by wonder2wonder:

Should the Prime Directive be abolished?

No, it should not be abolished. Alien civilizations should evolve /advance on their own merits and we should just stay away.

In ST Into the Darkness Nukirk and Co stop a volcano from erupting and in so doing save the natives living in proximity. Seen or not, I don't think they should have interfered.

In "The Paradise Syndrome" an alien race had left a sophisticated device, a deflector, to protect the planet and its inhabitants. The medicine man died before he told his son the secrets of the temple/deflector and how to use it when the shy darkened.

Kirk and Spock initially were going to divert the asteroid which I think was not right, they were acting like gods..they should not have interfered. In the end, they used the device left by the alien race... that I feel was okay. The device was left to safeguard the natives.

In the beginning of the episode when Kirk is interrogated, the chief said that their legend predicted danger from the sky and that the Wise Ones who planted them on the planet would send a god to save them.

Is it possible that Wise Ones knew of Kirk's arrival in the future?

(the hatch opened when Kirk used his communicator and spoke to Scotty ( Spock was there later and used his communicator and spoke to Scotty too, but the hatch didn't open).

Seeing the device works on music notes, sounds, it is possible that it was designed to work when it heard the communicator and Kirk's voice.

I think the prime directive was brilliant on the part of Roddenberry & the writers. I'm sure it was a not-so-subtle dig at the USA's imperialist tendencies, especially in the Vietnam era (where we see a pretty flagrant but true-to-history abuse of the prime directive in "A Private Little War" where the Feds & Klingons start a covert arms race on an otherwise peaceful/tribal planet).

I think the question isn't so much whether the prime directive is ethical as how often Kirk & the Federation broke the prime directive ...a deliberate mirror of the USA's hypocritical dealings in developing nations. Like Sunshine pointed out, there have been a bunch. I would be lenient in the case of natural disasters; I don't think that's interfering in cultural development any more than it's interfering to send earthquake aid to stricken regions. But definitely there have been a fair share of Feds' puppeteering in extraterrestrial government. How about "A Piece of the Action" where Kirk & Crew set up a planet based on organized crime of Capone-era Chicago? Or Bread & Circuses where Kirk's predecessor set up a friggin NAZI regime because he thought it was "most efficient"?

Trek was great at proposing utopian ideals while sneakily showing us the hypocrisy of human nature, always wanting to play god in catastrophic ways. "Wrath of Khan" and the Genesis device is the culmination of the human god complex, as McCoy hints. It's one of the things that sets Trek apart from the usual fantasy scifi where humans of the future are magically perfect. Instead we get a timeless view of how humans are and always will be: imperfect, but trying.

@wonder2wonder said:

Should the Prime Directive be abolished?

What is your opinion?

While nowhere near the eloquence of the previous two posters' comments; my opinion is that the Prime Directive should not be abolished. I think it is a necessary reminder that we’re not Gods; and therefore have no right to try and remake others/other civilizations “in our own image”.

Even so, I still think it leaves some “wiggle room” for providing assistance to others--other civilizations.

ON ANOTHER NOTE: Good question.

by rooprect:

I would be lenient in the case of natural disasters; I don't think that's interfering in cultural development....

Had Kirk and Co not intervened to avoid the cataclysmic volcanic eruption, the natives of the planet would have ceased to exist.

If the asteroid that hit Earth had been destroyed by an alien species (similar to the one seen in the series Visitors, ) how would our planet be today with the dinosaurs still roaming............... at what stage of evolution would mankind be ..........would we even be here at all?

I have no certain answer, I do believe though that we can't go warping through the galaxy playing God.

@sunshine62 said:

by wonder2wonder:

Should the Prime Directive be abolished?

No, it should not be abolished. Alien civilizations should evolve /advance on their own merits and we should just stay away.

In ST Into the Darkness Nukirk and Co stop a volcano from erupting and in so doing save the natives living in proximity. Seen or not, I don't think they should have interfered.

Something similar happened in the first episode of Discovery, although they said that the Federation had caused that problem to start with, so maybe cleaning up their own messes is an exception. (As with removing the Enterprise-D saucer section - and Kirk's body, etc - from Veridian 3.)

And there was another exception made for "asking for help" as with the TNG episode "Pen Pals."

In "The Paradise Syndrome" an alien race had left a sophisticated device, a deflector, to protect the planet and its inhabitants. The medicine man died before he told his son the secrets of the temple/deflector and how to use it when the shy darkened.

Kirk and Spock initially were going to divert the asteroid which I think was not right, they were acting like gods..they should not have interfered. In the end, they used the device left by the alien race... that I feel was okay. The device was left to safeguard the natives.

But if the device failed, what would be their excuse for interfering with THAT?

In the beginning of the episode when Kirk is interrogated, the chief said that their legend predicted danger from the sky and that the Wise Ones who planted them on the planet would send a god to save them.

Is it possible that Wise Ones knew of Kirk's arrival in the future?

(the hatch opened when Kirk used his communicator and spoke to Scotty ( Spock was there later and used his communicator and spoke to Scotty too, but the hatch didn't open).

Seeing the device works on music notes, sounds, it is possible that it was designed to work when it heard the communicator and Kirk's voice.

Presumably the previous medicine chiefs opened it by voice too. Why would previous medicine chiefs have said "Kirk to Enterprise?"

Ciao knix, how you are doing, well I hope!

by knix:

But if the device failed, what would be their excuse for interfering with THAT?

It failed because Salish's father, the medicine man, died before he passed on the secrets of the obelisk and not due to a malfunction.

Presumably the previous medicine chiefs opened it by voice too. Why would previous medicine chiefs have said "Kirk to Enterprise?

Spock discovered that the symbols on the obelisk are not words but musical notes...a song.

It's not what Kirk said but the timbre of his voice combined with that of the communicator.

I guess, but I was also kinda mixing that in with "what if the Preservers knew Kirk was coming?"

And even if Salish's father dying before passing on the secrets is why Salish couldn't activate it, why would they interfere with THAT? It seems as "natural" as any of the rest of it.

Evidently the device knew where the threats were, otherwise it couldn't have aimed for them. So why wasn't it automatic?

by knix:

And even if Salish's father dying before passing on the secrets is why Salish couldn't activate it, why would they interfere with THAT?

The obelisk had a specific task, protect the Indians. It’s part of their lives, their belief. It's a device their gods left them.

The preservers left it to safeguard their “children” from asteroids and other life-stricken dangers.

Kirk and Co simply stepped in and took Salish's place and activated the obelisk which went on to do its designed function.

Evidently the device knew where the threats were, otherwise it couldn't have aimed at them. So why wasn't it automatic?

I think the Preservers didn’t want the Indians to kneel in front of the obelisk and worship just a piece of metal. They wanted to be known as loving, caring gods.

They wanted to have a more intimate relationship with their “ children”.

The medicine man is the connection between the two : to the first medicine man, the Preservers:

a. gave them legends that explained their origin, what to expect: angry skies, that a god would be sent to save them etc

b. revealed to him the purpose of the obelisk and how to operate the obelisk.

It's not the United Federation of Planets without the prime directive and it's not Star Trek without the prime directive. That said it's adhered to depending on the circumstances. Sometimes it's good sometimes it's bad. The very fact that the Enterprise is flying all over the place landing on alien planets here and there makes it all a bit suspect as well.

There's enough planetary races that interfere with others so let the Earth people have the moral high ground on the matter. Plus it's always good for some high drama in space.

@znexyish said:

It's not the United Federation of Planets without the prime directive and it's not Star Trek without the prime directive. That said it's adhered to depending on the circumstances. Sometimes it's good sometimes it's bad. The very fact that the Enterprise is flying all over the place landing on alien planets here and there makes it all a bit suspect as well.

There's enough planetary races that interfere with others so let the Earth people have the moral high ground on the matter. Plus it's always good for some high drama in space.

It did seem to be a plot point more than anything else, used when they wanted it and ignored when they didn't. Even in early TNG season 1 episodes such as "Code of Honor" (which I call "Planet Liberia") when they supposedly don't make contact with societies that don't already have warp drive.

It's like in "The Big Bang Theory" when Sheldon has an eidetic memory whenever that's needed for a joke, but if the next joke relies on him NOT having it, then suddenly he doesn't.

@znexyish said:

The very fact that the Enterprise is flying all over the place landing on alien planets here and there makes it all a bit suspect as well.

That was an understated but poignant theme in some of the scifi literature & tv of the early days of space exploration. In Ray Bradbury's Martian Chronicles (the 1950 book, idk about the 70s mini series), humans basically wipe out the entire planet of Mars & its indigenous lifeforms by simply landing there and bringing the common cold.

I also remember an episode of Space: 1999 "Voyager's Return" where the Voyager probe returns from deep space.... with a ton of very angry aliens following it because Voyager's engines spread deadly radiation that wiped out planets.

Progressive scifi writers, of which Roddenberry was tops, thought about stuff like this. What collateral damage are we doing by simply landing on other planets? Look no further than the accidental genocide of native americans when European settlers brought their diseases, to say nothing of the deliberate genocide which came on its heels... talk about interfering with a developing civilization. So it's actually a really practical point to make. Like you said, it wouldn't be Trek without the Prime Directive. It sets the whole tone that future humans would think about these things that our uncivilized selves don't really care about. It puts Star Trek ahead of its time even 50 years later. Funny how no modern scifi stories (that I can think of) picked up on the idea of the prime directive.

At least captain have some rules and guide what to do in certain circumstances. In ENT it was pretty obvious to Archer that he thought it would be wise for the future to have some rules or guidelines or directive what to do when dealing with certain situations,

@Nexus71 said:

At least captain have some rules and guide what to do in certain circumstances. In ENT it was pretty obvious to Archer that he thought it would be wise for the future to have some rules or guidelines or directive what to do when dealing with certain situations,

A lil OT but is Enterprise worth watching? It would be cool if they dig into the origins of stuff like this... the prime directive, the formation of The Federation, etc. But after Voyager (which I liked) there were so many trek spinoffs I just kinda went back to TOS.

The first two seasons take some getting through although there are very good early season episodes that set-up things for later like the Andorians and stuff concerning the Vulcans by season 3 it really is firing on all cilinders season 3 has a season story arc with the Xindi conflict and 4 is when ENT got really good

@rooprect said:

@Nexus71 said:

At least captain have some rules and guide what to do in certain circumstances. In ENT it was pretty obvious to Archer that he thought it would be wise for the future to have some rules or guidelines or directive what to do when dealing with certain situations,

A lil OT but is Enterprise worth watching? It would be cool if they dig into the origins of stuff like this... the prime directive, the formation of The Federation, etc. But after Voyager (which I liked) there were so many trek spinoffs I just kinda went back to TOS.

Somewhat, but it's also jam-packed with retcon and memberberries. It would have been better placed later in the timeline.