Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Hey you fancy people!
Welcome to That Sci-Fi Show, I'm Jay.
Real quick, my son made me promise to say hi to his friend Aiden.
Hi Aiden!
I'm not doing this again.
Let's talk about Star Trek and philosophy, right after the bump.
Star Trek or as my 1 year niece old pronounces it, Twek Shtaws, is currently on it's 7th
TV series... and there's just TONS of it, including:
The Original Series, The Animated Series, The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Voyager,
Enterprise, and Discovery.
Then there's The Motion Picture, The Wrath of Khan, Search for Spock, The Voyage Home,
The Final Frontier, The Undiscovered Country, Generations, First Contact, Insurrection,
Nemesis, The Star Trek reboot, Star Trek: Into Darkness and Star Trek Beyond.
Whew.
Break it all down and you have an estimated 700+ hours of content... and I've seen it
all... at least three times.
The original Star Trek debuted in 1966 and was created by self-described Humanist Gene
Roddenberry, who once said that Star Trek was, quote, "my social philosophy, my racial
philosophy, my overview on life and the human condition".
Humanism is an outlook on life or system of thought that eschews the divine or other supernatural
matters, instead stressing the innate goodness and potential of human beings and while this
video isn't about Humanism, understanding it can provide some much needed context as
much of Star Trek seems to be based in this idea.
For Roddenberry, the future was not a dystopian nightmare, in fact he believed that it would
be quite the opposite and Star Trek reflects this belief.
Star Trek emphasizes non-violent attempts at conflict resolution, cooperation, respect
for all forms of life, reliance on science in the search for the truth and so much more
but... where do we start?
Well, let's start with The Prime Directive or Starfeet General Order #1.
That sounds like it might be important.
Warning: Do not engage in drinking games while watching this video.
If you drink every time I say "directive" or "prime" then you will die.
The more you know.
The Prime Directive is a policy of non-interference concerning other cultures and civilizations.
The object of the Prime Directive is to prevent outside interference within less advanced
civilizations.
In practice, this means that when dealing with or studying any less technologically
advanced civilization, Starfeet personnel cannot identify themselves or their mission,
interfere with the social development of the planet or make any references to space, other
worlds or the existence of more advanced civilizations - even if that means sacrificing the lives
of Starfeet personnel, or even one's own life.
The Prime directive is often thought of as applying only to planets who are unaware of
the existence of space-faring civilizations or only to pre-warp civilizations but it's
a bit more complex than just that.
For example, the Prime directive also prevented Starfleet from involving itself in the purely
internal affairs of other advanced civilizations.
Case in point, the Federation had a policy of non-interference during the Klingon Civil
War causing Worf to briefly leave Starfleet to get involved.
On the other hand, there were civilizations the Prime Directive did not apply to.
Human colonies, for example, we're not covered by the Prime Directive at all.
It could also be suspended in certain circumstances.
For example, the directive applied only to "living and growing" cultures.
It's not clear exactly what constitutes a "growing" culture or a "living" culture in the
eyes of the Federation.
However, we do know that this exception was once used on a planet called Beta III where
the people were being mind controlled by an ancient computer -possibly one of the most
Star Trek plots ever.
Other instances where the Prime Directive might be suspended included (but were not
limited to) societies that send general distress calls, those that already knew of and had
previously contacted The Federation or a society that engages in necessary diplomatic discussions
with the Federation.
The list of exceptions goes on and on (there were 47 sub-orders to the Prime Directive
by the latter part of the 24th century).
That's not even getting into The Omega Directive, General Order #24 or the many cases of Starfleet
captains bending or outright violating the Prime Directive.
It's important here to note that even when skirting or violating the Prime Directive,
members of The Federation seem to genuinely believe in the philosophy behind the directive
and often do try to uphold at least the spirit.
Jean-Luc Picard once said, quote:
"There can be no justice so long as laws are absolute.
Even life itself is an exercise in exceptions."
For example, Captain James T. Kirk once armed one faction of a civilization with primitive
flintlock firearms.
His intention, right or wrong, was to set the balance of power on that planet back to
the way it was before the Klingons interfered by arming the opposing faction with the same type of weapons.
This is an example of violating the directive itself while also keeping the spirit of the
directive in mind.
The justification (or rationalization) being that he could have armed them with superior
weapons but chose to restore the balance that existed before, therefore not choosing one
side over the other, even though he had a clear bias to one side.
I personally take issue with Captain Kirk's actions here but at the same time I'm not
sure what the alternative would be.
It's a tricky issue as a strict reading of the Prime Directive would seem to say that
Kirk shouldn't interfere with the Klingons either, regardless of what they're doing and
that can't be the right answer.
So did Kirk undo the contamination the Klingons introduced to this stone Age society?
Or did he exacerbate the situation?
Was there another solution?
For that matter, how does The Prime Directive hold up as a philosophy in general?
Quoting Captian Picard again, he once said:
"The Prime Directive is not just a set of rules.
It is a philosophy, and a very correct one.
History has proven again and again that whenever mankind interferes with a less developed civilization,
no matter how well intentioned that interference may be, the results are invariably disastrous."
That's a bold statement coming from the same man who also said that "life itself is an
exercise in exceptions".
This quote illustrates the issue with the Prime Directive - it claims that no interference
has ever been (or could ever be) positive.
Now, I won't argue the point that human history is full of examples of a larger, more technologically
advanced civilizations interfering with smaller less advanced ones to disastrous effect.
The Prime Directive seems to be a direct response to the European colonial period, where higher-tech
societies oppressed and murdered people, even while claiming that the were helping them.
Still, the idea that interference is "invariably disastrous" seems far too absolute for me.
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes!"
Wrong franchise, but still, just because interference has gone very badly in the past doesn't mean
that there are no examples of interference going well to be found.
This could be an example of a logical fallacy called a "hasty generalization".
This is where someone uses a very small sample when coming to a conclusion.
While it's true that interference in less technologically advanced cultures has often
gone very poorly, there are also examples of of it going very well.
It's hard to imagine that building bathrooms or passing our mosquito tents could lead to
disaster and yet the Prime Directive would have us believe that any type of interference
is "invariably disastrous" - a least according to Picard.
Clearly whatever sample size The Federation is using, if it contains not one single case
of interference going well, then it's not big enough.
Of course the hasty generalization fallacy would be the fault of the show's creators.
In continuity, Picard could be seen as falling victim to the "appeal to authority fallacy"
and note that this one has a fancy Latin name that I'll put on screen but I'm not attempting
to pronounce it.... hell, I...
I barely English good.
The appeal to authority happens when people misuse authority, in this case The Federation
and Starfleet.
Picard is ignoring testable and concrete evidence from historians and scholars who would tell
him all about the many 20th and 21st century examples of humanitarian interference that
went well.
Even though Picard himself could be considered an expert in ancient cultures, he still goes
with what the authority has told him (that interference is "invariably disastrous") rather
than looking into himself or turning to a more appropriate expert.
This is akin to taking history lessons from career politicians, history and philosophy
are simply not their area of expertise (although, on this point, I will concede that everyone
in the 24th seems to be an expert in damn near everything).
So why doesn't Picard think this through and come to a different conclusion?
Well, he sometimes does, we've already noted that Starfleet Captains have a habit of bending
or breaking the Prime Directive.
One explanation as to why Picard and others keep returning to this same line of thought
is bind dogmatism.
While the Directive is certainly a dogma in that it is "a set of principles laid down
by an authority as "incontrovertibly true", it's still also true that the prime directive
is not intended to be exactly the same thing to all people in all situations and can be
(and often is) subverted completely through it's own exceptions and the actions of those
in charge of enforcing it.
I would argue that this is intentional.
Star Trek as a show seems to avoid easy answers and prefers to leave the conclusions up to
the person watching the show.
Even the famous utilitarian tag line "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the
few" is contradicted in the very same movies where it's introduced and while Star Trek
preaches the vitues of cold logic, it also often goes out of it's way to show us how
stupid cold logic can be in some situations.
To me, the message is clear, a good idea taken to it's logical extreme can be very bad.
The moral indifference that Starfleet seems to show toward tragedies like plagues, natural
disasters and other suffering is cold, indifferent, and morally questionable but perhaps we as
the audience are meant to see that.
Perhaps the show wants us to know that a good idea can be taken too far.
And let me be clear, I believe the Prime directive, at it's core, is a good idea.
Perhaps the best solution would be to give more discretion to those in the feild.
The problem here is that violating the Prime Directive to cure a plague, for example, could
be just as likely to start a plague on the same planet - if the history of the colonization
of the Americas is any indication.
So these exceptions have to be carefully implemented and that discretion has to come with training
(training that ideally would include a lesson in the dangers of blind dogmatism).
My main point, however, is that Star Trek is upfront about the issues with the Prime
Directive and puts them on full display for everyone to see.
I won't say that Gene Roddenberry had no agenda, because as stated earlier, he literally said
that Star Trek was his philosophy.
I'm just saying, let's be careful not to conflate the conflict intentionally created to make
the show interesting with the message of the show itself.
At it's heart, Star Trek is a long series of morality tales about the dangers of things
like racism, dogma and, yes, foreign intervention.
In the real world, people don't always make the right choice.
People can be blinded by dogma and logical fallacies trip up even the best and the brightest.
Let's keep in mind that Star Trek doesn't want us to accept everything the Federation
or Starfleet says.
The guys at Wisecrack once said that Star Trek is critical of easy answers and I think
THAT is worth keeping in mind.
I'd like to thank all our patrons on Patreon for their endless patience and incredible support.
These are their names on screen. I love you fancy nerds.
This won't be the last video we do on Star Trek and philosophy, I'm working on another
video that will guest Star LoreReloaded so keep an eye out for that.
I also still have an episode coming up about The Avengers and lot's more so hit that subscribe
button and ring that bell.
I mean it.
Do it.
Do it now.
Feel the peer pressure.
Until next time guys, I'm Jay Parks.
Check it out guys, my chair broke. When I told my bestest buddy Marc about it, he said
"Please tell me you were recording when it happened!". What a great friend. I wasn't recording... Here's a re-enactment.