The Prime Directive

I don't think that a Prime Directive like option should be allowable within a species itself. I find it unfair that knowledge would be withheld from the fellow members of our species because the "civilized" world thinks they could not handle the consequences. If one in the species can grasp a thought then all can be taught the same.

reply to post by kevinunknown


Yeah, I would have really loved to see a world where a system or rule like the Prime Directive would be active and upheld.

The first thing I could see is that the world would have a LOT less bloodshed. If you think about what the Spanish and Portuguese did to the natives of America I'm sure you see the benefit of the PD.

An amusing point though: What about criminal elements? Surely they would see America or South America as places to lie low or stage their raids from (depending where civilization has settled. Probably on islands rather than the mainland).

As technology advances and the criminals gain access to shorter commutes between their haven and civilization, it might become a problem.

At the same time, these criminals or pirates would've been dealt with just as the ones in our timeline. Yet, they could still prey on the locals we are avoiding.

Thoughts?

reply to post by Tarrok


Interesting. I see your points about greed. Do you, along those lines though, see any redeeming value in forcing nations to meet a certain standard before they are free to pursue their greed though? In fact, an argument can be made that standards sink as the greedy about that which they have used up in their pursuits.

I know this wouldn't be an easy thing to do. It would require a lot of pulling back and paradigm changes, and countries would all start at very different levels, and might even still have to be tiered as we have it today, but if done right, and the criteria were determined correctly, in the end it could benefit everyone...keeping both the greed and the suffering in check.

Something like this could force a nation to walk the walk instead of just talking the talk and also to assess and address their own priorites and issues before being "allowed" to attempt to impact or influence others.

Let's take another example or two re: nuclear weapons.

If a country refuses to be signatory to the NNPT perhaps all the nations who are should limit their economic relationships with that country.

Or suppose another country has pursued nuclear weapons before feeding their children. There's no balance in that. They should also be "sanctioned" in that they can't participate in world councils or decisions until they are up to a balance.

I'm still thinking this through, and I don't want it to sound like a police "state" but a more fair for everyone state. There are still some very major issues though that we probably won't be able to get around...like starvation and genocide in Africa.

I love the idea.

We're like 500 years to late for it to work. If we would have had this guideline all of North and South America and huge parts of the Pacific and Australia would still be home to lots of interesting and beautiful cultures.

A lot of animals would not have been extinct right now...

The biggest problem IMO is where are you gonna draw the line. Every single human is just as advanced as any other. Do you pick a technology like they did in Star Trek ? Like warp drive ?
Lets pick the wheel. That would result in a non interfering policy regarding the Maya or Inca culture. Yet at their time and age they were at some points more advanced then we were at the same time.

I don't thinkl you can not find a boundary that is in between two cultures which has a solid reason for it.


reply to post by Amagnon


OMG !

Your scenario will end with us traveling to outer space and every encounter with another species will start with "You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile "

I just now realize that the biggest and baddest enemy from star trek are actually the species we resemble most.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


I like your line of thinking, Lucidity.

I'm not sure. It's a difficult scenario to envision. I believe it definitely be better than what we have today but the main problem i see is forcing everyone to adhere to these rules. Particular emphasis of that point should be directed towards those at the top of the economic food chain. They would be the ones screening countries. But surely there would be a thriving black market providing cheap goods that are not subject to screening/testing/control?

But throwing away these issues and thinking this actually does work:

There needs to be guidance for developing nations to spread their economic contribution. It would be likely that weak economies will try to focus on one area of their economy and throw all their money into it to develop it and bring it up to the required standard. Then a sudden drop in demand for that product could bring that entire country down.

But if, like you say, every country is requested/required to be self-sufficient in terms of caring for its people, then yes this could definitely work.

The one thing I would like to point out though is the following:

Today we can picture the world as a human pyramid. It's tall and people up on top are pushing the others down with their weight. We have achieved much in science and the top people have impressive spending potential in their economy. Those further down are struggling because they are stuck and can't move because of the people further up.

In this hypothetical scenario, everyone is standing on their own and can exist on their own. There isn't a need for involvement but it would be beneficial because the group would be able to achieve more together.

I love the second image. We wouldn't necessarily have the amazing technological advances we have today, but we'd be a much happier world.

The most optimistic thing about that scenario is that by being supportive and helpful (Without being pushy!) I'm sure there would be much more tolerance on the world.

Sorry if I departed from reality too much.

"Primitive" societies would only benefit from a policy of non interference if they would be better off developing on their own accord. Since this would have to be decided on a case by case basis, what would be the advantage of instituting an unconditional injunction such as the prime directive? It would basically just take away people's ability to make intelligent decisions.

Though, I suppose it really depends on a) your goal, and b) your ability to predict the consequences of your actions. If your goal is to preserve intelligent 'life' and to prevent suffering, I guess you are obligated to provide any help which you perceive as likely to result in a future that contains greater abundance of life and less suffering. That being said, if you cannot distinguish the effects of your actions, if your confidence in your own predictive powers is too low, you may decide that primitive societies are at least as well off risking a natural, unguided development, with all the catastrophes that could ensue as a result, as they are under your supervision/protection.

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


Yeah i agree with you we are definitely 500 years or more to late, but what about even for the very few native tribes that still exist. A prime directive could still benefit them, or could it benefit them i suppose that really depends on your point of view.

reply to post by kevinunknown


Are there even natives left that have until this day been left alone ?

The benefit is for them IMO. I think our system has already proven that it is far from perfect. Why poison them to with it ?

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


I think i remember reading somewhere a few years ago about how they discovered some tribe in south America (don’t sure were) that had never seen another human. They thought that they were they only humans to exist.

I prime directive might benefit them and there could be other tribes that we have yet to discover.

reply to post by kevinunknown


Was that the tribe that actually Shoot arrows at the plane that fly by them ?

I hope your right about a few tribesthat are still out there. With our current development it is only a matter of time. Maybe, a tribe gets lucky.

However... I'm not in any position to decide for this tribe not to have contact with us and vice versa.

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


Yes i think that was the tribe i had in mind, would be interesting to know what ever happened to them? It must have been like what meeting ET for the first time will (might) be like for us.

Hi

I've taken the liberty to did a little research on lost tribes.
This is what I came up with :

Original article from 30 May 2008 ( The arrow assault. )

The next one says this :

In this day and age there are few places on Earth that remain unexplored, yet amazingly there are estimated to be more than 100 uncontacted indigenous tribes living in the world today.

These incredible people live just as they have for thousands of years, with the majority being situated in Brazil, Peru and New Guinea.

Source :

However... I need to add that the only one popping up was the one in the pictures. The 100 the second source talks about are nowhere to be found. Well... Not easily anyway

I did read they have a policy to leave them alone. Contact spreads germs and these people can die from the common cold, their immune system can't fight what it doesn't know.

If you do find it, let me know ? It could be I simply missed it ?