OnlineBookClub.org

So, a topic I have often debated with myself and others about is whether civilizations that are more technologically and politically developed should interact with less developed cultures on any level. Gene Roddenberry addressed the question and offered the fictional Prime Directive as an answer, saying that no culture should interfere with another until the less-developed of the two has reached a certain level. The idea was to prevent cultural destruction, corruption, poverty caused by sudden shifts (and inequality) in technology and political instability.

The moral issues of this, or course, is that then no one can "help" another civilization either. Meaning no medical aid, trying to help their politics, anything. And it's a real world issue, not just sci-fi. As such, I don't think i can say there's an absolute answer, but should a colder view be used sometimes in deciding our world interactions?

Here are some examples that have given me a bit of pause...

-The Opium Wars and control of India. The British Empire really pushed itself into Asia at one point, primarily out of desire for trade. When the Chinese especially showed little interest and even resistance, the British used an Opium trade to insert themselves into the market, starting a drug abuse system. And of course, we all know they had a lot of issues with India as well.

-Destruction of the American Indians. I doubt we need more shame-lessons on the demise of north, central and south American cultures in the name of expansion.

Those incidents of the past we usually push out of our minds after a moment of respectful reverence, but has anything changed?

-Attempts to establish democracy in Iraq. Can a political system be given? I always ask, if the French had played a larger role in the American Revolutionary War, and fought the British for us, and then (even if it was the identical document) given us our constitution, would our country have ever become a nation? I doubt Washington would have been president, under those circumstances. So can we give another country what we made for ourselves, especially when several aspects of their culture are in conflict with it?

-And the true argument starter, Africa. A lot of Countries in Africa are extremely poor, but is it our place to help? If we withdrew all aid, they would likely be in the same place we started from, more or less. If no country had ever interfered with Africa (or Asia) could those cultures have developed the same way as western ones, albeit at a slower pace?

I know this is a lot of material, and even yet it barely explains all that could be said. But these things make me wonder what place an "advanced" society should have had in the world, and if we're doomed to repeat these mistakes, if they are mistakes. What does everyone else think? (If you managed to read through this obscenely long essay I never meant to write.)

(I was just scrolling down and saw your interesting post.)

I think that even countries that think of themselves as advanced have more problems at home than they can deal with. Home is where the attention should be put.

As far as the prime directive in Star Trek. PHOOIE! Picard was the only star trek captain that gave a donkey's butt for the prime directive, and he had even tossed it aside a few times. It was hilarious how Janeway would use it to justify one action one episode, and in the next use it to justify a completely contradictory decision. She would always talk about how important it was to her to uphold her principals, yet they seemed to push her to different decisions every time. One episode she would be willing to sacrifice everything to rescue a crew member. The next episode she was willing to sacrifice Belana to a ludicrous law system where being angry was a terrible crime.

I think prime directives are just like many other ideas, fine in the theoretical phase, but they fall apart when they meet the real world.