When the Prime Directive is Wrong.

[Rafael Thundercat]

I am not a expert at Star Trek Philosophy but if there is some here in the Forum. What about the pros and cons of Intervention? For example. There are now the constant appeal for Cease Fire at Gaza and well, basicaly and appeal for interviention and I see many influencers on Instagram posting on it. Good people that have their own bias for peace as anyone else. But I feel many oversimplify the issue as we just could stop the car to extinguish the fire in the motor, and most part of time a car where we are not even inside since many who appeal for intervention are not even there in the field either in the Israel side or Paleatine side. So lets imagine we just arive with our Star Ship at this planet with a little knowledge of how the state of things escalate to this level of absurdity. 

Would the prime directive apply or not?

Before answering, would be interesting to check this article bellow where is commenting on one StarTrek episode when the Prime Directive was put on test. 

Good read..

https://www.letswatchstartrek.com/2013/08/20/when-the-prime-directive-is-wrong-by-matt-sheean/

 

[Leo Gura]

Prime Directive is applicable when there is no easy external fix.

The Gaza situation is a deeply political, developmental issue which has no easy external fix.

Violating the Prime Directive makes most sense in a situation like a pandemic, where a quick vaccine can literally be the cure. But most of the world's political problems don't have such a simple technological solution, therefore the local parties have to resolve it themselves.

Edited December 19, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Parallax Mind]

21 hours ago, Rafael Thundercat said:

I am not a expert at Star Trek Philosophy but if there is some here in the Forum. What about the pros and cons of Intervention? 

We have the dilemma of involvement vs non- involvement. The higher road is non-involvement but that's not practical on the same planet you live on. 

[Danioover9000]

@Rafael Thundercat

21 hours ago, Rafael Thundercat said:

I am not a expert at Star Trek Philosophy but if there is some here in the Forum. What about the pros and cons of Intervention? For example. There are now the constant appeal for Cease Fire at Gaza and well, basicaly and appeal for interviention and I see many influencers on Instagram posting on it. Good people that have their own bias for peace as anyone else. But I feel many oversimplify the issue as we just could stop the car to extinguish the fire in the motor, and most part of time a car where we are not even inside since many who appeal for intervention are not even there in the field either in the Israel side or Paleatine side. So lets imagine we just arive with our Star Ship at this planet with a little knowledge of how the state of things escalate to this level of absurdity. 

Would the prime directive apply or not?

Before answering, would be interesting to check this article bellow where is commenting on one StarTrek episode when the Prime Directive was put on test. 

Good read..

https://www.letswatchstartrek.com/2013/08/20/when-the-prime-directive-is-wrong-by-matt-sheean/

 

   To those in tier 1 cognition it seems to make sense to violate the prime directive, but that's for very intense survival conditions where quick decisive action is needed. To tier 2 cognition, and to world situations where external fixes are not so obvious and complicated prime directive makes more sense to maintain.

[BlueOak]

If you want what we call a tier 2 answer.

You look at the planet as a series of interconnected systems. Do those systems benefit collectively, from intervention or not? That is things like:

International Trade, supply chains, the Creation of Jobs, Technologies, and Interconnected Global Networks. Things that don't require each country to be an island, thus decreasing costs through specialization of the above factors, or instead as is sometimes preferred, encourage independence and jack-of-all-trade approaches in critical industries - Domestic food production, for example, is the global food supply affected, ditto energy.

The level of fear or safety the action generates globally, fear negatively affects all other things you can name, except perhaps things like military readiness or the push for change within a country. Populations are incredibly easy to manipulate on the fight/flight response within an established and understood framework, people are using this in a more saturated propagandist way pre-war to try and achieve outcomes.

Tourism, Growth, Development/Education, Stability, Opportunity for Crime, Mischief or Malevolence, the Current trends being magnified, accelerated or slowed. The stability of a region is a huge factor, and without it, all kinds of negative side effects happen. Whereas education for example de-radicalises a population, and leads to more positive growth, job creation, and stability.

Long-term global strategic and security outcomes. For treaties, diplomacies, alliances. No world leader is thinking about this on a planetary scale, only from their side of it. BRICS vs NATO, leads to a constant undermining of each.

The actual borders. Seemingly nobody ever thinks of this until decades afterwards, or diminishes the importance due to other immediate concerns. The mess borders are left in, and the claims either side has on a piece of land, is often the cause of future skirmishes or wars.

Climate impacts of fuel use, political and social impacts of further financing military-industrial growth. (There is a social and cultural impact related to all industries and state-level actions). Now we have to consider diseases and viruses, more than we have. As the biosphere weakens and the proximity of urban centers is closer together, as well as the density for virus mutation, the natural barriers to infection (ex: distance/air and food quality) and cures taken from nature are reduced as well, giving a compounding effect. - In wartime, or the decades of social breakdown that follow virus and disease are rife.

Migration. Seemingly everyone hates it. Seemingly almost nobody understands the many above factors that cause the imbalances, which necessitate or at least encourage it.

Radicalization of the youth, again touching on the fear, stability, and education aspects. The growing interconnected communications across the globe, allow for that fear to be exported effectively. Thus meaning we have an ongoing and never-ending core of instability within our societies and flashpoints of violence. With sometimes net beneficial outcomes, but usually not.

This is a snippet of some of the bigger ones, we could keep going, you get the idea. Everything about you is interconnected with everything and everyone else. The more a leader can model or keep this systemic approach in mind, the better they can answer your question.

Isolation and inaction is also a choice, and not always the best one.

Edited December 20, 2023 by BlueOak

[Rafael Thundercat]

@BlueOak nice answer. As soon as you born you are ready interfering, not that you told you mother to birth you, so in a sense this imense Being is interfering on itself, it cant stop doing. On a individual level to stop interfering the only way is death. But even your death will have repectutions on a local level. So, yes, the decision would be, what form of interference you want to be? What repectutions you want to manifest by your presence on Reality?

Conscious Interference. Conscious Butterfly Effect.

[Rafael Thundercat]

I did this AI art to represent butterfly effect