For those of you here who think the prime directive is flawed, or could be adjusted.
What do you agree with, how would you change what you disagree with, and why?
My biggest (only real) gripe with it is the “sit by and watch a civilisation die from something we could prevent inside five minutes without ever being noticed” shtick.
Bonus points when they try to bring fate into it
The Prime Directive is not a bad idea when it exists to minimise harm. When it gets turned into a pseudo-religious dogma, where it is considered better to allow a culture to be extinguished than to risk contaminating it, that’s when there are problems for me.
Zero tolerance policies ensure injustice in outlier cases. Yes, it’s unethical to interfere in a civilization’s development 99.9% of the time, but there are always exceptions. Ignoring outliers is pretending your system is above the fundamental laws of the universe.
First, and just to make crystal clear that I agree, I agree.
Second, I’m not sure Starfleet Command is, in any century, quite up to really comprehending this.
A thought experiment occurred to me. What is the absolute best subject for a zero tolerance policy? Genocide is the first thought. The most horrific evil that could ever be inflicted.
But let’s say hypothetically, there was a virus that was highly-transmissible and has a 100% fatality rate. A virus killing all of mankind. And let’s say somehow this virus is sentient. We have no idea how it works, but we can confirm that it thinks, feels, etc. The virus is provably sentient for our hypothetical purposes.
If someone develops an absolute cure to the disease, it will save everyone, but it will also wipe out the sentient virus. That is technically genocide, but it saves all life from death. Should a zero tolerance policy govern? Or can we at least have a conversation about wiping out the sentient virus?
@NVariable @Benfell isn’t this an ‘us vs them’ choice for mutual genocide?
My hot take: we either (a) persuade the virus to stop our genocide or (b) kill it because we could have coexisted if only they’d been able to.
But that has a Corollary: If one deems ‘us vs them’ must be decided in favor of the organism able to coexist without annihilating another (something the virus can’t prevent itself from doing): is human-caused mass-extinction an indictment against us? Seems so.
For a precedent, consider how we treat nonhuman animals.
We would shamelessly obliterate the virus.
And yes, of course we’re hypocrites with a human-caused mass extinction event.
@Benfell @NVariable to be precise, we archive a sampling of our nonsentient murderous virii.
My theory – based on us seeing numerous violations of the Prime Directive from main characters – is that the interpretation of the rule is “you better be willing to risk your career if you break this,” not “your career is 100% over if you break this.”
It’s a heuristic, and a good one, but there seems to be in-universe exceptions for exceptional cases.
