worse than the Borg! At least the Borg don't pretend to be righteous!"

[@katakisLives]

Well said, the prime directive is nothing more than a cover for moral cowardice

[@doublestrokeroll]

@@katakisLives nonsense. This analogy is not correct. They aren't worried about contaminating culture. This is like the nature channel when a camera many could save an animal from a death from the environment. You make a moral choice to not have an effect on something you otherwise wouldn't factor into. You allow things to develop the way they naturally would. If you save the animal, you are, in turn, causing suffering for all the creatures that feed off of that animal's death. Their natural resource has been changed. You've affected the entire system by your one action of sympathy for only one small aspect of the habitat. This is the same. But that system would be the habitat. It should be allowed to run it's natural course without interference. Is it the "right" choice? I don't know. But it is a logically sound position to take and is not moral cowardice. You two make the mistake of presuming human life has more intrinsic value than other forms of life. It does not.

[@katakisLives]

@@doublestrokeroll I stand by what I said, as far as I'm concerned this is nothing like David attenborough standing by and passively observing a cheetah killing an antelope! these were advanced sentient people and standing there observing is never acceptable, and I jolly well do think human life has more intrinsic value I have to problem saying that at all, if I was on that bridge I'd say to hell with the prime directive

[@kenjett2434]

@@katakisLives I understand your thinking but let me give you another side to this. What if an advanced race came along and saved the dinosaurs of the Cretacious period from going extinct. You or me nor would the human race be here. Natural extinction even a sentient species over eons of time have a purpose. Even in Christian faith there is prophecy that predicts our extinction in a sort of way. Shedding our physical body for a spiritual body . In Star Trek we often see this transformation as changing into a life form of energy. Who are we to judge or interfere with natural process of another species. But that also includes in some cases causing the exstinction of a species as humans have done. Alot of lessons to be learned from this.

[@katakisLives]

@@kenjett2434 that's an interesting theory. I personally don't believe in the idea of some predestined grand master plan to me evolution is arbitrary and random. What survived or not is a lot to do with luck. Noones pulling the strings I would intervene if I felt it was the right thing to do if some Astroid was heading our way now Starfleet would stand by and let us get wiped out.

[@deluxeassortment]

I think what people often don't realize is that the Prime Directive was designed as a plot device, creating internal conflict for the captain and crew. It has the good intention of not allowing humanity to interfere with a pre-warp race and cause political and cultural strife, however, it often means that people perish. This is obviously something a person with 'a good heart' would not be able to live with, thus creating a pivotal point for drama. In this episode, in fact, it turns out that Worf's brother secretly saved a village of this planet's inhabitants by beaming them into the ship's holodeck. It made for a great story!

[@TheZemb1999]

It's a social construct designed to make us think the Federation upholds the highest moral standards, yet, it shows a lack of compassion and faulty thinking. You're going to tell me (*in the story, of course) that had the Federation found a fledgling 'Borg-like' settlement of people using tech to enhance themselves that hadn't made it off-world yet but were trying that the Fed wouldn't eliminate or try to alter the thinking of these people..? The Prime Directive (even as a plot device) is an asinine policy that invites enemies to prosper, potential allies to perish, and keeps the Federation from getting their hands dirty...even for a GOOD cause.

[@user-do2ev2hr7h]

@@TheZemb1999 FWIW it's not that different from actual real-world policies concerning uncontacted tribes.

[@TeamSprocket]

@@TheZemb1999 There are 100 billion planets in the Milky Way. Does Starfleet have the responsibility to spend time on each of them to make sure the life there isn't on the verge of extinction? What about the extinction of individual species? What about a deadly plague? Social strife? Inequality? Stubbed toes? Is your suggestion Starfleet intervenes everywhere all at once, spending the equivalent of trillions to "fix" every culture, cure every ill, across billions of worlds? Because Star Trek humans would, if they were allowed to, and they'd get rolled by any real hostile force that focuses even a little bit on themselves instead of egotistical charity projects. You have a bleeding heart in a cosmos that doesn't give a shit, and using trillions of dollars of equipment to shuffle some tribe to either die out anyway or industrial revolution and destroy that planet that might have been fine because of some feels bad is why the PD is in place.

[@EstradaDuran-sg6co]

That isn't the reason for the prime directive at all. Why were you compelled to lie about this kid?

[@j.griffin]

People that eat up too many MacGuffins lose their ability to think clearly for themselves…

[@TheTakoda2010]

When you can do the things that I can, but you don't, and then the bad things happen, they happen because of you. - Peter Parker

[@l337pwnage]

Spiderman is one of the better ones for supporting common sense vigilantism.

[@bobagorof]

So, the one causing the bad thing in the first place is absolved of responsibility? Interesting. So I can basically beat someone to a pulp, but I'm not liable as long as there is someone else around who *could* call for medical attention. The responsibility for their injuries then moves to that person, and I am not liable at all - the injuries happened because of the one who could have called for medical attention. This is a wonderful piece of law that I shall have to remember in future.

[@MEAD3MAYNE]

Also known as "with great power comes great responsibility."

[@Andrew-eq1jw]

@@bobagorof nothing in the quote talks about being absolved of responsibility, if someone were to watch you beating someone to a pulp and could help but didn't, than you're both at fault.

[@jcolinmizia9161]

bobagorof It’s saying the inaction is also a choice. When you have the ability and opportunity to stop something bad, but don’t, you’ve also done something bad and you’ll have to live with it.

[@AvangionQ]

I think there are only three good reasons to break the Prime Directive: they're asking for help (a plea cannot go ignored), they're facing cataclysmic extinction (how much worse could intervention be if they're going to die anyway without the assistance), or they're about to develop warp technology (this is the point at which you should introduce yourself as a fellow traveler of the stars) ...

[@Archone666]

The plea for help was actually used as an excuse on one occasion. Picard never ENJOYED seeing people die, and in one episode they heard a little girl calling on her radio for her mysterious friend Data to help if he could. Picard immediately began performing incredible mental gymnastics to twist things around into justifying saving the girl's people.

[@kereminde]

@@Archone666 It's easy to stand that moral ground when it's only a theoretical implication, but when you can hear the voices crying out for help... it's a lot harder to avoid doing so. I, myself, believe the Prime Directive might have times where it can be set aside. It needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis instead of a blanket "DO NOT, EVER" clause. If you want a good exercise, go look at Star Trek with Kirk and how many times the Prime Directive came up and they went "... so let's not do anything". Bonus work? How many times were they dragged into doing something because someone else got dragged into the mess...

[@davidrees9745]

> a plea cannot go ignored With the full respect of the situation at hand, please forgive my irreverent tone, but: "lol"

[@davidrees9745]

@@kereminde Ah yes, but what about the Omega Directive?

[@junbh2]

I think the Prime Directive is very overrated, and they've turned it into their religion. The main real argument in favour of the Prime Directive is the law of unintended consequences. The risk of doing something that appears to be helping but ends up doing more harm than good. But that's rarely relevant when it comes to preventing mass death

[@no1bandfan]

“I felt a great disturbance in the Force... as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.”

[@fabiancueyoutube246]

Q said those words?

[@lukfi89]

@@fabiancueyoutube246 No, Deanna

[@mikapoful]

@@fabiancueyoutube246 xd

[@fabiancueyoutube246]

@@mikapoful Q is the two sides of the force!

[@Name-ps9fx]

“Chewie! Where is that blasted starship Enterprise right now!?”

[@alvideos2145]

Meanwhile in 50% of the other episodes they violate the prime directive XD

[@andmicbro1]

"it's more like guidelines"

[@erentheca]

At this point in Star Trek, Roddenberry's vision, which had previously been tempered by better writers, was allowed by Berman to go unchecked and became an impediment to itself. Let me explain. The Prime Directive, as originally intended, was about political non-interference. The Federation could make contact with, trade with, and otherwise interact with alien cultures, so long as they didn't meddle in their internal affairs. They could provide disaster relief, education, and even technological assistance - and even had digression to interfere in the case of arrested cultures, ie, the culture was not developing at all. See "Return of the Archons", "The Omega Glory", "Errand of Mercy", and "The Apple" for examples of this. In this way, the Prime Directive was a measured and well-considered reaction to European colonialism and especially to US foreign policy in the 20th century. Carried to an extreme, however, the non-interference policy became an impediment to the ideals of the show. So something as basic and morally praiseworthy as disaster relief now violates this newly exaggerated ethical code. A species could even be wiped from existence by an extinction-level event and with a straight face, this is considered the "natural course of evolution". Somehow the possibility that a primitive alien might gain knowledge of interstellar life is considered far worse than if that alien, and its entire species, is obliterated. Dwell on that for a second. In real life, it would be nearly miraculous to find alien life at all, and even more so to find complex and intelligent life. It would be a crime against science to no try to preserve that life should it face extinction, given how extremely rare and unique extra-terrestrial life is.

[@MattTrevett]

Jarl Knudsen Good analysis. Thanks for the comment.

[@Sloan3]

i agree

[@Rahn127]

Bravo. I feel exactly the same way. Very good comment.

[@jonathanmain9079]

Is this what we would call a type 3 civilization.. Playing god on the galaxy

[@Jimraynor45]

Well, it's a tough situation for sure, especially when you consider a extinction level event. But, alien species being highly advanced as they are, and being mechanical and logical, I believe are going to stick to a Hardline no interference policy in my humble opinion. They will stick to a hard prime directive for the simple reason that they don't know the future. Even with advanced technology, I don't think it's possible to predict the future, at least not with 100% certainty. So, that means if they care about life, they aren't going to interfere, for fear of making things worse. So, what about an extinction level event you say? Well, the principle still applies. There is good reason to believe the universe is chaotic in nature, therefore you can never be sure of the ultimate outcome of any action. Now, on this planet here, we have an example. Imagine if 65 million years ago, aliens came and saw an asteroid coming here, and said "oh no, these rare Dinos gonna be toasted, let's save them for science!" If they did that, we wouldn't be here. Now, a universe with dinosaurs still here may not be any better, but who can say what's better. You would have to be uncaring and like to play god to do that. No, if you care about something, you just let it grow on its own. I believe aliens are likely to be at least a little bit benevolent, therefore they will leave us alone. It's a tough policy, but ultimately you don't want to be playing god because you never know if your going to make things worse. It may not be easy to see or appreciate though, especially with a extinction event, but It is the ultimate humbling to admit you don't know what's best for life or the universe and that's probably the best we can do, unless we wish to be Gods. Let's not do that.

[@canman87]

Paulie might've moved slow... but it was only because Paulie didn't have to move for anybody.

[@adrianaspbury2970]

I was gonna come up with a Paulie joke but you beat me to it sir

[@stuglenn1112]

Now go home and get your shine box.

[@Zapp__Brannigan]

Yeah, no kidding. It's a little weird to see him speaking calmly about the ethics of saving a people without using any swear words. Guess it shows just how iconic his performance was as Paulie in _Goodfellas_ that it's hard to separate the man from the character.

[@zingzangspillip1]

Paulie might've moved slow...but Nikolai moved faster than anyone on the Enterprise.

[@jamesrowland2002]

it was the prime directive, and a lot of other things, and there was nothing we could do about it. Picard was a made man and the Boraalans wasn't, and we had to sit still and take it, it was among starfleet, it was real federation shit

[@randymotter51]

I like that they have episodes where they follow the Directive and ones where they do not, as it gives you a good look at the ramifications of each decision. They make it clear that while the directive is well intended, holding it as an absolute rule instead of tempering it with our good sense essentially leaves doomed civilizations to their fates. Luckily for those people, Worf's brother gave no fucks and saved them anyway.

[@EstradaDuran-sg6co]

also shows what a clown picard is

[@ergob3907]

To quote Pirates of the Carribean, The prime direction works better as guidelines than actual rules. The principal behind it is important, but in these circumstances its utterly stupid and inhumane to follow to the letter.

[@GooglyEyedJoe]

It's nice to "face the ramifications" from the comfort of your cushy starship.

[@CatsClaw44]

???

[@KnightRaymund]

But he'll feel really bad for an afternoon about all those deaths!

[@elronman]

I bet you feel awful for all the starving children in africa.

[@Undamagedaddyk]

@@elronman There's a difference between being unable to help someone, and willingly letting them suffer. There's precious little I can do to help all the starving children in Africa. Picard and the rest of the Enterprise crew could've saved lives, but willingly chose not to, hiding behind a rule they themselves have broken for far less.

[@medicharper]

Meh, that remorse will pass after a glass of Earl Grey tea...

[@2bituser569]

Picard teams up with Kirk to unwrite history to save Viridian 3 in Generations.

[@RoonMian]

Technically, that was a different case because the Viridians were not wiped out by "nature" or their own culture but by Soren's superweapon. The meddling from outside was already happening and in a way Picard and Kirk were trying to prevent it, thus incidentally upholding the Prime Directive. But it is true that it greatly depends on the particular writer of the episode or movie how much sense the Prime Directive makes any time it comes up.

[@2bituser569]

@@RoonMian I disagree. Soren is part of nature. We never see sf go back to undo an attack that destroyed innocent bystanders. Recall Picard told Riker it was good he didn’t save the dead girl when he could have using the Q powers. Even if something bad happens they never go back to undo except in Generations it’s interfering in the natural flow of time.

[@hypnometal]

Of course, this is the episode where Worf's brother used holodeck technology to sneak a civilization on board the ship without them realizing that they had ever left the planet. And in the end, they managed to relocate the tribe to a new, safe planet, and they were none the wiser. :-)

[@vguyver2]

+hypnometal except for that one guy who committed suicide. Good job regardless. On a side note, the guy playing Worf's brother is an incredible actor. Wish he was more well known.

[@oldtwinsna8347]

It's a shame that DS9 didn't have a story involving Worf's brother. There was only a brief mention about him when Worf flashed back to a time they were growing up on Earth. I'm sure his brother would have taken some kind of emergency transponder with him - could be set off and Worf gets the message from starfleet command and takes a shuttle craft for a reunion.

[@JaimeWarlock]

And yet some islands in the Pacific are populated by cats originating from a single pregnant female. Strong inbreeding and a hostile environment can also weed out bad recessive genes and leave the strongest. Obviously this can go too far, like in Cheetahs being reduced to a single breeding pair. They are practically clones of each other now with little genetic diversity. The point being that having a population reduced to 10 breeding pairs may not necessarily doom them to extinction. Besides, these are aliens, so they may very well have different genetics making this whole debate meaningless.

[@whiskeyfur]

Inbreeding, the *UNTESTED* assumption that too many times within the same family line will cause genetic defects. this is one of those things I have an issue with because it's something 'everyone knows', but has never been proven. Only hearsay. Yet somehow people are afraid of this being tested because it conflicts with their faith and morals so it can never be tested. This is one example where religion impedes science.

[@JaimeWarlock]

@@whiskeyfur It has been tested with animals and the results are mixed with negatives and positives. Religion just focuses on the negatives, while some societies (like small Polynesian Islands) have benefited from the positives. Agreeing with you.

[@allyourpie4323]

Worf's brother is among the most honorable characters Star Trek has ever written.

[@NameCallingIsWeak]

"Worf's brother is among the most honorable" If you have time, please remind us.

[@allyourpie4323]

@@NameCallingIsWeak The guy in purple is Worf's brother,biologically the son of the Rozhenko's. In this episode,when the Enterprise decides to allow an entire civilization to die,he decides to save that civilization at the expense of ever being able to return to the Federation. Realistically,anyone in the crew could have done the same,but ultimately only he did. I mean,I know they all have their moments when they disobey the Prime Directive on moral grounds,but this is his episode :)

[@allyourpie4323]

@Lady Seashell Bikini HA HA HA yeah,but it's not like that's the first time that ever happened in Star Trek. Heh heh heh.

[@Fektthis]

@@allyourpie4323 He didn't save a civilization though. He saved one small village that's a bad case of the flu away from being extinct when they arrive at their new planet that doubtless has bacteria and pathogens they've never been exposed to before.

[@allyourpie4323]

@@Fektthis Well, that village is a civilization. And even though every patient in every hospital will eventually die anyway, when a doctor saves a patient we say the doctor saved the patient.

[@SciStarborne]

"thoughts and prayers"

[@skyserf]

The Scavengers Workshop Shovel ready jobs.

[@1daddy57]

"shove it up your ass"

[@InfernosReaper]

@Soggy Android That's a really weakass excuse for bad writing. Not all shows have to be written like trash, ya know

[@gedalyahreback2133]

Literally save another planet's atmosphere in another episode using their ship

[@NotContinuum]

That was at the request of the planet's leadership which was an ally of the Federation, if not a member.

[@BedsitBob]

Which one was that?

[@NotContinuum]

@@BedsitBob The one with the anthropologist from the future who comes back to observe the crew and how they handle the situation.

[@Greshgore]

@@NotContinuum which *SPOILER* ended up being a lie anyway

[@NotContinuum]

@@Greshgore It's been over 25 years since the episode first aired. I think the expiration date on spoilers is long past. 😊

[@voluntarism335]

"which we cannot save" no you can save them you're just choosing not to.

[@schwarzerritter5724]

Even Worf's brother (the guy in purple) agreed it was impossible to save the planet. He wanted to save one village so they can safely inbreed themselves into extinction.

[@voluntarism335]

@@schwarzerritter5724 They should have saved the few that they could have like that village

[@isabelleblanchet3694]

@@schwarzerritter5724 He wanted to save that specific village because he broke the prime directive and got together with a woman from the village and she got pregnant.

[@TheMulToyVerse]

I’d have to re-watch the whole episode... in the confines of this clip, it seems that the planet basically died in a matter of seconds. If they had tried to beam anyone at all, depending on what the cause of the planet-death was, there is a near absolute probability that it would have run its course on the enterprise as well

[@ObjectsInMotion]

@@schwarzerritter5724 A village is a large enough population to avoid inbreeding. That's what it means to be a village. You think on earth villages regularly intermingled? No, for the majority of human history people were lived and died within miles of their birth. 50 breeding pairs is more than enough to continue a population.

[@philiphunn194]

Meanwhile Sisko weaponised atmosphere-poisoning to get back at one man who had pissed him off...

[@thedarkprince305]

I believe Sisko gave them time to leave. I believe they had months to leave before the Planet becomes inhabitant and that is just from one missile. If he kept fireing he would take away more time from them Micheal Eddington knew that

[@matthewjones2095]

@@thedarkprince305 they were also terrists blowing up relief ships

[@thedarkprince305]

@@matthewjones2095 I have a question, did the Maquis targeted Federation Ships like how they Target Cardassians ships.

[@matthewjones2095]

@@thedarkprince305 they did they destroyed federation ships sending relief to cardasia replicators powerful enough to help them rebuild

[@thedarkprince305]

@@matthewjones2095 what I meant is did they attack a federation ship that had nothing to do with Cardassians. A starship could be on a mission and they get attack by the Maquis. They attack Federation ship that were help Cardassians but they really wanted to hurt Cardassin.

[@billwithers7457]

To everyone freaking about about Picard "Following the prime directive to the letter," I would remind you that A) He has no means of saving the planet, or he would have done so. B) The people of that planet were incredibly primitive and superstitious and they would undoubtedly have hurt themselves or the crew, or both, if Picard had tried to save as many as the enterprise could hold (Which MIGHT have been enough to set up a viable colony, assuming they were properly prepared and able to adjust.) And C) Worf's brother brought several of them on board and when one found out what was happening he was so disturbed by what he had learned that he committed suicide. No matter how you slice it, that race was doomed. What would it achieve to drag a couple hundred up, freak them the fuck out to the point of mindless panic, and then dump them on an alien planet where they would almost certainly die anyway since it would be an entirely alien ecology and they're all in shock. Would that make anyone feel better? Picard made the hard choice of accepting the inevitable. There was nothing he could do to save that race.

[@DustenRust]

People don't understand or want to see nuance these days. It's all about looking for contradictions now, not solving them... sad state of affairs. Great comment btw

[@zincwing4475]

And don't forget, they cannot save all of them, not enough room. How do you choose who lives or dies? If you do random people, how do you explain to children their parents were not chosen? Or to parents their children were not chosen. Or if you group families, how do you justify that to people who could have been chosen if their families were not grouped? Granted, a case can be made for "better than nothing" but that case would also apply to other scenarios. It is a too slippery slope.

[@robertlavigne9828]

You are wrong. The basis of the "prime directive" is flawed as well. The whole concept is speculative in the sense of time itself. For a "law" that is suppose to not interfere with the future it interferes with the future. We are part of a universe as much as a species that can be far superior intellectually to those who are so primitive they basically do not even know they exist. We humans fight for sub par species all the time why stop in space?

[@beyerdr]

Jonathan Archer put it best in Enterprise "we didn't come out here to play God".

[@robertlavigne9828]

@@beyerdr But they do play god. How many times each series has used time to change the history?

[@KnightRaymund]

I absolutely despise this. The PD worship at its worst.

[@jamesfrank3213]

Could they have actually saved the entire planet? If there was a way to do it unnoticed...then by all means. I think the intent of the Prime Directive is to avoid StarFleet becoming a false deity to alien worlds.

[@crankcall2u]

there was nothing that we could do about it. Picard was a made man, and The prime directive wasn't. And we had to sit still and take it.

[@stuglenn1112]

It was among the federation, it was real grease ball shit.

[@everwake2689]

It was revenge for Dr. Apgar, and a lot of other things.

[@b3ans4eva]

Remember, they rehashed this entire plot to make Star Trek: Insurrection (my favourite Trek movie), but with more Gilbert & Sullivan.

[@guyincognito9484]

But the Baku already had warp knowledge and weren't from there...

[@jackcoleman5955]

That moment when you realize the Prime Directive may not be that great an idea in the absolute variety.

[@carmensavu5122]

Yeah, that moment is the first time you learn of it.

[@gandalf8216]

What's ethical can sometimes be immoral, while the moral can sometimes be unethical. The Prime Directive is based in ethics, why it sometimes end up being immoral in certain situations.

[@wyqtor]

In both Star Trek and Stargate, the purpose of Prime Directive or the Ancients' Non-Interference rule is to prevent the Federation or the Ancients from turning into something like the Borg or the Ori. To the Borg, assimilating other species might be considered to be for their own good. Stargate in particular gives more thought to this theme and shows what can go wrong when highly-advanced, well-meaning beings like Orlin or Oma Desala start helping their lowers.

[@BlackDiamond2718]

That is why I admired Oma and Orlin. Because they truly understood the importance of Ascension. I love Star Trek's Prime Directive and Stargate's Ascension because it poses our questions of God or gods. Considering he is real, what good and evil has he done? Wipe out people for believing in values you disagree with like Sodom and Gomorrah even though they are evil? Or do you let them conduct themselves? My interpretation is that God learned from interference in the Old Testament so he gave Jesus as a final gift to save them from their evil nature and then left them alone. What do you think?

[@wyqtor]

@@BlackDiamond2718 Personally I'm an atheist, I believe that, even if a god-like being does exist out there, we are too tiny and insignificant for such a being. Beings like the aliens who built that planet in SG Universe, or like the creators of the Protomolecule from The Expanse. Therefore it's best to trust science and conduct our lives as if no such being exists.

[@BlackDiamond2718]

@@wyqtor tbh religion is practically our answer when science cannot give us one yet

[@wyqtor]

@@BlackDiamond2718 That's right!

[@anigah]

Which episodes feature the orlon and the other alien species?

[@IDontLiveTodayJH]

This is a good example of following the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law....

[@l337pwnage]

Well, except that they constantly hammer the point home that the very reason for the prime directive is unforeseen consequences. What if it turned out that they were a whole planet of Hitlers and they gassed the universe after you saved them. I bet you'd feel bad then, now would ya.

[@TheSuperRatt]

@@l337pwnage What if it turned out they would become saints who bring the galaxy to a higher level of peace, justice and prosperity? I bet you'd feel silly for letting them be annihilated, now would ya?

[@l337pwnage]

@@TheSuperRatt Ironically, you just actually described Hitler.

[@betotrono]

Picard always takes off and leaves Riker in command when shit gets heavy.

[@JeanBaptisteEmanuelZorg]

the so-called captain's prerogative ^^

[@tonywebster8582]

No, he doesn't.

[@leonardotavaresdardenne9955]

@@tonywebster8582 this is the Retard Hate Hour for people who apparently hate Picard and TNG but watch it anyway, kind of pointless to engage

[@WarpRulez]

ST:TNG was an extraordinarly well-written show, but I never really liked the way that the writers approached and justified the Prime Directive in a manner that seemed inhumane, cold and unjust. Picard, as depicted in the series, would not hesitate to save one person from extreme life-threatening danger. However, if it was 100 million people in life-threatening danger, suddenly the Holy Prime Directive stepped in and stopped him from helping? It always felt like a case of "one death is a tragedy, a hundred million deaths is a statistic". Cold, heartless, inhumane, and against all sense of justice. And completely illogical. I don't think that even in the in-universe premise of the show the Prime Directive was intended to stop Starfleet from helping millions of people who were in danger of destruction. It was only intended to not affect their society eg. by introducing technology or political ideas that the society was not prepared for. It would be perfectly possible to help a society from being destroyed and becoming extinct without affecting its social development.

[@Raja1938]

The PM isn't solely about social/cultural interference. It's also about allowing natural processes to take their course. If we make the case that every measure be taken to preserve all life everywhere, then we can't also argue that mammals should've been allowed to supplant the dinosaurs or that cro-magnons should've supplanted the neanderthals.

[@letofregar5410]

I think the main reason for the prime directive is less to help other cultures, but to keep our own impulses in check. If you always interfere in the way you think is best, you place yourself in a position of power. But the more you interfere, the harder it gets to keep the side effects under control.

[@Obi-Wan_Kenobi]

A certain Star Wars quote of mine is ironically applicable to this Star Trek clip. It's as if a million voices cried out in terror... and were suddenly silenced.

[@peepslostsheep]

There were only 15 voices left.

[@margraveofgadsden8997]

“Now I gotta turn my back on you.”

[@kettch777]

I find it ironic that the purpose of the Prime Directive is to avoid causing harm to the development of less advanced civilizations, yet this is how they apply it. What possible greater harm could they cause than allowing the destruction of an entire species?

[@tonywebster8582]

We were given freewill.

[@89BlackGatomon]

Selfdestruction is self inflicted. Every action have consequences. If we nuke ourself to hell ,saving us would be unjust

[@spaceclaw1958]

@@89BlackGatomon What crime could they possibly be guilty of to deserve this? And who are you, Q, to sit and serve as judge, jury, and executioner for this supposed crime?

[@89BlackGatomon]

@@spaceclaw1958 Natural selection enforcement?

[@highestsettings]

It's not just about causing harm to less advanced civilisations. It's about the potential ramification of their actions. When a civilisation has access to warp technology, they are in effect an equal. They have raised themselves up to the same level as the Federation. The Federation interacting with a stone age level species is akin to the Q interacting with the Federation. They might as well be gods to them, and just like god, they must ignore their prayers. It's like us watching a lion kill an antelope. It's certainly not pleasant, but it is the way of things. It is the butterfly effect, you could save the antelope, but if you did that every time, the lion would die out. For every action there is a reaction. If they saved this species (which they eventually do in this episode), they could evolve to become tyrants of the galaxy. With a warp capable species, at least they are developed. They are on the same level as the Federation to an extent, they may not be quite as advanced, but they are advanced and can interact with the galaxy in the same the Federation do. To some degree they are predictable, with a stone age level species you have absolutely no idea how their society will progress across potentially tens of thousands of years. A warp capable species is already developed, they already have a culture that is intertwined with the nature of the species. You can understand the kind of adult a teenager would be far better than a toddler. That is why the prime directive exists. Altering the course of a stone age species, is akin to us altering the course of an animal species. It is arrogant, and not our place. We should interact with those on our level, because they can interact with and understand us. A newly warp capable species is essentially capable of the same effect on the galaxy as the Federation. Not quite the same, but still on the same level.

[@no1reallycaresabout2]

Im wary of how the Prime Directive is applied....sometimes it means avoiding saving lives in the name of noninterference....as if it was somehow "meant to be"...almost as if they believe in predestination. Also I think it's stupid that Starfleet puts following the Prime Directive over people's lives, what happened to value of sentient life?

[@2wongsdontmakearice588]

+no1reallycaresabout2 isn't life also about death, without one there is not other. They do value life and the process of life which is death and dying. Everybody dies and everyone is dying. Everybody is also living and have a life. It depends on how you see it and the prime directive follows life and death equally.

[@charmolution5125]

+Oh, it's just Garak. Plain, simple Garak I agree. Which is why I propose that we shut down all hospitals immediately. I mean, who are we to interfere with a person's natural course of death? If we truly value life, then we should respect the natural process of it which inevitably leads to death and dying.

[@Bbobsillypants]

no1reallycaresabout2 interfering in a planets natural development cpuld cause unknown amounts of instablity in the long term development of a planet costing thousands of lives, sometimes they worry about a planets inhabitants viewing them as gods which has happened, think of all the religious wars on earth, this is a good of the many sort of thing

[@ericdugdale8585]

I agree with the OP: In this case, the entire group of people was going to be eradicated by following the PD. So what ramifications from interference could be *worse* for them than that, exactly? Are they better off dead than interfered-with?

[@archlorddestin]

In my eyes, it's because to save those lives would expose that culture to the dangers that the prime directive is designed to avoid.

[@colderplasma]

Now the enterprise has got Paulie as a partner, any problems they can go to Paulie. Trouble with the shields, they can come to Paulie. Trouble with the Cardassians, Dominion, Borg, they can call Paulie.

[@dansutherland2462]

But now they gotta come up with Paulie's Latinum every week...

[@w210amgmercedes2]

Paulie is thinking, "I don't know anything about the Prime Directive business"

[@oddish4352]

This is one of those times when the Prime Directive, usually a wise rule, should be reconsidered. But if Picard had done so, we wouldn't have had any conflict.

[@generalpopcorn6427]

No. This is EXACTLY the situation that the Prime Directive was intended for. What if an advanced space-faring species had intervened to save the dinosaurs from the asteroid that killed them 65 million years ago? Humans would never have evolved, dooming them to the oblivion of nonexistence for eternity. By what right does a space-faring species determine winners and losers in the process of evolution?

[@generalpopcorn6427]

@Darth Revan What does the idea of a "god" have to do with any of this? The point is that it is wrong for life originating on one world to get to decide the fate of life on another world. The natural process has to be allowed to come to fruition. It's the ethical reason that the Federation is very strict about only choosing to terraform worlds that are completely devoid of life. There is a practical reason for this, as well. Star Trek happens in a fictional universe where time travel and multiple universes are real. Interfering in the natural development of a world is a great way to make inter-universe and temporal enemies on a cosmic scale. If you save one species and that prevents another, perhaps more powerful species from existing, then their counterparts in a 'mirror' universe might be quite displeased to find this out if they should ever cross over and investigate. That's how you get a time-travelling, universe-hopping species that you've never encountered to show up on Earth 50 million years ago to exterminate our mammalian ancestors as a giant, "Fuck you, humans!"

[@billnotice9957]

Lawful Neutral Captain Picard!!

[@mbaxter22]

Ridiculous, especially considering how the Federation violates the Prime Directive all the time for less compelling reasons. I can’t imagine this plot in a TOS episode. Gene Roddenberry would have (rightfully) felt this strict interpretation of the Prime Directive to be unnecessarily cold-blooded and out of character for the protagonists of his show.

[@darkguardian1314]

I never agreed with the writers of this episode regarding the Prime Directive. The idea isn't to let things die in world-ending events but to alter the culture of civilization. Starfleet can help them say move a comet out the way without the natives being the wiser.

[@highestsettings]

Paulie is going to have to turn his back on Worf after this.

[@Intrafacial86]

Was this before or after the episode where Data made contact with that little girl and they ended up doing something about the planet’s tectonics?

[@KinksKomments]

after I think...

[@danielhaire6677]

I think by Star Fleet regulations, the difference was they never had to visit the planet or interact with the locals (beyond the girl) and thereby avoided damaging the culture.

[@redpillfreedom6692]

@@danielhaire6677 Which is worse? Damaging a culture or letting it go extinct?

[@danielhaire6677]

@@redpillfreedom6692 Personally, the second is worse. I can live with damaging a culture if I save it from dying out. If I could save them but didn't because of some policy like the Prime Directive, I don't think I'd be able to look myself in the face for a long time.

[@spartanxmonster]

May this video and all its ilk be blessed by the almighty Algorithm.

[@richardlahan7068]

I understand the reasoning behind the Prime Directive but other Starfleet captains have used their judgment to either obey it or not. Starfleet captains are not robots that have no choice in their decisions. Picard, Janeway and Sisko all violated the Prime Directive when necessity or their consciences dictated otherwise.

[@like-icecream]

Every officer in charge should be allowed to use discretion.

[@Doc_Fun]

"We may not have been able to save their lives today, but we have certainly spared them the burden of ultra advanced interstellar travel, the ability the replicate anything, the holodeck and every other technology we take for granted. We are heroes today, my friends. Now, get us out of here number one!"

[@HighmageDerin]

What does Star Trek's prime directive, and Isaac Asimov's 3 laws of robotics have in common? They both cause catastrophe in the end to those it was intended to protect.....

[@Robert-hz9bj]

Picard in "A Matter of Time": "How can you be comfortable, watching people die?" Literally Everyone Watching this Episode: "Same way as you, apparently..."

[@wandaperi]

Rasmussen came from the past, not the future; so he could not give any legitimate advice, anyhow

[@Robert-hz9bj]

@@wandaperi Yeah, you super missed the point. My point was, at the moment anyway, Picard believed Rasmussen had the ability to prevent large-scale death and was condemning him for clinging to principles that commanded him to stand by and do nothing. Now, Picard is doing literally the exact same thing he was judging Rasmussen for. Whether Rasmussen was telling the truth was besides the point. Picard is willing to judge others for actions he is carrying out himself, because Starfleet is staffed entirely by hypocrites willing to commit xenocide by inaction, apparently.

[@Raja1938]

@@Robert-hz9bj Picard recognized that Rasmussen was operating under a temporal prime directive. Since Picard wasn't personally bound to follow it, he was within his rights to try and get some info, but he ultimately accepted that he wouldn't.

[@Robert-hz9bj]

@@Raja1938 Once again, that misses the point. In the episode I was referring to, Picard has the audacity to ask him point-blank "how can you be comfortable watching people die?" a transparent attempt to guilt him through the implication that his principles were allowing him to justify abetting an atrocity (ie, mass death). An act of extreme hypocrisy given that Picard's principles are, at this very moment, permitting him to do the EXACT same thing. And the irony of course is that, if there is a temporal prime directive, it makes waaay more sense than the actual prime directive. The Starfleet Prime Directive allows entire species and civilizations to die on the flimsy pretext that "they don't know what the consequences will be," whereas people following a Temporal Prme Directive know exactly what the consequences will be (ie, the history and lives of trillions of people ceasing to exist). Picard is not only a hypocrite, he's a weirdly small-minded and petty one, willing to risk centuries of history and countless lives to save one planet, while casually letting another die off for no greater justification than they were guilty of not being technologically advanced enough for contact...

[@Raja1938]

@@Robert-hz9bj Does Picard get credit for acknowledging his error? He didn't continue to press Rasmussen for help, and even stated that it was the right thing that he wasn't helped.

[@Name-ps9fx]

I always understand the Prime Directive to be about not interfering with a culture’s technological or social development...which is, imho, secondary only to the continued existence of said culture. If not, then the PD is just an excuse for gross, extinction-level negligence.

[@Raja1938]

Extinction by natural selection is going on all the time. Species that can't adapt to a changing environment die out and ones that can, arise. Should Starfleet be monitoring entire planets 24/7 to prevent the extinction of dinosaurs, neanderthals, and dodo birds?

[@ladiesman1ate7]

Paul sorvino shoulda said “and now I gotta turn my back on ya”

[@Mlogan11]

There are prolly advanced Aliens monitoring our planet and also vowing not to interfere as they watch us destroy ourselves. .....probably saying "Can you imagine if they figured out interstellar space travel? We dodged a bullet there!"

[@markfox1545]

Mlogan11 - 'PROLLY'? Ffs...

[@generalpopcorn6427]

@TheVoiceOfTruth You're a moron.

[@davecrupel2817]

What's Paulie doing on a starship? Making connections?

[@stuglenn1112]

He was looking for Tommy's shine box.

[@JuanGarcia-ni4ee]

He was going to whack someone in 10 forward. They were moving in on his turf.

[@kxmode]

Picard: this house has termites. Prime Directive: BURN THE HOUSE DOWN

[@SixEightLiftsWeight]

What is terrifying about this, is that our own destruction could be at hand, and more advanced civilization could be there just watching it happen with their heads held low, and then seconds later go to warp to see the next thing and never think about us again.

[@mabiniss2]

I hate this episode so much. It's like if Country B is about to suffer from a massive volcanic eruption or earthquake and Country A has the ability to save them, but don't because Country B hadn't developed sailboats and doesn't know that Country A even exists. It's monstrous and absurd.

[@harishrao2000]

But Country A and B share the same ecosystem and are on the same planet. Whatever happens to Country B affects your entire ecosystem directly or indirectly. Your comparison is flawed.

[@peepslostsheep]

The crew of the Enterprise could not save the planet. Only a small village of what appears to be less than 15 people. Inbreeding would have killed them off in a couple generations. Letting them die is less monstrous than what would have happened to their descendants.

[@momentary_]

So Country A should only help Country B if it directly affects Country A? That's still monstrous and absurd.

[@catfishcave379]

I’ve always wondered if the show decided to take an intentional hit in this episode to make it more than obvious at every level the folly of that decision... and the decisions our politicians make in the real world.

[@MinuteLeech2]

There's a difference between not giving machine guns to cavemen and not helping evacuate a town about to be destroyed by a natural disaster

[@katakisLives]

Its the absolutism of the prime directive that makes it fundamentally flawed

[@MinuteLeech2]

@@katakisLives I think the principle is good- a lot of problems in human history comes from interfering/colonization/attempted dominance of other cultures. But quoting Pirates of the Carribean, it works better as guidelines than as a absolute unbreakable rule. This episode really painted the Enterprise crew as a bunch of holier than thou assholes

[@katakisLives]

@@MinuteLeech2 Yes correct, interfering willy nilly is not a good idea but in this case and others a captain should be allowed to exercise judgment as to whether to set aside the prime directive, its absolute nature is what makes it rotten

[@NameCallingIsWeak]

"I CAN live with this ... Computer ... delete that ENTIRE personal log ..."

[@NameCallingIsWeak]

The Prime directive is violated every time we take someone to the hospital.

[@2bituser569]

This episode does validate “Admiral STFU Picard” claim that sf does decide who lives and dies.

[@elronman]

SF does not decide who lives and dies at all. Thats the entire point. They don't save or kill anyone.

[@2bituser569]

elronman Through action or inaction they do decide who lives and dies.

[@primotef8863]

Good thing Troi wasn't here. This scene shows that sometimes, following the rules can have a negative outcome.

[@charlesq7866]

Vincent KUNG F U "Captain, I sense everyone on the bridge is feeling a bit miffed."

[@dotancohen]

Never let your values get in the way of doing what is right. - Issac Asimov

[@HacksignKT]

@Chet Carson rofl

[@markequinox]

Paulie is like ‘Prime Directive’? Fuck you pay me’

[@mtjanglefins781]

Boy, I sure am glad that Starfleet stuck to their principles. That was a close one!

[@Taal111]

I've always found the Prime Directive to basically be a moral justification for not burdening the Federation with constantly trying to fix other people's problems. It lets them do what all the other powers do (ie not help without getting something back in return) whilst also allowing them to maintain the moral high-ground they so desperately need.

[@redpillfreedom6692]

"You cannot explain away a wantonly immoral act because you think it is somehow connected to a higher purpose." -Jean-Luc Picard, Season 6, Episode 4 "Man of the People" Granted, in this case it's an immoral inaction, but the principle is all the same.

[@banderfargoyl]

Next time the Enterprise shows up you better have the money.

[@wellthatwasdaft]

"SC - its ships, its people - might be on the side of angels, but that doesn't mean they always behave like the good guys. In fact, as you're falling down the metaphorical lift shaft, I can virtually guarantee it will feel like they're the bad guys, no matter how ethically sound the carefully worked out moral algebra was that led to them chucking you into it in the first place." -Iain M Banks in "Surface Detail", discussing the moral ramifications of contacting new civilisations.

[@76JStucki]

Ha. The "Prime Directive" was merely a useful plot device. Obeyed when narratively convenient and cast aside for the same reason dozens of times.

[@carmensavu5122]

And this is why I hold the Prime Directive in the highest contempt.

[@TheStapleGunKid]

Facing the ramifications of the prime directives means feeling slightly depressed about it for about 5 minutes and then forgetting about it entirely after the episode is over.

[@MulToyVerse]

Goodfellas in Space!!!

[@FirstLast-cg2nk]

This is the same Picard who broke the Prime Directive to save one member of a primitive species. This is the same Picard who, when receiving a message from a girl with a ham radio, chose to save an undeveloped world from an exploding sun. For the dozens of times Picard said "F--- the Prime Directive", everyone only remembers this one badly written episode.

[@girlgarde]

I'm glad that Worf's human brother broke the Prime Directive and saved those villagers that he befriended. He chose to be Human over obeying Starfleet dogma. Picard was an asshole to give him a hard time for saving the villagers while Worf is something worse than that to disown his own brother! Talk about Lawful Stupid at its finest! They seemed to care more about upholding rules and regulations than anything else! They reached Janeway and Tuvok levels of "upholding the Prime Directive at all costs" type stupidity in this episode......

[@hagamapama]

The thing that sucked about that episode, is that it forced Picard to conveniently forget a lesson he'd spent 7 seasons teaching everybody before and since -- that the rules are important, and knowing when and how to bend them is just as important. An exception should have been made here.

[@bobmilaplace3816]

So how will this affect the galaxy in five centuries? No one knows.

[@girlgarde]

hagamapama Yeah, that's what got me about this episode. He would've normally bent the rules in situations like this but here, he sticks to the letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law. It makes me shudder at what this version of Picard would do if he had the power to save a Pre-contact civilization from being destroyed by a giant meteor, he'd probably have let the damn meteor hit their home planet and wipe their race out in order to "Let nature take its course......".

[@Ares99999]

ryan macdonald He had no power to save enough people in the limited time he had. Worf's brother didn't save enough people to make that civilization genetically viable. It will die off.

[@girlgarde]

Ares99999 True enough. He only seemed to save those he knew and cared about. Still, the principle remains the same. Picard and Worf acted Lawful Stupid in this episode. I do wonder if perhaps the best course of action once they were on board would've been to reveal the truth to the primitives Worf rescued and bring them into Federation society. They'd just have to watch them carefully and help them through their adjustment period to make sure they didn't kill themselves like that historian did (because they didn't watch him, morons).

[@TJDious]

The Prime Directive exists to avoid bringing harm to developing civilizations by advancing them more rapidly than they can handle, and to prevent citizens of the Federation from exploiting such cultures. I realize they can't always save every planet facing a cataclysm but this episode proves its feasible to preserve portions of said populations without their knowing. Incidentally this was one of the best narrative uses of the holodeck ever. My favorite part is when the people get freaked out when it starts glitches and Worf tells them it's the "Mark of LaForge" and that it's a good sign.

[@collinsdarkwa281]

intriguing

[@greyd.99xsome]

I always wondered what's the point about the Prime Directive when there are quite a lot other spacefaring races like Ferengi or Romulans who don't care at all about Federation Laws. So Starfleet will not provide lesser developed races with Disruptors? Well, Ferengi would for sure.

[@YD-uq5fi]

Oh, the Ferengi would happily save the entire race if they agree to three years of free indentured labor. Capitalism wins.

[@selkirkswift]

Why is Paul Cicero on the enterprise

[@selkirkswift]

The crew gets a cut from everyone in the galactic neighbourhood. If they don’t pay up this is what happens

[@fuzzytech3846]

"Some may question your right to destroy ten billion people. Those who understand know that you have no right to let them live."

[@Graeme_Lastname]

I am amazed!! I've never seen that episode.

[@danielhaire6677]

"I find no honor in this Captain and you'll forgive me if I don't stay." And then he proceeds to save people from the planet anyway. Rare to see the minor guest character act with greater courage and honor than the main characters.

[@TonkarzOfSolSystem]

In Stargate one of the ascended ancients helped out a beleaguered culture, and they turned the knowledge they got into making weapons which they used to exterminate a nearby civilization.

[@trickedraptor]

Similar story with the Tolans. On a whole, though, Stargate definitely rejects the idea of the prime directive. The Sgc is perfectly happy to go in guns blazing and rescue primitive peoples, no matter how much cultural contamination happens.

[@jyvben1520]

@@trickedraptor well the bad guys had already contaminated their world, so it just building an aliiance against the bad guys.

[@rubiks6]

I respect Nicolai's disobedience more than Jean Luc Picard's prime directive. Lives are valuable. Total annihilation is worthless. I agree with Nicolai. There is no honor in letting those people die.

[@scottwalker2980]

so when picard breaks the prime directive then looks back on this event, he should be ashamed of himself.

[@TheMightyLu]

They have the resources and the technology to save a planet of sentient life but they refuse not to because they would rather keep it to themselves? WTF?

[@peepslostsheep]

They were incapable of saving the whole planet. They could only save a small village, which does not contain enough genetic diversity to continue the species. Maybe if Warfs brother had called for help sooner, they could have saved the whole planet, but he waited until the last second like a jackass.

[@Rahn127]

A large asteroid is about to strike Earth and kill everyone. "Damn that prime directive. Wish there was something we could do." I'm fairly certain an exception would be made.

[@Mark-xh8md]

Earth had advanced far enough to become the de facto leaders of a vast interstellar federal union. Pretty sure the PD doesn't apply any longer ;) I too am not completely onboard with the PD, but let's cut back on ridiculousness, hm?

[@ZekeUlrey]

I adore Trek, I am merely a guy. But any life you could have saved is a life you should have saved.

[@mattb6369]

To paraphrase Jonathan Archer: One day in the future, my people are gonna create some insane doctrine to give us the moral high ground, a series of guidelines that says where we can and can't play God. By the stars of bullshit that directive is gonna be very... Prime!

[@tystin_gaming]

You don't use quotation marks when paraphrasing. You use them specifically when you are....QUOTING.

[@TheKnightOfSmite]

Right as he consigns a race to billions of deaths because it meets Dr Phlox's eugenics ideology

[@cleekmaker00]

From Capt. Picard: "The Prime Directive isn't just a set of rules; it's a philosophy... and a very correct one. History has proved again and again, that whenever Mankind interferes with a less developed civilization, no matter how well intentioned that interference may be, the results are invariably disastrous."

[@TyphonJRT]

The results would have to be better than mass extinction.

[@Yoni123]

brian577 not necessarily. It could lead to mass extinction on multiple planets for example

[@leeboy26]

'Could'. Strange how it doesn't apply to cultures with Warp technology. I guess those that lose the lottery of happening to be on a world being destroyed and not being as technologically advanced are shit out of luck. The PD is a dogma used as a shield for moral cowardice. I'm with Doctor Pulaski in 'Pen Pals'. As I recall they helped a pre-warp civ save their world in that one for spurious reasons but this one they were like 'f**k it'. Luckily Rozhenko had some decency and didn't kow-tow to a rulebook as ethically watertight as broken window fallacy.

[@skyler114]

The 250,000 people a day being lifted out of abject poverty in our world would lead me to disagree with your statement cleekmaker. The Prime Directive should be more along the lines of a Good Rule of Thumb, minimize intervention but weigh it against any reasonable externalities that you see your inaction leading to. Maybe you can require adherence to it subject to a relatively simple appeal by an objective body (superior officers and such) and require transparent and public records of this appeal. Not choosing is a choice just the same.

[@samuel5742]

Have you considered that maybe those people shouldn't be being lifted out of abject poverty?

[@gaidin21]

The Prime Directive implies that all of these separate societies are simply experiments to observe until they reach an arbitrary point where "we can't hide from them anymore". Once a society achieves spaceflight, and finds out there's someone else out there, suddenly they become "equals". This is the height of arrogance. To say that societies should be allowed to doom themselves, either because they failed to prevent an ecological disaster, fell victim to a plague, annihilated themselves via warfare--because "we might influence them"--is an attitude of the utmost contempt. It is basically saying "we're better than them, so they DON'T deserve our help--see how righteous that makes us?" I much prefer the galactic society of "The Day the Earth Stood Still" (The 1950s one, not that Jennifer Connolly BS one.) Where, rather than stand by and allow us to destroy ourselves if we so chose, they stepped in to A) let everyone know they weren't alone, B) let everyone know that someone was watching, C) let everyone know that those watching wouldn't standby and tolerate mutual obliteration, and D) allowed Earth to maintain its sovereignty, but within limits (not unlike the UN and the super-powerful nations today set terms for how their less-powerful neighbors will get along--such as stop threatening people with missiles and nukes)

[@CharlesUrban]

It's a very complex problem. On the one hand, you don't want to watch a primitive culture get obliterated due to something they couldn't possibly hope to foresee, let alone contain or prevent. On the other hand, your intervention would change that culture irrevocably if they became aware of your presence, and its people would come to see you as a god almost without exception. When you consider how much we humans struggle with dueling religions, you can see the damage this might do to other sentient populations. And what of us, their saviors? Do we want to go around acting like gods when we aren't? That lends itself to other, more heinous forms of abuse, especially when the inevitable happens and we start believing our own hype. That sort of hubris destroys civilizations--theirs and, eventually, ours. _That_ is why the Prime Directive exists.

[@Schregger]

The problem I had with Klaatu's speech was that it was punctuated by the robot with the ability to destroy Earth completely (hyperbole, i know, but anyways.) The speech basically boils down to, "you will behave in a manner we approve of, or you will be eradicated, because we do not want you to bring your war to our level." While not wanting human violence to spill into the greater universe, it also is basically telling humanity to forcibly change itself. Now, the movie is a product of its time, so there is that to consider. But ignoring that, its still interposing on the affairs of a civilization that has no means to combat your force, with said force. That is practically Tyranny.

[@KinksKomments]

Michael Rennie's performance was as awesome as this type of PD.

[@BrennahAdrianna]

Now let’s go have a drink and party weee heeeew

[@Ved000000]

A wild Paul Sorvino appears!

[@Truenorth1000]

If i were an Admiral in Starfleet and i saw this, i would advocate the repeal of the Prime Directive.

[@katakisLives]

The Federation needs to at least amend the Prime directive so it doesn't allow inaction in the face of mass extinction events!

[@shadowytwilight]

except it's shown, time and time again, that most of the time, like 99.9% that the Prime Directive gets abandoned, that the results are, invariably, negative in the long term. there are very few times that the prime directive gets brought up in the show as a main theme. and most times, they show just how bad it can go. like picard being worshipped as a god called 'the Overseer'. or good intentions to help a society ending up becoming Nazi Germany. someone mentions the other time where they saved a planet in a similar situation..they might remeber that the only reason they did, was because Data had broken the directive, and they were going to let them die, had not the little girl he knew pleaded for help when they shut down communications. thus they 'bent' the rule because they were asking for help from Data. adn the few that worf's brother 'saves' doesn't nothing but let them die out from lack of the ability to breed viable offspring in a couple generations cause there's not enough of them left. they couldn't save enough to keep the population viable, nor could the society handle the tech that would be needed to even think about trying to save them.

[@katakisLives]

shadowytwilight I still maintain that having an absolute rule of non interference is very short sighted! even Earth suffered badly as a result of a version of the prime directive! when it was pointed out in Enterprise That the Vulcans could have intervened in WW3 but they didn't! as a result most of earths population and most iconic great cities were wiped out!

[@katiekatie6289]

shadowytwilight"except it's shown, time and time again, that most of the time, like 99.9% that the Prime Directive gets abandoned, that the results are, invariably, negative in the long term." Good point, if they didn't let an entire planet get wiped out something far worse could have happened to it.

[@firstname4337]

then you don't deserve to be an Admiral

[@tyfenrir]

The only time the Prime Directive makes sense is in the case of time travel. Any other circumstance and it's bollocks.

[@sebastianzietara4018]

Nope because it this case it is the Temporal Prime Directive that would be used and Both Sisko and Janeway broke it

[@cyanhb9689]

If only we held to the Prime Directive today.

[@russellanderson8879]

It is distressing that the episode information is not included with this clip

[@177SCmaro]

In the face of extinction, every alternative is preferable, Captain. Before the Prime Directive became dogmatic, Starfleet used to understand this.

[@troyjollimore4100]

By that logic, the dinosaurs should still be around today? Life is a constant flow. You can't save everything...

[@177SCmaro]

@@troyjollimore4100 Since you brought up logic that is false analogy/equivalency, taken out of context, and a strawman. Dinosaurs are not people and I didn't say one ought to save "everything". The context I was referring to was the people on that planet who where allowed to die when Starfleet had the power to save them but refused to based on another fallacy, "appeal to ignorance" i.e. "we don't know what might happen if we save them so we shouldn't save them". This very situation came up in the Original Series, before the Prime Directive became dogma, were Kirk considered that helping a primitive society might be harmful to them when Spock pointed out any alternative was preferable to death (which is more harmful still).

[@troyjollimore4100]

Okay... So what if said force stopped the atomic bombs falling on Japan? Or stepped in to stop Germany from being defeated in World War II? ST:TOS was written in simpler times, when personal feelings were all you needed to justify such a moral dilemma. How would you feel if you stopped a man from killing themselves, only the next day to find out they'd raped and murdered a young family? On a single level, these judgements can more easily be made and justified. What about on a country-wide level? Planet-wide? Who will bear the responsibility for any repercussions of your actions? To use a modern-day example, the US entered Iraq and Afghanistan with an aim to end internal fighting and conflict. Once they entered, both internal sides turned on 'the enemy', and went right back to what they were doing before once the US left. Another good example were the four US Marines that saved a rodent from their barracks, and let it free in a field. Ten seconds later it was picked off by a hawk. Made the hawk's day, but wasn't much better for the rodent, was it? Don't stick your fingers in where they might get burned.

[@177SCmaro]

@@troyjollimore4100 Those are two entirely different circumstances (this is another false equivalency on your part, a natural disaster and a war are not morally the same). And I think I understand the flaw in your way of thinking. In a moral context you are conflating different circumstances as though they are either the morally the same or morally related. If I save a man who is about to, say, be hit by a bus that is morally good. If that same man rapes someone the next day that is morally evil but the two situations are not morally related - what I did was good, what he did was evil. And since I don't have special knowledge of the future, and neither do you or anyone else, it's not possible for me to know ahead of time that this man will rape someone in the future and thus it can't be used as a justification for not saving him from being hit by a bus nor does it post hoc make my actions immoral or unjustifiable after he goes on to rape someone or any more morally justified or good if he instead when on to cure cancer or something. Do you understand? Stopping him from killing himself and him murdering someone are not morally related. If we treated ethics like that it would not be possible for any human being to do anything good for any other human being as you could invariably "connect" any good act to some evil someone in the world is does at a later time. And, in war, it depends on who the aggressor is on a case by case basis. The USA was not justified in dropping atomic bombs on Japan because a great many of the victims were innocent (this is true not just of atomic weapons, on both sides, all throughout the war), are not aggressing against anyone, just like Japan was not justified in trying to take over the southwest Pacific nor in bombing the USA at Pearl Harbor, neither of which were attacking Japan. Again, anytime we set about trying to figure out who is in the wrong we need to first ascertain who is the aggressor on a case by case basis. My point is "it might turn out bad" is not a logically valid reason to let an entire world of people burn when you have the means to save them. Picard's reasoning and ethics are deeply flawed in this episode and Worf's brother is very much in the right.

[@troyjollimore4100]

@@177SCmaro You are absolutely correct. But, if you saved said man from the bus in front of their future victim's family... Morally, you have no fault... but is that going to stop them from blaming you, hating you, or taking future revenge on you? How about suing you for the liability of your actions? (It's a stretch, but the US legal system has made far cornier judgments at times...) So, again stretching these dilemmas to much larger scales. What do you do in the scope of a natural disaster beset upon people who don't know about you? Nothing. Because if you did do something, you are suddenly liable... Think of me stopping to help lift you up from the ground where you crashed your bicycle. In the process of lifting you, I accidentally hurt your shoulder. *BOOM* Lawsuit, which you will win, because I took liability for my actions the moment I stopped to help you. At the same time, remember Picard's quote to Data under similar circumstances. "Your 'Voice from the Dark' has become a plea. We cannot turn our backs."

[@landonletterman831]

Oh, the things that go on in the holodeck's, without Picard ever knowing about it! ......ew, not that! Ew! EW! What's wrong with you, grow up!!!

[@generalpopcorn6427]

Someone has to mop up the holodeck from time to time.

[@landonletterman831]

@@generalpopcorn6427 you know that holodeck's act as replicators too, right? It's how they eat food inside without it being a construct of holo emitters, meaning, _techinally_ that every holodeck could deconstruct any organic matter left inside, and recycle it to use again in somethin- EW! EW! THIS is why I didn't want to think about this!

[@stevetrent4638]

It’s not considered but the crushing emotional response from an entire planet should basically kill Troi

[@RaulContrerasNava]

The prime directive is there for a reason, that is why the Federation is no interfering with Covid19