Talk:Prime Directive
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is part of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |  Star Trek Portal |
This article takes the view that the Prime Directive applies only to pre-warp civilizations. That is not the case. The Prime Directive applies to any civilization with which Starfleet comes into contact.
Pre-warp cultures are the focus of so many Prime Directive stories in Star Trek simply because interference by Starfleet in a pre-warp culture is most likely to cause irreparable damage.
With warp-capable cultures, the Prime Directive guarantees that Starfleet cannot intervene without the express invitation by that culture, as usually represented by its leaders.
Could lead to problems - consider the number of cases where the elected body/political leader decide one way and the general populace (as reflected in "stop you in the street opinion polls") wants something different.
What about "soft imperialism" (TV/radio program equivalents)? Jackiespeel 22:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The "Prime directive" both as a concept (non-interference) and as a term is pre-Trek. ST just popularized it. --Imran 12:35, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
In this article, I took the position of devil's advocate. There are times when the Prime Directive seems to cause more problems that it solved. Take the conquest of the Bajoran people by the Cardassians. Despite being a very advanced race, the Federation refused to make any efforts to help them on the grounds that it violated the Prime Directive in regards to the Cardassian race. So I made some changes because I was concerned that while there was much on the positive benefits of the Prime Directive, that there wasn't enough on the negatives of that same directive.
Also, what I had seen was that a lot of Starfleet officers by the time of Voyager had a hypocritical attitude of "it's all right for me to commit violations of the Prime Directive no matter how aggrevious they are, but it's not all right for you to do so."
- JesseG 22:32, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Let's be honest can the Prime Directive ever work in reality here on Earth (since we do not of any other life forms)? I mean we live in a world where it is natural for people to poke in other people's affairs. For instance the British Conservative Party sent people to help out US President George HW Bush reelection campaign in 1992. If the Prime Directive was in place in which all the countries have a binding agreement not to interfere in the internal affairs of a country then surely those Tories who helped Bush out would not have been allowed.
Perhaps the biggest problem with the Prime directive is inconsistent way it is applied and I am not talking about the way nearly ever time it comes up Kirk is breaking it (Omega Glory is the one exception). There are several cases where the Prime Directive is outright ignored because a planet is important to the Federation.
Contents |
[edit] 'or', or 'and'?
In the first paragraph: "...........no interference with events or no revelation of their identity........." Is the 'or' supposed to be an 'and'? I don't know enough about ST. But it does seem that way to me.
[edit] Omega Directive
Why is there a link to this when the article doesn't exist? Is someone intending to make it?
[edit] Comments on Prime Directive
Several possibilities:
A person involved in technical development is "almost there"/has followed a slightly wrong path. Can the visitor point out what to do next?
The society is going to hell in the proverbial handcart - under what circumstances can the PD be overriden to get the society, group or whatever out of the situation that is being created. Alternatively "disaster and emergency relief operations." (For example a spaceship can blast the terrain to create a channel to divert a lava flow from a centre of population.)
The society requests/wishes to buy in relevant technology/ equipment (it could develop them from its own resources, but does not wish to reinvent the wheel).
At what point of development does the Prime Technology become irrelevant?
The Prime Directive is possibly fine in theory, but there may be good reasons to be flexible about its application - and could the concept of cultural imperialism (or reverse such) be thrown into the discussion?
(Anyone wishing to use the above elsewhere can do so with an hon mention and a note to me (g).
Jackiespeel 21:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Some cleanup needed Re: In-universe
This article needs to be edited to match Wikipedia guidlines WP:LAYOUT WP:1SP WP:WAF so added "In-universe" tag.Halfblue 18:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- There is much discussion about the PD's development as an "out of universe" creative concept, as well as references in other sci-fi, so removing "in-universe" tag as unnecessary. Replacing w/ cleanup tag. Wl219 08:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] References to the Prime Directive in show
It was stated pretty clearly at the start of the episode Bread and Circuses that the PD meant; "No identification of self or mission. No interference with the social development of said planet. No references to space, other worlds, or advanced civilizations". I'll look for more text from the episode, also mention from the episode The Apple and others that it doesn't apply to stagnating societies. Probably not completely fair to say its not defined within the show. Alastairward 15:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Even so, at some point between TOS-era and TNG-era, probably as a result of the Federation coming into contact with more worlds, the definition was expanded to include the Westphalian. The expanded PD to my mind has never been fully defined in post-TOS canon. What do you mean by "stagnating societies"? Wl219 14:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edited reference
The reference to the TOS episode "A Piece of the Action" was changed as follows: The ship that visited the primitive planet was not described as a "Federation ship," but an "Earth ship." The ship was named Horizon, which may (or may not) be the same slow-warp "boomer" freighter owned by the family of Starfleet Ensign Travis Mayweather. That ship was called Horizon and operated in roughly the same time frame.
- According to StarTrek.com, the TOS Horizon was an "early Federation starship," so it's not an Earth ship and it's not the Mayweathers'.[1]. StarTrek.com should serve as a reliable source since it generally sticks to canon. My copy of the Star Trek Encyclopedia goes even further to state that the USS Horizon was Daedalus-class. I omitted this last fact due to canonicity concerns, but I think it's safe to say that in light of later retconning, the Horizon is for all intents and purposes a Federation ship now. Wl219 14:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
