The Prime Directive is a form of paternalist condescension by a civilization (or, more accurately, by writers) with a myopic view of culture. Technology can advance, but cultures can only change. “Advancement” is not something a civilization does. And a scientifically advanced civilization can do horrible things with technology they themselves have made just as much as another culture can be given technology and not immediately wipe themselves out with it.
I don’t know, I think cultures can definitely be rated by and advance in the category of how well the people living in it are treated. It’s interesting though, because the phrase “an advanced culture” doesn’t really feel natural to me, and I would interpret it as “a culture that’s progressed through time” rather than “a culture that’s objectively better”. I don’t know, I think it’s ok to think of, for example, Afghanistan’s culture as barbaric compared to more developed countries, based on their treatment of women. Though I think this is also starting to cross into a culture vs government discussion, it’s not like I have reliable information on how the average Afghanistan male feels about the role of women in their culture. Anyways, I think you’re absolutely correct that technological advancement is not equivalent to cultural improvement, I just think that some aspects of culture, most importantly to me how people are treated in it, can be relatively objectively rated, and personally I judge/rate cultures by that aspect.
On another note, to me, primitive is not the same as barbaric. I think some technological advancement is needed for a more “developed” culture, but being more developed certainly doesn’t mean better. For an extreme example, if you have a culture that hasn’t invented writing yet, I would say it’s less developed than one that has–while oral storytelling is still existant, I think some way of more permanently recording information is crucial to developing widespread, long standing culture.
I don’t know, I’m rambling at this point and I haven’t reread your comment in like a paragraph and a half so I have no idea how on topic I am. I hope this is something thought provoking and welcome your thoughts on how I see things.
Addon edit, written just after I hit submit–As this relates to the prime directive, I think even without the concept of cultural advancement, I think it’s still advantageous to let cultures and their technology change and adapt without external influence, from an interstellar perspective. For a planet to develop the technology to join the interstellar community and presenta planetary presence, to me, it implies that their culture has grown unified, and the fact that they haven’t driven life on their planet extinct in the process is basically a qualifying factor in their cultural… maturity? If you were to accelerate their technological development to speed their ascent to the interstellar community, it might make it more likely to still have… barbaric? tendencies that could be disastrous for them or other planets. However, trying to weigh that against the potential suffering you could mitigate by advancing them technologically… I don’t know, it’s certainly not black and white to me. In an extremely primitive analogy, giving a caveman a laser rifle might well result in the eventual extinction of their community. Not the greatest analogy, super oversimplifying, but that’s the gist of how I see it.
I think cultures can definitely be rated by and advance in the category of how well the people living in it are treated
See, a conversation like this has to be based on a shared set of foundational premises, and those premises can be fairly complex and couched in their own assumptions. My argument is that you can’t describe a culture utilizing the same kind of language that you would, say, a tech tree, where you would need a formal system of writing before you get the printing press, or combustion rockets before the warp drive. That’s not to say that you can’t describe a society or compare its faults and merits, but you can’t really couch that in the language of “advancement.” Advancement is iteration or demonstrative improvement on previous forms, and while the idea of a cultural endpoint is, admittedly, a common feature of materialist philosophical traditions (Marx, for example, believed Capitalism was a stage of economic and social development preceding communism), to argue that it’s inevitable is to argue for something of which we have no real material evidence. Progressive or liberal societies can gradually slip into fascism just as easily as fascist societies can gradually become progressive and tolerant, and there’s nothing that guarantees a clear relationship between societal virtues and technological acumen. Star Trek itself shows a number of very old, very powerful and technologically advanced expansionist empires, like the Romulans or the Dominion, living alongside the more tolerant Federation.
But all cultures are equally progressed through time because as all humans share a common ancestor, so too all cultures must share a common ancestor.
I think what you’re saying is that more egalitarian societies are more progressed through time. As though time inevitably leads to egalitarianism. It doesn’t.
Would a technologically superior alien consider modern Canadian society to be more advanced than a more caste based, misogynistic patriarchy (like the roman empire)?
Maybe they would look at how we treated women and the poor/the enslaved and say we are culturally advanced compared to the Romans.
Maybe they would look at the number of animals that we kill for the pleasure of it (spectacle, and the taste of flesh) how do you think they would judge us vs the Romans? (The meat industry is about pleasure, not sustenance)
Maybe they would look at the way we leave the earth for future generations how do you think they would judge us vs the Romans?
Maybe they would be scandalized that we are willing to eat other life’s DNA, can’t humans see that it’s cannibalism?
It started out well enough. Dont start proxy wars don’t colonize. It only latter turned into horrible twisted "genocide through neglect is bettet then helping ".
Ever watch" sci fi and futurism with Issac Arthur ". He goes over all kinds of topics related to sci fi and technology. He made a video about how impossible to infore and how callous it is. It would only take a few people willing to say “my sins saved a planet” to break it even if it lethally enforced
The Prime Directive is a form of paternalist condescension by a civilization (or, more accurately, by writers) with a myopic view of culture. Technology can advance, but cultures can only change. “Advancement” is not something a civilization does. And a scientifically advanced civilization can do horrible things with technology they themselves have made just as much as another culture can be given technology and not immediately wipe themselves out with it.
I don’t know, I think cultures can definitely be rated by and advance in the category of how well the people living in it are treated. It’s interesting though, because the phrase “an advanced culture” doesn’t really feel natural to me, and I would interpret it as “a culture that’s progressed through time” rather than “a culture that’s objectively better”. I don’t know, I think it’s ok to think of, for example, Afghanistan’s culture as barbaric compared to more developed countries, based on their treatment of women. Though I think this is also starting to cross into a culture vs government discussion, it’s not like I have reliable information on how the average Afghanistan male feels about the role of women in their culture. Anyways, I think you’re absolutely correct that technological advancement is not equivalent to cultural improvement, I just think that some aspects of culture, most importantly to me how people are treated in it, can be relatively objectively rated, and personally I judge/rate cultures by that aspect.
On another note, to me, primitive is not the same as barbaric. I think some technological advancement is needed for a more “developed” culture, but being more developed certainly doesn’t mean better. For an extreme example, if you have a culture that hasn’t invented writing yet, I would say it’s less developed than one that has–while oral storytelling is still existant, I think some way of more permanently recording information is crucial to developing widespread, long standing culture.
I don’t know, I’m rambling at this point and I haven’t reread your comment in like a paragraph and a half so I have no idea how on topic I am. I hope this is something thought provoking and welcome your thoughts on how I see things.
Addon edit, written just after I hit submit–As this relates to the prime directive, I think even without the concept of cultural advancement, I think it’s still advantageous to let cultures and their technology change and adapt without external influence, from an interstellar perspective. For a planet to develop the technology to join the interstellar community and presenta planetary presence, to me, it implies that their culture has grown unified, and the fact that they haven’t driven life on their planet extinct in the process is basically a qualifying factor in their cultural… maturity? If you were to accelerate their technological development to speed their ascent to the interstellar community, it might make it more likely to still have… barbaric? tendencies that could be disastrous for them or other planets. However, trying to weigh that against the potential suffering you could mitigate by advancing them technologically… I don’t know, it’s certainly not black and white to me. In an extremely primitive analogy, giving a caveman a laser rifle might well result in the eventual extinction of their community. Not the greatest analogy, super oversimplifying, but that’s the gist of how I see it.
See, a conversation like this has to be based on a shared set of foundational premises, and those premises can be fairly complex and couched in their own assumptions. My argument is that you can’t describe a culture utilizing the same kind of language that you would, say, a tech tree, where you would need a formal system of writing before you get the printing press, or combustion rockets before the warp drive. That’s not to say that you can’t describe a society or compare its faults and merits, but you can’t really couch that in the language of “advancement.” Advancement is iteration or demonstrative improvement on previous forms, and while the idea of a cultural endpoint is, admittedly, a common feature of materialist philosophical traditions (Marx, for example, believed Capitalism was a stage of economic and social development preceding communism), to argue that it’s inevitable is to argue for something of which we have no real material evidence. Progressive or liberal societies can gradually slip into fascism just as easily as fascist societies can gradually become progressive and tolerant, and there’s nothing that guarantees a clear relationship between societal virtues and technological acumen. Star Trek itself shows a number of very old, very powerful and technologically advanced expansionist empires, like the Romulans or the Dominion, living alongside the more tolerant Federation.
But all cultures are equally progressed through time because as all humans share a common ancestor, so too all cultures must share a common ancestor.
I think what you’re saying is that more egalitarian societies are more progressed through time. As though time inevitably leads to egalitarianism. It doesn’t.
Would a technologically superior alien consider modern Canadian society to be more advanced than a more caste based, misogynistic patriarchy (like the roman empire)?
Maybe they would look at how we treated women and the poor/the enslaved and say we are culturally advanced compared to the Romans.
Maybe they would look at the number of animals that we kill for the pleasure of it (spectacle, and the taste of flesh) how do you think they would judge us vs the Romans? (The meat industry is about pleasure, not sustenance)
Maybe they would look at the way we leave the earth for future generations how do you think they would judge us vs the Romans?
Maybe they would be scandalized that we are willing to eat other life’s DNA, can’t humans see that it’s cannibalism?
It started out well enough. Dont start proxy wars don’t colonize. It only latter turned into horrible twisted "genocide through neglect is bettet then helping ".
Ever watch" sci fi and futurism with Issac Arthur ". He goes over all kinds of topics related to sci fi and technology. He made a video about how impossible to infore and how callous it is. It would only take a few people willing to say “my sins saved a planet” to break it even if it lethally enforced