The Prime Directive

If you’re a trekkie you will probably already have anticipated what I am going to propose, for the record I am not a diehard trekkie so if you want to add to this feel free. If you’re not familiar with the prime directive allow me to give a very quick definition.

In the Star Trek franchise the Prime Directive effectively says that no extraterrestrial being can interfere with the culture and technology of any primitive civilisation on any planet, primitive is defined as being any planet without warp technology. The prime directive says you can observe but not interfere. This however is not a thread about me babbling on about star trek jurisprudence.

It got me thinking, what would it be like if we on earth adopted our own version of the prime directive were by we would not interfere with any civilisation unless they had reached a particular level of cultural and technological advancement. This would outlaw anybody manipulating the existence of native tribes throughout the word, we could only observe them. So I want to discuss weather this would be a good idea or not because I can understand both sides of the argument.

On the plus side it’s probably a good thing if we refuse to become involved in a less advanced culture so as to maintain their traditional existence and there could also be other possible advantages in observing them scientifically. Also if we were to wait until such a time as they were deemed by us to be advanced enough for us to reveal our self’s to them they are likely to fear us less and this could improve their integration into our society. It would also ensure that if a culture does not want to be exposed to our civilisation then they would not. There is also the possibility if we were to adopt a Prime Directive long term then the cultures that are less advanced than us just now could one day develop their own technologies that could become mutually beneficial everyone.

Although it might have its advantages it will also have its disadvantages, the main one being where to draw the line. When dose a culture become advanced enough so as not to be considered as being “protected” under a Prime Directive? It also raises the question of weather is it ethically justifiable to refuse technological and cultural advancement to a society just because we deem them to be too primitive.

Then what if we had done this throughout history, if we had ignored finding America because we thought it was too primitive, how different would history look. In truth we would all probably be less advanced however we might also be more peaceful, we will never know.

What if extraterrestrials really do have a Prime Directive and have decided that we are too primitive for them to reveal themselves to us.

Yes, the ET's prime directive is indeed real. They may not interfere with a less conscious species. Once humans reach their true intelligence levels, meaning, very high levels of non-polarized consciousness, then they will start to show themselves globaly, for all to see.
The polarized consciousness (experimental) is the reason there is no direct contact on a global scale.

reply to post by lagenese


I can honestly say i don’t believe in anything you just talked about, I was thinking more along the lines of we haven’t really achieved advanced space flight yet so they don’t bother with us. Yeah so I don’t agree with anything you just said, do you have proof or was that just all speculation.

This knowledge stems from inner knowing. Proof exists only to secure the ego that is unable to know on his own. This process is part of the human experience and like everything else, consciousness evolves. Evolution of consciousness involves the letting go of the memory of the human race. Humans have a tendency to rely on it, this is in part the reason why
most are unable to have answers on their own. Planetary memory is what i call dead memory. The living memory is cosmic in nature, and is not subject to the laws of the physical realm.

I do, however, respect your opinion regarding this subject and i thank you for bringing up this interesting topic.

reply to post by kevinunknown


It would have worked if started about 2000 years ago..

Not many primative tribes left to preserve..

A shame really, some of them tribes were very happy and prosperous.

reply to post by lagenese


If what you say was true, why would you believe they are alien and not ancient humans?
We know so little about Earths past..

reply to post by CynicalM


First, i don't believe

I've been saying this for years, maybe in a slightly different way. Have a list of criteria that countries must meet internally before being allowed to "play" economically or in any other way on a global level.

Have humanitarian abuse in your country? Have starving children in your country? A high infant mortality rate? No exports allowed.

Have terrorists in your country? All planes from your country will be subject to greater scrutiny and restrictions.

Stuff like that.

reply to post by lagenese


Kind of worrying to believe that we are just an experiment...

I know what chemists do with bad cultures.
(pun intended)

reply to post by ~Lucidity


Like a world policeman?

Problem is TPTB only care about countries that they can benifit from...

reply to post by lagenese


do you have any prove other than Douglas Addams books that we are all part of a experiment. You can’t say you just know things without having proof, so what is your proof?

Originally posted by CynicalM
reply to post by lagenese

 

Kind of worrying to believe that we are just an experiment...

I know what chemists do with bad cultures.

(pun intended)

The experiment went like this:

1- They elevated the vibrational level of pre-historic man so that the spirit could connect to the mind, which resulted in the process of thought.

2- There were more than one race involved in this experiment. At one point, one of these races went to far, and "the founding race" had to intervene. But the first humans (Adamics) rebelled against their "masters", this is why the disconnection from the universal cirucuits occured. Some people reffer to this as "the original sin".

3- Earth has been put in quarantine so to speak until we reach higher levels of consciousness, in order to be set free from the physical realm and continue evolution in other spheres of reality.

reply to post by kevinunknown


When you'll experience inner knowing, you'll know what i'm talking about. In the mean time, just continue not believing in my words, or else you will subject your mind to an authority other than your own.

Edit to add: If i was to write a book and have it published, would that count as proof?

[edit on 15-8-2010 by lagenese]

reply to post by CynicalM


No. Not at all. A list of criteria and choice.

*Fixed dyslexic spelling

[edit on 8/15/2010 by ~Lucidity]

reply to post by lagenese


Ah so you’re enlightened, is that what you’re trying to tell us? We don’t have your superior intellect so we can never understand your proof. Wow what a fantastic get out clause, how about you attempt to humour us with some prove.

reply to post by kevinunknown


Intellect has nothing to do with my words. Intellect is based on the memory of the race. Inner knowing isn't. I do not try to force anyone to "believe" in my words, just trying to participate in an intelligent discussion, without manipulation or influence.
Peace and light to you my friend.

Originally posted by lagenese
reply to post by kevinunknown

 

When you'll experience inner knowing, you'll know what i'm talking about.

The problem with this line of explanation is simple - the details.

You and I might both know - but if so, then we also know the truth does not exist in physical reality, it cannot - because that is subjective, and interpreted - so whatever our own truth might be - there is no reason, nor benefit in explaining it to others.

So, my question would be - if you know this - as you must - if you are truly knowing, then why would you bother trying to explain it - because you know that is pure paradox.

Regarding the OP - its an interesting idea, for myself I tend to think that space-faring ET's will not be biological - they will be energy or mechanical beings. That is based purely from extrapolation, and is speculative. I simply don't think biological humans will exist in say 2000 yrs time, unless there is a massive setback in technology - we will either integrate with machines, and eventually become machines - or the machines will rise up against us and wipe us out.

Now if ET's are mechanical - and they had a biological past - then they either wiped out their ancestors, or evolved away from them. In either outcome - they would be more interested in our computers, seeing that as basic life - and us as the equivalent of RNA, or micro-organisms.

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
I've been saying this for years, maybe in a slightly different way. Have a list of criteria that countries must meet internally before being allowed to "play" economically or in any other way on a global level.

Have humanitarian abuse in your country? Have starving children in your country? A high infant mortality rate? No exports allowed.

Have terrorists in your country? All planes from your country will be subject to greater scrutiny and restrictions.

Stuff like that.

It's an interesting line of thinking to go down, same as with the OP's Prime Directive. I see two problems however.

First, economic interaction started very slowly in history. It began with a single trader going to the next community. Then a trade guild to many other cities and finally a nation with another nation. The contacts were already there and the historical trade partners existed. We have also grown used to access to certain goods that are primarily imported.

I say this with continuous deep regret: Humanity has not reached a point where it is prepared to collectively undergo an action that is morally praiseworthy rather than conductive to wealth acquisition.

To add another (although modified) Trek reference: "The WANTS of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

Therefore, the other reason is quite simple: greed. It currently has no threatening adversary and is thus the alpha predator in the food chain of our collective minds.

Individually we might potentially be shiny lights, holding selfishness and selflessness in balance. Yet as soon as we look at the characteristics of governments, monarchs or whatever, it all becomes selfishness.

Yep! Let's follow the Prime Directive on Earth also.

But let's add a clause. Everybody stays in their own village.

reply to post by Tarrok


Good points, but like i said in the OP I am not saying that this would be a good idea, I can see the arguments for and against a Prime Directive. I just think it be interested to see how it works, granted however it’s probably too late now. This whole debate is entirely hypothetical.