|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Science Fiction » alt.startrek » Prime Directive on TNG and others (again)
| Prime Directive on TNG and others (again) [message #139089] |
Mi, 28 September 2005 02:33 |
|
I've been reading an old news post that was saying
"Someone recently mentioned "Symbiosis" as a bad use of Prime Directive,
in that they used it as a reason not to help addicted people from
recovering. Let's postulate, say that the Enterpirse told the truth
there. What would happen? Odds are the addicted culture would recover,
but then what would they do? Retaliate on the planet that addicted them?
Probably so. Congradulations, Captain, you've started a war. Job well
done."
I've been watching that episode again and realized how much the prime
directive is misused as a plot in various trek episodes.
It's not the above idea in the quoted text that smells bad, but the
specific background. The background of the story in that particular
episode and in various others, depicts people that get onboard the
enterprise, are given quarters, are communicating freely with humans, they
can get to nearly every room in the ship and get info etc., yet they are
refuced help.
wtf? I mean, if you know of humans existence, communicate with humans,
you're given quarters on a human ship, you can talk freely with most of
them - some of them were children in case we're talking about "orders" of
not giving out much info -, etc., then how is the prime directive so
strongly applied.
I'd really like it used since it's really a nice idea, however, please use
it properly, not on aliens that know most about humans existence and
whereabouts already.
|
|
|
| Re: Prime Directive on TNG and others (again) [message #139107 ] |
Mi, 28 September 2005 18:03 |
|
meneg wrote:
> I've been reading an old news post that was saying
>
> "Someone recently mentioned "Symbiosis" as a bad use of Prime Directive,
> in that they used it as a reason not to help addicted people from
> recovering. Let's postulate, say that the Enterpirse told the truth
> there. What would happen? Odds are the addicted culture would recover,
> but then what would they do? Retaliate on the planet that addicted them?
> Probably so. Congradulations, Captain, you've started a war. Job well
> done."
That's likely to happen anyway. Since they were denied
the means to get more felicium, they would soon run out
and then go through withdrawal and start recovering.
When that happens they're bound to realise what happened.
Not a good day to be a Brekkian, espeically if you're
stranded on Ornara like Sobi and Langor were!
I think the real point there is about standing up for
yourselves. Sure the Federation could have looked after
the Ornarans, but what then? The next time a big problem
threatens, are they going to run to the Federation for
help again? Sooner or later they have to learn to look
after themselves, and it may as well be sooner as later.
> I've been watching that episode again and realized how much the prime
> directive is misused as a plot in various trek episodes.
>
> It's not the above idea in the quoted text that smells bad, but the
> specific background. The background of the story in that particular
> episode and in various others, depicts people that get onboard the
> enterprise, are given quarters, are communicating freely with humans, they
> can get to nearly every room in the ship and get info etc., yet they are
> refuced help.
>
> wtf? I mean, if you know of humans existence, communicate with humans,
> you're given quarters on a human ship, you can talk freely with most of
> them - some of them were children in case we're talking about "orders" of
> not giving out much info -, etc., then how is the prime directive so
> strongly applied.
>
> I'd really like it used since it's really a nice idea, however, please use
> it properly, not on aliens that know most about humans existence and
> whereabouts already.
It's true if the Federation wanted to really avoid
any cultural interference, the only way to do it would
be to completely hide themselves. Imagine what it would
do to our own culture simply to find out for certain
that something like a Starship could exist.
And we've seen that they do adopt this policy towards
primitive cultures - even in TOS it was "No
identification of self or mission... no interference
with the social development of said planet... no
references to space, other worlds, or advanced
civilizations."
However, there's a limit to how practical that is.
Once a species has warp drive it's going to be hard
to hide from them; and once they know you are out
there, there seems little point in trying to hide
from them - they'll either see you directly, pick
your comm chatter up, or at least learn about you
from other species.
So it seems to me that the idea of having contact
but not interfering once a species has achieved
warp travel is a reasonable compromise.
--
Graham Kennedy
Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
|
|
|
| Re: Prime Directive on TNG and others (again) [message #141319 ] |
Sa, 01 Oktober 2005 04:16 |
|
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:03:53 +0100, Graham Kennedy wrote:
>
> meneg wrote:
>> I've been reading an old news post that was saying
>>
>> "Someone recently mentioned "Symbiosis" as a bad use of Prime Directive,
>> in that they used it as a reason not to help addicted people from
>> recovering. Let's postulate, say that the Enterpirse told the truth
>> there. What would happen? Odds are the addicted culture would recover,
>> but then what would they do? Retaliate on the planet that addicted
>> them? Probably so. Congradulations, Captain, you've started a war. Job
>> well done."
>
> That's likely to happen anyway. Since they were denied the means to get
> more felicium, they would soon run out and then go through withdrawal and
> start recovering. When that happens they're bound to realise what
> happened. Not a good day to be a Brekkian, espeically if you're stranded
> on Ornara like Sobi and Langor were!
>
> I think the real point there is about standing up for yourselves. Sure the
> Federation could have looked after the Ornarans, but what then? The next
> time a big problem threatens, are they going to run to the Federation for
> help again? Sooner or later they have to learn to look after themselves,
> and it may as well be sooner as later.
>
>> I've been watching that episode again and realized how much the prime
>> directive is misused as a plot in various trek episodes.
>>
>> It's not the above idea in the quoted text that smells bad, but the
>> specific background. The background of the story in that particular
>> episode and in various others, depicts people that get onboard the
>> enterprise, are given quarters, are communicating freely with humans,
>> they can get to nearly every room in the ship and get info etc., yet
>> they are refuced help.
>>
>> wtf? I mean, if you know of humans existence, communicate with humans,
>> you're given quarters on a human ship, you can talk freely with most of
>> them - some of them were children in case we're talking about "orders"
>> of not giving out much info -, etc., then how is the prime directive so
>> strongly applied.
>>
>> I'd really like it used since it's really a nice idea, however, please
>> use it properly, not on aliens that know most about humans existence and
>> whereabouts already.
>
> It's true if the Federation wanted to really avoid any cultural
> interference, the only way to do it would be to completely hide
> themselves. Imagine what it would do to our own culture simply to find out
> for certain that something like a Starship could exist.
>
> And we've seen that they do adopt this policy towards primitive cultures -
> even in TOS it was "No identification of self or mission... no
> interference with the social development of said planet... no references
> to space, other worlds, or advanced civilizations."
>
> However, there's a limit to how practical that is. Once a species has warp
> drive it's going to be hard to hide from them; and once they know you are
> out there, there seems little point in trying to hide from them - they'll
> either see you directly, pick your comm chatter up, or at least learn
> about you from other species.
>
> So it seems to me that the idea of having contact but not interfering once
> a species has achieved warp travel is a reasonable compromise.
I agree with the point that a war or sth similarly hedious could happen by
interference, but it's also logical to assume that this may be only the
pessimistic point of view. One could argue that interference could also be
in a positive way. A human baby for example at our time will not
necessarily be infuenced negatively by his/er mother, just because the
mother knows more about life the universe and everything. We all know
that kind of infuence can be negative or positive.
I consider very intelligent the point provided on a couple TOS episodes
and a few others about fear or ritualistic obsessiveness that may arise on
cultures by interference.
This also makes it logical to assume that it's probably helpfull to
*stay there and help* than throw away some random piece of technology or
advice or "help" and fly away for "other adventures" because that would
leave doubts and probably turn you into a god to the aliens in question.
Since an alien race can be indeed too primitive to accept smoothly even
thorough help by a more advances spieces since that may produce fear and
uncertaintly, I think there could be levels of acceptance.
It's obviously ironic that this is proven by star trek itself since lots
of episodes are around interference or mere contact of more advances
spiecies on humans. There have been negative impact but in many other
situations either nothing bad happened or the knowledge obtained was
beneficial.
In conclusion I think the Prime Directive idea is a nice addition to star
trek. It's quite nice to include in a sci-fi world this idea of high level
politics that most other authors don't even mention. However, if it was
more detailed, provided exceptions, it was more consistent throughout
episodes i'd like it better. But, it's a fictional world anyway, so it's
ok as it is too=]
|
|
|
| Re: Prime Directive on TNG and others (again) [message #141330 ] |
Sa, 01 Oktober 2005 11:38 |
|
meneg wrote:
> I agree with the point that a war or sth similarly hedious could happen by
> interference, but it's also logical to assume that this may be only the
> pessimistic point of view. One could argue that interference could also be
> in a positive way. A human baby for example at our time will not
> necessarily be infuenced negatively by his/er mother, just because the
> mother knows more about life the universe and everything. We all know
> that kind of infuence can be negative or positive.
While possible, the positive outcome seems not to happen
a lot if at all. Consider First Contact - the episode not
the movie - when Picard says : "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
disasterous."
It would seem that it's far easier to mess things up than
it is to make them better, at least in Trek.
--
Graham Kennedy
Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
|
|
|
| Re: Prime Directive on TNG and others (again) [message #141349 ] |
Sa, 01 Oktober 2005 21:35 |
|
On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 10:38:46 +0100, Graham Kennedy wrote:
> It would seem that it's far easier to mess things up than it is to make
> them better, at least in Trek.
agreed.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 19 18:47:49 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,09147 Sekunden |
