Prime directive

[Winter Man]

It might seem comedic at a first glance, but there's a lot of sadness in that story. He had been introduced to a concept of modern technology and flying, yet all he wants to use it for is to throw rocks to another village. The tragedy of humanity summed in one request.

I think you're looking at that wrong. His first thought needn't have been "KIIIILLLL!!!", more "I can use this to save my own tribe from the neighbours".

[magnemoe]

Aggressiveness and opportunism are not incompatible with peace loving and social behavior. We ourselves are the perfect example of this: The vast majority of humanity does not like fighting and enjoys social interaction. Yet we are opportunists and have aggressive tendencies. This is because we evolved to have a group mentality that gave us empathy.

It was better for the individual human to share his food with his tribe instead of hogging it and letting the rest die since he needs the rest of the tribe to survive winter.

Considering that for a technological society to work you need some kind of collaboration between members (I don't see how a single organism can ever muster the resources to build a Saturn V out of raw materials) it is likely other technological species had convergent evolution and thus have the same morality (In rough strokes at least, details may vary wildly). Since we humans manage to live together quite comfortably and global suffering diminishes every decade, so could an alien species.

Of course you'll point to all the wars and poverty going on in the world right now, and I'm not saying the world is perfect as is. But as a whole we're definitely improving. 3th world countries are

. War is declining as society progresses. Not to mention that we are currently discussing this topic using a technological marvel that can only exist thanks to a globalized economy.

Yes, you are right, an ongoing trend towards larger organizations, during the last 100 years also more effective organizations.

Less wars, concussion in the document sounds right. Note that many tribal societies are very warlike, New Guinea highland where the chieftain came from, war was the most likely death reason for adult males. This is rare even in modern conflict areas.

On the other hand, humanity is an new invention, historically people outside your group was enemies or targets, not people.

[magnemoe]

I think you're looking at that wrong. His first thought needn't have been "KIIIILLLL!!!", more "I can use this to save my own tribe from the neighbours".

As in the other post new Guinea highland tribes was generally very warlike. Cultural and it became an need as you say all the other attacks you so you had to fight.

[lajoswinkler]

I think you're looking at that wrong. His first thought needn't have been "KIIIILLLL!!!", more "I can use this to save my own tribe from the neighbours".

You might be thinking in the terms of a "noble savage", which is a 19th century Western invention connected to romanticism and has nothing to do with the real world. That invention made Westerners think of Native Americans as completely benign people that "lived in the harmony with nature". It's a complete fabrication most people still believe in. (I'm not justifying the genocide of Native Americans if someone shortminded thought of that.)

In reality, general strong rule of thumb is the less developed societies are, the worse they behave. That's why they've got cannibalism.

[Ralathon]

On the other hand, humanity is an new invention, historically people outside your group was enemies or targets, not people.

Note that we're still doing this today. Just take a look at the console wars, fans of musical genres or Mechjeb debates. We just shifted our alliances from tribes to people we can relate to (Whether it is playing the same games, supporting the same team or enjoying the same music) and instead of physical violence we now use snarky comments.

I reckon it is simply a result of our competitive nature. We (or at least, I) enjoy testing our skills or tastes against others, in ye olde days that meant bashing each other's head in with a stick. Nowadays the focus is largely intellectual. As long as it sticks to youtube comments I reckon humanity can deal with it.

[lajoswinkler]

If you had a way (pressing a big red button) to forever destroy the part of the genome that is responsible for such development of the brain which yields the neccessity to shift any confrontation to the realms of an irrationally induced physical attack, would you do it? Let's say it's that simple.

Granted, one might say that it's a part of humanity. It is, but the plague is also part of the humanity.

[Ralathon]

If you had a way (pressing a big red button) to forever destroy the part of the genome that is responsible for such development of the brain which yields the neccessity to shift any confrontation to the realms of an irrationally induced physical attack, would you do it? Let's say it's that simple.

Granted, one might say that it's a part of humanity. It is, but the plague is also part of the humanity.

Don't really think humans drive every confrontation to irrational physical violence. Or at least, the people I know don't.

Anyway it depends. If it was just for me, sure. As long as there are no side effects next to decreased irrational aggression why the hell not. If it was for the entire human race, nah. Not before a consensus has been reached on the subject by all the major powers in the world. It would be immoral to force a change on someone without consent (Even if it is a purely beneficial change like this or vaccinations). Not changing anything won't drastically decrease our chances of going extinct or something. So there is no reason to enforce change.

[lajoswinkler]

If we waited for a consent every time a beneficial act was to be made, no beneficial acts would ever be made because there'd be that one nutter who would complain. That's why when things like vaccinations against the worst illnesses are compulsory, you eradicate the illness, and when you wait for consent, every now and then there's an epidemic outburst. It's ironic that third world diseases are appearing in most advanced countries today, all because of such "rights" advocated by stupid people.

If I was pretty sure nothing bad would happen (one day, when total genome functions are understood), I think I'd press the button. Nobody would be harmed by it. Screw consent over such things. Much, much worse stuff has happened without people's consent in modern history, even with bad consequences.

[KOCOUR]

Had the society always been acting like a virus or a malign tumor, which is exactly what most of your opinions phresented on threads like this unfortunately are, Homo would've never even appear or it would be a failed evolutionary cul-de-sac.

You clearly have an extremely bad understanding of sociology and it seems you're advocating for an approach best described as disfigured, primitive social Darwinism. I doubt you know who was the most famous man in the history of mankind who advocated for such abomination of human interactions.

Iwould be really intersted in what the hell you think that iam thinkink. Cause it sems to me that you have no idea.

Maybe youll better read again what i was reacting on.

And also comparing people to historical wiliains its pretty cheap way to win an argument.

Just to clarify one thing. By Agresivity and oportunism i dont mean some mindless "i will crush everiones head and take everithing for myself" but something more like "I will do anything to secure my Tribe/nation/species future, even if it means that i will have to do bad things to other tribe/nation/species if it is needed"

It is not fancy or enjoyable to do "bad" things to others, but sometimes it is the only efective way to achieve your goals.

You also need to be nice to some people, because:

1. You need friends. We are social creatures, and social interaction is one of our basic needs.

2. You need supporters and allies if you want to ever achieve anything. No one ever achieves anything big on his own.

@RalaThon yep you summed it up pretty nice.

[Ralathon]

If we waited for a consent every time a beneficial act was to be made, no beneficial acts would ever be made because there'd be that one nutter who would complain.

Hence why I said "Major powers of the world" instead of "world population". Getting 7 billion people to agree on something is practically impossible. Even if the thing you're voting for would turn the earth into a scarcity free utopia with flying unicorns. The major governments and organizations of the world are usually freely elected and have the resources to make a much more informed decision than I ever could.

That's why when things like vaccinations against the worst illnesses are compulsory, you eradicate the illness, and when you wait for consent, every now and then there's an epidemic outburst. It's ironic that third world diseases are appearing in most advanced countries today, all because of such "rights" advocated by stupid people.

Africa currently has 17 murders per 100k inhabitants. This is the most violent continent on the globe and those numbers also include preplanned homicide. The average pandemic can take down whole percents of the population (Spanish flu got 3 to 5% of the world population). Not to mention that people who refuse vaccinations indirectly harm others by undermining herd immunity. So comparing; vaccinations are about 100 times more effective at preventing death than this genome change. In that light I think we can take a slightly more relaxed view in this matter.

If I was pretty sure nothing bad would happen (one day, when total genome functions are understood), I think I'd press the button. Nobody would be harmed by it. Screw consent over such things. Much, much worse stuff has happened without people's consent in modern history, even with bad consequences.

That does not make it right. If I kill someone and use "Eh, the holocaust was worse" I'll go to jail anyway .

Anyway, I agree with you that we should do it if we're sure nothing bad would happen. But I do not represent humanity, so it is not my place to make that choice.

[magnemoe]

Note that we're still doing this today. Just take a look at the console wars, fans of musical genres or Mechjeb debates. We just shifted our alliances from tribes to people we can relate to (Whether it is playing the same games, supporting the same team or enjoying the same music) and instead of physical violence we now use snarky comments.

I reckon it is simply a result of our competitive nature. We (or at least, I) enjoy testing our skills or tastes against others, in ye olde days that meant bashing each other's head in with a stick. Nowadays the focus is largely intellectual. As long as it sticks to youtube comments I reckon humanity can deal with it.

Where is some magnitudes difference here, people in console wars rarely kill each other and if they do they tend to feel bad about it, at least the others in the group think killing is a bit over the top.

This is not killing because they are enemies. Or support the enemies who is the usual bad excuse for going after civilians.

No kill, enslave or drive away just because they are not in your tribe or nation, no lame excuse needed.

[Pds314]

One: To everyone who says things about treaties banning owning celestials, etc, those laws are likely to be as applicable in space opera era as the king getting all of the deer is today.

I think that in general, not much good has come from meddling in the affairs of unwilling developing nations, the same is likely applicable to planets.

It seems like in general though, the prime directive needs work, for one thing, it bans prevention of random cosmic train-wrecks, those that would be utterly unknown to any society less advanced in the areas of physics and astronomy than around 1900.

Eventually, it may be possible that a society may notice you've fixed a problem hundreds or thousands of years after you did it, but that isn't of much concern, as by that point, they are quite likely getting to the early space-opera era as well. (maybe you've got a new ally!)

For example, I see no reason why if a 30-km wide asteroid is going to hit a planet in a few decades, and a simple fusion weapon can fix the problem permanently, that you shouldn't use said weapon assuming that the planet's inhabitants are unaware of what you did.

For that matter, so long as the inhabitants did not cause the problem themselves and shouldn't be expected to be able to fix it, being noticed might not be such a bad thing for stopping apocalyptic damage from occurring.

However, fixing a planet's nuclear weapons program being a threat to civilization is NOT something you should necessarily do, this could lead to the planet's inhabitants never having learned their lesson about WMDs, and result in, when they reach space opera tech level, them being highly aggressive and prone to using WMDs.

There are also a few extreme cases where interference could do more good than harm, preferably covert interference, but overt if necessary.

Orwellian nightmares are bad things, but if they become planet wide, especially if they still allow technological progression, they can result in a terrible world, if a global one appears, try to spread freedom-loving, even anarchic ideas, yes, it may cause widespread death over the short term, but space-faring global North Korea (necro edit: or at least the picture of North Korea you see in western propoganda, we should remember societies usually aren't as their enemies portray them)  is not something anyone wants. basically, this calls for a cultural reboot, perhaps even one requiring sending vast areas into chaos.

Natural disasters are also bad things, prevent them if they would ruin the planet by random chance, don't prevent things that are not a threat to the sentient species: exception, recurring but surmountable threats to local species should be let occur, e.g., a species evolved on an island that gets flooded every millennium should be let revert every flood. This could lead to a species incapable of dealing with so much as hurricane Katrina.

Don't take a side in wars except if the very seriously winning side is a stable Orwellian nightmare, as a corollary, figure out how to tell when Orwellian nightmares are stable.

Edited October 30, 2020 by Pds314

[Pds314]

As for more advanced empires (yes, empires, by necessity due to the communication time and central focus on the capital involved), interference should generally be kept to a minimum as to not start a war, however, several things should be interfered with:

Overly warmongering empires, particularly those who outright exploit and/or destroy lesser civilizations.

Orwellian nightmares: Viva la revolution!

Slave-empires: a society built on slaves should be quarantined at least to itself and not funded to go into space by trade with other empires, additionally, police action should be taken against slave-owners as needed to stop the use of slavery.

[MBobrik]

Just to clarify one thing. By Agresivity and oportunism i dont mean some mindless "i will crush everiones head and take everithing for myself" but something more like "I will do anything to secure my Tribe/nation/species future, even if it means that i will have to do bad things to other tribe/nation/species if it is needed"

.

Which is all just the same but done between groups instead of individuals. And just as wrong, evil, and ultimately self-defeating.

[PhaserArray]

Well, we have the international space treaty, stating you can not own any celestial body. So that's a start, as well as nuclear weapons being illegal to fly into space.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bbgz4yY-xX0

Watch that to get some information on the international space treaty(s).

And as for nuclear pulse propulsion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion or similar), I disagree. Nuclear pulse propulsion has potential but I do agree that it should not be used in planetary atmospheres nor in orbit of planet that has alot of artificial satellites(speaking of the future, Currently only Earth).

[Superluminaut]

I think the prime directive is a kind of fear response. Which is normal, but you would hope in real life humans would be enlightened enough to apply the scientific method and find useful patterns in the chaos of first contacts with less technologically developed civilizations.

First contact would likely take several generations of the contacted civilization. If it was a sudden thing everything they knew would be obsolete, existence would be relegated to catching up.

Here is a video of a first contract. Very cool, very thought provoking.

[3_bit]

I think the Q have something of the exact opposite of it. I think that we would definitely need more than just that much for a directive, but it would be nice. Simple, just as how the US Constitution was under 4,500 words long originally. If you could base a whole space rulebook in simple English that's roughly as short and understandable as it, you'll be well on your way to a brighter future.

[konokono]

It is a moot point.

Even assuming that "humans" are united under a single governing body (a big assumption), I do not believe the governing body will be politically capable of maintaining any sort of prime directive for a significant length of time. There will inevitably occur some event for which people demand intervention

[NASAFanboy]

Far more than that, back in 1950 it was tribes in central New Guinea who we had never contacted, they did not know how to make iron but still had metal tools as they had bought them from other tribes who had contact with the coast.

Two reasons to not contact them, first contact with primitive societies are usually very disruptive to them even if totally peaceful.

Second and more egoistic, is that it destroy the study project.

However this is people who are doing pretty well, had they been dying we would interfered.

---

Fun story about the first contact at New Guinea, they flew in with an floatplane and to impress an chieftain they took him on an flight to see the land from above.

Next day the chieftain came back to the pilot with two pigs, he wanted to rent the plane to drop rocks on another village they was fighting.

Pretty smart to invent strategic bombing after one day, no the pilot did not talk about airplane bombs so it was his invention.

There's tribes that build massive WW2-era styled military airfields, where the tribes await the arrival of the sky gods. There's tribes that arm their warriors with rusty old M1 rifles. There's tribes that worship "Pale Gods With Firesticks that Came From Big Grey Canoe", and tribes that even build entire harbors in a attempt to coax the favor of their "sea gods", who apparently take the form of US Naval Ships. Literally.

WW2 did a lot of culturecide.

[sjwt]

There's tribes that build massive WW2-era styled military airfields, where the tribes await the arrival of the sky gods. There's tribes that arm their warriors with rusty old M1 rifles. There's tribes that worship "Pale Gods With Firesticks that Came From Big Grey Canoe", and tribes that even build entire harbors in a attempt to coax the favor of their "sea gods", who apparently take the form of US Naval Ships. Literally.

WW2 did a lot of culturecide.

I believe you are referring to the cargo cults.. And i'm not talking pants!