To "explore," but "not interfere," makes as much sense as "to love" but never be emotionally hurt. Neither concept can occur in a vacuum.

Gonna quote someone on a forum post with a better grasp of this than I do: 'The Prime Directive as an anti-imperialist statement, "we will not interfere with these people, let them learn and grow until they're capable of standing alongside us on their own feet" is one thing. The oft-expressed "we will not interfere in the evolution of a species, even if that evolution is threatened by something they have no control over or ability to stop" from later TNG/post-TNG is another thing entirely. For one, I don't know what they taught in your bio classes but I know I learned that *dead things don't evolve.*'

The Prime Directive is actually a really great story-telling device. In-universe it means bored teenagers can't go down to a stone-age planet and play God for a weekend. From a literary perspective, it's a rule set up with the intention of preserving the freedom of people who don't even know you're there. In the instances interesting enough to warrant an episode, the question becomes whether or not the suffering from obeying the directive will outweigh the potential suffering of disobeying it. Every answer is wrong. Every answer is right. The story comes from which option the characters choose and how they came to that conclusion.

I think of we consider the prime directive and then also the WIDE latitude that captains are given regarding it, it actually seems like the perfect solution. Keep the dumber captains in check while giving the smarter captains the ability to work through problems. Infact it's so elegant a solution it can only exist in fiction lol

I think Geordi hit it best in Pen Pals by asking that if there was some “cosmic plan” for the universe, wouldn’t their being there in time to save the planet be part of it. The Prime Directive seeks to boil down a pallet of grays and make it just black and white…which isn’t always helpful.

One of the things that the writers of Stargate discussed similar to the Prime Directive is the Asgard Protect Planets Treaty. One planets sun’s light changed frequencies and life was going to die. The Asgard were only allowed to protect the planet and the humans there from the Goa’uld, not from a natural disaster. We (Earth) tried to help but failed. But our solution “worked” and it was always suspected that the Asgard helped but never said anything. This is something that the Federation could do, help without saying anything. The humans on that planet thanked their gods, the Asgard, and were none the wiser to what actually happened. As for the New Eden thing, their ancestors were citizens of one of United Earth’s predecessor governments. That still entitles them to some concept of human rights, unless the Prime Directive overrides Human Rights or any other concept which the zealous Star Fleet officers seem to live by.

We have an expample of this on Earth. The Sentinelese are a self-isolated tribe. They are seemingly aware of planes and drones. And they kill idiot missionaries who ignore being told not to the island. Right now we ignore them. Are we improving their life if we forced on them modern conveniences? There are no more than 100 or so of these people, so do we consider their culture floundering and in need of help? I think we need to stop applying our living standards on others. If they request help, obviously, help them. But if they are content, leave them alone.

I believe it's Captain's discretion on how to interpret the Prime Directive. Plus Janeway even says the captain's of the 23rd century would have been throw out of Starfleet by 24th century standards

My definition of the prime directive is that: You only interfere, if its absolutely necessary, and then you wing it to see what happens.

In the Kirk era, it was clear that saving a primitive civilization was perfectly acceptable, even expected. There are whole episodes where the Enterprise has been sent to interfere, such as The Paradise Syndrome, where the Enterprise is trying to deflect a massive asteroid before it wipes out a primitive culture.

As I pointed out on my channel, the Prime Directive has had a tendency to go out the window if a primitive civilization has something the Federation wants, such as dilithium, other natural resources, or strategic importance.

I don't see the Prime Directive as being an Evil policy at the core of it. But I do see the evolution of the Prime Directive from the 23rd to the 24th Century as an example of the decadence of the Golden Age of the Federation changing it's outlook. In the Kirk Era the Prime Directive is more of a Practical rule and in the TNG Era it becomes a Philosophical rule. During the Kirk Era the discussions are about where are the people and civilizations now. Are the people growing and evolving? Are they happy? What effect are they having on their world and neighbors? Is someone or something hindering or forcing their development along a certain path? What will happen if we do interfere? In the TNG Era it's about what happens after they get involved, and it becomes more of an intellectual exercise then practical discussion. It leads to concepts where letting an entire species or culture be wiped out by a natural disaster be ok because interfering might prevent something even greater from coming into existence and that I feel is where the evil creeps in.

You start with a general principle. Some people get overly liberal with their interpretations, so it changes to a hard line rule. Very believable.

To quote God to Bender in Futurama "When you do things right, people won't know you did anything at all." That might be, perhaps, the ideal that the prime directive should embody. That they can do something as long as nobody knows it was done at all.

Pike is absolutely rules lawyering in New Eden. In that scene, he only cares about the directive part of the rule and has no regard for the moral obligation part. And I love that Kirk points out the very thing I was thinking; the Prime Directive specifies "healthy" growth.

RE: Pre-warp. If a civilization has achieved FTL technology, first contact must be made. If not, first contact is permissible if the society is advanced enough to handle the revelation of life on other worlds.

"New Eden" is the only Discovery episode I really like. In fact, I LOVE it!

Man, this is one of my Favorite analysis videos youve ever done. It's so in depth for its length. I really appreciate you taking the time to put this together. Thanks 😊

13:25 'Using the letter of the law, to skirt the spirit of the law.' That's like, the definition of Lawfull-Evil!

The Prime Directive is like the Jedi Order, an extreme. The problem is, if it were softer, there would be more good interventions, but also more bad interventions. As was said in Lower Decks, the Federation is bad at overseeing things. If you intervene in another culture, e.g. to prevent a nuclear war, then you are also jointly responsible for this civilization.

2 words - Freedom One. The absolute example of why the Prime Directive is so necessary. A rule doesn't need to be easy to swallow to be correct. For all the suffering it doesn't prevent, it stops the UFP from destroying just as many developing worlds. I'll borrow from another universe - Rick and Morty. Morty ends up killing a "snake astronaut." He feels incredibly guilty of it and sends a similar looking Earth snake to the planet in the intelligent but dead snake's place. This introduces to a developing culture that the act of sending their population into space alters them into primal beasts, stripping them of their intelligence and this leads to altering their entire development. Ultimately they get Time Travel and come to attack the Smith family because reasons. This leads Rick to having to go back in time to give the snakes the same time travel technology but at an early enough stage in their development to have the entire story "eat its own tale" and die off. The moral of the story "Next time stay in the fucking car!!!"

The Prime Directive treats people as things, and cultures as individuals. I never understood not helping people as individuals

"But we'll get into that later..." would be a great tagline for your merch, bro! I'd buy that shirt!

I dislike the "Prime" directive, in part, because it shouldn't be prime. Defense of the Federation should be the Prime Directive, given that without the Federation or other entity to enforce such a policy, a noninterference directive couldn't be enforced. This means that instead of risking contamination of a border world, you hope it will be left alone by your rivals (Star Trek has provided ample evidence of that being a false hope) and when it inevitably is contaminated, you must use kit gloves to mitigate the damage.

There are instances, were I see it, being like in the TNG "Who watches the watchers" and how to interfere to correct, as the ideal method. While DS9, that tip toe dancing, Sisko had to play for a long time, as being the Emissary from the get go. Then the wild exception Janeway had done, in terms of, the Omega Directive, and, by some extend, Unimatrix Zero. The 37's, where, contamination long occurred, and in a way, similar to that Discovery episode, just different way to gone about it. First Contact TNG Episode, also shows us, how a society just about to enter bigger picture with a Warp test, can still, be negatively contaminated, and the prime directed violated, in a sense, due to the observations gone sideways with Riker being found, and, meeting between Picard and Chancellor Durken. While the end result is, delaying Warp and First Contact, it also, proved a boon, as it highlights, at least to a society's leader, how his people isn't ready for the bigger universe yet.

God, I love the storytelling of TOS. It was such wonderful sci-fi.

They were right to leave the people of Eden, not because of the Prime Directive, (which is a generally bad idea,) but because that's what the Edenites wanted.

This is a superb evaluation. Nicely done!

the pime directive was made so lazy officers wouldnt have to do more data pad work.

New Eden could probably be revisited in Strange New Worlds. A possibility is that Pike's own ruling gets overridden by Starfleet command, and he has to revisit the planet, with some, if not all, the prime directive restrictions lifted, due to prior contamination.

A thoughtful analysis, as usual. Kudos.

I always saw the Prime Directive as being analogous with the informal but serious "code" of nature documentary filmmakers; "We're here to observe, learn, record and inform others. We *can* interact in limited ways that have a near-zero impact on our subjects but must NEVER involve ourselves in consequential events, no matter how much we might want to. If we're filming zebras and a pride of lions hunt them, it's our job to film the hunt rather than scare the lions off... this is just nature at work." Obviously it's not the same thing at all, but has the same *feel* for want of a better word.

Thank you for making this video & live long and prosper 🖖

A very well thought out video.

The prime directive is a double edged sword for sure. It's interpretation can just as easily get one in trouble as it can get out out of trouble. It's a silly rule but it thickens the plot.

I think the prime directive ensures that civilizations on a whole rise and fall on their own merit, not on the whim of starfleet personnel. It is less about individuals flourishing or suffering.

My thoughts: The Federation made up the Prime Directive in order to give itself a moral justification in the on-again-off-again war with the Klingons in the 23rd century. It began as simple propaganda, something to keep their population engaged and supporting the war effort despite multiple defeats. Actual consideration for "less developed" civilisations was secondary to the Federation's own immediate interests. Kind of like how after Britain abolished slavery the Royal Navy's role was expanded in order to enforce the rule against people and places that were not British. Moral imperatives can and sometimes do align with imperial ambitions.

"Normal" and "healthy" seems to be overlooked a lot.

My problem with prime directive is how dogmatic some of Starfleet is on despite that they see religion as backwards and primitive (except if your a native American or Bajorian apparently), I know don't any character is called out on this part. While I am a Christian, it would be interesting for another character to call out a captain on the "religous" aspects of the prime directive and yet frowning on a religious culture or even a completely non-religious culture that has no FTL yet needs help. On a separate note I think if he planets people are capable of calling for help, they should heed the call and help but try to interfere with culture as much as possible while still helping.

At the heart of it, I think the Prime Directive was meant to be an anti-colonial tool -- you couldn't land on an already-occupied planet, set up shop, and abuse the natives, regardless of their technological level. Basically it was a way for humanity to avoid all the terrible atrocities that colonialism caused in Earth's past to indigenous populations. As my Onedia husband states, somebody should have had a customs and immigration booth set up on the beach when Columbus landed (and that's when he's feeling generous -- he'd steal a TARDIS and make Columbus "fall off the edge of the world" if he had the chance). Anyway, the humans in Star Trek's universe believe themselves to be advanced, so they certainly wouldn't want that kind of history repeating. What happens, however, in the case of accidental colonisation? On Janus IV, the Horta's homeworld, the Federation set up a mining colony on what they thought was a lifeless world, then suffered attacks from a "monster" or angry animal. However, when Spock learned that the Horta were not only alive, but sentient ... the Federation *didn't* leave, though they probably should have. It sucks that the Horta haven't made another on-screen appearance, but non-canon works suggest they outright joined the Federation, even though there are not only pre-warp, but pre-technology of any kind. Was it just considered "too late" at that point? I do agree that the Prime Directive shouldn't be used as an excuse to not help other "primitive" civilisations. When they can do so with no chance of contact, the Federation *does* "interfere", like blowing up approaching asteroids rather than letting them hit an inhabited pre-warp planet. As you said, they also will put the Prime Directive aside (even if reluctantly) when asked for help. I do think their "duck blind" missions are rather stupid and arrogant though, especially when such research could probably be conducted safely from orbit. I can think of two such missions that failed, one in TNG and in "Insurrection". Basically, it's a good idea with great intentions behind it, but like most good ideas, some people just take it much too far. It's a shame, but then again, even in the 24th century, people aren't perfect.

Prime Directive... more like Plot Directive amirite

You left out another great TNG episode when worfs brother tried to save a small group of people from a planet that was loosing its atmosphere and decided to abduct the people to the Holodeck on the Enterprise while Picard and the bridge crew watched as millions died. Worf at first question his brother’s ethics but realized he was only doing what he thought was the right thing. It was the one time I really hated the prime directive

A more advanced race influencing a less advanced race, directly or indirectly, can easily make a non-intervention rule or at least a tread-very-carefully intervention rule quite naturally sensible. But of course not all factors of Star Trek’s Prime Directive have been sufficiently agreeable. Personally it always upsets when a quite identifiable urge to help people in need is dramatized as harmful in any way. Cogenitor was especially upsetting for me and most especially because it ended with a suicide. So if there is a real Prime Directive out there in the real universe, then I just hope that our understanding of it would be a much softer blow. Thank you for your video. 🖖🏻🖖🏼🖖🏽🖖🏾🖖🏿

I try to imagine what Earth would've ended up as, if the Vulcans didn't share this sentiment. Picture a post-WWIII Earth encountering vastly superior alien life without any hesitation to introduce new technology, share knowledge, and enable interstellar travel. Not only would it be contaminating a culture in countless ways, but it would be the equivalent of dropping a billion dollars on some random teenager. Sure, they could do something incredible with it, but they could also be overwhelmed to the point of disaster, or be so elevated by it without having earned it that they become a completely different person. Picture that on a worldwide scale, and it isn't pretty. The directive is necessary for that reason, but when it comes into conflict is when it deals with two things: saving a civilization on the brink of collapse or devastation, and a civilization violating the most basic principles of the rights of living beings as outlined by the Federation. In those situations, it becomes complicated to the point where I don't think there is a correct answer either way.

the prime directive is needed, the episode friendship 1 is a prefect example when they speak to a scientist who says he was trying to undo the damage Earth caused. Janeway asks the scientist to explain how they are responsible for his world's destruction. The scientist says that a containment failure in their antimatter power grid destroyed their planet. But until the Friendship One probe arrived, the natives had never conceived of antimatter. they felt that Earth's intent was to have their planet adapt to using antimatter technology in the hopes that their civilization would destroy itself. they think Voyager is there to conquer their planet. Janeway assures him that Voyager is not here to conquer his world. this show how people who are not ready for the technology can be harmed rather than helped the unintended consequences of interfering

New Eden Reminds me of the problems in The Masterpiece Society by helping the Enterprise took the colony into the modern era over night . All of us in this colony have been living in the dark ages. It's like we're victims of a two hundred year old joke. Until you came, we could only see to the wall of our biosphere. Suddenly our eyes have been opened to the infinite possibilities

As usual, TNG-era Picard is right about everything

I believe the Prime Directive should really have been used only in the context of first contact decisions and not as a blind religious dogma. First contact is such a serious issue that such decisions should be made at a high level where all the pros and cons are weighed out. Normal Starfleet captains are thus barred from unilateral first contact except in specifically enumerated rules for a reason. If a culture becomes aware of warp level societies through their own technological advancements or communication attempts, accident, or even war with non-abiding species (TOS Klingons) there is no putting the cat back into the bag and concerns about maintaining it are therefore moot. This actually lines up more with how the Prime Directive is treated by Starfleet, rather than the words used to describe it in the show. I believe that new trek lost a huge opportunity here if they had actually focused on the first Klingon-Starfleet war along the lines of Axanar might have done and then explored how the Klingons did not recognize any need for the Prime Directive in conquering innocent planets and how the early federation deals with that in a deep sort of way that DS9 would have handled it. Something the TOS touched on but really didn't go very deep with.

It's a great general concept and guideline. When it solidifies into doctrine as it seems to in the GiIded Age, it become monstrous.

I know there are a lot of instances that this doesn't apply to, but one thing that bugs me about many of the decisions to or not to interfere is the lack of communication with superiors even when the situation isn't time-sensitive. Take "Patterns of Force" for example. The situation on Ecos sounded like something that was going on for a while and wasn't going to change soon, but instead of going to the leaders of the Federation Gill decided to intervene on his own. If the situation really was bad enough to warrant interfering then he could have convinced enough voters (the Federation does claim to represent its people after all) to either get rid of the PD or make an exception this one time. I know that a government officially interfering with cultures to align with its own morals can be problematic but it's even worse when vigilantes do it without asking for permission because they know the higher-ups would tell them not to.

*[Meandering philosophising, I end up in a different topic]* What would happen if another _ethical_ multispecies civilisation thought it was their obligation, even duty, to guide and protect pre warp civilisations, even from themselves. There were a lot of occasions where it was morally reprehensible when Starfleet stood idly by as a species faced *possible extinction* …which would definitely have a affect on their cultural development. What would Starfleet do if another _benevolent_ civilisation stepped in and helped out to the fullest of their ability - and they were skilled and _attentive enough_ to get it right. No handing over the goodies bag and then leaving, but monitoring and intervening in a similar fashion as the Vulcans did with post WW3 Earth… guiding the society and in fact socially engineering it into a more ethical and "saner" civilisation - *the Vulcans completely changed Human nature.* [What would have happened if Humanity had made interstellar contact before WW3, and didn't develop "Evolved Sensibilities"? That's worth a discussion]. And that's a good example, what if Zefram Cochrane's first flight had achieved warp but blew up or got hopelessly lost and couldn't make it back? What if his ship had crashed on landing back at Earth? Would that make any difference to whether Humanity was eligible for First Contact? Because if (in the unaltered non Borg timeline), he and Lily had been lost in space, running out of oxygen as they try to get their drive back online in order to return to Earth, then the Warp program would not have continued and Humanity would have probably continued to sink into barbarism. They may well have ended up like that "Mad Max with plasma cannons" planet where the Enterprise-E found B-4. *That's a possible topic* The rational and justification of the Vulcan occupation of Earth. They stayed and had a permanent presence, and in fact ran the place for a while. … And what was the Vulcans final goal if Humanity hadn't been so stubborn and if a Klingon and a Suliban had not had a fight in a farmer's field? Would in a further hundred years, the Vulcans have a effective ally in their war with the Andorians? Remember the Vulcans were watching and staying hands off as post WW2 Earth was on the brink of nuclear annihilation (Carbon Creek), and they fully expected Humanity to _wipe out all life on Earth_ and had seen it happen on other planets. Wouldn't it be ethical to have hidden defence platforms to be ready to stop WW3 in the mid late 20th century? ICBM's and nuclear bombers would be easy targets for phasers. They should have had a permanent outpost monitoring Earth. And my mythical enlightened multi species civilisation would have moved in and put a stop to that … as well as preventing the damage to the ecosystem and climate [Arthur C Clarke stated that he didn't believe that Aliens were watching us, as they would have moved in by now to prevent Climate Change]. And even just with the standard Trek situation, the Vulcans could have visited one day to discover that Earth is now part of the Andorian Empire. [I originally intended to ramble on about a ethical disagreement with another enlightened civilisation that views the Prime Directive as a form of child neglect, and move in and guide pre warp civilisations, perhaps even uplifting barely sentient species … like in David Brin's Uplift series (but like the Tymbrini, not the religious conservative other clans), or like Arthur C Clarke Childhood's End - without the twist. They for example would move in and guide the proto Vulcans who thought Picard was a god, and actually do a good job of making them into a mature reasonable _responsible_ interstellar civilisation while preserving their better distinctive cultural heritage. (Perhaps as part of their M.O. they use local children saved from death and raised as agents, that seems to have happened on Earth with that Time Agent). They don't screw up because they closely monitor and use predictive analytics, like how Earth uses to stop crime. They basically have advanced social sciences. That would have made a few good Voyager episodes, as having such a faction in the Alpha Quadrant would be a permanent issue for the Federation … as they move in and claim oversight of every pre warp species]. _Yes my conversations go like this IRL as well …_

In "the last outpost" Data tells Portal 63 "starfleet has permitted civiliantions to fall and at time we have allowed the strong to dominate the weak"

i think it would be very interesting to find out just how many species were added to the roster when the Klingons joined the Federation.

The klingon civil war is a good example regarding previous contamination. A purely internal, proper civil war would fall under it. So what the Federation does is following the rumor that the romulans are interfering by supporting one side in the conflict. But since they can neither deny nor confirm these rumors, they set up a sensor grid that would find romulan ships that fly into klingon territory. The Federation only interferes once they are able to confirm romulan interference.

Doing the right thing morally can sometimes be in conflict with the prime directive (such as saving a society in need, by interfering). Also the prime directive in some cases is open to interpretation and has loopholes to following it, such as a previous contamination changing the society. Always an interesting storyline topic and dilemma.

Overall, it is a good policy. The problem that arose in TNG was they drew the line in the wrong place. Taking it as a Commandment, rather than a moral and ethical guide. Pen Pals sees them present the argument well. Most of the officers (save for Troy) argue in favor of intervention. Picard draws things out into the hypothetical, eventually asking if, basing their decision strictly on saving lives, if they should intervene in a major natural disaster, a pandemic, and finally a war. The problem was drawing a false equivalency. Wars are complicated affairs, caused by a slew of cultural, political, and material reasons. A ship arriving at a planet at war does not know *why* the sides are fighting, only that they are. There is no way to know the repercussions of intervening in that conflict, and such clashes are by their very nature part of the cultural evolution of a species. (Now, if you're in orbit, and one side decides to strontium-bomb the planet and kill *everyone*, that's different, because we've stepped back into what I call a "Guaranteed Extinction Event.") In Pen Pals, natural processes were going to turn an inhabited pre-spacefaring world into an unsurvivable volcanic hellscape. There is no surviving this. Cultural evolution will come to an abrupt and total end. There is literally no worse outcome than "everyone dies." Even if they end up going through severe cultural upheaval in the wake of survival, they are still there to evolve. If they develop into a problem once they are in space, that's solidly in the realm of interstellar politics, just like every other spacefaring power. The same thing happened to the society Worf's human adoptive brother tries to save, except they didn't have the transceiver to beg for help. (Granted, Worf's brother was definitely in violation for getting personally involved with a tribe, living among them and taking a wife.) Now, they would have had to essentially abduct thousands of primitive aliens to save them in this case, due to the nature of the natural disaster (the atmosphere was dissipating into space for some reason), so it would be *vastly* more invasive and disruptive. If Picard thought they would be an existential threat to his ship, resulting in everyone getting killed, that would be one thing. Instead, though he had the resources to prevent a Guaranteed Extinction Event, he stood back and watched it happen, because everyone dying was somehow better than some of them living on to rebuild a new society somewhere else. Yes, there would be ludicrous amounts of hardship, but if the effort was within their means, and there is no clear danger to the ship and crew, then refusing to do so is morally inexcusable. Claiming extinction is better than hardship, on the other hand, is ethically inexcusable, since if the claimed goal is to minimize or prevent damage to an alien culture, the conclusion that everyone dying is better is a flat-out *lie.* If they didn't *want* to do it, then fine, but claiming some kind of moral or ethical high ground while doing so is dishonesty (and Picard made his view on dishonesty *quite* clear to Wesley Crusher). The situation anger viewers largely because of this self-deception and hypocrisy.

in the TOS it was an anti-colonial policy (1960's remember).In TNG it was oriented to avoid cold-war millitary alliances (1980's) what was the politic colonialism of the past era. In the follow-ups it was downplayed to allow DS9 and VOY to be more war-oriented and suitable to a wider audience. Nowadays is what it needs to be to suit the plot, to add drama or to hint that it is still in place even when it is used against its original purpose, which was to avoid ST being another space flick with flashy weapons

The Vulcans were also pretty strongly racist, even if they tried to hide it. _Quentyn Quinn, Space Ranger_ also called them out via expy: “Eight _million_ counts of negligent homicide?!” Once again, _The Orville_ has a much more sensible approach. “Oh, that comet is going to obliterate a society? Okay, give it a little nudge so it doesn’t do that and call it a day.”

I think Starfleet’s religious adherence to the Prime Directive was a mistake. I think the reason why things most often went wrong when breaking it prior was actually a lack of solid follow through. The Caretakers’ as shown in Voyager seemed to understand what debt breaking the prime directive actually incurs. Sure the first Caretaker didn’t have a particularly good solution but he really took that debt seriously. The second caretaker did lose her way a bit over time, but she did take the duty of uplifting the Ocampa sufficiently that they could stand proudly on their own once she was gone seriously. Somewhere in between the two caretakers is the optimal manner to break the Prime Directive, staying with and uplifting a race until such a time both starfleet and the uplifted race are as equals. However starfleet has been proven really fricken bad at maintaining contact and diplomatic ties with races discovered in the TOS era. So many cases where dropped communication result in later catastrophes

Warp tech should play a part because there is the possibility that there will be contact with a Starfleet vessel and the alien vessel.

I use this thought experiment: We know Starfleet has the tech for time travel (at great risk to the ship, yes, but it's there). What if they were to go back and mess with humanity's past? Snipe Hitler from orbit, prevent WW3, or any other number of things that *could* conceivably save tens of millions? Do they know what the outcome would be? No, they don't. Besides screwing with their own time who knows if that might have prompted an even GREATER tragedy to happen. The simple fact that they cannot know what the outcome of their interference would be, barring a hostile occupation like the Klingons do, means that it is better to do nothing than something. Does it suck? Yes, but like Picard said you can do everything right and still fail, that is life. The Prime Directive means you have to do what is right even if it means failing that pre-warp society.

I have always questioned why wrap technology was the sole determination of first contact. What if they came across an advanced society that had no desire to explore beyond their planet? Or a society' whose home planet have much stronger gravity force? That would mean their technology would have to be mote advanced just to leave their planet.

I think there's a lot about the Prime Directive that we don't see on camera. Given the number of times it was apparently violated with no repercussions, it would have been interesting to have a handful of episodes where Starfleet officers were brought up on charges and forced to defend their decisions. We've seen a few episodes that involved inquiries scattered throughout the franchise, but none that delt with the Prime Directive specifically, though Equinox comes close I think.

It would be fun to see a prime directive story where upholding it somehow resulted in the creation of the Borg. Of course coming up with an origin for them would probably be less fun then just leaving it an open mystery.

I'm surprised you didn't mention the ENT episode "Dear Doctor" which tackled a pre-prime directive first-contact scenario with a dying civilization.

I always think of the prime directive as being there to protect everyone from the costly, long term headaches of unnecessary intervention. I legitimately wish world governments practiced that very policy, even. Just my two cents.

The prime directive is an anti imperialist measure and one meant to prevent some jerk from making themselves king of some natives. As Tom Paris notes in Thirty Days, they can assist if asked, and as noted by Picard in Redemption, they can stop other political actors from interfering in internal matters. I disagree as to it being a religion, but rather a policy from civilizations that learned that they needed their own apocalypse to grow into a more enlightened society. The Klingons and Kazon are races forcefully uplifted into warp politics, and both weren't ready for it and both became conquerors. Notably, Earth, Vulcan, and Tellar became unified after their world ending wars(World War 3, Time of Awakening, Voice wars,). If a Starfleet Captain intervenes, they might have been the actor to prevent that society from finally realizing how close they were to armeggedon and moving towards peace. How different would our world be if aliens interfered during the Civil Rights protests of the 1960s, during World War 2,.World War 1, the Crusades, the destruction of Carthage, the fall of Rome, etc. Do you said civilization would nor better than ours? I also don't think that it's a religion, just a guideline that stops Captains from making mistakes that could result in more deaths than they were preventing, and gives those actually in charge, such as the civilian government, a chance to make a decision.

That said most of the time to my memory our heros get it right most of the time. Even if the results may look grey more often then not it will lead to a positve outcome.

The Prime Directive to me comes off as an idea born from 60s anti colonial sentiment born from an America generally ignorant of colonialism and its consequences due to generations of media coverage and academic focusing on the negatives like the brutality of African auxiliaries in the Congo Free State killing around a million people over a 20 year period (this this was often reported as 10 million) and the segregationist policies of South Africa while ignoring the forced abolition of slavery by the European powers in Africa against the will of local rulers and the skyrocketing quality of life and life expectancy that happened in Africa during the Imperial era that came to an abrupt end with the Great Withdrawal when European powers stopped propping up Africa and only recently have see seen nations in Africa exiting that period of stagnation. Put simply, it was in my eyes born from a very simplistic black and white view of a complicated topic we still today struggle to find people willing to have a proper nuanced discussion on ad anyone who's seen the prevalence of the "stolen African wealth" myth can attest.

How would the Prime Directive apply to the planet in the Voyager episode The 37's. Pre-warp yes, but earth descendants. would leaving plans on say how to make replicators or advancing their medical field by a good bit violate it?

As a general rule, think very carefully before doing otherwise, its a great one, because when making a decision from your point of view, even if well intended, is very prone to making you act as if your point of view and philosophy is right and others should be adjusted to it, not to mention that this external view likely hides a lot of context and information from your decision making, this is best illustrated by Eddington's speech of the federation being akin to if not worse than the Borg, you will be assimilated. The counter argument is that any kind of peaceful co-existence necessitates a degree of adaptation, assimilation if you will, even deciding for mutual avoidance is an adaptation, against principles of exploration for example. However as a more purist philosophical rule going to the extreme of not saving others from destruction, I think it falls a lot closer to a trolley problem scenario, your decision not to act is a decision, and is indirectly an action, it does not absolve you from responsibilities over the consequences and to think so can be viewed as moral cowardice, In "Pen Pals" you see Picard ready to let a civilization die for fear of what they could become, but thinking of the worst case scenario "creating space hitler" and refusing to be responsible for it also negates all the possible good scenarios, it seems a pessimistic outlook to be honest, don't they deserve the chance? now this does not mean you should always go for the optimistic possibility and willy nily intervene wherever you feel you should either. In "the masterpiece society" I respect the intellectual struggle, but ultimately I find myself disagreeing with Picard's conclusions and feel the episode makes more successful arguments against the prime directive, or at least a rigid interpretation of it, than in favor. An interesting change of perspective can be seen in "A matter of time", where a supposed time traveler with future knowledge refuses to contaminate the past, in a sort of temporal prime directive, but picard argues the future is not real, his reality is here and now and a decision must be made for that reality, doesn't the same argument apply to the future consequences of intervention in prime directive scenarios? I think the time traveler may have better arguments for the temporal prime directive than starfleet has for the present prime directive :P (even if he was a scammer) I lean towards intervention being acceptable in extreme scenarios after due diligence of thinking of what is best for the other civilization and their reality instead of making an impulsive decision based on one's own values, as well as striving to minimize the degree of contamination, but not acting should be viewed as an action and a conscious decision as well, with the moral implications of one.

Thinking about this topic, I am inspired to look at how on earth we have handled nation building. The truth is, almost every single nation building exercise has failed in one way or another. If it hasn’t failed because of impure intentions on the part of the builders, then it’s fail because of inconsistent attention, or it’s failed because of a misunderstanding of the native people who are there being built upon, or else it just fails because nobody knows what the perfect nation or to be. Extending this out into the world of Star Trek, it causes me to think that while the United Federation of planets is certainly arrogant enough to think that they have the best civilization and therefore have the ability to decide for other people what they should or shouldn’t do, it is actually fairly wise to realize that even with the most possible information available, it’s very likely that you’ll screw up. History shows this again and again. Therefore, it becomes very challenging to interact with any civilization that is significantly behind yours. For imperialists, it’s easy. You just go in take over every planet that you want, and then it’s yours and you don’t care about what happens to their civilization. Best case scenario, they become part of your civilization. However, because the Federation strives to be fair and equitable, it means that you have to avoid anything that might be considered nation building, because eventually something bad will happen it will be your fault and not the fault of the people who you tried to help.

I think the Prime Directive is a very pragmatic rule that has to be rather heartless. For one, if an entire society is crumbling, there's likely to be a good reason for it, and Starfleet trying to help is likely to do as much hard as it is likely to do good; because said society was already coming apart at the seams. There's even a not unrealistic IRL example we could examine; if IRL humans had polluted Earth to the point it will soon no longer be able to support life and no amount of new technology or environmental awareness can help, then Starfleet offering that help like replicator or space-fairing tech is likely to cause conflict to control that tech and/or conflict over the last few resources, and if Starfleet relocates Humans, then that will cause conflict to be the ones who escape and leave rivals and enemies behind and would those survivors actually care for this new planet or just repeat themselves, because IRL Humans have already mined and polluted our own planet to literal death? The Prime Directive takes that moral dilemma out by stating that is it not Starfleet's place to decide that. By taking the moral dilemma out of the equation, it becomes a very cold hearted rule. Listening to the analysis just reinforces for me the idea that the Prime Directive does make a lot of sense and the interpretation evolves depending on the era and Starfleet's experience. It's also a great story-telling device, because it can be used to put characters into that moral dilemma AND making them chose between duty and morality. It gives writers the option to place characters in a "lesser of two evils" or "there is no right answer" situation, because the Prime Directive intentionally ignores moral choice, while still making sense from an in-universe point of view. And the fact it's debated so heavily by the fandom shows it's a very interesting device for writers.

One might argue that the biggest problem with the Prime Directive and how it's applied is the twofold issue of how contact of any sort can cause local interference, verses how interference without contact can do little harm and much good in certain circumstances. The problem is that Star Fleet goes the other way around; they send away teams to inhabited planets, but hesitate to deflect potential impactors away from pre-spaceflight civilizations to avoid a violation of the Prime Directive. Preventing an extraplanetary body like a comet or asteroid from striking an inhabited world would not intrinsically damage the planet's culture. Exposing a primitive culture to new ways of thinking via casual contact can certainly initialize a change for good or ill. In "following" the Prime Directive the way they do, Starfleet constantly violates it through their away teams and avoids helping in ways that do not risk a violation. The only way to avoid violating the Directive while exploring is to observe without making contact. And yet, contact is the first instinct of Star Fleet. Madness.

Any species that decides, when they themselves are not at risk, that extinction is better than "contamination" doesn't itself deserve to make the decision.

Great video man, gotta say though I think one of star treks biggest problems is that it's a product of it's time. Namely the the 1960s.

Barely recalling some literary works, but one story hinged on the people having access to natural dilithium and were overhearing communications for quite a long time. Is that part of a 'natural' development?

"Create a space Hitler" Jfc I almost spit out my fish sticks

If a species can do calculus, you don't mess with it. A mostly accurate quote from Mass Effect 3 lol.

Re: civilizations allowed to be destroyed by Starfleet - TNG S1 Ep5 "The Last Outpost" had Data state to Portal of the T'Kon empire that the Federation allowed the Strong to exploit the Weak and allow civilizations to die out. He didn't give numbers, but he did state it.

I think Pike and the New Eden situation was based on his belief in what the prime directive was, which apparently is very strict even for his time. Even to the point where he would let a lost human colony stay independent. Of course, I'd also like to point out that New Eden was tens of thousands of lightyears away in the deep beta quadrant, and it was not likely the discovery would be returning to that area in the near future, so out of respect to not get their hopes up only to crush their dreams and cause resentment towards earth, he decided to quote general order 1 and leave it at that.

Though rendered non-canon a long LONG time ago, I still like the reasoning behind the Prime Directive in the early FASA Trek material....specifically, that early pre-Directive Starfleet explorers shared technology with a primitive humanoid species, who took that tech and expanded like crazy and nearly destroyed the Federation itself. The aliens in question were, of course, the Klingons. When phrased that way, it ceases to be a moral obligation and becomes one of self-preservation. "Look what happened when we fucked around with the Klingons. They came close to wiping us all out. DON"T FUCK AROUND WITH ALIEN CULTURES!" By taking the moral element out of it and making it more about protecting the Federation from another emergent threat, the Prime Directive becomes a realpolitik concept, and also makes the cases where our protagonists break it more palatable. After all, if the Prime Directive is a purely practical measure, then breaking it when there is unlikely to be a practical downside becomes more justifiable.

Think also on Year Of Hell. The antagonist was trapped in limbo deleting one thing after another from history trying to restore 100% of what was lost in his annihilating his sworn enemies. Time was incredibly complex, and the were thousands of ways a single item could impact events across the whole quadrant. Without knowing the outcome of your proposed actions, it may be wiser to do nothing.

I agree with everything you've said, but what other realistic choice is there? Individual commanders can seemingly be trapped by the decision of a particular situation as you illustrated brilliantly. Of all the Captains, Kirk makes consistently the best choices and is in my opinion the model Star Fleet Academy should be using to train it's cadets.

The idea of having captains use their own discretion when it comes to the Prime Directive, rather than running it up to Starfleet in every situation, in addition to hearkening back to a sailing captain's sovereignty, is actually the better way to do it. Centralizing all decisions has never worked throughout history, and has led to some of the most heinous despotic regimes. People who are "on-site" are almost always going to have a better perspective than someone light years and probably days worth of communication away, and who will likely be completely unaffected by their decisions, and are often unconcerned with the results.

I remember an episode of Voyager where they were talking about an Asteroid that will destroy life on a planet. But that Asteroid will vital material to create new life on the same planet.

Incoming Mariner quotes! Brace for impact!

The Prime Directive points out a major plot point in Star Trek... No one's perfect and everyone will make mistakes.

About the Symbiosis episode, I think not interfering was the right call in universe. The suffering inflicted on the addicts could serve as a reminder to be cautious when dealing with others, as well as a sense of self reliance. Was it tragic? Yes. But unless the Federation wants to forever micromanage societies that would eventually be fine if left on their own, I doubt they could fix this. Slippery slope and all that. I dislike it, but I can't help but agree with Picard here. The pain of not helping is, at the end, finite and bearable. The cost of not helping might be greater in the long run.

As I see it, the Prime Directive is military doctrine. It's a guideline, a frame of reference - not an absolute. It's impossible to observe something without affecting it at least a little bit, the Prime Directive is about minimizing the observer effect. If influencing other civilizations were strictly forbidden, it would require the Federation to be isolationist to the point of xenophobic.

Warp capable means more first contact can be made it also means that certain kno

Well in the original series my preference with Vaal and Landru they were correct to interfere. In both situations the ship was being destroyed by people that had the technology to do so even though they forgot about it. This happened via AI made by them. This implies they do have warp technology otherwise they could not bring down a ship that can destroy a continent with it’s weapons. They were NOT defenseless.

The prime directive does not apply to STD's new eden they are humans. STD writers don't know anything. Humans can interfere with humans. And the line of letting civilizations die is from encounters at far point where Q puts humanity on trial and during the trial data said starfleet have let civilizations die. But most of the trek fandom often get this wrong. The prime directive is not federation wide directive, it's a starfleet rule only. In the episode angel one, data said those people who crashed on the planet are not bound by the prime directive because they are not starfleet, they are federation citizens because the ship is a federation ship but not a starfleet ship.

I suggest looking at SFDebris Red's video on 'The Masterpiece Society', he has a Lot to say one the prim detective at the end.

Everyone loves the greater good until the greater good doesn't include you...

Quite a bit of wiggle room in the Prime Directive and how it is applied by individual Starfleet commanders.

The directive seems like something that probably works as intended 99 percent of the time. It's the 1 percent of instances that create such ethical dilemmas that we're shown.

In a taste of Armageddon we see serious problems with StarFleet trying to upkeep the prime directive - that being not trying at all, they are specifically warned to stay away from the planet and yet the diplomat insists that his orders are to establish diplomatic relations no matter the cost… and when Kirks crew and ship is theoretically killed in their war game, refusing to comply and threatening the peace between the two planets , he orders Scotty to enact general order 24, to utterly destroy all life on the planet in two hours, and Scotty seems completely willing to comply with his orders if the captain is not released in that time, eventually Kirk destroys their war game computer and their suicide chambers and utterly destroying the treaty between the two planets… and this is a good thing actually because Kirk says that their war has been going on for centuries, they’ve made it clean and forgotten the horrors of it all, now they are deadly afraid of going back to it, and so will be the other planet, so he tells them, make peace once and for all, and the episode leaves us there with the ambassador saying he’ll stay and try to help. Obviously Scotty doesn’t blow up the planet… or does he… DUN DUN DUN. So even if it takes the life of you, your ship and your crew to preserve the natural order and evolution … yeah Kirk wasn’t willing to make that trade. And the two planets weren’t even alien to each other they were their own colony that split off and now are at war so basically still an internal affair.

Is prime directive essentially a principal, or rule? Pike seemed to take it as rule... making it religious and defeating the original intention. Brilliant video 👍

I think the Klingons would probably help those people a lot more than the Federation. For a price of having their civilization conqueror.