|
Post by stargazer1682 on Aug 19, 2019 22:55:52 GMT
I'm re-watching the TNG episode Homeward, and every time I watch it I can't help but think how stupid it is to contend that the Prime Directive would rather have an entire species - an intelligent species, no less - go extinct, rather than "interfere". Seriously, what does that achieve? I can understand prohibiting other forms of interference, like providing an underdeveloped civilization technology or knowledge they hadn't earned, therefore disrupting what would have otherwise been their natural progress. And I know there's the argument of where do you draw the line; what about in the instances of a natural disease or war, which is a valid point that you perhaps can't step in for every conceivable circumstance; and there are going to be instances where a civilization just can't be saved, but surely there should be nuance and at least some degree of moral justification - like the events in Homeward, where by no fault of the people living on the planet in question the atmosphere on that planet begins to dissipate. I see no fault or downside in the plan to surreptitiously rescue and transplant a small colony of these endangered people, without them having any knowledge that it happened. If they're going to fucking creep around on these planet and disguise themselves and study these civilizations, as if they're nothing more animals to be observed in the wild; the least they could do is make sure they don't go exinct through absolutely no fault their own. Worf's brother was right, there's no honor in that; it's disgraceful.
What do others think, do you agree with Picard?
|
|
|
Post by WildManWizard on Sept 15, 2019 23:58:46 GMT
I'm re-watching the TNG episode Homeward, and every time I watch it I can't help but think how stupid it is to contend that the Prime Directive would rather have an entire species - an intelligent species, no less - go extinct, rather than "interfere". Seriously, what does that achieve? I can understand prohibiting other forms of interference, like providing an underdeveloped civilization technology or knowledge they hadn't earned, therefore disrupting what would have otherwise been their natural progress. And I know there's the argument of where do you draw the line; what about in the instances of a natural disease or war, which is a valid point that you perhaps can't step in for every conceivable circumstance; and there are going to be instances where a civilization just can't be saved, but surely there should be nuance and at least some degree of moral justification - like the events in Homeward, where by no fault of the people living on the planet in question the atmosphere on that planet begins to dissipate. I see no fault or downside in the plan to surreptitiously rescue and transplant a small colony of these endangered people, without them having any knowledge that it happened. If they're going to fucking creep around on these planet and disguise themselves and study these civilizations, as if they're nothing more animals to be observed in the wild; the least they could do is make sure they don't go exinct through absolutely no fault their own. Worf's brother was right, there's no honor in that; it's disgraceful. What do others think, do you agree with Picard? but what if the culture you save destroys the whole sector a thousand years later?
|
|
|
Post by stargazer1682 on Sept 16, 2019 3:43:23 GMT
I'm re-watching the TNG episode Homeward, and every time I watch it I can't help but think how stupid it is to contend that the Prime Directive would rather have an entire species - an intelligent species, no less - go extinct, rather than "interfere". Seriously, what does that achieve? I can understand prohibiting other forms of interference, like providing an underdeveloped civilization technology or knowledge they hadn't earned, therefore disrupting what would have otherwise been their natural progress. And I know there's the argument of where do you draw the line; what about in the instances of a natural disease or war, which is a valid point that you perhaps can't step in for every conceivable circumstance; and there are going to be instances where a civilization just can't be saved, but surely there should be nuance and at least some degree of moral justification - like the events in Homeward, where by no fault of the people living on the planet in question the atmosphere on that planet begins to dissipate. I see no fault or downside in the plan to surreptitiously rescue and transplant a small colony of these endangered people, without them having any knowledge that it happened. If they're going to fucking creep around on these planet and disguise themselves and study these civilizations, as if they're nothing more animals to be observed in the wild; the least they could do is make sure they don't go exinct through absolutely no fault their own. Worf's brother was right, there's no honor in that; it's disgraceful. What do others think, do you agree with Picard? but what if the culture you save destroys the whole sector a thousand years later? The same can be said for any other civilization they encounter that doesn't require saving; should they just start blasting away at every pre-warp civilization they encounter on the off change they'll be a future threat? The inverse could also be true; what if the culture destroyed through happenstance would have otherwise held the key to the salvation of the Federation a thousand years later? You analogy is like saying, what if a person you could save from a burning building goes on to have a child that becomes the next Hitler? You can't justify inaction on the supposition of the worst possible outcome, only based on what you know will definitely happen in the now; and in this case, doing nothing means people die. No one can shoulder the burden of what some hypothetical future might be, but we can do our best to mitigate the negative to create the best possible future - and surely that doesn't mean you let the person burn or an entire civilization die through no fault of their own.
|
|