[TML] Prime Directive's Prime Purpose?

[Jerry W Barrington]

On 10/14/07 3:45 PM, royce at efn.org wrote:

> PS  Rant:  In defense of Star Trek, the original series.  It is now easy
> to dismiss it as space fantasy, but look at how many radical breakthroughs
> had preceded it.  The previous two generations had seen a radical
> redefinition of the nature of the universe, a bewildering series of near
> miraculous new technologies, and a widespread belief (right or wrong, the
> belief was there) that humanity was "maturing".  Arguments that something
> is impossible (be it transporters or interracial kisses) were starting to
> look pretty weak.  Given the knowledge, experiences and attitudes of its
> day, The Original Series was awesome.
>  Remember.  The very fact that people do things like fly spaceships
> makes Traveller a space fantasy.  Which is a good thing, mind you.  We
> would all agree that roleplaying is escapist fantasy from its first
> premise.

You misunderstand the distinction I was making.

Altho a lot of the technology of Trek is far-fetched, and probably
impossible, there's enough wiggle room that it could be claimed that it
*could* happen.

But, humanity is basically the same today as they were 2000 years ago, and
will be in another 500.  That we would abruptly give up the concept of money
and all be brother (and sisters) is the fantasy.  Human nature is what it
is.  There will be charity... And greed.  Love... And hate.  And all the
other virtues, vices, foibles, and failings of humans.

Even a generous look at the 60's shows that all that stuff was there, even
with a few civil rights advances.  It could be seen there too, by those who
didn't look thru rose colored glasses.



On 10/17/07 12:02 PM, Stuart Frew wrote:

> Perhaps the lessen here is to introduce better farming practices before
> the introduction of germ theory :^)

Exactly:  step by step rise up the tech levels, not try to suddenly bring
them up to ours in one go.

> This is still not a reason, to my mind anyway, not to try to "uplift" a
> society to be similar to ours (Federation, Imperim, Brittish Empire,
> <Insert Culture Here>).

The thing is, most real examples we have of one society messing with a lower
tech one, they didn't try to bring them up.  They exploited them, or
exterminated them.  [BTW, under exploit I include any attempt to *make* them
convert to Christianity :) ]



On 10/17/07 12:02 PM, Justin Bunnell wrote:

> All the high-tech society has to do is review the state of R&D on the culture
> in question and give solutions to the ones the subject culture is CURRENTLY
> investigating but having troubles with.

Good idea.  And don't forget, sometimes the best help would be to point out
when the researcher is headed in completely the wrong direction.



On 10/17/07 12:02 PM, Leonard Erickson wrote:

> You see, the stuf they'll adopt has "obvious" short term benefits.
> The other stuff only has bad effects over a longer yterm than they
> are going to look at (and often, would require looking past cultural
> baggage).

Absolutely.  No if we could just get the rest of humanity to see longer-term
than their our arm's-reach...

Have you ever considered politics?  :D



On 10/17/07 12:02 PM, Kelly St.Clair wrote:

> So the moral is "do it to them first, because we can"?  It's okay for us to
> manipulate others so that they don't become rival manipulators?
> How very... pragmatic.

A lot of human behavior is.