PREVIEW: Star Trek: Countdown to Darkness #1

[Shikidum]

They were never consistent about using the Prime Directive anyway. If they cannot keep it consistent why have it?

[C. Earl]

The Prime Directive changed between TOS and TNG. During Kirk's time, it allowed him to intervene in less-advanced civilizations if they had already been tampered with, in danger of stagnation, or under the influence of some super computer. By Janeway's time, it was far more "we're not getting involved with less-advanced civilizations at all," and many of the things Kirk had done were considered violations by then, although they were in accordance with it at the time. There were a few instances that Kirk even played the role of "Prime Directive Cop," going after a violator or attempting to fix the damage that had been done.

[AJBopp]

The Prime Directive was always a plot device, a contrivance used to add complexity and interest toward the plot resolution. In the 60s it was used less consistently. In the 90s they tried to explain the inconsistency by saying "it was a different time." Really it was just tossed aside when the writer couldn't or didn't want to take the time to be more creative about it (Vall comes to mind from The Apple). Further, Star Trek was always meant to be a reflection on the social and technological issues of the day. In the 60s a big theme was the machines taking over, thus the plot for The Apple or The Ultimate Computer. With The Next Generation and onward the Prime Directive was taken more seriously and applied somewhat more consistently, but not entirely. Stories then tended to reflect social issues such as spreading a particular theology or political view where it didn't belong, a result of the changing atmosphere in the Middle East.

However, the contrivance of the Prime Directive, when used well, is a good one that should be maintained, as at it's heart it reflects the core principle of Star Trek, that mankind has evolved into something greater than we currently know; that mankind will improve, and that we will stop trying to make everyone else be like "us" - whoever "us" may be.

[Shikidum]

However, the contrivance of the Prime Directive, when used well, is a good one that should be maintained, as at it's heart it reflects the core principle of Star Trek, that mankind has evolved into something greater than we currently know; that mankind will improve, and that we will stop trying to make everyone else be like "us" - whoever "us" may be.

Just because you share technology does not mean that you are indocrinating a whole planet. Heck i could argue that handing out communication devices facilitates trade and makes it less likely that people will go to war.

[AJBopp]

Just because you share technology does not mean that you are indocrinating a whole planet. Heck i could argue that handing out communication devices facilitates trade and makes it less likely that people will go to war.

The point of the Prime directive is also about not interfering with the natural development of a species, not to avoid indoctrinating them to anything. It is also the point that if you share technology or viewpoints or anything else, it can't be known what the impact will be on the planet or its populations. Sharing comms tech would certainly change the natural development, and could not guarantee less likelihood of going to war (could increase it, actually). The Prime Directive also suggests that it's not the Federation's business to try to influence a species likelihood of going to war in either direction.

[Shikidum]

The point of the Prime directive is also about not interfering with the natural development of a species, not to avoid indoctrinating them to anything.

So if a massive plague can be cured by modern medicine Starfleet is not going to help even if it wipes out the entire culture. So much for the humanitarian armada.

[AJBopp]

So if a massive plague can be cured by modern medicine Starfleet is not going to help even if it wipes out the entire culture. So much for the humanitarian armada.

An extreme example, but if it doing so would prevent the natural evolution of another species, then of course.

I mean, where does that line of thinking stop? Would it be ok to go back and prevent the destruction of Pompeii, not knowing what the consequences would be? Do you assissinate Hitler or Napoleon before they come to power? Do you save the dinosaurs from the nuclear winter of a giant asteroid strike on the basis that they are magnificent creatures with millions of years of history?

Yes, the decision is very much one of humanitarianism, once the scope of your vision extends beyond the immediate.

[C. Earl]

The Prime Directive was always a plot device, a contrivance used to add complexity and interest toward the plot resolution. In the 60s it was used less consistently. In the 90s they tried to explain the inconsistency by saying "it was a different time."

It was used pretty consistently in TOS. It was in the latter Trek shows that it was regarded as a more hardline thing with Kirk retroactively regarded as a common violator of it, when he really was more of an enforcer of it during his time.

[dupersuper]

An extreme example, but if it doing so would prevent the natural evolution of another species, then of course.

Their evolution into corpses?

[Parch]

The Prime Directive and the struggle with it has been an important plot point. There was a lot of episodes dealing with it. I can't see them making it go away, especially when it's an interesting source for stories.

I do think IDW has dropped the ball with the Star Trek franchise. It really needs a new art team.

[C. Earl]

I do think IDW has dropped the ball with the Star Trek franchise. It really needs a new art team.

They don't have a regular art team, but rather different art teams that they cycle through.

But the art in every Trek comic book series has always been dicey--either they get the likenesses spot on at the expense of the characters looking like traced photographs, or they forsake the likenesses somewhat so they resemble comic book versions of the characters.

[Shikidum]

Bopp

An extreme example, but if it doing so would prevent the natural evolution of another species, then of course.

And what if that new species is utterly evil?

I mean, where does that line of thinking stop? Would it be ok to go back and prevent the destruction of Pompeii, not knowing what the consequences would be?

Yeah, i would save a lot of people.

Do you assissinate Hitler or Napoleon before they come to power?

Somebody like Napolean would had emerged anyway. There was no point of killing him, the evolution from monarchy into the hands of demagogic dictators was natural. The French Revolution was a disaster, somebody like himwa expected. Hitler? Somebody else likes him could had taken power. No point.

Do you save the dinosaurs from the nuclear winter of a giant asteroid strike on the basis that they are magnificent creatures with millions of years of history?

They are not sentient so let them die.

Yes, the decision is very much one of humanitarianism, once the scope of your vision extends beyond the immediate.

I fail to see how letting thos creatures die when you claim to be a humanitarian stat is justifiable.
Earl

It was used pretty consistently in TOS. It was in the latter Trek shows that it was regarded as a more hardline thing with Kirk retroactively regarded as a common violator of it, when he really was more of an enforcer of it during his time.

Could you give me some examples?

Parch:

The Prime Directive and the struggle with it has been an important plot point. There was a lot of episodes dealing with it. I can't see them making it go away, especially when it's an interesting source for stories.

If Babylon 5 did fine without a Prime Directive...

[dupersuper]

If Babylon 5 did fine without a Prime Directive...

What's that got to do with anything?

[thwhtGuardian]

If Babylon 5 did fine without a Prime Directive...

And so did Buck Rogers...but that doesn't mean anything. Different shows have different internal rules that make them unique.

[Shikidum]

What's that got to do with anything?

That the Prime Directive does not have to be an important plot point and there are plenty of other interesting sources for stories.