Star Trek Prime Directive Meets Ayn Rand
First of all let me say that I cannot believe I am doing an analysis of the Star Trek prime directive. The prime directive states:
“As the right of each sentient species to live in accordance with its normal cultural evolution is considered sacred, no Star Fleet personnel may interfere with the healthy development of alien life and culture. Such interference includes the introduction of superior knowledge, strength, or technology to a world whose society is incapable of handling such advantages wisely. Star Fleet personnel may not violate this Prime Directive, even to save their lives and/or their ship unless they are acting to right an earlier violation or an accidental contamination of said culture. This directive takes precedence over any and all other considerations, and carries with it the highest moral obligation.”
The associated prohibitions are given below (according to Jbrenner)
1. Providing knowledge of technologies or science
2. Taking actions to generally affect a society's overall development
3. Taking actions which support one faction within a society over another
4. Helping a society escape the negative consequences of its own actions
5. Helping a society escape a natural disaster known to the society, even if inaction would result in a society's extinction.
6. Subverting or avoiding the application of a society's laws
7. Interfering in the internal affairs of a society
What would Ayn Rand say about the prime directive. I bet her first question would be what is a sentient species? According to dictionary “sentient” means “able to perceive or feel things.” Well cows, cats, dogs, and many other species can perceive or feel things, in fact much simpler organisms would fit this definition. Based on this definition Rand would state that only rational beings have rights. Rand defined the hierarchy of knowledge integration as sensation, precepts, and conceptual. She explains it perceptual in this example.
“An animal is guided, not merely by immediate sensations, but by percepts. Its actions are not single, discrete responses to single, separate stimuli, but are directed by an integrated awareness of the perceptual reality confronting it. It is able to grasp the perceptual concretes immediately present and it is able to form automatic perceptual associations, but it can go no further.”
My guess is that Rand would then ask what is “normal cultural evolution.” Is it normal cultural evolution to allow Rachel Carson to convince countries to ban DDT and cause 100 million deaths? Is it normal cultural evolution to allow Mao to institute the cultural revolution that will starve over 30 million people to death? There is no such thing a normal cultural evolution. But it rings of Marxist ideas of a scientific progression of society.
Then Rand would ask why normal cultural evolution is considered sacred. According to the dictionary sacred means “connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration.” Rand would reject anything based on an appeal to a deity. The proof of the first sentence of the prime directive rests on an appeal to faith, not reason.
It is clear the Prime Directive is based on faith, not reason and is immoral from the first sentence. I will not take on the rest of the directive but I will look at the prohibitions. The first prohibition is “Providing knowledge of technologies or science.” Given that directive was directed to species that are “able to perceive or feel things” this is almost meaningless. Most species that able to perceive are not able to understand or take advantage of knowledge.
But what about rational beings? Why would you not provide knowledge of technologies or science? Does this mean we cannot teach our kids science and technology? That would clearly be immoral. Your objection might be that they are within our culture, but what about African cultures? Should we have not introduced DDT, or steam engines, or the Internet? While we have no obligation to introduce these sciences and technologies, to purposely prohibit them would be immoral.
All the prohibitions and the prime directives are based group think (and written by Hollywood TV writers!). The word society is mentioned nine times in the Prime Directive and in the prohibitions. Individual is not mentioned once. Societies are based on a collection of people and only have rights based on the rights of the individuals, who make up the society, but none separate from them.
Start Trek’s Prime Directive is an inherently Socialist Ideal and Evil.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 16.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mH-L6UC...
On this, I will disagree vehemently with db.
Not letting inferior cultures have access to such technology is the SELFISH thing to do. How many of us have seen ripoffs of American technology by countries in southeast Asia that do not respect intellectual property law? That's right, all of us. If a society is going to develop properly into a functioning society, it must have the appropriate virtues first.
Now I will use db's own words and those of AR from http://hallingblog.com/atlas-shrugged-ay...
to argue the exact opposite of what the Hallings just argued tonight.
“I’m not sure it was so great-inventing this new Metal, when so many nations are in need of plain iron-why do you know the People’s State of China hasn’t even got enough nails to put wooden roofs over peoples’ heads?”
This is the attitude of an inferior society that has been given access to science and technology that has not developed such technology itself.
From AS: ”…’he didn’t invent smelting and chemistry and air compression. He couldn’t have invented HIS metal but for thousands and thousands of other people. HIS Metal! Why does he think it’s his? Why does he think it’s his invention? Everybody uses the work of everybody else. Nobody ever invents anything.’ (Jim Taggart) She (Jim Taggart’s Wife) said, puzzled, ‘But the iron ore and all those other things were there all the time. Why didn’t anybody else make that Metal, but Mr. Rearden did?’”
From dbhalling's own blog:
Rand anticipates Open Source socialists. This idea that no one invents anything is the standard argument of collectivists, but it does not stand up to scrutiny. Why has inventing been concentrated in the last two centuries in relatively small populations of the U.S. and western countries?
My conclusion: Not letting inferior cultures have access to such technology is the SELFISH thing to do. They just aren't ready for it yet.
If a society other than mine is stupid enough to follow the idiocy of Rachel Carson or of Mao, then I will gladly let that society go to the trash heap of history. When it is MY society, I will fight that idiocy to a point. Once past that point, I will shrug and leave.
Most "normal cultural evolution" is actually de-evolution. As long as that is not my society, I don't care very much. I will focus on my attention on what I can control in my own sphere of influence.
If a society is exposed to technological advancement that is not ready for it, it has not gone particularly well. America's original principle of non-interventionism served it well for a very long time. Since WW2, America has intervened where it doesn't belong, and like the Roman Empire has spread its treasure out so thinly that it will collapse very soon.
Sure, you only have to act in your interest. But that is not Star Trek, they say you are morally obligated to let death, starvation and misery happen when you could prevent it.
This is not an academic question. Many economists take this point of view. They say "I can show you that certain courses of action will lead to mass starvation and other problems, but I cannot form a judgement on which course of action you take."
??????????????????????????????????
Yes, but we are talking about a starship on a mission of discovery, a scientific adventure. Interfering in the culture of any planet is more or less going to affect the purity of the observation.
db,if you are saying one must choose Kirk or Galt...I’m going to have to choose Kirk.
I think Ayn Rand said she liked Spock.
*Mimi huffs off*
I had a friend that was the tram supervisor for a copper mine in the remote jungle of Irian Jawa (spelling?) and per agreement with the Indonesian government, had to employ local natives--recent converts from cannibalism, but still essentially primitive. The men wore only a long, conical gourd appropriately placed and were used in the tram house for cleaning. Darrel had ordered several barrels of lye based cleaner for cleaning the concrete of the tram house of grease. Since it was poisonous, it had a skull and crossbones painted on the barrels. One morning, when starting the day shift, the crew found several of the natives dead in the tram house. To them, apparently, the skull and crossbones meant food.
I just offer that as the impact to otherwise primitives of exposure to modernity, not in support of the Prime Directive.
Load more comments...