this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2023
17 points (100.0% liked)

Star Trek

450 readers
4 users here now

r/startrek: The Next Generation

Star Trek news and discussion. No slash fic...

Maybe a little slash fic.


New to Star Trek and wondering where to start?


Rules

1 Be constructiveAll posts/comments must be thoughtful and balanced.


2 Be welcomingIt is important that everyone from newbies to OG Trekkers feel welcome, no matter their gender, sexual orientation, religion or race.


3 Be truthfulAll posts/comments must be factually accurate and verifiable. We are not a place for gossip, rumors, or manipulative or misleading content.


4 Be niceIf a polite way cannot be found to phrase what it is you want to say, don't say anything at all. Insulting or disparaging remarks about any human being are expressly not allowed.


5 SpoilersUtilize the spoiler system for any and all spoilers relating to the most recently-aired episodes, as well as previews for upcoming episodes. There is no formal spoiler protection for episodes/films after they have been available for approximately one week.


6 Keep on-topicAll submissions must be directly about the Star Trek franchise (the shows, movies, books etc.). Off-topic discussions are welcome at c/quarks.


7 MetaQuestions and concerns about moderator actions should be brought forward via DM.


Upcoming Episodes

Date Episode Title
11-07 LD 5x04 "A Farewell to Farms"
11-14 LD 5x05 "Starbase 80?!"
11-21 LD 5x06 "Of Gods and Angels"
11-28 LD 5x07 "Fully Dilated"
12-05 LD 5x08 "Upper Decks"

Episode Discussion Archive


In Production

Strange New Worlds (2025)

Section 31 (2025-01-24)

Starfleet Academy (TBA)

In Development

Untitled comedy series


Wondering where to stream a series? Check here.


Allied Discord Server


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

For those of you here who think the prime directive is flawed, or could be adjusted.

What do you agree with, how would you change what you disagree with, and why?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Albert_Newton@startrek.website 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The Prime Directive is not a bad idea when it exists to minimise harm. When it gets turned into a pseudo-religious dogma, where it is considered better to allow a culture to be extinguished than to risk contaminating it, that's when there are problems for me.

[–] NVariable@startrek.website 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Zero tolerance policies ensure injustice in outlier cases. Yes, it’s unethical to interfere in a civilization’s development 99.9% of the time, but there are always exceptions. Ignoring outliers is pretending your system is above the fundamental laws of the universe.

[–] Benfell@hcommons.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@NVariable @Albert_Newton

First, and just to make crystal clear that I agree, I agree.

Second, I'm not sure Starfleet Command is, in any century, quite up to really comprehending this.

[–] NVariable@startrek.website 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A thought experiment occurred to me. What is the absolute best subject for a zero tolerance policy? Genocide is the first thought. The most horrific evil that could ever be inflicted.

But let’s say hypothetically, there was a virus that was highly-transmissible and has a 100% fatality rate. A virus killing all of mankind. And let’s say somehow this virus is sentient. We have no idea how it works, but we can confirm that it thinks, feels, etc. The virus is provably sentient for our hypothetical purposes.

If someone develops an absolute cure to the disease, it will save everyone, but it will also wipe out the sentient virus. That is technically genocide, but it saves all life from death. Should a zero tolerance policy govern? Or can we at least have a conversation about wiping out the sentient virus?

[–] cascheranno@hachyderm.io 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@NVariable @Benfell isn’t this an ‘us vs them’ choice for mutual genocide?

My hot take: we either (a) persuade the virus to stop our genocide or (b) kill it because we could have coexisted if only they’d been able to.

But that has a Corollary: If one deems ‘us vs them’ must be decided in favor of the organism able to coexist without annihilating another (something the virus can’t prevent itself from doing): is human-caused mass-extinction an indictment against us? Seems so.

[–] Benfell@hcommons.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@cascheranno @NVariable

For a precedent, consider how we treat nonhuman animals.

We would shamelessly obliterate the virus.

And yes, of course we're hypocrites with a human-caused mass extinction event.

[–] cascheranno@hachyderm.io 2 points 1 year ago

@Benfell @NVariable to be precise, we archive a sampling of our nonsentient murderous virii.

Basically exactly what I was going to say. Like what is the harm in contaminating them when the alternative is non-existence?