Just my opinion but I think that non-interventionism should be promoted here. Especially when it comes to political situations like this. It’s a dangerous game.
"Of course, you know of the Prime Directive, which tells us that we have no right to interfere with the natural evolution of alien worlds. Now I have sworn to uphold it, but nevertheless I have disregarded that directive on more than one occasion because I thought it was the right thing to do. Now, if you are holding on to some temporal equivalent of that directive, then isn't it possible that you have an occasion here to make an exception, to help me to choose, because it's the right thing to do?"
A metaphor is never going to cleanly map from one situation across to another. If it did, we would have no need for the metaphor as we would just have two identical scenarios. The metaphor’s purpose is to elucidate insight in one matter by presenting another with some similarities.
If you’re going to object to a metaphor, I think you should do it on the grounds that it offers little to no insight into the situation. In my opinion, if you’re going to object to the above quote based on the fact that Iran is, in terms of infrastructure if not politically, well developed then you may as well also disregard it because Iranians are not an alien species and software developers are not captains of space ships.
To use another metaphor: you’re losing the forest for the trees. Please don’t object to this on the grounds that there is no foliage on the bridge of the USS Enterprise.
Your metaphor would work if we discussed whether or not to contact some isolated tribe in Amazon.
Then we could have discussed pro/cons of destroying someone way of life by introducing our civilization vs. turning a blind eye to the poor (by our standards) living conditions of the tribe.
Iran (even if you don't like its political system) is not it.
The metaphor obviously doesn’t resonate with you. It does resonate for myself and for 13 other people. I wish you well and hope you find something more to your liking.
No, it is sad that you cannot accept that people respond differently to different things. That two different viewpoints can exist and both be wrong and both be correct to varying degrees simultaneously. That one man's trash is another man's treasure. There is no "fact" in metaphor and story, only interpretation. It is not objective science. Rather ironically given the thread, you're acting as if you're the ayatollah of metaphor and that we should all just get in line and bow to your viewpoint.
What (I presume) you see in the quote:
- We have a rule not to interfere in *primitive* cultures.
- It is sometimes acceptable to break this rule when I feel it is morally right to do so.
When you read the quote, your emphasis is on the primitive. To you, the prime directive as a metaphor can only stretch to cover that. However, other people can take this advice and apply it in a more abstract way to many different areas of life. For example:
- We have a rule not to interfere in other cultures.
- We have rule not to interfere in other parts of the business.
- I have a rule not to interfere in other people’s affairs.
For example, the latter could form part of Kant’s Axe Murderer dilemma. You may think it is unacceptable to lie, but when faced with an axe murderer at the door looking for someone they intend to murder, you may choose to lie to save the intended victim. You may or may not class this as interference. You may go further and ring the police at which point I think you are interfering by most people's definition. Even though we are now talking about axe murderers and are very far away from primitive alien cultures, there is still a link between the two scenarios regarding rules around interference and when it is morally right to do so.
You could almost see this as a percentage scale, where 100% would be if a future space ship captain was debating whether to interfere in a primitive culture and 0% being do I want to get a bacon roll for breakfast tomorrow (e.g zero relevance). In this case, yes, your point about the amazonian tribe IS more relevant as it ticks more similarity boxes. Maybe it would score something like a 90% on the similarity scale. However, “we have a rule not to interfere in other cultures” is, in my mind, not too many percentage points off, maybe say 85%. To you it may be much less, say 30%. That’s fine, we are allowed to have different viewpoints.
The one thing I would say is that I personally feel that if you take a restrictive view of stories (which is what I would consider only allowing yourself to consider the prime directive relevant to primitive cultures) you are cutting off a lot of the richness of story telling. Writers want us to take their stories, be they set in the past, present and future, and relate it to our lives and current events. If you don’t do that, then what even is the point in taking the time to read them? Do you even feel a connection to the story? Do you feel it has enriched your life in any way? Are you really watching Star Trek in case you one day have to make an ethical decision on whether to interfere with an Amazonian tribe or do you feel that there are lessons within it that can be applied to more mundane and ordinary existences?
Thank you for your thoughtful answer. It is more than my comment deserves. I agree with most you said. I had to look up what is "Kant’s Axe Murderer dilemma".
I feel the same way that the best sci-fi is about us/our lives. Though disagree with conclusions --reasonable people can disagree-- if we would remove the god-like difference in power between groups then there were not the prime directive in the first place.
In practical terms, I don't expect any debate/morale dilemmas when we encounter isolated tribes -- they are likely to be exterminated for profit one way or another. The prevailing logic in practice: the might is right. Then the story can be spinned in whatever way to make it digestible by the public if necessary.
that set the wrong tone for this entire comment thread to begin with.
I agree that the Prime Directive of Star Trek is dependent on primitive species. I think that the Prime Directive of Life is to not interfere in other people’s business without good reason. In the case of Iran right now, if I had the skills (which I don’t) I’d be tempted to break the Prime Directive of Life because I think there are people there being killed and tortured for no reason other than it aids the men in power maintain their status and that doesn’t sit right with me. Obviously if you kill one monster you can’t be sure an even worse one won’t take its place but for me, I’d rather take my chances. I’ve got to have hope in humanity, that we can come together, that we can banish evil when we see it even if it takes us many attempts and that we can build better things in its place. I believe people should be free to live their lives however they wish so long as they are not hurting others.
Sadly, I feel you may be right on the “might is right” thing. In my opinion, Star Trek only works as a series due to the “universal replicator”. As a device, it allows for the creation of anything, thus there is no scarcity of resources and the entire planet is free to adopt an “abundancy mindset” rather than a “scarcity mindset”. With people no longer worried about survival or material possessions, people are free to pursue their passions and curiosities and focus on bettering themselves rather than competing to survive.
The Star Trek universe also only works because the federation have more technologically advanced weaponry than their ideological adversaries allowing them security and peace of mind. Of course, it is possible to achieve an abundance mindset without any replicator as many happy people alive today will demonstrate. But in what is an increasingly materialistic world, it may be the quickest way to achieve it globally. I don’t think this is going to look like a box that just makes things as in Star Trek. Instead it will be AI controlling many different machines and abundant renewable energy to power them. Maybe it will all go wrong with the singularity. Who knows!
Sadly, we know through the ancients that the “gods are eternal” so it is likely that, if we were able to create a similar utopia to that of Star Trek, we will still produce damaged people who seek war, power over others etc just as the advanced worlds of Star Trek have their own villainous characters. We would thus need to also have other systems well developed simultaneously, good health care systems, good education systems, good political systems etc. Maybe then we will have ascended to a place where we deal with our inner world in a manner that is non destructive to our external world and will be able to go to space as explorers rather than conquerors. If we go to space before this self mastery is achieved then it will be likely be the same old tragic self interested story.
That it is. When their society has reached a tipping point where women are burning their hijabs in the street in front of massive groups and cameras I think they have decided to not hide in the shadows and are willing to sacrifice themselves for what they believe in. Many of them are likely to have unspeakable things done to them. I suspect they know the sacrifices they are making and willing to take risks. Godspeed to them.
It is not a game. Governments around the world, big and small have been seen turning internet off at the first sign of trouble. It only makes sense that we provide a way for the population to circumvent those efforts. As flawed as internet is, I still think it is worth defending and protecting from government overreach.
I will say even more. Other governments are watching and likely debating what could be used on their respective turfs. Something to think about.
Actually that’s a selfish way to look at it. You’re putting other peoples lives at risk inside the country. Anyone could easily decide to contribute compromised and malware infected VPN or TOR servers that will in actuality log traffic.
Unless you have a personal political opinion about it. I personally support Iran, I support the Iranian government (as an existing middle eastern democracy), and I support the Iranian people. I am against oppressive theocracies, and I support Iranian citizens doing what is necessary to loosen or free themselves from the hold of how they express their faith being dictated from above.
In my opinion, any methods to help Iranian people to help them shake this control that aren't covert Western attacks on Iran or Islam are a good thing. Helping the protestors to communicate with each other is one of the most neutral, anodyne things you can do. For me, legitimate government is created through discussions, plans, and agreements among the governed. Any disruption of that is despotism. Maybe, one day, Iranians will be helping us protest.
