The Prime Directive (part 1)
When we boldly go where no man has gone before, should we interfere?
I’d like to say a big thank you to all my readers, and especially those of you who have subscribed to The Eclectic. While I would probably still send my thoughts out into the electronic void anyways, it’s so much more gratifying to know that someone, somewhere, finds them interesting though to read. If you like what you’ve seen so far, please do subscribe, and if you really love it feel free to get a paid subscription which will help support my doing what I do here.
I have a confession to make: I’m a bit of a Trekkie. Not a hardcore one, I still have to watch the Picard series for instance. But I really do enjoy Star Trek, it’s just so much better overall than Star Wars (there, I said it, put that in your pipe and smoke it Star Wars fans!). While I do still like Star Wars (and space opera in general), I tend to gravitate towards somewhat more realistic, or at least remotely plausible sci-fi stories.
I’ve been planning to jot down some thoughts on the Prime Directive for a while now, but was inspired to do it now rather than later by an interesting discussion that I came across on twitter last recently. Earlier in March, the Guardian published an opinion piece admonishes its readers that when humans start “boldly going into space [we] should echo the guiding principle of Captain Kirk’s Star Trek crew by resisting the urge to interfere, researchers have said, stressing a need to end a colonial approach to exploration.” The researcher they quote suggested that “the focus should shift away from seeking to exploit discoveries.” She continued, claiming that “the Star Trek series and culture becomes a prime directive for how we could explore space: seeking not to interfere.”’
The article goes on to elaborate what this looks like. Not just leaving alien cultures alone, but that as we move out to explore space, our version of the Prime Directive should include a far broader non-interference, including an imperative of non-development and non-exploitation of resources, and non-colonization or settlement of anywhere off Earth—other than small, minimally impactive science bases presumably (though maybe not). Things get even weirder after that, with another scientist suggesting that in Canada at least, “Indigenous peoples had rights and responsibilities to unceded and treaty land, with the absence of a height limit.” (My emphasis). Not sure how that will jibe with the Outer Space Treaty, which throws doubt onto the ownership of anything in space, but one has to admire his ambition, which far surpasses the “exploiters” and “colonizers” he’s criticizing.
(Sidebar: this contention over ownership in space, of resources specifically, is a point which the Artemis Accords are working around in a practical manner to allow for the economic development of space.)
The implication is that this would entail a claim on all space above any indigenous—generally referred to as First Nations in Canada—territory from Earth all the way to the far end of the universe. An ever moving swath of sky (because the Earth rotates and also moves through space). Good luck with that.
For the people who believe that if humans go to space at all it should be restricted only to “the ‘pure’ reasons of science and exploration,” what do you think science is? Ultimately, science is about understanding & mastering nature for the benefit of humans. Yes, curiosity and a desire to understand are main motivations too, as is for theists the awe of "thinking God's thoughts after Him." But as an institution, is science simply for compiling a dull catalogue of facts & knowledge of how the universe works? To be looked at but never touched? I think not.
And what do those quoted in the Guardian think exploration is for? Again, people are often first motivated by curiosity, and a desire to see and understand, which is wonderful. But it doesn't stop there. In the history of our species, exploration always leads to people moving in and developing resources. Always. First we go and see what’s over the hill or around the next bend, then if we like it, we go live there. That’s how it works. We don’t stop with just looking, nor should we. The one caveat of course being that moving in and developing resources without being invited by the locals (if locals are present) is bad. But in our Solar System certainly, there are no locals, so there's no problem carrying out our natural inclinations.
Though the Guardian opinion piece doesn’t say, I’m quite sure that the idea of terraforming Mars, or anywhere else, would be absolutely out of the question for this new “do not disturb” ideology. All of this is a complete departure from the Prime Directive as portrayed in Star Trek, which is about non-interference with less developed (generally pre-warp) civilizations; something readers could not have failed to notice. Unless of course they (apparently like the researcher quoted earlier) really haven’t seem many episodes of any Star Trek series, and so have only a dim idea of how the United Federation of Planets and the Prime Directive works. The Federation heavily developed and colonized the Solar System, colonized multiple planets around many stars, and did their fair share of terraforming as they went. The idea of hanging a “do not touch” sign on the universe is completely foreign to their philosophy. So if we do use the Prime Directive as some sort of template for our spacefaring, it’s going to include a lot of settling planets, and developing resources. As it should.
Next time in part 2 of this mini-series, we’ll do a dive into the philosophy of the Prime Directive, and talk about whether or not it’s the best way to interact with intelligent life if and when we finally come across it. Hope you join me then, feel free to suggest anything specific you’d like to see discussed—perhaps a particularly fraught situation in Star Trek (please name the series and episode)—and maybe it will show up in the article.
A couple final thoughts. The first is that another part of what motivated me to write this is the excellent rebuttal of the Guardian piece by Mark Whittington. You can read it here.
The last thing I have to say, and I don’t mean to get too offensive here, but I think the researchers quoted by the Guardian, and maybe even the opinion piece author could be Star Wars fans masquerading as Trekkies.