Go to expressvpn.com/orangeriver and find out how you can get 3 months of ExpressVPN free! And check out Trekspertise's Prime Directive video: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Z52boap-yb6Yk4k.html

I think one thing about the warp barrier being broken really isn't so much a value judgment on how mature a species is so much as that that's actually the point at which it becomes *impossible* to 'shelter' a world from finding out they aren't alone, regardless of if you wanted to. If nothing else, shortly before or after that, subspace radio tech is right there, after all.

I like The Orville's version of the prime directive better. Where they don't contact young civilizations unless they start sending messages into space asking if anyone's out there. Because the first ones to respond might not be friendly like the Union

The warp drive cutoff for contacting a civilization has nothing to do with judging them as being 'savage' or 'advanced'. The idea is simply to let a civilization develop on its own for as long as reasonably possible. But once they have warp drive, contact with other species is inevitable, and the priority shifts to trying to give them a calm and controlled first contact with aliens rather than a random encounter in space.

Ok, so here's an aspect not mentioned here that always bothered me. Quite often the prime directive was utilized solely because Star Fleet was effing around on a primitive planet literally for no reason other than academic curiosity. Before they even got into the situation they were already being unethical. Like, if you play with a loaded gun and somebody gets shot, you don't get to say "Ooops, well my moral compass says you've gotta make it to the hospital on your own." Or maybe a better analogy, you break into someone's home and live in the walls to get some sick kick. Then somebody breaks in while they are sleeping to kill them, and you say "Hey this was inevitable, not my problem." You have an entire galaxy of examples of cultures to learn from, find commonalities, etc. Do you really need to be all up in the grill of every damn intelligent species in the galaxy? If you want to leave them alone, ACTUALLY leave them the hell alone. Make a star chart that excludes certain star systems from travel unless remote monitoring suggests they are about to develop warp technology

I think the Prime Directive is important, but I don't think the attitude should exist that it should never be violated. It's more beneficial to realise that there are times when it actually SHOULD be violated, as well as there being times when it should not be; and therefore to be able to identify each of the two situations, when they occur.

Yeah I always hated how it got used as an excuse to not help people, and honestly cultural development should also be more important than technological, like if a pre-warp society has eliminated homelessness and hunger and doesn't have any red flags like slavery or eugenics, then screw it, drop by and say hi, see if they need anything, help them record their culture for posterity so it doesn't get lost in the inevitable deluge of other cultures, and see what cool art and stories they have to tell.

The only way to be sure of never violating the Prime Directive is to stay home.

I think the episode where Wesley fell in those flowers was particularly egregious. It should have been "Yeah we are taking him with us and we will glass this whole planet if you try to stop us." I realize it's meant to be analogous to committing a crime in another country that is not a crime in your own country. But that is why extradition is a thing, and is often a bone of significant contention. That football player that Russia arrested for having a weed pen is a good recent example.

Pre-warp being the cut off doesn't seem racist at all. If you can leave your home system, you will come in contact with other species in time. A species can be the most technologically advanced in the galaxy, but none of that matters if they aren't going anywhere that contact can occur.

I really think The Orville hit home why you need a policy of non-interference better then any Star Trek episode.

One thing I did like in the new movies was that when they broke the directive even for the best of reasons it wasnt just ignored but the beurocrats jumped on it and instantly demoted Kirk

it's like all good ideas, they are well intentioned in principle but if they get in the way, it's considered a guideline, much like "the code"

Hello River. I agree that the Prime Directive is a bit 'too harsh', or too strictly interpreted. What is the difference between the Universe wiping out a species, and our society doing so? In the objective sense, nothing. If Star Trek's societies want to be a 'kinder and gentler' civilization, they should be MORE willing to 'interfere', not less. A strict interpretation of the Prime Directive should have caused Star Fleet to hunt down all Pakled ships and return the society to pre-warp status, and then strictly monitor their advancement.

I see the Prime Directive as more like guidelines than the actual rule.

I see the prime directive as a guideline; a reminder to think about the ramifications before you interact with other cultures. To realize that not everyone has the same values and that the difference between being helpful and imposing your will is very much slimmer than one might think. Remember, non-interference is not the same as non-intervention. Interference is a negative action. Intervention is a neutral one.

It would be interesting to have a round table discussion between different trek KZfaqrs on this topic

I think one way we can avoid talking about whether having warp drive makes a culture "civilized enough" can be avoided by instead thinking about what warp drive grants that culture: interstellar agency. Before developing warp drive or an equivalent manner of travelling to other worlds, a culture is limited to its home planet. It is easy for a starship to avoid someone from that culture and influence their internal affairs; all the agency is in the hands of the warp-capable species to visit that planet, inform them of the existence of other intelligent life, and influence their internal affairs. The responsible thing then becomes to hide your existence from them. Once a culture develops a way of actively reaching out into the rest of the galaxy, hiding your existence no longer works -- if we don't seek them out, they might still seek us out, and if they don't meet us, they'll meet somebody else who might exploit them. Starfleet is almost obliged at that point to contact the culture in order to inform them of the galactic situation that they are introducing themselves to should they use their technology to travel to the stars. This also avoids the question of whether the Prime Directive means letting a prewarp culture die out from natural calamity, war, or other disaster. The would-be Starfleet crew should still feel morally driven to help them. The drama would then be from how to save that culture without doing damage through direct, open contact (kind of like the strangest heist movie). If aliens are here and monitoring us, they probably haven't contacted us out of enlightened procrastination: they're holding off on opening relations until they have to

One other source of looking at this is thinking about primatologists like Jane Goodall. They generally have an obverse only, never interfere when studying natural communities methodology. Interfering could lead to dependence, and would take away self determination, and possibly result in the loss of identity amongst the group.

There is a thorny problem, though. In societies where one group is oppressed, we must be careful about saying that the people in the society simply like it that way. Often, it's the dominant group that likes it. It can be a problem, often, for women. When they are oppressed, some groups say that these women do not see it that way. They say this is the way their culture likes it. But often, it's the MEN in the culture who like it, and we listen to them and ignore the plight of the women. I know an activist who was a former Muslim. She told some terrifying stories. Regarding the hijab, she said that the men of the society say, "You either wear it willingly, or we'll kill you and you'll wear it at your funeral. You're gonna wear it either way, so you might as well just wear it." She said that when she saw Bill Maher and Sam Harris talking about radical Islam, they were giving a voice to everything she went through, and then Ben Affleck and the people who stood behind him silenced that voice. As for why we haven't encountered alien life yet, I think the Drake equation accounts for it better than an alien prime directive.

Star Trek has always had a schizophrenic outlook when it comes to the Prime Directive. Sometimes to the point of idiocy. All throughout the story arcs, they champion the ideals of this law while at the same time trampling it into unrecognizability. From the unchecked colonization of "uninhabited" worlds, like Omicron Ceti III, in This Side of Paradise, Bringloid V, and Mariposa in Up the Long Ladder on one end of the spectrum, to worrying about the possibility of interference with life on individual single cell primitive level in Wrath of Khan. The practice is all over the map, and has no real logic to it. The most basic tenants conflict with one another from story to story. It has become more of a tool to fuel a storyline rather than an honest attempt to create an actual philosophy in which to adhere. So the debate over its morality is rendered moot. If the Federation is so doggedly worried about contamination and extermination of other embryonic civilizations, then colonization would be banned, and each adherent member would be restricted to their own world. Does anyone else see the ludicrous nature of these story arcs?

I think that the prime directive is an excellent rule when it comes to stopping the federation from becoming an imperialistic monster, but is simultaneously a detriment to its humanitarian efforts. In the real world, the US has a tendency to justify military invasions, CIA coups of democratic governments to install dictators or military juntas (Guatemala 1954, Iran 1953, Chile 1973, etc.), bombings, drone strikes, material support to dictatorships (Suharto, Pinochet, etc.), & material support to questionable paramilitary terrorists (the contras, the mujahideen, etc.) in the name of national security, preserving our global economic hegemony, stopping the spread of communism, & even democracy. These actions betray the very ideals upon which the nation was supposedly founded though. How can we say we believe in democracy, freedom, & justice for all after doing everything in our power to support the Suharto dictatorship during their genocide in East Timor or after installing the Pinochet dictatorship so they could “disappear” leftists by the thousands? Even when we weren’t directly throwing our ideals in the trash, think of the unintended consequences decades later. The mujahideen (an Islamic extremist paramilitary organization that was fighting the Soviets during their occupation of Afghanistan) was directly funded & supplied by the USA. What did it get us? Sure, the Soviets were defeated & ruined their economy by sinking billions of rubles and tons of resources into their doomed, decade-long occupation of Afghanistan in the 80s. However, some of the mujahideen broke off & formed the Taliban. Another well known mujahideen leader, Osama bin Laden, moved to Somalia to start training his new group of fighters known as Al Qaeda… we all know what happened next. My point is: the prime direct is the thing stopping the federation from making those same kinds of errors. Undoubtedly, they looked back at human history & Vulcan history, & said “shit, well, we shouldn’t do that again.” The prime directive went too far in other areas though. Yes, it’s an essential bulwark against the looming threat of imperialism coming from within the federation itself, but they didn’t carve out the necessary exceptions for humanitarianism. If you see another species dying from a plague for example *cough* ARCHER *cough* & you have a cure for the plague, GIVE THEM THE DAMN CURE. Even if you don’t want to teach them how to manufacture it or even let them know that you’re there, you could certainly covertly disseminate it throughout the populous (e.g. Data putting the cure for radiation sickness into the drinking water of that alien, renaissance-era village). The same logic applies to stopping a super volcano from erupting, diverting giant asteroids away from inhabited planets, or whatever. Basically, I 100% support the prime directive when it comes to political & cultural matters in the interest of stopping the UFP from becoming a monstrous imperialist power (remember, the road to hell is paved w/ good intentions), but you gotta have some common sense exceptions for humanitarianism.

23:05 I left this comment on the Trekspertise video, too. In a way, there IS an example within Star Trek of what you're talking about: it's in the Alternative Timeline book “Infinity’s Prism”, specifically the second of the three novellas in the book, “Places of Exile”. The fact that it’s in a book automatically makes it beta-canon; however, the story begins with events portrayed in the Voyager episode “Scorpion”, before the event that created the alternate timeline; the perspective of Chakotay perfectly matches what we see in the canon episode. Therefore, I would argue that the following excerpt from the book could ALMOST be considered canon: “I'm not convinced this is a Prime Directive situation,” Chakotay said. “These aren't the Kazon trying to steal our replicators. The Vostigye have just developed differently than we did. They were forced off their planet early by a geological cataclysm, concentrated on building artificial habitats instead of warp drive. They're behind us in some ways, but they could teach us plenty about environmental engineering & robotics.”

Any rule is divisive. But without rules there is only chaos. There is no neutrality. At some point you're breaking point will be met. So it would be best to give discretion decision making to the captains. And establish a little bit of hope and faith that will do the right thing.

The prime directive is one of those rules which shows us why context is king and why rules need to be flexible.

This was a great idea to follow up on. It would have been good to have added the context of the man who came up with the Prime Directive, Gene L. Coon. If memory serves. I wish that Trek would delve into where the Prime Directive fails in its altruistic motivations and how the Vulcans had to deal with such issues in the past before the formation of the Federation. I do agree that there needs to be a "softening" of the interpretation of the directive.

Kirk ignored the Prime Directive so of course people are all ga ga over that. Picard tried to follow the rule far more strictly. It's not Starfleet's job to fly around and save everyone from a volcano or other such things. Should they get involved in every petty war to stop the killing? The USA has often gotten involved in petty wars and it has rarely turned out great for us. We didn't really need to get involved in Vietnam but we did and after a lot of deaths, a lot of money and alot of destruction we gained nothing from it.

The real-world parallels kind of highlight the issue. In real life, people don't use the many examples of political and military intervention going badly as an argument against giving humanitarian aid. So why does Starfleet's rule against the former also restrict the latter?

The Prime Directive made it possible for Picard Season 3's best moment yet.

Its Prime Selective...not Prime Directive based on behaviours of all Captains and most admirals we've seen 😂

I’ve always wondered if Rule 24 was a bluff as in “back me up on this” as was the Corbormite maneuver. Also, while I am in awe of the accomplishments of Meso-Americans they used that brilliance to cut people’s hearts out. I’m willing to draw the line there.

I like how your videos are not just all about star trek and bring in real world issues as well.

There's a problem with how to carry it out, but I think the prime directive should be treated like the North Sentinelese, and other uncontacted tribes. They know we're out here, but they don't want to talk to us. So we leave them alone, and leave it up to them to initiate contact. The problem with this is how do you let a civilization know you're out here without doing harm to them

"Dear Doctor" is one reason why Phlox is probably my favourite Doctor character in Star Trek.

I think that humanity exists in a "frontier zone" in our galaxy. To my thinking a frontier zone is an area of space that does not have any interstellar civilizations and should be avoided until such civilizations do exist. Coming here in almost any imaginable space craft would be like driving blindly into the Rocky Mountains. You might get lucky and find all the resources you need for your health and your car might be extremely sound but it's honestly a big risk. We don't have the infrastructure to support visitors at this time and it would take an incredible amount of logistical strength to visit an undeveloped solar system from any society that isn't millions of years old. If extraterrestrials do visit Earth I imagine that it would be a science vessel that launched from a space station in a nearby solar system, a generation ship that scouted Earth long before we existed, or a derelict ship with millennia old dead bodies inside.

22:18 I generally agree with your opinion on warp drive as a metric but, like you point out with the Aztecs, what about something like the Iconians? To my recollection, they didn't have warp drive, yet they were one of the biggest empires in this quadrant.

Enterprise did a nice job on the few instances where the PD was foreshadowed. That and the seeds of the UFP being planted were among the most interesting elements of ENT. I just wish they had done more

I think it’s better a a “general rule” than a “general order”.

There is an episode of "It's Garry Shandling's Show" from the early 90's where Garry explains that Star Trek stole the idea of the Prime Directive from him since Garry was able to break the 4th wall in the show. It was an entertaining take on the whole thing.

Thanks for another thoughtful discussion. I’m only partway through Treskpertise’s video and - due to my wonky schedule - won’t be able to finish it until later, by which time I’ll probably have forgotten what I’m thinking now, sooooo…. One thing about the warp metric that I don’t recall having been considered by either video which both do well to critique the Prime Directive (blunt and fragmented as one would expect from pulp TV) is that it is when a planet/culture achieves warp capacity is when they will inevitably encounter the more technologically advanced (on this front) planets, Federations, Empires, etc. As a result, it does make some sense to say, “well, if not now then when?” and offer them some context for what they’re about to encounter. Going from “our planet is the only one with life) to “wait, Klingons, Romulans and Borg? Oh my!” could be a real shock to the system. A destabilizing one. (See also TNG episode, First Contact - not the movie). That’s not to fully justify the PD itself or this criteria, but I do think it’s another layer that needs addressing. FC isn’t exactly a bullet-proof episode, either. I don’t think that any series that runs on the production development cycles that Trek has mostly had to contend with, is really capable of creating a thorough philosophy of any sort. Not one that’ll hold wide audiences’ attentions, anyway. So things like “47 sublaws” (I forgot the term) is a writer’s tool to say, “yeah, this isn’t consistent so let’s just say it’s more complicated than a single line of text with overly wide parameters that we are aware can be very problematic, but to get into it would kill the story’s pace and limit time for soap commercials.” None of this is at all to dismiss any of what I’ve heard discussed. I love it. And I find the problems of the Prime Directive, um, “fascinating.” One of the things I like best about Trek (at its best) is that it bothers to raise moral questions even of their own rules and norms. Thankfully, as a culture we’ve become more inclusive and thoughtful (as a whole… and I like to think) over the decades, so it’s all the more interesting to look at the older series’ through our larger lens. It’s one of those ways we learn how far we’ve come, how far we have yet to go, and to refine our delineations to be less sold on our own advancement or superiority. … I wish I had time to skim this stupid, glitchy iOS typing box but, ugh. So forgive lapses, redundancies, bloviating, accidental bad faith statements, and typos. It’s 6 am and this video sparked my first hazy thoughts of the day. Thanks again. I enjoy these immensely. Edit to add: I’ve just finished the other video, which wisely suggests communication with pre-warp being a beneficial approach. I agree. It does become much more nuanced at that point with how to reveal what and in what way that could pave the way towards fairer and more stabilized introduction to the vaster universe. Also, that video’s final off the cuff statement of “f*ck colonialism.” Amen.

Nobody brings up the Ferengi bought warp drive and instantly became a thorn for Starfleet

I hope real aliena are following a Prime Directive because the alternative that we are alone is too depressing.

Sadly good intentions rarely produces good results. Taking away peoples ability to learn from consequences parentifies them often causes regress not progress. Sadly maturity cannot be transfered, it has to be experienced. Then that experience can be built on. Plus no one thinks they are wrong or the bad guy, we have to always think we could be wrong. Granted if death tolls rise one has to pick the lesser of two evils . For example ww2 i think was a just war however no war is good or just…it still will cause horrible unintended consequences. A just war just means its better than not having it. Its like relationships, if you violate personal boundaries in another’s intimate relationships it will often destroy it. However if you respect their space and just make yourself available for help if both consent then it rarely hurts. Cases of abuse obviously changes the boundaries however its still tricky since the abused will often just find another abusive person if they dont come to leaving on their own…assuming your beliefs aboutt the abuse is correct. Usually its better to recommend a professional get involved and stay out if it outside if the relationship you already have with the person. Every time i thought i was helping in an abuse situation turned out to be codependent and i just made both lives worse. Civilizations like people have boundaries and need them to be respected as relationships develop.

The problem like anything else on TV is it's a mild inconvenience to violate sometimes and "we would let a planet die rather than violate the PD" in others depending on the needs of the story and its real life writers.

Gonna play Devil's Advocate here: I kind of always hated the prime directive. Like I get it. You wouldn't want to drop levels of technology onto primitive people before they're ready, but that's like never the case. It always seemed like avoiding responsibility. Shirking your obligations. It's like drunk driving and crashing a UFO into an infirmary, breaking a little kid's arm in the process, and responding with "I would literally reset your arm perfectly, and and wrap it in a special material that will heal and strengthen your arm, but you're not supposed to know about ANY of this technology..." byeeee (in Snake's voice) Maybe it's more like drunk driving a McLaren into a Pakistani Children's Hospital and... (sorry, sick sense of humor...) Again, I FULLY believe in the Prime Directive, and ultimately think, like you said, its interpretation will be different captain to captain, but overall, I think its interpretation should be much more flexible. Otherwise, you essentially get to hurt people, acknowledge that injury, avoid the responsibility, and leave with a sense of righteousness... The Prime Directive seems cruel unless you help, and why would you ever NOT help? Why allow yourself to be seen? Or remembered...

Thinking about Kirk and the declaration episode, I'd like to hear your thoughts on why TOS got so bad in it's last season, which episodes do you think were good and what do you think would have happened if it wasn't cancelled, do you know much of the history of the what the writers were doing or thinking about back then? It seems weird because some of the worst episodes of TNG were adapted from the TOS continuation that never happened, so I think a possible fourth season would have been evern worse. I forget what it's called but theres a name for the failed sequel project that was replaced by the movies, maybe the next phase but maybe that's just a TNG episode.

The threshold of "do they have warp drive?" does make sense in a purely practical way. You may as well make first contact with them now, because they will make first contact themselves in whatever way they wish, with somebody. And discouraging them from exploiting vulnerable aliens who can't defend themselves is important. (BTW, I think "warp drive" isn't quite the right criterion, since we've seen some technologically advanced species that used wormholes or interstellar transporters to explore the universe.)

The PD in the 23rd century was treated like a set of guidelines. By the 24th century it was treated more like unwavering dogma

I think the Prime Directive has provided the Star Trek franchises with a way of talking about the ups and downs of resource extraction without talking about resource extraction.

Wish I could upvote this more! Very thought-provoking discussion about the nuances of the prime directive. I’ve alerted wondered how other species (outside Vulcans and eventually the UFP) such as the Klingons, Romulans, Ferebghi, Cardassians, erc. though about non-interference. This might make for an interesting episode!

The Prime Directive in Star Trek is inconsistent over the length of the franchise because writes change its parameters to fit what ever story they want to tell.

I genuinely hate the prime directive. Yes, it's important to ensure that star fleet officers aren't playing god. But at the same time, having the technology to save a species from being wiped out in the name of preserving the natural order of things is a kind of cold indifference that I don't think works well with all the other ideals that Star Trek espouses.

"A Cuchi Moya, I am significantly closer to the bones of my ancestors then I once was, yet still to far to just go walk there"

According to the TNG Writer's Guide (I did a multi-article review once about the first season guide) there are two exceptions to the Prime Directive: the safety of the ship (the part of "The Apple" everyone forgets is a good example--Vaal was the one who taught the natives how to kill and everything started because it wouldn't let the landing party leave even when they were ready to have the planet labeled "hands off") and what was in the interest of Starfleet (which is kind of self-serving when you think about it). I believe there should also be an exception when it comes to not letting innocent beings die. We don't know they won't become like the Daleks or whomever was responsible for the Borg, but we don't know that they will.

The book The Ethics of Star Trek by Judith Barad is a great exploration of the ideas in this video but she uses historical examples/philosophies to explain the issues with the Prime directive (as well as plenty of other stuff in the shows!). If you haven’t heard of it already, I think you’d like it! She doesn’t condemn or advocate for the prime directive but she goes into the ideas that shape it like Aristotles virtue ethics and Prima facie/ethics of duty etc. love your work as usual! 💛🖖

After World War 2 ended, and if Germany's leader wouldn't have offed himself, if Germany accepted surrender under the conditions that their leader could stay in power would we accept that? That's essentially what Japan wanted at the end of World War 2. They wanted their leader, who had sided with a horrible person, to stay their leader and they would surrender. We, obviously, wouldn't accept that and had to do something to get the Japanese government to surrender. FYI, more people were unalived and more property was destroyed by fire bombings by America, not the 2 nuclear bombs we dropped. I have watched Barefoot Gen.

Very well argued. It's funny how often I find that "it's complicated" is the simplest answer I can give to a question. So few "good" questions have a simple black and white answer

Adventure Time episode called 'The Box Prince' is an example of how the Prime directive would have helped 😅

Maybe it should be a “if___, then___” kind of scale Like “do they have warp?> no. Are they aware of intergalactic affairs? (I just rewatched insurrection recently) Yes? Ok if they are aware of the galactic community but don’t personally have the ability then they’re allowed to avoid the directive!

I'm excited to see you with a sponsor! One of my favorite channels and success is a long hard fought battle.

My main issue with the episode Dear Doctor is that they enforeced the Prime Directive when it didn't even exist yet! As a prequel series, I would have like to see them give the cure, only to find out a year later that the Valkians totally enslaved the Menk or worse, massacred them. Then Archer would have realized the need for non interference, thus the PD being written into law.

If someone asks, you intervene. Even if not, if you can save, do so. It is fitting with all doctrine of real merit to do so.

The prime directive makes sense in every case except for saving a civilization from total annihilation when you can save them without even making contact. What harm is done to a society if you can stabilize their plate tectonics from orbit? A society can’t naturally progress if they’re all dead.

Saw the Trekspertise video. It was excellent. So is yours. I think I lean a little more toward your conclusions than Kiel's. It seems that the general consensus is that the Prime Directive isn't all bad, it just needs some adjustment, not eradication. It appears to have been in part founded on some genuine, reasonable, and justifiable notion and ideals of doing no harm to others and in the Star Trek Universe has probably done more good than bad. However, what I want to know, what I want to know, what I want to, is, what is, GENERAL ORDER 24!

You could also say the Prime Directive came from U.S. inaction during WWII. Advocates of War later pointed to Pearl Harbor as a consequence of non-interference. I've heard some conservative thinkers say that if you don't interfere, you allow the problem to get big enough to blow up in your face. Personally, I feel if people NATURALLY come to a position, they are more likely to adopt that position for longer periods of time and are less resistant to the change.

I wouldn't say the Prime Directive is racist in the traditional sense of the word, but I would say it's got a very human-centric worldview. Humanity got their act together when they achieved warp travel so they're viewing the galaxy through that lens. Though overall, I think it's for the best of the galaxy.

The Prime Directive has been the Prime Suggestion since its inception. It's hard to pinpoint the worst infraction ever, but each series has many. "Pen Pals" from TNG Season 2 is one of the worst, but by no means only trip away from General Order #1. Then again, General Order #4 is don't go to Talos IV, so the entirety of the General Orders is silly to begin with.

Excellent analysis. The upshot for me is well chosen captains know when to break the rules in order change them for the better.

The doctrine of non-interference is a good one overall, at least from a human perspective. Our history is littered with the corpses of "precontract" civilizations laid to ruin by technologically superior societies. Non-interference is the easiest way to do no harm. The warp cutoff is a great one too. After all it's easy to avoid people who cant get off an island, but once they have the power to come find you, its best to set diplomatic relations in your favor unless you face an expansionist society who might have a surprise you're not ready for.

If there's one thing the Prime Directive does is gets people thinking and talking about it. That's good sci-fi right there no matter what else.

Fantastic video as always. The prime directives are noble on the surface but get ever greyer the deeper you look at the fine print. If nothing else it has given scope for some terrific stories that often have no right or wrong answer. Moving into the real world… it would have been an important point to establish the difference between equality and equity. Although you state do this, I often see it portrayed as if European/ Christian nations were the only ones to try and create an Empire. I am British and proud of it, there were many good things done in the name of Britain but there were also many bad things. Whether you are on the left or the right, too often only one of those sides gets portrayed as the truth. Never the truth in its entirety. As I said, this last part of my comment is not a criticism of you or this video. Love your work as always.

Dear Doctor is a great episode. The Valaki had their moment of "Prime Directive" dilemma when the Menk needed help. And without the Valaki would the Menk survive? Who knows? Perhaps without guidance the Menk are self destructive. But Earth and others have 200 years to thoroughly study the relationship between the Valaki and the Menk. Luck is a four letter word. What if an alien civilization happens upon warp drive before almost destroying themselves. What lessons have they learned about cooperation?

Thank you for this fun and thoughtful video. I would definitely enjoy more like it. My wife and I have been watching through TNG lately, and I do enjoy the episodes where Picard is forced to reluctantly bend or break the PD despite his support of it in principle. I think I agree with your conclusion overall about needing a guideline, but not a hard and fast rule for these situations. God be with you out there everybody. ✝️ :)

I hate the Enterprise episode where they decide it's better to let evolution take its course than save an entire species. Richard Dawkins said in one of his books (paraphrasing) how frustrating arguements against evolution are that conflate the way *nature is*... with the way human society *should be*, as does this episode. Yes, evolution is a tragic and inhumane process, but as inteligent beings capable of creating a society, we have the power and duty to do better than nothing. Doing nothing and letting nature take its course when you have the power to create a better outcome isn't a humanist moral high ground, it's the purest form of apathy and evil. If real life were like this we wouldn't care about endangered species lists or conservation, we would be a soceity of sociopaths, unwilling to lift a finger to help others.

i don't think "undeniably" means what you think it means. however likely or unlikely, you can't predict what would have happened in a different timeline that didn't happen anymore than you can predict the future. i would deny anyone who said they could predict the future especially when it concerns human behaviour...

In the 41st Millennium Starfleet renamed General Order 24 to Exterimnatus

With GREAT power comes GREAT responsibility.

Just once, in one of these heated debates about the Prime Directive, I'd like to see just one character (in Star Trek: Lower Decks, most likely) blurt out, "The whole point of the Prime Directive is so that Roddenberry could have a pre-existing, star-spanning civilization while at the same time postulating a plausible explanation for the Fermi Paradox - I just said the quiet part out loud, didn't I!"

Well I think one idea of the warp drive metric is that a society would pretty much have to apply the full force of it's resources. Every nation pitching in; scientist's, laborers, politicians. (I do admit it breaks down in a few instances lol)

Interesting video and topic. My take away is that interference in non-warp cultures by The Federation via Starfleet is a philosophy that is necessary, to safe guard those societies from destroying themselves, or others. This is why it is difficult for Starfleet officers and ships to stand by when they could save a society from a natural or cosmic disaster. By saving them (and they're aware of it), this could alter their development and lead to more harm, than not interfering - because they haven't invented the technology themselves, and therefore, have not had the time to discuss it as a society and how it should be used, had time to think about the implications of it. I agree with that philosophy. I also agree it should some times be ignored, but those actions are serious and need to be reviewed, some times after the fact, but it's a rule that should make sense. Look at us now, with artificial intelligence, we have come up with it ourselves and we STILL, aren't confident we're ready to have this power.

And again a nice, interesting and entertaining video you made there. I'm looking forward to the next one. : )

Moral inaction does not equate with moral culpability. The idea that you are committing evil for choosing not to act is a postmodern moral and logical fallacy where trying to do something morally/logically good is good enough to deflect most guilt if things so off the course you meant your intervention to go. The Prime Directive exists to remind humanity that the best (most moral/logical?) subjective intentions do not necessarily lead to the best objective results. It is better to begin at non-interference so that we do not apply our cultural/species moral values on other cultures/species of whom we probably do not have a complete understanding/experience.

Perhaps our most ethical decisions should be based more on the potential of the present rather than that of the past. Because even the preference to avoid the risks of history can occasionally beg the question: How far is too far? The Prime Directive may be an important law in the real universe and for good reasons. But nowadays I personally prefer how an Ancient Aliens episode might address it rather than a Star Trek episode.

Beware those who preach tolerance, yet pressure more tolerant societies to tolerate the intolerance of objectively savage societies.

timely considering the name drop on the most recent episode of Picard in regards to the Enterprise. love your channel man

When Picard saved Wesley, I often wondered if Wesley had committed a more egregious crime, would Picard have intervened?

I think it's like, "whatever is best for starfleet at this moment in time" is the real prime directive. Nothing about morality at all. The moralizing and nail-biting is just because captains are weird. They probably know the ship is recording their every move so they're acting out melodramas for posterity.

How can the Prime Directive be 'racist' when one of its main functions is to protect 'different' cultures from interference by holier than thou Federation types? It's literally saying 'sometimes we can't help but feel that we know better, even though we don't, and people different from us should be allowed to go about their business'. It's one of the least racist ideas I can think of.

The problem with the Prime Directive is that it doesn’t allow for virtue ethics. What the Prime Directive needs is a clause for dealing with humanitarian crises in a way that doesn’t require direct contact and communication with pre-warp civilizations. How difficult would it be for Dr Phlox, as an example, to leave the test results and formula on the back of a napkin at a science lab that’s just within the technological reach of a civilization. The other common problem is the “oh, we discovered a human pretending to be one of us!” Instead of all the subterfuge, the Prime Directive needs a clause for saying “let’s say we are aliens, and we came in so few numbers and so unarmed so as not to misconstrue our purposes as anything except anthropological research.”

If every captain interfered with every civilization what would be the result there has to be some restraint but at the same time needs to be some level of flexibility the moral standards of star-fleet is sometimes the victim of bad writing

It's very telling that to the writers of Star Trek who were coming up with the concept of the Prime Directive, there was no discernible difference beteren US imperialism / military adventurism and actual aid. It never occurred to them that at no point was US military intervention actually designed to help anyone but the US.

It's been pointless since Kirk and McCoy pissed all over it in the original series. Every week they came up with excuses why it didn't apply after they ignored it once again. The most egregious breech being the Children of Vaal. Apparently living forever and wanting for nothing in a tropical paradise quietly worshipping their God was far too much for Kirk and his BFF good ol' boy McCoy. They soon put a stop to it despite Spock's protests.

Great video. Your preparation must take many days of writing and editing. Great stuff.

The thing with the likelihood of real life extraterrestrials, it is extremely likely that they exist. But it is also extremely likely that they have no idea we exist. Yes, we've been broadcasting into space for a fairly long time, but those signals have not actually traveled as far as people think. Due to the lack of subspace transmitters in reality, our messages are limited to traveling at the speed of light. Meaning they have only reached about 50 light years. In Star Trek, the planet Vulcan was said to be approximately 16 light years from earth, which made them our closest neighbors, and explains why they were the ones that found us first. In reality, the likelihood of an alien species living that close and not being detected at all, even just by radio signal is quite low.

I am not sure if you are holding off on your Mapping the Enterprise course because I mentioned my Star Mapping video I am working on. I want to let you know I am working on the video and I believe it will be very useful in your videos.

Janeway “prime directive?? What’s that?’’

Warp capability as one of the possible requirements for a formal first contact is an absolutely logical choice. If a society managed to create this technology (or something similar), it will eventually run into another space-faring civilization anyway. Might as well be someone who is peaceful and wishes them well.

Picard: "Sorry, Acting Ensign Crusher. The law's the law. You're on your own" ❤

I like the idea of it. But it is damn useless if Star Fleet Command isn't gonna enforce the blasted thing. More than one officer should have been drummed out of Star Fleet for violating it.

Thanks for the recommendation on the other prime directive video. I'll go check it out.