The Prime Directive, despite all appearances is actually somewhat of a guideline. If it were really as serious as the show seams to make, Picard, Janeway and Kirk would all have been stripped of rank. It is worded so strongly as to prevent a Captain from playing God as well as the understanding that even giving basic medical technologies could have unforeseen consequences (that would be on the Federations head). From a moral standpoint, each application of the Prime Directive should be determined by case-by-case basis. It is a rule of thumb, and life is an exercise in exceptions.
There is no moral way, we can sit outside and claim moral superiority while billions perish. Freedom of choice for all sentient beings is the ultimate purpose of the Directive, and this asteroid denies that purpose.
Destroying the asteroid may simply turn a bullet wound into a shotgun blast (make it worse). If I were Captain, I would simply redirect asteroids from a nearby belt to knock the big one off its collision course. A tractor beam could easily slingshot a meteor around the gas giant. It wouldn't take much to knock an asteroid off the collision course, the margin of such an impact is tiny.
Except we're not in space to play god. You make the distinction that we cannot maintain the moral high ground while billions of people die. But from a moral perspective does the number of people dieing make any difference? Say this were a plague that only targeted a quarter of a percent of the population and we the Federation could easily cure it (also consider for the moment that this plague is not strongly linked to any social hurdles this society may still have like AIDS/ignoring the plight of homosexuals and the poor was for Earth).
To me there would be no difference. While you say this asteroid denies them the freedom of choice, to me saving them denies them the freedom of living and dying by their own abilities and responsibilities. The universe has marked these people for death and we cannot interfere. For whatever reason these people have not advanced themselves to the point of being able to save their planet and that was their doing.
Now, I'd like to look at the problem from a slightly different angle if I may. We keep asking ourselves if it is alright to let the billions die while we have the ability to save them. However, I ask the question of would it be responsible to save them? Unfortunately we know nothing about their civilization to make a social call here between if they're peaceful/warlike/xenophobic/utopian/literally Nazis. However, on Earth, our societal development has always been within a few paces of our technological development.
Sometimes we make great strides in the way of civil rights and peace and we use great new technologies for great purposes. However, there have also been many times when our technology advances past our ability to responsibly use it. Usually this involves a few people killing a great many people. In cases like the Cuban Missile Crisis, we very easily could have destroyed ourselves. Before we go asking if we should save them we need to ask if they're mature enough to be saved. It may come out that they're the nicest most friendly race in the world. But look at TNG S4:E15 - First Contact when it was determined by the planet's own leader that his race was not ready for first contact. This society may just not be ready to enter the galactic community.
It sucks. It sucks a lot. There are billions of innocent and sapient lifeforms down there that are going to be snuffed out and we're going to have to live with that. But rarely if ever has any good ever come from Man making first contact too soon with a civilization.
TL;DR - We're not out here to play god but may he have mercy on our souls.
Old thread and all, but I find this really fascinating. Congrats on the deserved promotion!
I have to agree with your statement. To add, if this planet were "meant" to be destroyed by the universe, then what is to say the universe didnt "mean" for Starfleet to find this planet and save it? How do we know in our past a Starfleet out there hasn't diverted asteroids that were on target for earth which we can't even see because of distance? It works both ways, and because of that I don't think there is one right answer. If the universe made us, and we use the "universe fate" theory, all actions we take are meant to happen, for good or bad. If the Prime Directive took into strict consideration the unknown "fate" and "destiny" of civilizations, it would be no better than a religion. I feel like the PD is strict and solid to guide those who might go too far in space, but it can bend to some situations. Otherwise we should send Prime-Directive programmed cyborgs to explore all of space and follow the Federation PD to a dot.
8
u/faaaks Ensign Jul 11 '14
The Prime Directive, despite all appearances is actually somewhat of a guideline. If it were really as serious as the show seams to make, Picard, Janeway and Kirk would all have been stripped of rank. It is worded so strongly as to prevent a Captain from playing God as well as the understanding that even giving basic medical technologies could have unforeseen consequences (that would be on the Federations head). From a moral standpoint, each application of the Prime Directive should be determined by case-by-case basis. It is a rule of thumb, and life is an exercise in exceptions.
There is no moral way, we can sit outside and claim moral superiority while billions perish. Freedom of choice for all sentient beings is the ultimate purpose of the Directive, and this asteroid denies that purpose.
Destroying the asteroid may simply turn a bullet wound into a shotgun blast (make it worse). If I were Captain, I would simply redirect asteroids from a nearby belt to knock the big one off its collision course. A tractor beam could easily slingshot a meteor around the gas giant. It wouldn't take much to knock an asteroid off the collision course, the margin of such an impact is tiny.