this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2025
72 points (97.4% liked)

The Democratic People's Republic of Tankiejerk

1118 readers
2 users here now

COMM HAS MOVED TO !tankiejerk@piefed.social

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Your example of a national equivalent of a "Prime Directive" ignores the difference between global politics and extraterrestrial development. Global politics based around isolation inevitably falls due to an inability to deal with some crisis that comes along. They will be a source of short term refugees and long term trade opportunities as whatever nation rebuilds seeks contact with its neighbors.

A population that has no chance of leaving the planet will have to deal with the crisis or perish. Star Trek never talks about the planets that they watch fall into chaos or extinction. It also shows the

Isolationist policies never work. It always turns inward and aggressive, like feudal Japan or post-Tito Albania. Or North Korea now. All other nations will have to deal with the remains of a fallen country so it makes sense to get ahead of the problem and inject some responsibility.

[โ€“] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world -4 points 1 month ago

Prime directive does not necessarily mean isolation, either imposed on the self or on the other (ignoring pre space civilizations, we ain't arguing about uncontacted tribal jungle folk are we?) you are making assumptions of my argument that I did not make and ran with that.

It's interesting that everyone who has replied to me about this wants to talk about the prime directive in relation to less advanced society when the subject at hand is Afghanistan. Despite me using Klingons, a peer to the federation, in my example.

Out of curiosity, why did you choose to ignore the framing I laid out and instead chose to focus on the concept of isolation and uncontacted peoples with relation to the prime directive?