Is the Prime Directive Good or Terrible

Star Trek's "Prime Directive", also known as "Directive Number One", is one of, if not the most important rule within Starfleet and the Federation, in the series. The idea was that of noninterference with civilizations at a lesser state of cultural and technological development. It stems back to points in human history when interference by European cultures made contact with technologically less advanced cultures in the Americas with   results. As well as also being a way prevent the exploitation of those people for selfish means, such as resources and labor. Even in the modern day this is true, when a nation's belief in it's own morally superiority resulted in them forcing political and economic ideals on another nation without understanding its people's culture or history.

In the Next Generation episode, "Symbiosis", Picard (Patrick Stewart) is quoted; "The Prime Directive is not just a set of rules; it is a philosophy... and a very correct one. History has proven again and again that whenever mankind interferes with a less developed civilization, no matter how well intentioned that interference may be, the results are invariably disastrous" (Memory Alpha).

When Columbus came to the Americas in the 1400s, it set off a chain reaction that would result in war, disease, death, and enslavement of the native peoples.  The "Columbian Exchange" brought European diseases such as Smallpox, which the native people had no immunity to.  Eventually these colonies would rebel and win their freedom from Europe, but only after years of blood shed and death, and exploitation of their natural resources. In a modern example, our support of rebel forces opposed to Muammar Gaddafi during the Libyan Civil War resulted in a fracturing of the country and another civil war that has lasted since 2014. While trying to rid a country of a brutal dictator is a noble goal (though a root cause of the intervention was oil), but without an understanding of the culture, people, and history, you may be opening the proverbial "Pandora's box."

Probably the worst example of American interventionism, and the reason behind the "Prime Directive" was the Vietnam War. This was a war that was the result of our Cold War foreign policy to halt Communism and contain it. As a result, we fought a war that lasted over a decade, resulted in numerous atrocities on both sides, and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands. With an understanding of the Vietnamese people's desire for freedom, as they had been subjugated for centuries by the Chinese, French, and Japanese, the war may have been avoided.

In the TNG episode "Justice", Picard is quoted saying, "There can be no justice so long as laws are absolute. Even life itself is an exercise in exceptions" (Memory Alpha). Indeed, the Prime Directive is not entirely absolute, exceptions have been made. In the TNG episode "Pen Pals", Data plays a distress signal  from an alien child whose home is threatened by a volcano. Because of that, Picard determines it can’t be ignored, and they interfere.

The Vietnam War, once again, is a great example of the merits of the rule, and the exemption. Asking for help is different than forcing help because you believe that you are morally, culturally, and technologically superior. What right do we have to enforce our ideas upon another people, even if we believe it will be beneficial?  Had the U.S. understood Ho Chi Minh's plea (he even read the preamble to the Declaration of Independence) and not  blinded by fear of Communism, and as a result backed the French, the outcome might have been different. Like in Japan after WW II, the U.S. could have provided equipment and economic support that may have helped create a more modern society. It would have prevented the ineffectual and corrupt program of "Pacification" in the South, and the brutal land reforms, that left thousands dead, in the north, as well as the war.

I have heard the idea of “what if” considered stupid, however, not considering the possibilities is a sign of ignorance. Taking risks is not bad and may yield beneficial results, but you should consider the consequences. You may help a Medieval level society cure a plague, but soon they may become dependent upon you. You can tech them how to prevent disease, but you have stunted their own technological and cultural growth. You may change their entire identity as a people, destroying a unique idea that may have come later in their history and benefited many. You may also give technology to a people who use it to commit acts of violence.

The "Prime Directive", like all human laws, is imperfect, but tries to curb human behavior that might be devastating if left unchecked, even if it is benevolent. Our history has countless examples of people being devastated as a result of human greed and ignorance. The worst example of this was known as "The White Man's Burden", creating the horrors of 19th Century Colonialism. The law is based on the idea that people have the right to determine their own destiny, should they ask for help, we provide to the extent they desire, and freedom of self-determination is the most sacred right of any human.

References:

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Prime_Directive

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Directive

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Civil_War_(2014%E2%80%93present)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Civil_War_(2011)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbian_Exchange

Shootings & Gun Control

In every tragedy, we look at something to blame, we want something tangible to take our anger out on. After the Columbine Shooting in 1999, one of the scapegoats was the video game "Doom", a violent first person shooter (FPS) released in 1993. The perpetrators of the horrific crime were known fans of the game, and supposedly even created a custom .WAD file that was a complete layout of the school with the monsters modified to look like students (this turned out to be no more than a myth). Evidence would later reveal that bullying played a major role in their motivation, yet an inanimate object with no malicious intent was still blamed.

Why do we look to blame entertainment, guns, flags, ect... as the cause of these tragedies? My theory is that we humans don't want to look inward, we don't want to face the darker recesses of our minds, we want to pretend that, that side doesn't exist in most of us. We want to believe that an inanimate object influenced an action and removing that item will eliminate the threat. All that does is put a bandaid over the problem, banning guns might lower the statistics of gun violence, but it doesn't provide a cure.

The discussion of Gun Control shouldn't be looked at as a dirty one. The left needs to stop the "ban all guns" rhetoric and the right needs to stop the "don't take my guns" rhetoric. The result of those arguments being shouted is a partisan and emotional situation that goes nowhere and doesn't create a solution, a true solution comes from compromise. The 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, anything removed from that part of the Constitution would set a precedent for modifying other parts of those scared rights, including the 1st. The likeliness of it being removed is nil, so take that off the table. A licensing system would be a good compromise, and while one shouldn't have to pay to exercise a right, we need a solution that doesn't punish people who did nothing wrong.

Even that is only a temporary solution, violence will only be curbed, not stopped. Again, we to travel to those darker parts of our mind to find a solution. When we look into the eyes of these criminals, do we not just fear them for their actions, but do we also fear them because we fear we may also be capable of the same thing? The vast majority of us have a moral code, we think about doing something bad, but that little voice in our head tells us, that is wrong. This code may vary from person to person, but the basic concept is there. Without it, we're no different than animals, acting on impulse rather than reason.

We are also the sum of our experiences, and those experiences influence how we react to situations, they influence that internal moral code. If someone commits a crime and you look at their background, you'll probably be able to trace back and figure out why they committed that crime, what influenced them.

Trying to improve education, helping people out of poverty, prison reform, and greater awareness of mental heath, along side curbing the sale of illegal firearms are solutions, but not one that is 100%.

The unfortunate truth is, even we come to an understanding of those darker places, we won't even have a full solution to the problem. Humans are unpredictable creatures and we can not calculate how each individual person will turnout. That is not to say we should just give up, that would be foolish. But for us to go on blaming inanimate objects, even guns, is also foolish. We're just putting a bandaid over a scapegoat so that we feel better. We need to look at out culture and assess if what we're doing is right, and maybe then, we'll find a solution.

An Apology for my Comments

Yesterday was a whirlwind of emotion for everyone, one of the worst shootings in American history. When I see a disaster happen, I will always look for the truth, and try to assess the situation to it's fullest, however I am subject to the emotions caused by and my political leanings, as much as I try to curb.

My apology is for those who were offended to my reactions to an Onion article posted by "Star Trek". actor Will Wheaton. The article (linked below) entitled "‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens", uses the same text four times with changes in image and names in the text.

To me, the Onion, is a news site used for humor, not for real news and political commentary. To me, it appeared insulting to use one of their articles during a tragedy (this is the site that posted pieces on Biden selling Pot and Tim Kaine shoving crackers into a voting machine). The addition of blaming the NRA (who I've seen yet to even issue a statement or mentioned in the Onion piece) by saying "Fuck the NRA" just seemed like unwarranted attack, even against a group I don't support.

My response to this is not in keeping with my own personal rules on discussing politics and lowered myself to the level the troll. It also is not in keeping with the message of this blog, which is to provide my opinions in an eloquent manor and promote intelligent civil discourse.

Again, I apologize, my comments were offensive, and,I was error in my interpretation of the article; I have since deleted those posts.

Thank you.

Link:
http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-36131