Star Trek The Next Generation Style Non-Interference


Kalinka-Shadows's avatar
I recently read an interesting story about a tribe in Paupua New Guinea that lives much as they have over the past ten thousand years in the Jungle. These camera men went to film these people who were untouched by technological development. It made me question my perspectives on a few things:

Their average life span was about 32 years old, virtually all of them have Malaria, they really don't have a written language, and they have almost hunted through their food supply.

As someone who grew up watching Star Trek TNG, and watched Roots in Middle School, when I lived in the US, I drew the conclusion that many of the problems in our world particularly, with regard to race, were as a result of people getting access to technology from outside their civilization that they did not understand the implications of. In addition to horribly racist religious dogma. The White Europeans traded steel and gunpowder for slaves and molasses.

This mercantile system destroyed whatever civilization development or technological development Africa could have had because the normal progression of development they would have had was disrupted, and it was the fault of White European Bigots that happened. The right thing to do, the Star Trek thing to do, would have been to Stay out of Africa until the population that lived there had built their own Universities, Factories, sailing ships, and technology. The same goes for the Native Americans,  but we as people, were awful. We did terrible things to the Native Americans and terrible things to the Africans, and look what it caused. (My Ancestors are Russians)

However, seeing that tribe in New Guinea, has made me wonder, would isolation from them just lead to their eventual extinction, possibly due to the environment they live in? Would it be better for them if the modern world were to say: We are Terrans, just like they are, it is wrong for them to have to live such horribly short brutish lives, lets do what we can to help them, because they are no better or worse than we are.
Comments18
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Comment Flagged as Spam
Kalinka-Shadows's avatar
I think I understand,
skulkey's avatar
either way a culture dies out...
PeKj's avatar
There are a few people in different parts of the world even today still living on a stone age level with little or none contact with the "global civilization".

In my opinion these people should be left alone, if this is what they want. Any contact should be on their terms. We should not take it on to ourselves to tell them what is best for them. Their lives might be better without us, even if we perceive those lives as short and brutish.
Kalinka-Shadows's avatar
Diacraft's avatar
"until the population that lived there had built their own Universities, Factories, sailing ships, and technology"

So basically wait for them to die of sheer stupidity and move in when they're gone. The natural evolution of diseases like Ebola would eradicate them. Advanced diseases from our developed world would make their way down via birds and wreak havoc. Hell, the plague almost got us and we didn't live in a breeding ground.

Asians and Europeans lived in an environment that demanded constant growth of civilization. There is no guarantee other civilizations would ever have advanced beyond what they were. Some still haven't. To say we should have allowed them to develop in the same way we had implies they would, or even could.
Kalinka-Shadows's avatar
That's not what I am saying at all. Its not good for an entire people to go extinct.
aillin1's avatar
If more advanced societies had not visited New Guinea, the New Guineans would have never developped any more than they have. Their environment, unlike civilizations in the Middles East, Asia, America, and Europe would not have developped a surplus of "cargo" (as the New Guineans put it) to develop technology.
The means for their survival works with resources that are not in a high enough supply to promote exploits in other practices in their tribes, such as crafting and philosophy.

Even in the Americas, cultures like the Incas and Aztecs were masters of mathematics, stone work and astronomy. why? Because their farms could run on only a portion of the population and still feed them all. They had food that could be stored for long periods of time.
The Amerindians, and this pisses me off, were not actually as technologically primitive as people think. What people don't realize is that most Amerindian cultures were nomadic and very spiritually connected to the land, so they did not want to build large monuments and dig into the ground for materials (like metal) they did not need. It's not because they couldn't, it is because they neither needed or wanted to. They were perfectly happy with their lifestyle and many are still happy living away from the cities and living off the land.
For some southern Amerindians, there are exceptions, however most of them built their homes in rock walls, so... Yeah. They also developped pottery and stone craft so, I wouldn't say they were that primitive for their time.

I'll add as a final note that there is no danger to New Guineans. They have survived for thousands of years on the means they have, and with what little they have absorbed in methods from more advanced cultures, they are not in danger. Any danger they may be in will either be caused by environmental change (mostly caused by us, no doubt) or from a freak natural disaster.

New Guinea, in retrospect, was simply delt a bad hand as far as technological sustainability was concerned. A biologist by the name of Jared Diamond did a study on that called "Guns, Steel, and Germs."
Kalinka-Shadows's avatar
I see. I have a feeling the Native Ameicans were more advanced than what White Europeans believed them to be.
LBAMagic's avatar
i don't agree with the star trek prime directive especially on doing nothing while allowing other people (lifeforms) to go extinct. they have taken the easy way out. however i do agree we should be respectful of other peoples culture/beliefs and also we should be careful on what aspects of modern technology are transferred to others.

a lot of our modern issues / strifes are caused when peoples way of life is taken away abruptly or changed too radically for their society to keep pace. loosing one's culture is very personal. also allowing access to harmful technology in the wrong hands (power hungy meglomaniacs or those with a grudge on their neighbours) is also an issue.

unfortunattley those people that want to sell weapons and other harmful commodities are only concerned on how to support their CEO's big pay packet, the board of directors expensive life style, and the stock holders hunger for a quick profit. and if the main company didn't sell these items, then the underworld networks definetly would. sigh! we are damned if we do, and damned if we don't.

anyway our history is more complicate than you think and if you are interested there is some excellent youtube video series on world history at the following link (just try to ignore the presenter's quirkiness) Crash Course World History - YouTube
"...drew the conclusion that many of the problems in our world particularly, with regard to race, were as a result of people getting access to technology from outside their civilization that they did not understand the implications of..."

You could say the same thing about the Europeans. The Chinese had gunpowder long before, it came from there, but they never fashioned weapons from it because it was dishonourable. This world is a gun filled zest pool these days - don't be so quick to dole out judgement on understanding. Also, implying that any "race" (a term that is thoroughly rejected for use in this context by any serious scientist) would be inherently less capable of discerning the implications compared to another group is offensive at the very least. There are models to show why cultures from colder climates would see materialism as holding higher value due to it leading to advancement - you can build and heat to shut out the cold, but not the warmth (on any elementary level of science) for example, which would create a culture that places high value on materialistic betterment. Also you don't value living in balance with nature if you have to dominate it to survive winter, unlike in a temperate climate, which leads to a far lesser degree of blind natural exploitation in many cultures that instead strive for balance - the difference between a dictator and a democracy.   

As far as TNG goes, the only way the prime directive holds as ethically viable is if you either: 1. remove yourself from the equation as a factor of nature or 2. see the new "elements" that have "naturally" arisen from evolutionary processes as of inherently higher in worth (due to its originality) than the vast negative consequences, a judgement that can either be extremely selfish (looking for the gain that you wouldn't get by propagating existing problem solving solutions) or impossible to evaluate (there is no such thing as a neutral assessment of worth unless you are omniscient). The prime directive is a faulty one, as shown to be many times in various episodes.
Kalinka-Shadows's avatar
Thats an excellent point. Its not to say they couldn't, its more to say understanding and ideas matter, It is possible to believe things that are wrong, and that aren't true, that goes for both the White Europeans that committed Genocide against the Native Americans, and the Native Americans that believed Shaman Magic can stop bullets.
mondu's avatar
would isolation from them just lead to their eventual extinction

Possibly. In Star Trek (the latest movie), it was shown that the federation was supposed to allow entire species to become extinct due to the prime directive.

You can also see that in TV documentaries about endangered animals. Some animals are on the verge of extinction, but you don't see that cameraman trying to help put when one of those animals gets eaten by a lion or some such.

You can't have both. You either interfere, or don't. Once you choose "we'll only interfere if...", the "if" part becomes longer and muddier.
Diacraft's avatar
:iconbitchpleaseplz: The J.J. Abrams movies? C'mon son.
i-stamp's avatar
While I wholeheartedly think that the J.J. Abrams movies were shit, the exact same subject came up in both Next Gen and Voyager (allow an extinction level event as per prime directive or interfere.)
Kalinka-Shadows's avatar
That has happened many times to show flaws in the Federation's Charter.